Police Showing Restraint...Cottonwood Arizona

twa

Way to much patience in my opinion.......half of these idiots should have been shot. Crazy footage to say the least..........

http://ktla.com/2015/04/11/christian-family-band-members-in-deadly-parking-lot-brawl-police-say/

Diver43

Holy Smokes, when a cop had his side arm drawn and tells you to get down and you continue to fight, you deserve to be shot. If you attack a officer and get yourself killed for it, so be it.
These so called Christians are morans at best.

MississippiBoy

This is a long video, but it's interesting. At a press conference, the police chief shows the video in slow motion and points out the particulars. It's pretty amazing to see all the little things that you miss in the original video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki-R0d7DIAE

Skip to about the 18:14 mark for when the dash cam video starts.
What's also amazing is that first, there's not any more dead people than the one idiot. There was a LOT of restaint shown by the officers. There were several times that a couple of them drew their guns but refrained from shooting and reholstered. Two, the "mother" NEVER EVER tries to pull the 11 year old away from the brawl, even after the one guy got shot. And thirdly, neither the "mother" or "father" ever told their offspring to quit fighting with the police.
If all of the sons, except the 11 year old that the "mother" was holding on to, had ended up dead, it would have been totally understandable and justified.

Gene L

I thought it was handled well, although I didn't watch the entire video. In the Verbal Judo course, George Thompson, who came up with the idea, teaches you "We're in the -taking business." The principal that you can't take a life except when your life or someone else's life is in immediate danger seems to have been observed here. Once he disarmed the officer he was paid for. Some people are trash, but you can't shoot them for being low-class fools.

snake284

Gene L wrote: »

I thought it was handled well, although I didn't watch the entire video. In the Verbal Judo course, George Thompson, who came up with the idea, teaches you "We're in the -taking business." The principal that you can't take a life except when your life or someone else's life is in immediate danger seems to have been observed here. Once he disarmed the officer he was paid for. Some people are trash, but you can't shoot them for being low-class fools.

I don't know what some of you watched in addition to this video, but all I saw was a bunch of kaos. I couldn't make heads or tails of what was happening.
I'm no LEO but seems to me they needed a better coordinated plan of attack, like maybe 4-5 officers with batons drawn to actually go in and break the fight up, with 3 officers with guns, 0f which maybe one would be a shotgun, at the ready. They should have thrown down all resisters and hog tied them to await official arrest. Sometimes you just gotta be aggressive, rather than treat the situation symptomatically.

Gene L

Throwing down on someone in a fight is a very bad move. First, you can't defend yourself against a non-lethal attack with a drawn gun, you've just got one arm. Second, it invites shots to be fired which aren't justified by the situation. And lots of other reasons.

I doubt there was a coordinated plan of attack, since the situation developed so rapidly. No shotguns in a crowd situation, especially when cops are among the people engaged. There were four cops on the scene, which is a lot of cops, and you're asking for at least seven or eight...ain't gonna happen in most places, just don't have the manpower, and the fight escalated too quickly to allow additional units to respond immediately and certainly not before the fact. A problem is as a cop, you don't really have the foresight to judge a situation like the one given, although examining the slow-motion situation and Monday-morning quarterbacking would allow people to say, "The should have....". The cops had to deal with what they had and didn't have the time or opportunity or knowledge of the outcome of the situation to plan for something that probably happens once every once in a while.

I can't see a single major thing cops did wrong. This isn't a police state where you can shoot someone for non-compliance, and it takes a whole lot of effort to hog-tie someone, at least two officers and probably more. Which means two or more officers are out of the fight.

tennmike

Looks to me like the cops did the best they could with the available manpower. Didn't see anything wrong in how they tried to handle a situation that exploded in their faces.

As to the 'family', somebody forgot to do the chlorine shock treatment to the gene pool. Sayin'.

MississippiBoy

snake284 wrote: »

I don't know what some of you watched in addition to this video, but all I saw was a bunch of kaos. I couldn't make heads or tails of what was happening.
I'm no LEO but seems to me they needed a better coordinated plan of attack, like maybe 4-5 officers with batons drawn to actually go in and break the fight up, with 3 officers with guns, 0f which maybe one would be a shotgun, at the ready. They should have thrown down all resisters and hog tied them to await official arrest. Sometimes you just gotta be aggressive, rather than treat the situation symptomatically.

Here's a link to the press conference that the police chief held. I posted it earlier, but it was buried in my reply. I didn't realize how unobvious the link was till just now. I'm gonna go back and fix that.

MississippiBoy wrote: »

This is a long video, but it's interesting. At a press conference, the police chief shows the video in slow motion and points out the particulars. It's pretty amazing to see all the little things that you miss in the original video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki-R0d7DIAE

Skip to about the 18:14 mark for when the dash cam video starts.
What's also amazing is that first, there's not any more dead people than the one idiot. There was a LOT of restaint shown by the officers. There were several times that a couple of them drew their guns but refrained from shooting and reholstered. Two, the "mother" NEVER EVER tries to pull the 11 year old away from the brawl, even after the one guy got shot. And thirdly, neither the "mother" or "father" ever told their offspring to quit fighting with the police.
If all of the sons, except the 11 year old that the "mother" was holding on to, had ended up dead, it would have been totally understandable and justified.

twa

Snake there was a ton of chaos. I watched it several times, at the 3:00 minute mark the officer on the ground yells "he has my gun" at the 3:15 mark the officer standing draws his weapon and shoot the perp on top of the officer in the head. After all that, the rest continue to disobey and fight back, as mentioned earlier, everyone of them that continued to fight could have been a justified shooting in my opinion. White trash in the truest form there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv5Cbgn4TOU

coolgunguy

Right or wrong, fighting a cop is never a good idea. Putting your hands on his sidearm...well, as Gene said, bought and paid for. Too bad, they seemed like nice people.

breamfisher

Also shows that the crowd won't necessarily disperse after the first person gets shot.

breamfisher

Good to hear about the guys who got awarded. And valid points all around. Seems like a lot of things that are "supposed to happen" when there is a SD scenario won't necessarily be the case. As others have said, "average" means that sometimes you get the bad end of the variance.

shootbrownelk

It said that the family band played on the streets...now they can entertain inmates in the slammer. although they came up short one guitar player it seems.
Oh well, should have followed police orders.Those pesky Christians.

coolgunguy

shootbrownelk wrote: »

It said that the family band played on the streets...now they can entertain inmates in the slammer. although they came up short one guitar player it seems.
Oh well, should have followed police orders.Those pesky Christians.

I'm guessing these folks were 'Christians' the same way Al Sharpton is a 'Reverend', or Mr. Obama is a 'President'. In name only.

shootbrownelk

coolgunguy wrote: »

I'm guessing these folks were 'Christians' the same way Al Sharpton is a 'Reverend', or Mr. Obama is a 'President'. In name only.

I was just kidding about them being Christians. Calling Pumpkin head Sharpton "Reverend" makes me ill. And O'bummer is nothing but a traitor as far as I'm concerned...a golf playing, vacation taking Traitor.

MississippiBoy

coolgunguy wrote: »

I'm guessing these folks were 'Christians' the same way Al Sharpton is a 'Reverend', or Mr. Obama is a 'President'. In name only.

Yep. Add Westboro "Baptist Church" to that list, too. Anybody can call themselves anything they want......that doesn't make it true, though.

coolgunguy

shootbrownelk wrote: »

I was just kidding about them being Christians. Calling Pumpkin head Sharpton "Reverend" makes me ill. And O'bummer is nothing but a traitor as far as I'm concerned...a golf playing, vacation taking Traitor.

I figured you weren't serious, but folks like a handle/label to latch on to. No big deal.