Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply

Topic author
Chemist45
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:43 pm
Location: Kingsland, TX

Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#1

Post by Chemist45 »

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021 ... ens-n41193

The stupidity in this article blows my mind.
I was going to select a quote from the chief to highlight for its mind numbing ignorance, but I couldn't decide on which one.
I suppose this man's advice to a woman who was afraid of getting raped would be to "Just lie back and enjoy it."
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 26075
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#2

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Two questions for the chief:

1. What is the average response time for the OPD?

2. Is he aware that, if witnesses are unable to protect themselves, they are unlikely to stick around to witness anything else?

What a dolt. And because he’s a dolt, he’ll go far in commiefornia politics.
My dream is to have lived my life so well that future generations of leftists will demand my name be removed from buildings. BTW, have you noticed that the topographical contours of local lake bottoms seem to have changed and become more rich in aluminum alloys and polymers in the last 10 years?

philip964
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 14271
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#3

Post by philip964 »

Is this in response to the Asian shop keeper in China town who shot at a robber who was beating and robbing a tourist of her camera in front of his store?

The shop keeper was arrested.

And everyone is aware of the police defunding in Oakland.

And everyone is aware this is Oakland!

Even the Raiders left.

MaduroBU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:11 am

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#4

Post by MaduroBU »

Isn't theft under $1000 no longer prosecuted in California? If so, would the cops taking statements from the "good witnesses" have done ANYTHING else thereafter? What I see is one more reason to flee that failed state.

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3879
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#5

Post by chasfm11 »

I evaluate the statements by politicians (and yes, I believe this chief is one) based on how stupid they think the people that they are supposed to serving are. For example, our representatives in the Texas House thing that the people of Texas are more stupid that the Oklahoma House members believe that their constituents are since Oklahoma has Constitutional Carry and Texas doesn't.

Here is the quote from the chief that jumped out at me in that regard.
We’re not talking about someone’s life being immediately taken, we’re talking about someone firing a weapon into the community when at that point it didn’t seem appropriate to do so.”
So the residents of his town cannot be allowed to act because those actions might not be appropriate. Of course, across the country, the citizens of other towns do act so it must just be his citizens that are too stupid to be allowed that possibility.

I don't want to blame the Oakland officers for the current situation in their city. But the policies of the department seem to be a factor in that. https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/opd ... n-the-rise
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3784
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#6

Post by Paladin »

This should not be surprising that the Supermob (Supermob: How Sidney Korshak and His Criminal Associates Became America's Hidden Power Brokers) doesn't want their victims armed.

Even if the chief had police as well trained as I am and enough police officers to assign to protect EVERYONE in his jurisdiction... (which will never happen)... I don't think that giving the chief and the mafia bosses in California all the power would be a respectable idea in a free society.
JOIN NRA TODAY!
NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life Member, VCDL Member
LTC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO Paladin Training Systems
“Those who expect to be both ignorant and free, expect what never was and never will be.” -Thomas Jefferson
User avatar

Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3784
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#7

Post by Paladin »

This is written by a well regarded law enforcement firearms instructor:

Police Training Fails Everyone
Missing from the public discussion on this issue is an 800 pound gorilla in the room: The way police are trained and qualified for use-of-force is not effective.

Recent peer-reviewed studies conducted by the Force Science Institute have vividly confirmed this. What limited skills are developed during Academy training rapidly disappear afterwards. In some skill areas, the average officer’s performance has been shown to barely exceed that of an untrained civilian.
JOIN NRA TODAY!
NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life Member, VCDL Member
LTC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO Paladin Training Systems
“Those who expect to be both ignorant and free, expect what never was and never will be.” -Thomas Jefferson

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4730
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#8

Post by srothstein »

Paladin wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:06 pm This is written by a well regarded law enforcement firearms instructor:

Police Training Fails Everyone
Missing from the public discussion on this issue is an 800 pound gorilla in the room: The way police are trained and qualified for use-of-force is not effective.

Recent peer-reviewed studies conducted by the Force Science Institute have vividly confirmed this. What limited skills are developed during Academy training rapidly disappear afterwards. In some skill areas, the average officer’s performance has been shown to barely exceed that of an untrained civilian.
This is a well known problem in law enforcement training circles and is constantly discussed. The problem can be stated as how do we take a 21 year old kid that has never been in a fight in his life and teach him how to use physical force to subdue a resisting subject so that it stays with him for longer than the academy, and do it in 4 to 7 months? That is the length of the academy. Anyone who has learned ANY martial art knows it takes years of study and practice to really keep it as a habit. Cops, like most people rarely study or practice their skills when not in a classroom setting. Violence on the streets, even as simple as a fist fight, for a cop is still an extremely rare event.

You can try to hammer it into them, but after years of teaching the concept that there is no such thing as a "routine event", I (and many other police instructors) will still say something like it was a routine traffic stop when we talk with other cops. When something happens, you will hear the official spokesman say that "it was a routine domestic call that went bad" or similar language.

I do not have an answer for this. Closest I can come up with is making police training a four or six year program taught in specialized colleges (six year program would actually start in high school), similar to what we have for military academies. But it has to be for every officer, not just the leaders. And the cost for this idea is pretty much prohibitive.
Steve Rothstein
User avatar

Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3784
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#9

Post by Paladin »

srothstein wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:45 pm
Paladin wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:06 pm This is written by a well regarded law enforcement firearms instructor:

Police Training Fails Everyone
Missing from the public discussion on this issue is an 800 pound gorilla in the room: The way police are trained and qualified for use-of-force is not effective.

Recent peer-reviewed studies conducted by the Force Science Institute have vividly confirmed this. What limited skills are developed during Academy training rapidly disappear afterwards. In some skill areas, the average officer’s performance has been shown to barely exceed that of an untrained civilian.
This is a well known problem in law enforcement training circles and is constantly discussed. The problem can be stated as how do we take a 21 year old kid that has never been in a fight in his life and teach him how to use physical force to subdue a resisting subject so that it stays with him for longer than the academy, and do it in 4 to 7 months? That is the length of the academy. Anyone who has learned ANY martial art knows it takes years of study and practice to really keep it as a habit. Cops, like most people rarely study or practice their skills when not in a classroom setting. Violence on the streets, even as simple as a fist fight, for a cop is still an extremely rare event.

You can try to hammer it into them, but after years of teaching the concept that there is no such thing as a "routine event", I (and many other police instructors) will still say something like it was a routine traffic stop when we talk with other cops. When something happens, you will hear the official spokesman say that "it was a routine domestic call that went bad" or similar language.

I do not have an answer for this. Closest I can come up with is making police training a four or six year program taught in specialized colleges (six year program would actually start in high school), similar to what we have for military academies. But it has to be for every officer, not just the leaders. And the cost for this idea is pretty much prohibitive.
The author seems to be hard at work on the problem. In my experience instinctive techniques like Krav Maga and COL Applegate's methods are quick to learn and reasonably retained. The law enforcement style unarmed techniques I was taught by LEO's seemed like mostly poor techniques designed to avoid legal liability.
JOIN NRA TODAY!
NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life Member, VCDL Member
LTC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO Paladin Training Systems
“Those who expect to be both ignorant and free, expect what never was and never will be.” -Thomas Jefferson

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4730
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#10

Post by srothstein »

Paladin wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:22 pmThe author seems to be hard at work on the problem. In my experience instinctive techniques like Krav Maga and COL Applegate's methods are quick to learn and reasonably retained. The law enforcement style unarmed techniques I was taught by LEO's seemed like mostly poor techniques designed to avoid legal liability.
I have not studied Krav Maga or many of the other methods. I got lucky and the agencies where I was employed or training at all had specialists for the subdue/control/defense techniques.

I agree that most police methods are not that well taught nor are they well retained. But the problem with many methods for police vs. citizens is the end goal of the technique. If you are a regular citizen studying Krav Maga to protect yourself, it may be very well suited for that. But police are not studying self-defense, they are studying subdue and control techniques. They not only have to defend themselves, they morally cannot walk away from the attacker. A good cop must defend himself, subdue the attacker and take him in to custody, all without causing unnecessary injury. Citizens who are attacked only need to worry about surviving. They may try to avoid unnecessary injury to the attacker but it is not really required other than going way overboard (at least in Texas, other states are not nearly as enlightened in this area).

As an example of the difference, many of the techniques I was taught were taught by the military. Most of these are also not allowed for police loss. In 1975, I was attending Marine Corps PLC training at Quantico. I remember writing home one day (my father was a former Marine) that we had an interesting class where they taught me eight different ways to kill a man without using a weapon. In 76, going through the Army MP school, I was taught "come-alongs" using the club (such as the figure 4 stranglehold - the club goes across the suspects throat and then into the crook of your other elbow; that hand comes around the club and presses on the crown of the suspects head while the club is being pulled back into his throat) that were very effective but stood a good chance of killing the suspect if you did it wrong. Most of these are now forbidden for the police.

While I support the change in police tactics, I understand the problems it causes in teaching unarmed combat to potential officers. And then the fact that most officers never practice once they graduate the academy makes this even worse. Texas requires officers to qualify with their weapon once a year and take 40 hours of training every two years. The basic academy is now only required to be about 4-1/2 months long (696 hours). Our training may be among the best in the nation but it is woefully inadequate in many areas, not just unarmed combat. This is one reason I believe that we need to move to a program where the officers are immersed in a training class for four years that includes earning a college degree. As of my writing this, there are 78,634 peace officers in Texas (not counting any jailers). If we figure that the average police career is 25 years (my personal guesstimate), that means we need about 3,150 new officers every year just to stay where we are at. That would mean, if we used one campus, we would need a training center the size of UTD for my proposal with a probable cost of $300,000,000 per year. That does not include uniforms or any salary you pay the trainees like they do at West Point.

There are solutions to the problem and mine is just one proposal that may or may not work. I believe that my proposal would result in more professional officers overall and would be a benefit, but that is my belief and not a guaranteed program. I am sure there are other solutions too. And I agree that if we do not do something, we will have larger problems than we do now.
Steve Rothstein

flechero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3352
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#11

Post by flechero »

"You can't alllllways get what you waaaannnt"

OneGun
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:22 am
Location: Houston

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#12

Post by OneGun »

This article is so messed up. Let's start with:
According to Armstrong, if you witness a woman being beaten and robbed outside of your store, you’re not supposed to intervene to stop the attack. Instead, you’re supposed to simply sit back and watch so you can tell police all about it after the fact.
Should you also call the coroner while watching and waiting on the police as the woman bleeds out?
So while I appreciate those who have stepped forward and are looking to help our community members and be there and intervene, I think you can do that with your voices, you can do that with making phone calls to the OPD, but allowing us to come in and respond.
Remember, snitches get stitches! But, dead criminals tell no lies.
And so we just want to make sure that we send a clear message that it’s important that we help one another and that we come together as a community.
How do we help one another if we're just watching and waiting on the OPD while someone is being beaten to death?
Annoy a Liberal, GET A JOB!
User avatar

Paladin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3784
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Oakland Police Cheif wants 'Good witnesses' not armed citizens

#13

Post by Paladin »

srothstein wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:43 pm
Paladin wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:22 pmThe author seems to be hard at work on the problem. In my experience instinctive techniques like Krav Maga and COL Applegate's methods are quick to learn and reasonably retained. The law enforcement style unarmed techniques I was taught by LEO's seemed like mostly poor techniques designed to avoid legal liability.
I have not studied Krav Maga or many of the other methods. I got lucky and the agencies where I was employed or training at all had specialists for the subdue/control/defense techniques.

I agree that most police methods are not that well taught nor are they well retained. But the problem with many methods for police vs. citizens is the end goal of the technique. If you are a regular citizen studying Krav Maga to protect yourself, it may be very well suited for that. But police are not studying self-defense, they are studying subdue and control techniques. They not only have to defend themselves, they morally cannot walk away from the attacker. A good cop must defend himself, subdue the attacker and take him in to custody, all without causing unnecessary injury. Citizens who are attacked only need to worry about surviving. They may try to avoid unnecessary injury to the attacker but it is not really required other than going way overboard (at least in Texas, other states are not nearly as enlightened in this area).

As an example of the difference, many of the techniques I was taught were taught by the military. Most of these are also not allowed for police loss. In 1975, I was attending Marine Corps PLC training at Quantico. I remember writing home one day (my father was a former Marine) that we had an interesting class where they taught me eight different ways to kill a man without using a weapon. In 76, going through the Army MP school, I was taught "come-alongs" using the club (such as the figure 4 stranglehold - the club goes across the suspects throat and then into the crook of your other elbow; that hand comes around the club and presses on the crown of the suspects head while the club is being pulled back into his throat) that were very effective but stood a good chance of killing the suspect if you did it wrong. Most of these are now forbidden for the police.

While I support the change in police tactics, I understand the problems it causes in teaching unarmed combat to potential officers. And then the fact that most officers never practice once they graduate the academy makes this even worse. Texas requires officers to qualify with their weapon once a year and take 40 hours of training every two years. The basic academy is now only required to be about 4-1/2 months long (696 hours). Our training may be among the best in the nation but it is woefully inadequate in many areas, not just unarmed combat. This is one reason I believe that we need to move to a program where the officers are immersed in a training class for four years that includes earning a college degree. As of my writing this, there are 78,634 peace officers in Texas (not counting any jailers). If we figure that the average police career is 25 years (my personal guesstimate), that means we need about 3,150 new officers every year just to stay where we are at. That would mean, if we used one campus, we would need a training center the size of UTD for my proposal with a probable cost of $300,000,000 per year. That does not include uniforms or any salary you pay the trainees like they do at West Point.

There are solutions to the problem and mine is just one proposal that may or may not work. I believe that my proposal would result in more professional officers overall and would be a benefit, but that is my belief and not a guaranteed program. I am sure there are other solutions too. And I agree that if we do not do something, we will have larger problems than we do now.
Agree!

While not all Krav Maga techniques are for police work, they do have techniques to subdue/control. One of the LEO's that I trained Haganah(Krav Maga plus other Israeli techniques) with said he literally used the techniques EVERY day on the job. I'm certain that Judo or Ju-Jitsu would also be very useful.
JOIN NRA TODAY!
NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life Member, VCDL Member
LTC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO Paladin Training Systems
“Those who expect to be both ignorant and free, expect what never was and never will be.” -Thomas Jefferson
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”