Many of us have seen and been distrubed by the video of the murder of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller.  This video show the proper way to handle the situation.  Note the importance of bore offset when shooting people with an AR-15.  

WARNING: this video contains whining from upset family members who wouldn't be whining and blubbering if their loved one had dropped the gun when told.

www.ksat.com/video/4447720/detail.html

Ahhh, he only had a "smal gun".

Lessons learned:
Don't carry a gun in your car and threaten violence, on yourself or others, because you don't like the potential outcome of your criminal court case.
Don't brandish a weapon infront of the police.
If you are a criminal and brandish a weapon, expect a violent reaction if you don't comply with a lawful order.

shot through the face and he still lived? ive seen it with .38's, but never with rifles. i wonder what ammo he was using? nothin but 68gr black hills HP for me!

Class A Officer.... one bullet stopped the threat and that was the end of it.  Hopefully his mom watches the news broadcast and realizes that she's asking LEO's to wait for the gun to be pointed at them before shooting

Good shoot.

Don't know if I would leave my patrol rifle on the hood....that's what slings are for.



Edited because of spelling  h.gif

How many times must I shout "put the gun down" and "put your hands up" before I can determine that the subject is non compliant?  I think the officers were correct.  I have been in situations where the commands were shouted about twenty times.  After one or two, you know how it will go.

Shot to the face didn't kill him but put him right down.

Here's another good one. Sorry if it's a dupe.   Warning Graphic


http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/448.html

I'm not in law enforcement but I watched the video.

I understand that he was told to drop the weapon.  But I didn't see any moves that were indicative that he had any intention of shooting the officers?  They said they stopped him because he was suicidal.  So they stopped him because he said he was going to kill himself, but instead they shot him in the head?  If he would have at least faced them, I think it would be different.  But the gun was on the far side, away from the officers where it would be impossible to shoot at them at that point in time.

Side note... are officers trained to fire their first shot at the head instead of C.O.M.?  My uncle worked with the State Police his whole life, and he always said that they were always supposed to shoot C.O.M. first (except for extraordinary circumstances), and only switch to a head shot if C.O.M. shots were ineffective.  Of course, if he had taken a .223 round in the chest, he might not have been as 'lucky' as he was that the bullet was a few inches low.

Also, with his ethnicity, would there be concern that he didn't understand English commands?  Common sense should tell him what he should do, I know.

I'm not suggesting that there needs to be a 'high noon, draw pardner' showdown for every criminal, but in my opinion what I saw was a despondant, confused person who did make some bad decisions, but personally, from what I saw from the video, I would have a hard time pulling the trigger at that point in time.

I'm not posting this in any way to be confrontational, just looking to understand the reasoning behind the 'good shoot' comments.  I would think that it was a good (as in legal) shoot, but it could have been handled differently.

In the UK he would have had to point the gun at someone before being shot legaly. (forgeting the recent Brazilian )
But I think the Cop did good.  You guys have far tougher decisions to deal with.

I'd have thought the shot would have been placed mid body though?

Taffy

Preface: I'm an EMT, not a police officer, but here's my opinion as a well trained armed civillian with a limited knowledge of law enforcement

People watch "worlds wildest police video's" and have this misconception that a taser or bean bag shotgun is the cure-all for suicide by cop.

I was in one of my CJ classes and we were going over policing issues.  The professor, a former FBI agent sets up a similar scenario and my answer was two to the chest, one to the head.  over 90% of the class was asking about less lethal alternatives and at least 50% thought police weren't allowed to aim for the head.

If you have a half dozen officers and solid cover, sure, if the variables permit, lob a few beanbags, but just you or you and a partner?  I do not feel a need to give an armed opponent the initiative if ability, intent and opportunity are all satisfied.

Quoted: In the UK he would have had to point the gun at someone before being shot legaly. (forgeting the recent Brazilian ) But I think the Cop did good.  You guys have far tougher decisions to deal with. I'd have thought the shot would have been placed mid body though? Taffy

 We take the attitude that once it's pointed, it's to late.


Head shot has a MUCH higher incapacitation rate.  I'd think damn near %100.  

I'm not an LEO either (yet) but I've had probably 6 people in my rig that LEOs have shot.  None died.  All shot  with .40 cal but one and he took a .357 to the gut (he leaks shit into a bag now).  Mostly legs and arms but 2 or 3 torso hits.  In only 2 cases did the person actually have the gun aimed from what I was told.  The others , the officer had told the person to drop it over and over and they didn't.  It's enough, and it should be enough.  If a cop has a gun pointed at you, and telling you what to do, and you don't listen, you should be shot out for your stupidity.

Quoted: I'm not in law enforcement but I watched the video. I understand that he was told to drop the weapon.  But I didn't see any moves that were indicative that he had any intention of shooting the officers?

As I stated in my first post.  If you have a gun in your hand and fail to follow a directive to drop it, you're intentions aren't by any means clear and don't portray any kind of reasonable action.  Action is always faster than reaction...waiting for a shot to be fired at you makes no sense.  Back to his physical actions.  However so brief, what do hands on hips indicate to you?  Dude was deep in thought.  Probably about killing himself right then and there.

They said they stopped him because he was suicidal.  So they stopped him because he said he was going to kill himself, but instead they shot him in the head?  If he would have at least faced them, I think it would be different.  But the gun was on the far side, away from the officers where it would be impossible to shoot at them at that point in time.

Statistics show a man holding a knive 21ft away can run up to me and stab me before I can uholster, target, and fire my firearm.   Again...action is faster than reaction.  I GUARANTEE he could have fired a shot before any of the officers realized he had turned his body to do so.

Side note... are officers trained to fire their first shot at the head instead of C.O.M.?  My uncle worked with the State Police his whole life, and he always said that they were always supposed to shoot C.O.M. first (except for extraordinary circumstances), and only switch to a head shot if C.O.M. shots were ineffective.  Of course, if he had taken a .223 round in the chest, he might not have been as 'lucky' as he was that the bullet was a few inches low.

We're trained to shoot to STOP THE THREAT.  Stress and anxiety do strange things to your body, including the shakes.

Also, with his ethnicity, would there be concern that he didn't understand English commands?  Common sense should tell him what he should do, I know. I'm not suggesting that there needs to be a 'high noon, draw pardner' showdown for every criminal, but in my opinion what I saw was a despondant, confused person who did make some bad decisions, but personally, from what I saw from the video, I would have a hard time pulling the trigger at that point in time. I'm not posting this in any way to be confrontational, just looking to understand the reasoning behind the 'good shoot' comments.  I would think that it was a good (as in legal) shoot, but it could have been handled differently.

I can understand your concern and am glad you posted.  If a man lacks the common sense to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop WITHOUT a gun in his hand, a reasonable person SHOULD think something is up.  Fluent in a language or not, if 3 French men pulled me out of my car at gun point, yelling at me, I certainly wouldn't have a gun in my hand, how about yourself?

In the end, the guy lived and the officers went home to their families.  

Quoted: I can understand your concern and am glad you posted.  If a man lacks the common sense to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop WITHOUT a gun in his hand, a reasonable person SHOULD think something is up.  Fluent in a language or not, if 3 French men pulled me out of my car at gun point, yelling at me, I certainly wouldn't have a gun in my hand, how about yourself? In the end, the guy lived and the officers went home to their families.

Are we talking about gendarmes here?  Otherwise, fuck those frog carjackers, i'm coming out shooting!

(J/K, i knew what you meant)

Gun in the face is universal language.

Quoted: We take the attitude that once it's pointed, it's to late.

Well put.


The pistol was in his hand, he had already made threats to his family and to the officers on the phone.  He was within range to shoot the officers and all it would have taken was a fraction of a second to point and shoot.  The officers are telling him to drop the weapon but instead he steps out and ignores them while holding the gun.  Look at his body language on the tape.  This guy has made up his mind to die right there, and in that split moment, the officers believed that he might take one of them with him.

There isn't a starting pistol, buzzer, or specific act that tells the officers when to fire their weapons.  Officers in the real world don't wait for someone to point a pistol at them.  They recognize the imminent threat from the totality of the circumstances.  When officers do wait, ignoring the warning signs, things go wrong.  

media.putfile.com/copkiller72220-5303  

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not in law enforcement but I watched the video. I understand that he was told to drop the weapon.  But I didn't see any moves that were indicative that he had any intention of shooting the officers?   As I stated in my first post.  If you have a gun in your hand and fail to follow a directive to drop it, you're intentions aren't by any means clear and don't portray any kind of reasonable action.  Action is always faster than reaction...waiting for a shot to be fired at you makes no sense.  Back to his physical actions.  However so brief, what do hands on hips indicate to you?  Dude was deep in thought.  Probably about killing himself right then and there. They said they stopped him because he was suicidal.  So they stopped him because he said he was going to kill himself, but instead they shot him in the head?  If he would have at least faced them, I think it would be different.  But the gun was on the far side, away from the officers where it would be impossible to shoot at them at that point in time. Statistics show a man holding a knive 21ft away can run up to me and stab me before I can uholster, target, and fire my firearm.   Again...action is faster than reaction.  I GUARANTEE he could have fired a shot before any of the officers realized he had turned his body to do so. Side note... are officers trained to fire their first shot at the head instead of C.O.M.?  My uncle worked with the State Police his whole life, and he always said that they were always supposed to shoot C.O.M. first (except for extraordinary circumstances), and only switch to a head shot if C.O.M. shots were ineffective.  Of course, if he had taken a .223 round in the chest, he might not have been as 'lucky' as he was that the bullet was a few inches low. We're trained to shoot to STOP THE THREAT.  Stress and anxiety do strange things to your body, including the shakes. Also, with his ethnicity, would there be concern that he didn't understand English commands?   Common sense should tell him what he should do, I know. I'm not suggesting that there needs to be a 'high noon, draw pardner' showdown for every criminal, but in my opinion what I saw was a despondant, confused person who did make some bad decisions, but personally, from what I saw from the video, I would have a hard time pulling the trigger at that point in time. I'm not posting this in any way to be confrontational, just looking to understand the reasoning behind the 'good shoot' comments.  I would think that it was a good (as in legal) shoot, but it could have been handled differently. I can understand your concern and am glad you posted.  If a man lacks the common sense to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop WITHOUT a gun in his hand, a reasonable person SHOULD think something is up.  Fluent in a language or not, if 3 French men pulled me out of my car at gun point, yelling at me, I certainly wouldn't have a gun in my hand, how about yourself? In the end, the guy lived and the officers went home to their families.

I would hope that it would be considered his responsibility for learning english if he was coming here, not the officers responsibility to figure out whatever language he speaks and learn it before hand.  Sadly, I'm probably wrong.

uniformed police officer yells "STOP!" while pointing a gun in your face.

uniformed police officer yells "ALTO!" while pointing a gun in your face.  Guess the meaning.

uniformed police officer yells "ARRÊT!" while pointing a gun in your face.  Guess the meaning.

uniformed police officer yells "ANSCHLAG!" while pointing a gun in your face.  Guess the meaning.

uniformed police officer yells "СТОП!" while pointing a gun in your face.  Guess the meaning.

That kid is lucky to be alive.   I'm not waiting for someone to point the gun they are holding at me before I do something.  This isn't a video game.  It's the real deal.  

The very best reaction time is going to be somewhat slower than a quarter second. That being said, we can see that the officer has his patrol rifle trained on the head, now what would happen if the subject had gone to a defensive-type crouch and fired from across his body. That's exactly what I was expecting to happen. Given that type of action, could the officer have reacted, re-acquired the target, and fired nearly accurately and effectively with the same result BEFORE the subject had nearly emptied his magazine? I doubt it. The point is not to give the bad guys the first shot(s) before dropping them.

 every one knows you fly back ten feet into the air when you get shot.


The bastards lucky to be alive.  The officer did good.

Good shoot, he said drop it and the guy didn't bang. The irony is the woman crying and saying why didn't they send someone to talk to him. WTF, who is gonna volunteer for that?

Quoted: Good shoot, he said drop it and the guy didn't bang. The irony is the woman crying and saying why didn't they send someone to talk to him. WTF, who is gonna volunteer for that?

All he needed was a timeout

I would imagine that any mother would have a dificult time watching their kid get shot (especially one who makes excuses for them).

There is a new term floating around LEO circles of late, "immediate deanimation". A technical term meaning aim for the off-switch. The idea being that since the paramount need is the protection of innocent bystanders. Even if they aren't pointing the weapon directly at officers, a weapon discharged  can send a projectile over great distances and poses a potential risk. The threat is posed to more than people in the immediate area. You cannot afford to wait. Being behind the curve for a firearms incident is too high risk, both for injury and liability.

Man with gun, shoot for non-compliance. Seems simple enough to me.

immediate deanimation.  I like it.  PC talk makes it easy to speak in inuendo so no one gets pissed.  People were starting to catch on to what neutralizing soft targets was so we had to change it.

[schwarzenegger] You have be deanimated [/schwarzenegger]