27 Responses to Force Science Institute: Cut Killer Cops Some Slack

  1. Interesting video. I was thinking all along if you substitute “legal CCW holder” for LEO in most of the video’s examples, it helps to make our case for a DGU.

  2. OMG, this video is painful to watch. I had to turn it off after I heard

    “The offender is focused on one thing, can I assault this officer and get away with it?”

    First off, it is suspect, not offender. Offender implies they are indeed breaking the law. Secondly, does anyone here who is not a LEO actually believe that? I got a speeding ticket, instead of paying it, i’ll assault this cop…

    • That quote was in the context of a law enforcement officer being legally able to use deadly force against another individual. If you watch the video, you will hear that the speakers state only about 1% of police incidents require force, and a smaller number require deadly force to stop the threat.

      • No it was not. She doesnt mention that 1% until after my quote. All that woman says is the word offender, over and over again. She never says suspect. A person is a suspect until they break the law, they are not a offender until after the fact.

        • I don’t know why you’re focusing your dislike for the video based on one word, and I would like to better understand where you are coming from.

          When someone attempts place another’s life in jeopardy they are committing a crime. I can only comment on one video what was showing the Eugene Police Department shooting where the man pulls out a gun near the patrol vehicle. There was an investigation and the officer was found to be justified. So, why care about the word if the officer was justified as it is necessary to prove all three elements: ability, opportunity, jeopardy?

  3. The problem lies in the fact that the officer is trying to decide between self-preservation and carrying out his duty. The officer’s body is telling him to place the proverbial balls on the wall, but his mind is trying to run through all the regulations pertaining to shooting. In the mean time… he gets dead.
    Police work is a tough job. It toes the line between protecting the public a protecting themselves, and often the men lack the training to decide which to choose.
    The second clip, the officer failed to keep distance. If you have you gun out, keep it out of reach of the person you are pointing it at (if possible).

  4. I agree that killer cops should get preferential treatment. I suggest that they be given the finest accommodations at the Graybar Hotel, right next to drug-dealing cops, extortionate cops, testi-lying cops, cops who plant evidence, rapist cops, cops who moonlight as Mafia hit men, cops who beat the sh!t out of suspects to get phony confessions, cops who “accidentally” shoot people because they can’t tell the difference between a trigger and their flashlight — you know, good union men all.

  5. Show the clip of the man getting out his wallet only to be murdered by several police officers.

  6. The presentation ignores the fact that the basic premise of “law enforcement” is the violent application of one man’s will against another. And most of the time, that will is applied against someone who has not committed an actual crime… as in, didn’t harm anyone or anything.

    I have to say though that I love the old guy’s Steven Segal moves at 6:01. Priceless.

    • This premise is not exclusive to law enforcement, but can also be applied to citizens carrying concealed as well. Prevention of deadly force being used against you, by using deadly force is granted if you can legally articulate your reasoning.

      Someone who is about to commit a violent crime against you, regardless of your job profession, is an affirmative defense to taking the life of the suspect.

      When you state, “And most of the time, that will is applied against someone who has not committed an actual crime… as in, didn’t harm anyone or anything.” Can you clarify, and submit statistical supporting your statement?

  7. why did they interview the one guy in a fake police car? do they expect me to believe they just walked up to the guy and chilled as he was on patrol? yeah, i guess they totally did. i believe everything he said now because he seems down to earth while he was on the job.

    • Of course this video is not impartial – the video was produced for Lane County and the Eugene Police department to comply with Oregon law of local outreach to the community on use of force.

      I wish the speaker, Alexis Artwohl, changed her statement at the end to, “I wish people didn’t rush to judgement with police… Whether they think they’re guilty or not guilty for using excessive use of force.” Notice how she didn’t say “not guilty” ???

        • That quotation of “not guilty” is concerning my previous hypothetical quotation of what Alexis Artwohl should have stated. I’m sorry you misinterpreted what I wrote.

  8. If the DA decides to charge you with homicide for a DGU, you are not going to hear one word out of his mouth about how difficult and fast moving these incidents are, how easy it is to fire multiple shots in less than a second, how little time there is to respond to an attack. In fact, you will hear nothing of the kind. Maybe you should have your lawyer play this video to defuse all the crap they are going to throw at you. Citizens should get equal consideration as the cops, right?

  9. Talk about slanted video. A convenience store worker is more likely to be murdered than a LEO. Biggest threat to LEO is car wrecks.

    Yes I suspect most LEO shootings are justified, and some will try to tilt the scale against LEOs and for CHP holders and some others. Just as some tilt the scale the other way.

    LEOs do sometimes have to go into a dangerous situation that we would avoid. But they also have the training unavailable to most of us. So just give everyone a fair shot in individual cases.

    • Yes, but, unfortunately it seems that the report from which the map data is drawn dates from 2006 or earlier. I’d sure love to see it updated.

  10. LEO shootings are investigated by an entity friendly to the shooter. They will look at the evidence with an eye toward how it can be used to exonerate the cop/shooter. A DGU by a peon will be investigated by an entity biased toward crucifying the peon/shooter (hey – the DA is a lawyer, right? To a lawyer winning is all that counts, truth be damned. Truth is whatever serves their purpose.). The police have Garrity rights and a powerful union, while the peasants can be sure that every word they say in summoning the authorities will be thrown in their faces by malicious shysters. At least in WA State a finding of self defence means the state is on the hook for the defendant’s legal expenses, which puts at least minimal constraints on the malice of hoplophobic D.A.s toward uppity serfs who think they can protect their lives when Leviathan isn’t up to the task.

    • Not every jurisdiction is as slanted against peons as you imply. While not always possible, it’s good to be familiar with the local prosecutorial culture regarding DGU.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *