TexasCHLforum.com

sugar land dave wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:It wasn't until I looked at Officer Griffin's video the second time that I realized Officer Green first put his hands on the suspect and physically threw him away, and while the perp was stumbling, Officer Green drew and shot. Smart thinking. If he had simply drawn first, the perp would have had time to shoot but placing hands on him and physically controlling him interrupted the whole perp OODA loop and allowed Officer Green to get ahead of the perp and prevail.

Yes I saw that when I watched the video. That move probably saved his life and that of his partner who made a mistake which cost her precious time.

Actually it wouldn't have saved his life - it might have saved him a BB in the vest. The perp was carrying a BB gun.

Right. I keep forgetting that in this instance the bad guy was not using a proper risk-reward thought process.

Officer lives were not in danger. They did not know that of course.

jimlongley wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

jmra wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

carlson1 wrote:The suspect pulled a BB gun. Sgt Green fired 12 rapid shots from a Glock 22 (very snappy round). He is an excellent shot, but you just carry what the department gives you. I am assuming the suspect knew he had a BB gun so this he must have wanted to die.

I only count nine, and then officer Griffin fires three.

Griffin seemed a little late to the party.

She grabbed her tazer first. If you watch closely you can see that happen at 0:50 in the "Officer Griffin" video in the OP.
Hence my comments in post #2.

And I'm thinking that the video might not be a good thing for her. She didn't even open fire until he was down and the gun no longer in his hand.

I'd say the fact she's alive, unhurt, and has a video to review to see what she did wrong - is a good thing.

Which one is a real gun?





In a high stress situation could you tell in time?

Both

mojo84 wrote:Both

The problem I see with that question is that to have any chance of answering it you'd have to be already staring down the muzzle before you fired, which would very probably be too late.

VMI77 wrote:The problem I see with that question is that to have any chance of answering it you'd have to be already staring down the muzzle before you fired, which would very probably be too late.

That's the point. Anyone that points a be gun or any realistic looking firearm at police already has made the choice that they want to be killed.

mojo84 wrote: Sure glad they found a way to acquire the body cams and manage the data storage. Made that investigation much easier and helped exonerate the cops.

Exactly. That's how these things should be used and promoted. These things quickly restore the public trust problem and protect good officers.

nightmare69 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:The problem I see with that question is that to have any chance of answering it you'd have to be already staring down the muzzle before you fired, which would very probably be too late.

That's the point. Anyone that points a be gun or any realistic looking firearm at police already has made the choice that they want to be killed.

Well, I'd say anyone over a certain age....I'm not sure that's the case with say, a six year old. Or a three year old. At that age they're probably not making a choice.

VMI77 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:The problem I see with that question is that to have any chance of answering it you'd have to be already staring down the muzzle before you fired, which would very probably be too late.

That's the point. Anyone that points a be gun or any realistic looking firearm at police already has made the choice that they want to be killed.

Well, I'd say anyone over a certain age....I'm not sure that's the case with say, a six year old. Or a three year old. At that age they're probably not making a choice.

I can remember when a 5 or 6 yr old kid came at us with a grenade and ended up killing the LT, himself and his sister.

I know it has happened and people have been killed by some very young children. I doubt that the child knew what he was doing and made a choice, though. The choice to sacrifice the child was made by some adult behind the scenes.

But more to the point, very young children may point a toy gun at someone and think they are just playing. I taught my children better than this (I hope) but there is little doubt in my mind that a four year old does not understand how the adult will see this and not be playing. I think one of the problems with the Tamir Rice shooting in Ohio a few months ago was that the twelve year old with the BB gun did not truly understand what the officers or the other people on the street would see and think is happening and how they would respond. I think, but it is only a leaning and not a sure thing, that most 12 year olds should understand this better, but I know in my heart that no three or four year old would.

This is about as clean cut as it gets and I'm sure will be used in training for all law enforcement. One thing I'm trying to understand is why the police didn't search/cuff him in the bathroom. I thought Terry would have allowed them to at least check for weapons.

Not to be a Monday morning quarterback, but if the BG's weapon was real, the LEO's could have gotten hurt or killed. They were very lucky.

Maybe an LEO here can help me understand...

charliej47 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:The problem I see with that question is that to have any chance of answering it you'd have to be already staring down the muzzle before you fired, which would very probably be too late.

That's the point. Anyone that points a be gun or any realistic looking firearm at police already has made the choice that they want to be killed.

Well, I'd say anyone over a certain age....I'm not sure that's the case with say, a six year old. Or a three year old. At that age they're probably not making a choice.

I can remember when a 5 or 6 yr old kid came at us with a grenade and ended up killing the LT, himself and his sister.

Wow. So to you life in America is the same as the Vietnam war? We're in a war zone where 6 year olds are blowing up people with grenades and gunning down cops and citizens? Also, I was addressing the issue of whether a very young child pointing a gun at someone WANTS to be killed, which your example doesn't support, since many if not most children that age, especially American children who haven't grown up in a war zone, are incapable of fully understanding the consequences of such an action.