TexasCHLforum.com

chris211 wrote:I completed my third tactical pistol course of the year, yeasterday. This class had several top notch shooters, very knowledgable in all types of firearms. A marine, couple of Army and one police academy graduate.

Two mags, 3 rds each. The course of fire: Closest target 10 feet, one round; second target at 25 feet, two rounds, tactical reload, second target gets one more and first target gets the last two. Get off the X.

The first pass, half the shooters could not remember the sequence,

I have a threat at 10 feet and they say I should put one round into the immediate threat, then fire two at the far threat, then reload, then fire another round at the threat 25 feet away, before I can shoot the close threat a second time?

It's no wonder a bunch of experienced shooters might solve those threats in a different, less arbitrary order.

TXPPQ,

After all these years nothing offends me. The psychotic individual in the clinical setting is much different than on the the street. The clinician in the clinical setting rarely has to deal with the individual alone. If in a manic state they are either already physically or chemically restrained to a certain extent.

The officer was alone and many times can only retreat so far. The individual was naked, which reduces the ability to restrain someone. Try it some time with someone. Have them get into a bathing suit and spray them down and then try to restrain them, tell them to resist as much as they can. You will be in for a delightful experience.

Why were less lethal force options not employed? I don't know, but I have seen universities prohibit officers from carrying Tasers and pepper spray for PR reasons, so they may not have been available for use.

Once the officer goes hands on with this individual he places his weapon within close proximity of the attacker. In a perfect world the office would always be able to retain his weapon and control the individual, naked or otherwise, but this isn't a perfect world.

Was there a size disparity between the officer and the subject. I have gone into fights with individuals that were stronger and in better shape, luckily tactics worked in my favor. I have seen wiry 120 pound people beat the crap out of officers that weighed 200 pounds and lived at the gym. Every situation is different.

You have the right to form an opinion. If I think your opinion is faulty I may, or may not, make a comment.

Since you have a clinical background with psyc patients would you make a diagnosis and treatment plan for Gilbert Thomas Collar, the subject involved, on what little information was provided in the article? Doubtful, if you are a good clinician, so why come to conclusion on a subject you admittedly have no experience with on such scant information?

I don't know if the officer screwed up or not. I am sure that two to three years from now I will be reading a report on what happened, what was done right, what was done wrong, and what response options could have been taken.

Police work is not science with double and triple blinded studies, it is the ultimate real time, in vivo anthropological study with immediate outcomes.

Ultimately, Gilbert Thomas Collar was the one who controlled his destiny.

I just read that Mr. Collar was a "six-year varsity wrestler," (whatever that means), does that change your opinion any?

ddurkof wrote:Have them get into a bathing suit and spray them down and then try to restrain them, tell them to resist as much as they can. You will be in for a delightful experience.

TMI

Ddurkof,

Once again I would like to thank you for your insight into the matter it is truly a great asset for a soon to be CHL holder (like me) to learn from your years of experience. I agree with you fully that it would be ill advised to attempt to form any kind of conclusion based upon the limited availability of information and I can see how my original post could be seen as a condemnation of the officer's actions (which I assure you is not the case at all). In hindsight I think a more carefully worded sentence along the lines of, "At first glance it may seem that drugs may have been a factor in this shooting, given the limited amount of information I am unsure if lethal force was necessary in the handling of this case. What do you guys/gals think?", would have avoided any sense that I was trying to pass judgement or form any conclusion from it.

As far trying to subdue a naked individual I am afraid that I am going to have to take your word for it, I think I would have a hard time explaining to Mrs.TXPPQ that I was wrestling a soaking wet man/woman in the name of science.
I also agree 100% that it would be completely negligent for any clinician to attempt to formulate a treatment plan or diagnosis with such little information, and let me reiterate that it was not my intention to form any kind of conclusion but rather gain the insight of my fellow forum members on how they would have handled the situation. I understand that a CHL holder is not a LEO but in today's world of readily accessible designer drugs, like bath salts, the chances of being accosted by a deranged, naked, face eating BG seems ever more likely.

As for the newly released information stating that he was a "six-year varsity wrestler" (Perhaps he was so good in wrestling they kept him in high school for an additional 2 years ) but joking aside, while the information does paint the picture that Mr. Collar was a very athletic individual and could probably cause a great deal of bodily harm, I doubt the officer knew that at the time and based his decision to shoot on the fact that he was facing an aggressive muscular individual.

If what you said was truly the case and this turned out to be one of those Universities that prohibited the use of less than lethal measures, then my opinion would absolutely change and I would say that the officer was completely justified in using the only deterrent he had available to him. Though why a university would think that employing less than lethal measures would be any worse than shooting somebody in terms of PR is beyond me.

TXPPQ wrote:If what you said was truly the case and this turned out to be one of those Universities that prohibited the use of less than lethal measures, then my opinion would absolutely change and I would say that the officer was completely justified in using the only deterrent he had available to him. Though why a university would think that employing less than lethal measures would be any worse than shooting somebody in terms of PR is beyond me.

and especially shooting a student.

It may be completely justified for the officer but it's likely to be a PR black eye for the university.

tacticool wrote:

TXPPQ wrote:If what you said was truly the case and this turned out to be one of those Universities that prohibited the use of less than lethal measures, then my opinion would absolutely change and I would say that the officer was completely justified in using the only deterrent he had available to him. Though why a university would think that employing less than lethal measures would be any worse than shooting somebody in terms of PR is beyond me.

and especially shooting a student.

It may be completely justified for the officer but it's likely to be a PR black eye for the university.

Also a likely lawsuit against the university.

I know this happened in Alabama, but if something similar happened in Texas, would civil immunity (83.001, Civil Practices and Remedies Code) cover the employer too, or only cover the individual who uses force or deadly force?

PR/PC at college campuses are rampant, even here in Texas. It has little to do with the officers involved and largely what the college administration perceives and wants.

"It has never happened here before...." attitude in the college administration many times overwhelm common sense. Universities want to sell themselves to parents as a safe place for them to send their children. When the parents show up to tour the campus and the officers look like they are waiting for the next SWAT call out, the parents don't "feel" that little Sally is going to be safe.

I didn't say it made sense, it is just a fact.

This case will be interesting to follow.

Naked and unarmed will be a tough sell for a DF incident unless the guy tried to take his gun.

With the limited info I'd go hands or intermediate weapon before going to my gun. That said...who knows what version we're getting.

Re: the jury comments, I often say that juries are generally 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

Before you flame me, I realize some people are interested in court, or like to serve the community, but in my experience, my generalization holds true.

tacticool wrote:

TXPPQ wrote:If what you said was truly the case and this turned out to be one of those Universities that prohibited the use of less than lethal measures, then my opinion would absolutely change and I would say that the officer was completely justified in using the only deterrent he had available to him. Though why a university would think that employing less than lethal measures would be any worse than shooting somebody in terms of PR is beyond me.

and especially shooting a student.

It may be completely justified for the officer but it's likely to be a PR black eye for the university.

A taser is a less lethal self-defense measure? I thought tasers were just for putting potty mouth soccer moms at traffic stops, people who talk back to politicians, and unruly school children in their place.

gigag04 wrote:Naked and unarmed will be a tough sell for a DF incident unless the guy tried to take his gun.

With the limited info I'd go hands or intermediate weapon before going to my gun. That said...who knows what version we're getting.

Re: the jury comments, I often say that juries are generally 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

Before you flame me, I realize some people are interested in court, or like to serve the community, but in my experience, my generalization holds true.

And assuming all other things equal, do you think the difference might be the difference in your training versus the training of a campus police officer? I'm assuming they get less training....but I don't know.

ddurkof wrote:Might I inquire just how many manic individuals that are in a psychotic state you have dealt with as a law enforcement officer?

Over the past 30 years I have handled a number of them and only a great deal of luck and the grace of God I have not had to use deadly force. It is a split second decision that can go one way or another. This particular time deadly force was used. It will be reviewed over and over in both civil and criminal settings with all of the hand wringing saying, "He/she could have done xyz." The post shooting investigation will be hundreds of pages, if not thousands of pages, long. The civil depositions will be hundreds of pages in length.

Since they don't provide you with any crime scene photos, shooting diagrams, autopsy reports, witness statements, the shooting officer's statement, just what are you basing your opinion on?

Get some "Force on Force" training where you actually deal with situations like this and see if you would have shot.

I will admit that I don't know if the officer should have used deadly force. I can't make that determination based on a ten paragraph news article. Do some research at http://www.forcescience.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and you may learn you don't know what you don't know.

Take your finger off the trigger before you get yourself hurt...

VMI77 wrote: And assuming all other things equal, do you think the difference might be the difference in your training versus the training of a campus police officer? I'm assuming they get less training....but I don't know.

I don't know about alaBama but in Texas I'm pretty sure TCLEOSE standards are the same for campus cops and city cops.

Maybe gigag04 is better trained than a typical campus cop at A&M but if so it's probably because who he is as a person more than his employer.

I think that everyone has a RIGHT to live.

I also think that everyone has a RIGHT to defend themselves -- including officers.

IMO, when someone does something that in anyway threatens anyone--be it chemically induced or otherwise, the Right to Defense > The Right to Live

For those of you that continue to say that the first course of action should have been pepper spray, please read the following story.

http://www.odmp.org/officer/16311-deput ... ony-herzog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Almost identical situation, very different results.