TX: Chopper cam video of Troope/BG shootout

[Thor]

Or wait for the MRAP?

Or the V150 Commando Combat Assault vehicles? NSN 2355-DS-COM-BTV2...I see IN has 4 on their list of acquired toys. Sweet tool for assaulting something.

 

[GIJEW]

Good shooting by the 2nd officer, hitting the kangaroo-crook!

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

If any of the second-guessing posters are free tomorrow, I need to be trained on how todo things correctly. Or at least to INGO standards.

 

[T.Lex]

If any of the second-guessing posters are free tomorrow, I need to be trained on how todo things correctly. Or at least to INGO standards.

Sure, but we can only review what you did today.

 

[Thor]

If any of the second-guessing posters are free tomorrow, I need to be trained on how todo things correctly. Or at least to INGO standards.

Will this be publicly available; maybe posted in the Tactics and Training section?

 

[Alamo]

Soooo....you have no idea what they actually did to you...

Ah, but my gall bladder doesn't bother me anymore, so it evens out.

 

[T.Lex]

If any of the second-guessing posters are free tomorrow, I need to be trained on how todo things correctly. Or at least to INGO standards.

Heya Frank, I did want to address this a bit more seriously. IMHO, this version of MMQBing is to actually justify officers being MORE careful. Those in this thread (AFAIK) are more than happy with the BG at room temp, but would've rather seen the LEO unscathed.

He took a significant risk approaching the car like that (although he did appear to mitigate it). I, for one, hope that risk was justified by something other than a desire to clear this incident that was blocking traffic.

 

[Alamo]

If it was close to water they could've used this:

 

[Alamo]

Back to the item at hand: I dunno what the troopers knew prior to the shoot out, but the guy in the car unsurprisingly does have a criminal history. Everything that shows up online is relative non-violent: burglary of a habitation, speeding, parole violation, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, failure to maintain financial responsibility (I think that's car insurance).

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Heya Frank, I did want to address this a bit more seriously. IMHO, this version of MMQBing is to actually justify officers being MORE careful. Those in this thread (AFAIK) are more than happy with the BG at room temp, but would've rather seen the LEO unscathed.

He took a significant risk approaching the car like that (although he did appear to mitigate it). I, for one, hope that risk was justified by something other than a desire to clear this incident that was blocking traffic.

Yeah, I highly doubt he gave 2 ****s about blocking traffic. You would have to ask the Trooper himself as anything else is just conjecture.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Will this be publicly available; maybe posted in the Tactics and Training section?

I'll put it in Break Room or the classifieds, it'll get more views there.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, I highly doubt he gave 2 ****s about blocking traffic. You would have to ask the Trooper himself as anything else is just conjecture.

Ok, fair enough.

As a practitioner, what would cause you to either be the one guy, or order the one guy, to approach the guy?

Genuinely curious here. As a MMQB, the only reason I can come up with that makes sense is that he REALLY didn't think anything bad might happen. Even after all the Youtube videos of traffic stops gone horribly wrong.

 

[Alamo]

Room for one more MMQB in the huddle?

I would bet that most good street cops, like firefighters and soldiers, are forward-leaning action-oriented problem solvers. Their jobs are to turn chaos into order, and the sooner the better. They are inherently predisposed to do something, do it now, get it accomplished. They are not as analytical as some other professions, like, say...lawyers. They have to be trained, either formally or through experience, to wait, to pull back, to study the situation. Fire companies and squads/platoons have leaders whose job it is to hang back a bit, direct who goes where, decide when to wait and when to charge. Cops (seems to me anyway) are more free agents; they often work alone, have to decide on their own, and are thrown together in ad hoc groups or teams on the fly (not counting SWAT type units).

Rory Miller, in his book Conflict Communications, points out that most human decisions (especially under stress) are taken subconsciously, and then the conscious mind back fills with logical reasons why that decision is a good idea. Therefore to make good decisions under stress you really have to train, to get those patterns of thinking into the subconscious, to have built the scripts that say to a firefighter "when the windows are sooty and little puffs of smoke are coming out of gaps, better NOT open the door", or to a pilot "plane is stalling so push stick DOWN" when he really really wants to pull it back to get away from the ground. In any situation where either the stress has overridden the training or information is not clear (or there is no training), the subconscious is going to go with those decision rules that have been internalized, like "when in doubt act". So the decision might be to "spread eagle that ******* on the ground" and figure the rest out later.

In general we probably better served by cops and firefighters and soldiers who want to get into the middle of the chaos and have to be restrained by training, rather than having to kick them in the butt to get them to do something (***cough, parkland, cough ***). There are cities where the police, rightly or wrongly, have been pounded on enough that they have become very choosy about when they take action, and the results for those cities have not been good. Over-aggression is bad, but so is punishing initiative. Remember that once upon a time the trained method of dealing with mass/spree/school shootings was oriented to restraining officers, putting up perimeters, gathering intel, sending in the special SWAT team. Now that has largely swung back to "go kill the bastard ASAP."

I don't know that this is what motivated that DPS trooper in the video, but I'll bet this is closer to the truth than many explanations. Note I am not saying he is untrained, just that I would not be surprised if he is a very action oriented, can-do guy. His mission was not just to defend himself but put that guy under control, and his experience, training, and motivation led him to try to do that as soon as possible.

 

[Fargo]

Back to the item at hand: I dunno what the troopers knew prior to the shoot out, but the guy in the car unsurprisingly does have a criminal history. Everything that shows up online is relative non-violent: burglary of a habitation, speeding, parole violation, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, failure to maintain financial responsibility (I think that's car insurance).

I consider a residential burglary to be in inherently violent crime. If you are willing to break into someone’s house, you are almost always willing to hurt someone if they’re inside.

 

[phylodog]

Yeah, I mean other than the air support telling everyone that he was reaching for a gun, why would the guy be a clear threat?

I just don't get why everything has to be "right now" with cops. Let's rush the building. Let's rush the car. Let's rush the bank. Whatever.

I have a theory on this very topic, one I've formed after analyzing hundreds of videos like this and talking with hundreds of officers who have been involved in these types of incidents.

I believe the simple answer is stress. Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, I don't think I've ever met an officer who didn't feel obligated to protect those they serve. As a result, retreat is not an available option for most. These situations are extremely stressful and when you take away the option to flee the only option remaining is to end the situation. When does the situation end? When the bad guy is in custody. (I believe this all happens at the subconscious level.) Dealing with this type of stress is extremely uncomfortable, even for the most hardened, experienced combat veterans we have in this country. For a police officer the only way (self imposed) to get out of this stressful situation is to apprehend the suspect or put him/her down if that is what is appropriate. In an attempt to end things quickly officers make poor decisions under stress, risking their own safety and violating their training in an attempt to relieve the stress.

Just one man's theory but I've yet to have anyone find a better explanation. Officers unwittingly do things which go against their training every day even if they perform perfectly in training. The significant difference is the level of stress involved. Stress does a lot of really strange things to human beings and precious few of them are as helpful as they were a few thousand years ago.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Or wait for the MRAP?

Dear God, don't joke, those guys might have one down there.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I have a theory on this very topic, one I've formed after analyzing hundreds of videos like this and talking with hundreds of officers who have been involved in these types of incidents.

I believe the simple answer is stress. Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, I don't think I've ever met an officer who didn't feel obligated to protect those they serve. As a result, retreat is not an available option for most. These situations are extremely stressful and when you take away the option to flee the only option remaining is to end the situation. When does the situation end? When the bad guy is in custody. (I believe this all happens at the subconscious level.) Dealing with this type of stress is extremely uncomfortable, even for the most hardened, experienced combat veterans we have in this country. For a police officer the only way (self imposed) to get out of this stressful situation is to apprehend the suspect or put him/her down if that is what is appropriate. In an attempt to end things quickly officers make poor decisions under stress, risking their own safety and violating their training in an attempt to relieve the stress.

Just one man's theory but I've yet to have anyone find a better explanation. Officers unwittingly do things which go against their training every day even if they perform perfectly in training. The significant difference is the level of stress involved. Stress does a lot of really strange things to human beings and precious few of them are as helpful as they were a few thousand years ago.

Like puppy brain taking over? I can see that.

People "train" to check a box, not train to do something until they cannot do it wrong.

Only so much money in this world, I get it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I would bet that most good street cops, like firefighters and soldiers, are forward-leaning action-oriented problem solvers. Their jobs are to turn chaos into order, and the sooner the better. They are inherently predisposed to do something, do it now, get it accomplished. They are not as analytical as some other professions, like, say...lawyers. They have to be trained, either formally or through experience, to wait, to pull back, to study the situation. Fire companies and squads/platoons have leaders whose job it is to hang back a bit, direct who goes where, decide when to wait and when to charge. Cops (seems to me anyway) are more free agents; they often work alone, have to decide on their own, and are thrown together in ad hoc groups or teams on the fly (not counting SWAT type units).

Rory Miller, in his book Conflict Communications, points out that most human decisions (especially under stress) are taken subconsciously, and then the conscious mind back fills with logical reasons why that decision is a good idea. Therefore to make good decisions under stress you really have to train, to get those patterns of thinking into the subconscious, to have built the scripts...

There's a lot of this. There's research on the "heroism gene" which really isn't a gene, but the guy who jumps in rough waters to save a drowning person despite being a mediocre swimmer himself isn't consciously deciding to do that. There's no time. You just react, then figure out why later. Scenario training is really the only antidote to this, and I'm not going to get into the weeds on why it works but that's it.

There's also practical considerations related to tactics and community safety. I was recently in a situation taking an armed suspect into custody where I could have cover or I could have a better backdrop. If I used cover, a nieghbor's house was my backdrop. If I John Wayne'd it out in the open, the suspect's barn was my backdrop. Anywhere else I'd either be setting up a crossfire with another officer or unable to view the suspect, so useless. So, I stood in the open. More dangerous for me, less dangerous for whoever lives in that house, although I'm pretty confident that sighted in and ready I could drop him and move before he completed a draw stroke if he had decided to fight it out. Ideally I'd have a nice little bunker to post up in. Reality gets messier.

 

[Ark]

The video cuts so it's not exactly clear what happens between the car stopping and the shots being fired.

If anybody didn't see it, a couple days ago there was some other wild Texas DPS helicopter footage released of the Austin bombing suspect blasting himself inside his car when the officers were moving in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n6z_PNonJo

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Ok, fair enough.

As a practitioner, what would cause you to either be the one guy, or order the one guy, to approach the guy?

Genuinely curious here. As a MMQB, the only reason I can come up with that makes sense is that he REALLY didn't think anything bad might happen. Even after all the Youtube videos of traffic stops gone horribly wrong.

Different departments teach different things to do at the termination of pursuits. I can't speak as to how TXDPS does it, or what the Trooper was thinking/intending.