Dallas LEO shooting video raises question's

[2firfun50]

My concern here relates to who will conduct the investigation, how the investigation will be conducted, and will it be transparent. The DPS cavity search incident comes to mind. There wasn't doing to be much of an investigation until a civil lawsuit was filed and the media got involved. Same could have happened here.

[rbwhatever1]

Since due process has not yet happened and charges have yet to be filed there has obviously been nothing to exonerate. We can parse words all day if you like. Context is important.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This incident was covered in a KHOU CH. 11 newscast and it was reported that at least one of the officers stated the man lunged at them before they fired. If this statement was made, then the officer(s) must not have considered that video cameras are everywhere these days.

I discuss the Tueller Principle (erroneously a/k/a 21 Foot Rule) in my CHL classes and I always run a Tueller Drill during self-defense classes. It's a real eye-opener! However, this is done with one shooter and with a holstered handgun. Two or more people with drawn weapons present a different scenario and, if the officer(s) actually gave a false statement about the subject lunging at them, then they may well have serious problems.

Chas.

[rbwhatever1]

Never heard of the Tueller findings until this post. It appears I have been under estimating edged weapons completely. I watched some of the videos and its still hard to believe a knife at 21' is a threat against an armed defender but I believe it now. My "paranoid alert bubble" just doubled.

[TexasVet]

Never heard of the Tueller findings until this post. It appears I have been under estimating edged weapons completely. I watched some of the videos and its still hard to believe a knife at 21' is a threat against an armed defender but I believe it now. My "paranoid alert bubble" just doubled.

The Tueller /21 foot rule has since been changed several times with respect to the distance. Cops these days use higher security retention holsters (which are safer, but can be slower). So I think last time I heard it was 28 feet or more.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I apologize for misdirecting this thread with my Tueller Principle discussion. I've started a separate thread so this one can get back on track.

Chas.

[C-dub]

how do yall get the video to play? everytime i click on the dallas websites links the videos never want to play???? maybe it hates me b/c i'm in houston?

Often times there is just a picture up top, while the video is lower on the page. Did you scroll down the page to find a video with a "play" arrow?

[texanjoker]

We were taught in advanced training 30 feet. At 21 feet, even with a gun out of the holster, a suspect can close the distance before you squeeze off a shot. I've been through a lot of training on this, and the biggest issue I saw was officers hesitating to fire. If they are going to hesitate in training, you can be sure they will do the same in real life.l When they realized they were toast, they were being physically attacked/stabbed. At 21 feet there is also the concern one will hit the suspect, and the rounds will be effective in stopping the threat. I've been charged during my career and they are on you before you realize it.

The investigation will take place in this incident and it will be complete. I have read the suspect made some threats when he stood up. Did tunnel vision take over at this point and the officer perceive the suspect to be charging while looking at the knife? What was stated by all parties. What did the other officer state? Is there dash camera or at least recorded audio? That is just some of the questions I would have.

If one has never been in a life or death situation, they won't understand how your mind can play tricks on you. Who used the word "lunged?" Was it the officer or was it the media spinning a story to suit their interests since we know the report has not been completed or released. People are forming opinion off a news article and video that doesn't show the totality of the circumstances. If you used your gun in self defense would you want a complete investigation or people deciding via media coverage? Personally I'll go by the facts.

IF he lied, then he should be toast, however, I will allow the investigation to run it's course. Any leo that lies should be fired regardless of the incident. However IF he stated that, it could be a simple mis perception and one needs the entire investigation to know what went down.

[jmra]

Unfortunately perception is everything. No matter what other evidence is presented this is going to be a PR nightmare for the department. Right or wrong, anything short of charges being filed against the officers is going to be perceived by the public as a coverup.

[Jaguar]

But if the officers approach to within 21 feet or whatever the danger range is, then shoot stating they had to react before the suspect could attack, isn't that just a little disingenuous?

I looked to me the suspect made no move towards the officer except standing up from his chair. The officers should have known he had a knife from the 911 call. This looks suspect to me.

But for the record, it is clear I have an ingrained distrust of authority that colors my perception and responses here.*

[texanjoker]

Unfortunately perception is everything. No matter what other evidence is presented this is going to be a PR nightmare for the department. Right or wrong, anything short of charges being filed against the officers is going to be perceived by the public as a coverup.

Let me ask you this. Now a leo and chl are different in that the leos responded to this call. However, consider if you had to use your handgun in self defense. Would you want the powers that be to cave to public perception (GZ is a good example), or do a complete investigation and go by the facts of the case, whatever they may be even if that went against the public perception? The only thing we the public know is what the media has told us and a silent video. Nobody knows what the officers "really" said expect for the people involved in the investigation. If the grand jury clears the officers and the dept finds this was within their policy, they need to back their officers and not cave to public perception. Time will tell and if they did wrong we will read all about it, and if they didn't we won't hear anything from the media.

[mojo84]

Unfortunately perception is everything. No matter what other evidence is presented this is going to be a PR nightmare for the department. Right or wrong, anything short of charges being filed against the officers is going to be perceived by the public as a coverup.

Let me ask you this. Now a leo and chl are different in that the leos responded to this call. However, consider if you had to use your handgun in self defense. Would you want the powers that be to cave to public perception (GZ is a good example), or do a complete investigation and go by the facts of the case, whatever they may be even if that went against the public perception? The only thing we the public know is what the media has told us and a silent video. Nobody knows what the officers "really" said expect for the people involved in the investigation. If the grand jury clears the officers and the dept finds this was within their policy, they need to back their officers and not cave to public perception. Time will tell and if they did wrong we will read all about it, and if they didn't we won't hear anything from the media.

I didn't get that he thought they should "cave". I took his comments to be that he thought it is going to be a "PR nightmare".

[texanjoker]

Unfortunately perception is everything. No matter what other evidence is presented this is going to be a PR nightmare for the department. Right or wrong, anything short of charges being filed against the officers is going to be perceived by the public as a coverup.

Let me ask you this. Now a leo and chl are different in that the leos responded to this call. However, consider if you had to use your handgun in self defense. Would you want the powers that be to cave to public perception (GZ is a good example), or do a complete investigation and go by the facts of the case, whatever they may be even if that went against the public perception? The only thing we the public know is what the media has told us and a silent video. Nobody knows what the officers "really" said expect for the people involved in the investigation. If the grand jury clears the officers and the dept finds this was within their policy, they need to back their officers and not cave to public perception. Time will tell and if they did wrong we will read all about it, and if they didn't we won't hear anything from the media.

I didn't get that he thought they should "cave". I took his comments to be that he thought it is going to be a "PR nightmare".

Nor did I. I responded to the PR nightmare comment with the point being PR should not be the reason to throw somebody under the bus. They should go by the facts, whatever they are.

[mojo84]

I could not tell since you asked him how he would want it if he as a chl had to use his weapon. I think it is obvious how a person would want it.

I'll have to go back and watch the video. Was the suspect/victim/target moving toward the officers or were the officers moving toward him? If he was verbally threatening or physically threatening them with the knife like you have indicated might be happening, wouldn't you think they wouldn't be approaching him since there is so much danger within 21 or 30 feet? What are you trained to do, keep approaching and start shooting or try to get some separation?

[srothstein]

I think Charles mentioned what caused the officers problems in this case and convinced the chief to drop charges before further investigation. it kind of got skipped over in the discussion of the Tueller drill though, so let's go back to it for a minute.

The officers statement said that the mentally ill man lunged at him and took four steps towards him, causing the officer to fear for his life and open fire. The video may not show everything about the possible threats but it clearly shows that the man did not lunge or take any steps before the officer opened fire. This discrepancy places the officer's credibility in doubt enough for the criminal charge to be dropped. It also will hurt the officer in any investigation.

It should be noted that the chief is still allowing both the internal and criminal investigations to continue. If it turns out that the man really did threaten the officer, the charge can be refiled with no problem. By dropping the charge at this point, the officer stopped the clock on the speedy trial requirement, giving them time for a proper investigation. This part of the case is probably not understood well by people who have not dealt with the criminal justice system as much as the chief has. At this point in time, with what I saw on the video, I am in agreement with the chief's actions and with the view that it does not look good for the officers right now. It is certainly not conclusive either way, but it does not look good for them.