• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun-happy SoCal police use excessive force to claim Reggie Doucet's life

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Was Mr. Doucet without guilt in this matter, which occurered around 3:30 am? Oh, heck no. In fact he was running around, naked at that, attacking officers, injuring two. Still, if he was naked it was clear he wasn't carrying.

How about tasers, folks? Was there at any attempt at using less than lethal force before they took a man's life? I'm not saying whether they were wrong, here, as I don't know how heated the confrontation got. I do know he attempted to take one of the officer's guns, and that tasers are an effective means of taking someone down without killing them. They're used all the time.

If he was that violent, why were they not used at the outset? Perhaps LA police don't carry tasers.

I don't know. It sure raises some questions, however, particularly as the shooting officer was a rookie on the force.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
"The suspect repeatedly punched both officers in the face and head and at one point tried to take one of the officer's guns," the LAPD statement said.

I've seen it repeatedly posted here that a BG attempting to take your gun (especially after he has already assaulted you or others) warrants the reasonable belief that you are in grave danger. I'd shoot the guy. The police should have no less right to defend themselves than we do.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I've seen it repeatedly posted here that a BG attempting to take your gun (especially after he has already assaulted you or others) warrants the reasonable belief that you are in grave danger. I'd shoot the guy. The police should have no less right to defend themselves than we do.

Agreed, as long as we have the same treatment from the "Justice" system an officer would.
 

MK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
396
Location
USA
My uncle was CHP and when I was young I asked him if he ever had to pull out his gun. He said he never had to but came close one time. He was training a rookie and they pulled over a very large and strong drunk guy on a very rainy night. In making the arrest the man fought them and was pretty much whipping the both of them. He got the rookie's head down into a water filled ditch and was drowning him. My uncle couldn't get him off and was beating him with a club as hard as he could. He said he was scared, because he thought the young officer might die and he was also scared that he might have to shoot this unarmed man which he was considering doing. Luckily, he got the guy off and made the arrest without shooting or killing him but he pretty much said it just about got to that point.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
How about tasers, folks? Was there at any attempt at using less than lethal force before they took a man's life?

Doncha know? LA cops use tasers as compliance assurance devices. They would never risk even a beating if they could just shoot someone. Which begs the question, of course, what the hell we train them for, since a citizen could do the same thing. There is nothing in place to non-lethally subdue violent but nonlethal perpetrators, which seems like one of the few reasons for police to even exist. If we're just going to shoot everyone who makes a scene, why need police? Armed citizens could fill that roll just fine. :rolleyes:

I've seen it repeatedly posted here that a BG attempting to take your gun (especially after he has already assaulted you or others) warrants the reasonable belief that you are in grave danger. I'd shoot the guy. The police should have no less right to defend themselves than we do.

This is a disingenuous argument. A police officer has a multitude of means at his disposal that a citizen may not have. He has alternate weapons, restraint training, and backup. And he initiates confrontation.

The police officer should be subject to greater scrutiny. Was the gun grab easily repelled, or was it an ongoing life-or-death struggle until the officer managed to get a shot off? This makes all the difference in my mind.

The difference is that police choose to initiate confrontations armed with handguns. This is exactly the reason I advocate disarmed police. What reason does the cop have for a gun against a naked dude? So he can use its presence as an excuse to claim potentially lethal force on the part of the naked guy in order to shoot him? Wouldn't it be sufficient to approach the naked dude with taser, OC, handcuffs, backup, so as to prevent anything lethal from being brought into play? Shouldn't the object of these professionals be to preserve life?

Its ridiculous to expect that level of training and preparedness from Joe Blow, but not from Frank Policeman.

Now, before people respond, "yeah well what reason have YOU for carrying a gun? HUH??" I would point out that I do not carry a gun in my professional capacity. I carry it in my daily life for unknown and unpredictable attempts to victimize my person. In the same way that nobody would blink twice at an insane asylum guard being prohibited (as a condition of employment) from bringing guns into sterile areas, it's reasonable to ask why police bring firearms into situations where they are never in a million years going to be needed, like when apprehending a naked dude.

I mean, even if we assume police need to generally be armed to defend against the unpredictable (an argument I by no means accept), if the officer cared, a life could have been saved by having a nearby officer hold his lethal implements before moving in to subdue this character, since he did know ahead of time what he was getting into. In this instance, the only function the firearm served was an excuse to claim potentially lethal force and shoot the guy.

Now, I don't want to blame the individual officer just yet. This is an instance of a culture gone wrong, and of the wrong training and the wrong mindset being used on a massive scale. This is a bigger problem than a single cop.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
My point is that firearms aren't the only means of force available to law enforcement officers, yet it seems to be a repeat writeup that they're the first choice used on we, the people.

I have a vested interest in this, as I open carry, and would prefer not to be shot by a cop on the basis of a mwag call, particularly if that man is me and I'm doing my best not to shoot others in a dangerous situation, say, they attempted to rob a store with knives, I've got them disarmed, and ready for processing.

Do any one of us really want to be shot simply because we're OCing? Then let's please not excuse (or confuse) a law-enforcement officer's right to carry and use deadly force with their responsibility to use less than deadly force should that be an option.

Doncha know? LA cops use tasers as compliance assurance devices. They would never risk even a beating if they could just shoot someone. Which begs the question, of course, what the hell we train them for, since a citizen could do the same thing. There is nothing in place to non-lethally subdue violent but nonlethal perpetrators, which seems like one of the few reasons for police to even exist. If we're just going to shoot everyone who makes a scene, why need police? Armed citizens could fill that roll just fine. :rolleyes:

Bingo! You get it - thanks.

This is an instance of a culture gone wrong, and of the wrong training and the wrong mindset being used on a massive scale.

That's it, so how do we change that mindset when some people respond, "I'd just shoot the guy." Seriously - I carry a retention holster. If I'm in a tussle with some guy, I'm certainly not going to help him get my firearm by unlocking it from my holster! I'd first get him off me (there are several ways to do this in rapid fashion), then draw, and reassess the situation. If he stops, problem solved. If not, then I'd shoot him.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
He was gunned down by cowards who are above the law. How many cops were there? Easier to hide behind your car and shoot an unarmed man than have the guts to do your job and subdue him. They save tasers for 80 year olds.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
He was gunned down by cowards who are above the law. How many cops were there? Easier to hide behind your car and shoot an unarmed man than have the guts to do your job and subdue him. They save tasers for 80 year olds.

I tried to be a little bit more diplomatic in my assessment, but it's hard to find any fault with the truthful simplicity of yours.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
The police should be expected to risk life and limb to do the job in the best way. Just as a pilot is expected to fly a broken plane to the ground rather than wave goodbye as he dons a parachute en route to the door. It is the job.

Introducing a previously unavailable weapon is really dumb. What real harm is there in a crazy guy running around naked? Just wait him out, like running your prey to exhaustion.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
The police should be expected to risk life and limb to do the job in the best way. Just as a pilot is expected to fly a broken plane to the ground rather than wave goodbye as he dons a parachute en route to the door. It is the job.

Introducing a previously unavailable weapon is really dumb. What real harm is there in a crazy guy running around naked? Just wait him out, like running your prey to exhaustion.

You, sir, have articulated EXACTLY the point my previous long-winded post was making, and done so in a most accessible and unarguable fashion! I am pleased and impressed. Thank you!
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The police should be expected to risk life and limb to do the job in the best way. Just as a pilot is expected to fly a broken plane to the ground rather than wave goodbye as he dons a parachute en route to the door. It is the job.

As an aircrewmember, I'll weigh in just a bit. nonameisgood, depending upon whether a pilot's cargo is people (as we refer to as "souls," which we take with the utmost seriousness), vs simple cargo (which would rarely add but a smidgen more "boom" than the impact of our aircraft+fuel on the ground.

Given that, our duty was always first to the life and limb of our pax. I'm not going to go into the myriads of details thereof, except to say it's little different in the military than it is with the civilian airlines.

Obviously, you know that for special missions, things are different. I've been on more than one, but I can tell you, both they and I volunteered for the job, and that the rules were different, but as we volunteered, that's that, and we got the job done.

Nonameisgood, no pilot is expected to fly the airplane into the ground. He is expected to do whatever can be done to ensure the minimum loss of life, and I, having been one such aircrew, would have done so, willingly, to help whatever pax we were carrying make it home to theirs.

And yes, if that meant sacrificing my own life as an aircrewmember for the life of a pax, I would hope my son might one day understand.

That's the "accepted solution."

Having flown 2000+ hours as an aircrewmember, I've always had somewhat of a different solution: Do whatever the hell you can to ge the job done, but dang it! Get it done, and return home!

Rail me mil folks for halving balanced some sort of reality between duty and home.

If you'll know, I'm working towards a more appropriate balance of these long-term home/work issues. Yeah, I know - wish me luck.

Still, I'm trying. Don't give up hope.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(snip)

Notes:
Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

I wonder how many states have notes like this, and why it is ignored.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(snip)

Notes:
Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

I wonder how many states have notes like this, and why it is ignored.

Wow, what a sensible "legislative recognition". I'm almost surprised to actually see something like this, except for the fact that it is utterly reasonable.
 
Last edited:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
I, too, would have shot the guy. As I was reading the story, I was remended of an incident shorty after the CHL came into existence in Texas. The first guy with a CHL to defend himself with his weapon.

There was a traffic incident and one guy(unarmed) was pounding on the other in side the second guys vehicle. Guy #2 shot him killing him. The grand jury nobilled him.
 
Last edited:

Gaidheal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Earth
Tragic

Sounds like yet another tragic failure of law enforcement professionals to act professionally.

In the UK (where I was born and have lived, on and off, for many years) there have been several cases recently that highlighted a disturbing undercurrent in the British police forces - the desire to be more and more heavily armed and especially to be routinely armed with firearms (handguns, especially). Anyone with passing knowledge of the UK knows that to all intents and purposes, anything but shotguns are illegal to British citizens and those have some fairly stringent requirements on storage and transport. In this light, the desire of the police to be some sort of 'super-citizen' is deeply disturbing and their desire to freely use these new 'toys' is outright sickening.

Unfortunately, policing has become an unglamorous job with increasing lack of respect from the 'man on the street' and long hours expected, much of it doing paperwork or transporting suspects to custody, which means that they are recruiting and retaining only two kinds of person: the very dedicated, who honestly believes they should serve society at large & the power-junkie who likes telling people what to do and bullying them with the advantage of a culture that practically guarantees they will get away with it.

I've long suspected that much same thing is true of the LAPD, in the USA, amongst others.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Well said, gaidheal. So what's the fix? Continue to allow citizens to be armed, while disarming the police, unless they obtain judicial authority (warrant) to use deadly force, unless responding to a no-kidding emergency as decided upon by two or more police officers?

Personally, I think so.
 
Top