TexasCHLforum.com

matriculated wrote:

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Seems to me that implementing a new rule to require documentation of stated "facts" would constitute "growth" of the rule base. This is the logic behind the expansion of tax regulations, and government growth in general.

Some rules are necessary, and I believe already in place. The internet in general is a place where there are few "rules", and I like it that way. I agree with DragonFighter that statements can be challenged if someone disagrees with them. I think that's all that is necessary. More rules, more laws, more regulation, who needs it? At this rate, someday they'll even have 1500 page laws, and even want to prevent talking on cell phones while driving... oh, wait...

Down with rules!

Mutiny in the making?

Nope.

Just honest feedback, which I sincerely appreciate.

You folks have made good points and on reconsideration I agree with you.

I withdraw the rule suggestion.

I would still strongly encourage citing sources for statistics if the intent is to advance the discussion rather than to just stir the pot.

VMI77 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

jmra wrote:I can't help but think that if the dog had not been there to "take a bullet" we might be talking about a dead man instead of a dead dog.

Anything is possible, but I think that is a stretch. How often do LEO draw their weapons? How often do citizens draw to defend themselves and how few are actually shot?

Anygunanywhere

Supposedly, about 11% of those shot by LEO's are shot by mistake.....and the corresponding number for CHL's is something like 3%.

That's a most interesting statistic that I am not familiar with, although I am very familiar with its subject.

Please provide the source so it can be fact checked.

I wasn't ignoring you, I've been out of town until today, with no internet access. I don't believe any statistics, really, even the ones that are credible....at best, they are a snapshot of something removed from a larger context, and always incomplete. That's why I said "supposedly." I would have provided the source originally, but I couldn't remember where I'd seen the number and when I posted, didn't have time to look it up.

If you don't have time to look up the source, it would be appreciated if you'd refrain from wasting ours by posting unsupported statistical garbage that even you don't believe anyway.

Tossing a highly controversial but unsupported statistic into an already heated debate inevitably sheds much more heat than light, and causes those of us who care about leaving unrefuted misinformation on the Forum to spend time hunting down its roots instead of on more productive endeavors.

In my book, going silent, for whatever reason, and failing to respond to an immediate request from a moderator for a reference right after posting that statistic does not enhance a member's credibility either.

Let's use this experience as an opportunity to improve our Forum submissions. My request to all would be to provide a link to the source of any statistic cited so the rest of us can easily do the homework to assess its value.

I'd even like to see it elevated to a Forum rule.

Mods? Charles?

C-dub wrote:

speedsix wrote:...at least 2% of us ... http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... llionaires" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...latest from the Chief...he's frosted...

http://digitaltexan.net/2012/austin-loc ... icle31998/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Chief has a point about the slain officer, but it looks like they are going to gloss over the main problem of Officer Griffin's contact in this incident. Why did he draw his gun on someone that was not threatening him or anyone else? I still think that even if he'd had his gun holstered when the dog came out he would have drawn and shot first and asked questions later.

If I read the chief's letter correctly, he's indicating that they're doing a thorough after action review to identify all of the issues brought to light by this incident. Just like any disaster, it almost certainly has a whole bunch of bad things behind it that came together at that time.

I expect a good review would include the officer's decision to lunge into a domestic dispute call with no second officer present, drawing and pointing his firearm at an individual who didn't match the person described in the call, the department's use of force policy, its training program, etc.

If this is what's going on, it's the exact opposite of glossing over the problem - it's looking for all the contributing elements so they can be effectively addressed. An effort of this type won't be finished by tomorrow or the day after either. It will take time to do it right to prevent a repeat incident in the future.

It looks like my post hit a gusher.........

george wrote:

Excaliber wrote:This is a good illustration of why it is important to provide source references when we cite statistics in our posts. It lets others evaluate where the data comes from and determine if it is of any use or not. Posting statistics without sources so has a high potential for misleading others, which I'm sure no one on this Forum would deliberately do.

You're no fun.

You're not the first to make that observation, and you probably won't be the last.....

Well, I see why no one has been able to point me to the source of the assertion that 11% of police shootings involve an innocent victim while only 3% of citizen shootings do the same. I had to look high and low to find it.

Here's where it apparently comes from:

It is cited in Gun Facts 6.0 . The "fact" appears on page 28 where it says:

"Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of civilian shootings kill an innocent person."

The footnote references a paper titled Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws by Clayton Cramer and David Kopel. That paper was published in 1994. On page 41 it says:

Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal.

The short version is that this statistic, which would be truly startling if it were a national figure and true today, actually came from a single study in a single state at least 18 years ago. It was never true nationally, and a lot of things have changed in the 18 intervening years.

This is a good illustration of why it is important to provide source references when we cite statistics in our posts. It lets others evaluate where the data comes from and determine if it is of any use or not. Posting statistics without sources so has a high potential for misleading others, which I'm sure no one on this Forum would deliberately do.

Excaliber wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

jmra wrote:I can't help but think that if the dog had not been there to "take a bullet" we might be talking about a dead man instead of a dead dog.

Anything is possible, but I think that is a stretch. How often do LEO draw their weapons? How often do citizens draw to defend themselves and how few are actually shot?

Anygunanywhere

Supposedly, about 11% of those shot by LEO's are shot by mistake.....and the corresponding number for CHL's is something like 3%.

That's a most interesting statistic that I am not familiar with, although I am very familiar with its subject.

Please provide the source so it can be fact checked.

Still waiting patiently..........

VMI77 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

jmra wrote:I can't help but think that if the dog had not been there to "take a bullet" we might be talking about a dead man instead of a dead dog.

Anything is possible, but I think that is a stretch. How often do LEO draw their weapons? How often do citizens draw to defend themselves and how few are actually shot?

Anygunanywhere

Supposedly, about 11% of those shot by LEO's are shot by mistake.....and the corresponding number for CHL's is something like 3%.

That's a most interesting statistic that I am not familiar with, although I am very familiar with its subject.

Please provide the source so it can be fact checked.

speedsix wrote: ...I made hundreds of domestic disturbances...in all parts of town in all times of the night...all by myself because there WAS no backup...I never answered ONE with gun in hand...even when I had to peel them apart...in all those years, I had to pull my gun on ONE man...after spotting a .38 in his jeans pocket, and having peeled him off his wife...I think the gun in hand is used too much...for various reasons...among which are found unreasonable fear and incompetence...

speedsix wrote:...since when do police, even on a domestic dispute, pull a gun on an unarmed man who's just walking around the side of his house in broad daylight??? That's a bit much, even given the wrong address...I can see where he felt threatened by the dog, but if he'd been behaving in a calm, professional manner, the dog wouldn't have advanced on him...he was screaming at his owner and holding a gun on him...I don't blame the dog...this should cost the city a bundle and the officer some time off...and if he was given the wrong address by HQ, time off for the person who put out the wrong address...the saddest part of this all, nothing will bring Cisco back...the best thing about this...the hysterical officer didn't shoot the homeowner...

Speedsix is dead on point here.

Competent officers don't respond to domestic disturbances with gun in hand unless there is a clear reason to believe a danger of serious injury or death exists. They also don't point guns at folks who aren't doing anything threatening just because they're present at or near a call location. The fact that domestic disputes can turn violent doesn't cut it until they do.

An officer or any other person who appears to be acting aggressively toward a dog owner will elicit an aggressive response from a dog. That's what dogs do out of loyalty to their masters. Once again, a competent officer understands and respects this, and takes it into account. Dealing with people in the presence of their dogs is a very common occurrence, and an officer should be able to handle it easily and successfully.

In over 20 years of police work, I recall one instance where an officer was compelled to shoot an attacking doberman. That's it - one case in a department of 200 officers who responded to over 50,000 calls a year. We dealt with lots of dogs, but didn't use gunfire as our primary go to tactic. There are lots of alternatives. Many officers kept small bags of dog treats in their briefcases for those times when a little canine bribery was needed to accomplish the mission.

We didn't point guns at people without clear justification either. Our officers were intensively trained in the proper use of force. Whenever a firearm was pointed at a person, our procedures required that the officer complete a Use of Force report that detailed the legal justification and practical necessity for doing so. Some would say this is an unnecessary administrative burden, but we did it deliberately to guide officers to think about what they were doing with deadly weapons and to make good use of force decisions. With this in place, it was a rarity to find firearms deployed when they shouldn't be, and our officers were very sharp on using them only when they should. When the gun was the right choice, it was brought into play without hesitation and with confidence because the officers knew for sure they were acting properly and that the command staff would back them when they acted within the bounds of the law and good judgment.

If one of my officers had behaved as the one in the Austin instance reportedly did, my agency would have been doing a serious review of his ability to handle his responsibilities. If the reports we have are true and complete, the officer's behavior indicates inordinate fear and reactions that border on hysterical. When these characteristics show up in a person who is sent to calls where conflict is common, courage is routinely called for and life and death decisions must be made correctly every time, it's a disaster just searching for its time and place.

G.A. Heath wrote:Now remember that we are only seeing one side of this story, with that said based on what I have read I have to question the officers state of mind. Lets forget about the dog for the moment and look at what happened before the dog came into play. The officer pulls up to a scene where he believes a Domestic Disturbance is happening, guy comes from around back to great him and makes no threating moves, he draws gun and points it at guy. I know that Domestic Disturbance calls are extremely dangerous but drawing a weapon and pointing it at someone with out provocation is not something I think is taught to our officers. Now as I said before we are only seeing one side of this story and I would really like to read/see/hear the officers side as well.

I agree on both points.

The gentleman who lost his dog should file a formal complaint with the agency and insist on a full investigation of the facts.

If the account we have is true and complete, it looks like APD has a supervisor in need of some serious job coaching as well.