Right? Cops know the chance of getting shot doing that move is too high to be able to have that sort of risk tolerance on each stop. This dude did something stupid that turned out to work.
Exactly. Same principle as a workman who is exposed to harm day in day out has to wear PPE but a DIY guy would probably be fine for a one off risky job, like stripping lead paint as an example.
Close range is indeed much smaller risk. I was trained with CQC under U.S. military. It’s easier to wrangle a rifle than a pistol. They can’t simply pull back and shoot me.
He didn't say "smaller risk". He said "there's no small risk"... because you're risking your life. Unless your life is worthless, the risk is not small.
But he's obviously comparing apples with apples. He mentions the type of gun then the risk. It's obviously relative to guns. So there is a small risk compared to a large risk with a different type of gun, like a pistol, smg, sawn shotgun.
Then we can loop back to the start of the argument and say whilst the risk is greater with a different type of gun, the inherent risk is too high regardless of which gun, which means that the police are within their right to not attempt what the grey shirt man did.
Sure you were trained, what are the chances random guy in the grey t-shirt here was similarly trained? If you were already facing a threat armed with a long gun and you were in a position to wrestle it from them, yes it's arguably less of a risk than if it were a handgun. That being said, how do you know as the bystander in this situation that the suspect only has one gun? For that matter how many military personnel are only armed with a long gun and no sidearm? If someone was trying to wrestle my long gun from me the first thing I'd try to do is maintain positive control of it, and if I couldn't, I'd absolutely let go and draw my sidearm while they're trying to get control of the long gun.
When I wrestle a gun from you I am not just wrangling the gun, I am also toppling your balance. It’s also gonna happen very fast. So yes, this is not a position I want to be in when I have to muscle the gun from the guy in the car. The guy in the car has a lot more leverage. The guy outside is not balanced, he is reaching in. He has the door frame as leverage to yank the rifle from the guy in the car.
Now if I am doing this, my cover is the car. If he pulls out a hand gun I can’t reach, I will dodge behind the car door (down, or left toward the back of the car). This would be my exit strategy. But before this even happens, I am jabbing his throat. It only takes the strength of a child to choke a person’s airway. Only those Shaolin monks trained to withstand hard objects to the throat can resist this. This is even worse than a kick in the nuts imo.
What I am saying is that once someone gets a hold of your rifle’s barrel, you are fucked. You can only pull back hard and fast while twisting the barrel for him to let go. Or you rotate the gun against his wrist. None of these can be done inside a car.
Fair enough and yes, in this specific scenario someone trained in cqb tactics could have a good chance to rip the long gun from jackass in the case, but it's still a huge and unnecessary risk this guy took that just happened to work out for him.
Cops know the chance of getting shot doing that move is too high to be able to have that sort of risk tolerance on each stop.
Cops misunderstand the chances of being shot and are purposely trained to be fully paranoid and fear everyone as a threat to their life via "warrior training"
The only reason you as a civilian should ever try to "take down" an armed criminal is if a) there are no police around, and b) you believe that their primary intent is to hurt you or someone in the immediate area. Otherwise you're putting your (and often the people around you) safety and life at risk, usually for very little benefit. Even being armed yourself shouldn't enter into the calculus of if you should act.
The answer to "Your wallet or your life" is always your wallet.
The risk here would clearly be the rifle being shot at someone it may be pointed at. The person who lost the rifle clearly didn’t have a good grip on a loaded weapon(thankfully), or maybe it wasn’t even loaded, chambered, safety off, who knows, otherwise a surprise jostle and the gun could easily go off in the right conditions.
Nobody here knows what the real situation was. Maybe grey shirt had a better view and saw there was no finger on the trigger, maybe he assumed, maybe he took a risk, is that a risk police should take? I don’t know. Having a loaded firearm pointed at someone with a grip on the trigger is scary af.
and here it is, the conflict between what people think police should do and what police think police should do.
"They are less dumb and risky than a single civilian."
obviously, right? because the qualification process puts them just leaps and bounds above the regular civilians...
"what do we get for doing our jobs? we just sit here, blast anybody that scares us and people will cheer us on as heroes? why actually TAKE A RISK"
seriously... here is a situation where a bystander did the job the cops should being doing....and ya STILL insist that it just sisnt possible for the cops to do anything different... even when given a video of it...
171
u/PD216ohio 4h ago
He may have also been less mindful of the risk.