Active Shooter In NS. April 19 2020

[Humphrey Bogart]

So. Mandatory training- meaning everyone has to have it in order to be operationally on the road. Recerts and user courses- usually hover around 80% and have dipped as low as 50%

For example, a few years ago a use of force option, pre Covid, dropped to 50% compliance levels for completed mandatory training- there were massive logistical issues that kept the course from being delivered properly. So a thing we HAD to have done we could get 50% through.

Presently, recert-wise, officers fully trained on their options will spend 3 days annually, minimum to get these mandatories done- plus travel. Then every three-ish years they have a week of recerts on top of that.

If you add ANY investigative courses that’s another few weeks of the year. And investigations are what they spend their time doing- in theory.

Now, add on top that most, and don’t believe a word to the contrary because it’s a shell game by the government, have vacancies in their unit in the tens of percents.

One unit I’m very familiar of- is ten times the national average for violent crime. It was recommended to have well over twenty officers for its file load in 2006 and the rcmp agreed to staff it that way, it presently has 18 postions 15 years later- with twice the population and files it had in 2006 today. Of those 18 positions 14 actually have a person in them.

And that’s NORMAL.

So increasing training for niche events, takes a force that’s stretched thin- and adds more absence and vacancy for training. And training takes trainers- which is more people missing from the road. And when I say niche I still mean terrible, severe events we need to Learn from- but also almost the rarest instance. The danger of rare outlier calls is- even if I train you for them- they still catch you off guard. So your response can suck. If I see a thing once a year- and then I am blindsided 364 days later am I really going to rise up and meet the challenge like a stud?

Most divisional trainers do it as a part time function.

I have made the argument successfully that members need specialized training- in scenarios and mass exercise for critical incidents. And it’s slowly being rolled out in some districts. But training isn’t a panacea.

It is not weird for one of my people to be search and rescue trained, Ice rescue trained, wild land fire trained, child interview trained, be a school liaison, be on a community justice program, have court 5 days a month, carry several dozen active investigations (what they are actually supposed to be doing) EACH at any given time. They do their own court packages- something not regularly done, we do maintenance on trucks and boats, and several of them will also be training a new recruit.

This isn’t woe is me- this is the reality of an rcmp member. So these inquiries and news agencies always suggest that maybe it’s training: if it is there needs to be thousands more officers across the country like 25-30% overnight increase to staffing.

I had my own personal
Thoughts on that response. I still don’t understand a lot of that firehall stuff.

This meandering post was just because you caught my eye on the training thing- my question is when you say that (and in a genuine sense) - Which part of that event would you see addressed? Like is it the threat identification? Their carbine accuracy? The major event Response? What would it look like?

Thank you for the detailed response Booter. My response to what I would like to see addressed would be all of the above.

Looking at the event and how they themselves reacted, the three things I would focus on would be:

1. Threat Identification;
2. Tactical Movement/Thinking, particularly as it pertains to closing the distance, effects of fire in depth, etc;
3. Application of Marksmanship Principles with emphasis on Follow Through i.e. "Did it Hit? Did it Work?" and Scanning and Breathing.

I don't know what kind of training the RCMP does with Carbines, how frequently a patrol officer would need to recert on IARD training.

I can't imagine IARD training taught the Officers in question to speculatively fire their weapons at a suspect or react the way they did?

I am less concerned about their actions after the situation was concluded. I agree with their assessment that it wasn't the time to deal with hurt feelings.

I don't believe the Officer's need to be fired but they probably need a performance review of sorts with an action plan on how to do better. If they had actually killed or injured someone, we would be having a different conversation.

Regarding training and the RCMP, it seems like a classic case of too many demands, not enough resources. I don't even have a solution on how this gets fixed other than asking for more or reprioritization.

I think your solution of doing away with contract policing is probably the direction this needs to go.

 

[Booter]

1. Threat Identification;
2. Tactical Movement/Thinking, particularly as it pertains to closing the distance, effects of fire in depth, etc;
3. Application of Marksmanship Principles with emphasis on Follow Through i.e. "Did it Hit? Did it Work?" and Scanning and Breathing.

I don't know what kind of training the RCMP does with Carbines, how frequently a patrol officer would need to recert on IARD training.

I can't imagine IARD training taught the Officers in question to speculatively fire their weapons at a suspect or react the way they did?
I don't believe the Officer's need to be fired but they probably need a performance review of sorts with an action plan on how to do better. If they had actually killed or injured someone, we would be having a different conversation.

Regarding training and the RCMP, it seems like a classic case of too many demands, not enough resources. I don't even have a solution on how this gets fixed other than asking for more or reprioritization.

I think your solution of doing away with contract policing is probably the direction this needs to go.

So, the follow through is taught in a similar way- did it hit did it work- it had been taught exactly that way but it’s changed. Annually they would be exposed to that,

Threat identification is drilled in them in firearms- how to assess etc, it isn’t a heading in their training and recert books but conceptually it’s there,

The effect of fire portion is essentially missing, a few years ago we rolled out an outdoor portion of IARD- which had some gaps that instructors would fill with things like what you’re discussing, I also discuss those things with people. When these topics are discussed as a need- instructors will point at the tactical movement portion of the carbine recert and course but it’s a robotic exercise not one that lets you apply it in dynamic circumstance. It’s a gap.

IARD recert isn’t really a thing. It’s happening and we do it- and it’s proposed nationally. But it’s divisionally managed. It will eventually be a necessity

The action of tossing a few rounds at someone you suspect is going to kill people and not following up on those shots- is 100 percent contrary to their training, if that’s what happened. Just on the very surface examination for conversation sake

But one guys initiative forward is another guys planning phase so I’d really have to get down in the reeds.

Off but on topic, I wrote a report on a shooting event for court where the officers post shooting actions were used to explain things- so like the officer said “oh I was sure they were going to kill someone” but after discharging their firearm and missing- they just holstered up and left. Their actions after being completely divorced from the idea they actually believed someone was going to die. That officer isn’t employed anymore, and this is some time ago. Their actions after the fact would have been reviewed- and there are question there

You may not believe me- but of all the municipal police agencies I’ve trained with/ facilitated on carbine- the RCMP patrol carbine course is the most comprehensive. With many small to medium agencies doing only a qual that looks like a hunting rifle course of fire- five standing 100 yards etc.

I honestly believe- on your last paragraph, that were on the cusp of creating a new service that takes a variety of things from police. There will be a break where these things shear off. Some sortve specialized emergency social services/medical something.

I’m not smart, I just see it coming.

I am with you that these concepts need to be in greater circulation- like the tactical mindset, effect of fire, etc, and I also know the training side and the bottlenecks

My solution is to shift responsibility onto NCOs. They need to learn greater emergency command and control and stop moving into the office as soon as they are promoted,

An NCO course where they direct responses, expectations, plan contingincies. Decide if and why they need alerts etc.

Stop letting NCOs skate and be admin managers. These poor mfers having to take this call, look it in the eye alone while their NCOs argue about whether to inconvenience cell phone users and if they need a media release, I need chevrons on the scene OWNING this stuff

Get out. Get on the trigger. Lead. Direct. Assist.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Plenty of charges could be applied. Criminal Negligence, careless use of a firearm, I am sure there are others if they wished to go through the book.

At the end of the day they shot at literally nothing because they were scared. Not only that they put a bunch of innocent bystanders at risk. Identify your target and only shoot if the conditions have been met to do so. If this was military members in a foreign country it would be a war crime, why should we tolerate less from our own police. Bare minimum should be fired with cause.

 

[Booter]

Plenty of charges could be applied. Criminal Negligence, careless use of a firearm, I am sure there are others if they wished to go through the book.

At the end of the day they shot at literally nothing because they were scared. Not only that they put a bunch of innocent bystanders at risk. Identify your target and only shoot if the conditions have been met to do so. If this was military members in a foreign country it would be a war crime, why should we tolerate less from our own police. Bare minimum should be fired with cause.

Once again- it would be reviewed and prosecutors would decide not to charge. Don’t let facts effect your worldview though. It is possible they understand criminal charges in a way that you don’t.

I’m sure that they weren’t charged because of some conspiracy to protect the officers?

 

[Haggis]

At the end of the day they shot at literally nothing because they were scared.

That they were not charged shows they were able to successfully articulate why they fired and the Nova Scotia SiRT, a provincial investigative body, accepted that.

If this was military members in a foreign country it would be a war crime

Umm, no. It would definitely be a service offence, though.

To be clear, I don't agree with the outcome and I believe some form of decisive remedial action is warranted against those officers. But I wasn't there and I didn't do the investigation, so I'm going to trust those who did.

 

[KevinB]

Plenty of charges could be applied. Criminal Negligence, careless use of a firearm, I am sure there are others if they wished to go through the book.

Yes but you need to consider the moment in time. The officers saw a car that was matching the description of the suspect.

I don’t agree with their COA, but you need to understand the situation from their shoes too.

At the end of the day they shot at literally nothing because they were scared. Not only that they put a bunch of innocent bystanders at risk. Identify your target and only shoot if the conditions have been met to do so. If this was military members in a foreign country it would be a war crime, why should we tolerate less from our own police. Bare minimum should be fired with cause.

Are you seriously for real.
War Crime? Troops overseas fire weapons all the time based on the best information they have at the time - sometimes it turns out it was inaccurate informative.

Do I think they acted correctly - no, but I also understand what it’s like to be involved in a manhunt for an active shooter and have some very poor scene management going on / and a poor understanding of the revolving activities.

The big take away is going to be what sort of AAR was done, and from that what where the lessons learned to ensure this sort of boondoggle doesn’t occur with much worse results.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There was no reasonable excuse for shooting up that fire station. Fear is not an excuse.

It seems the material provides they made no attempt to identify and clarify the situation, instead chosing to open fire.

How they are able to maintain employment in a police service, or any armed occupation, after that is astonishing and if it isn't a sign of conspiracy and corruption it's a sign of organizational incompetence.

 

[Haggis]

There was no reasonable excuse for shooting up that fire station. Fear is not an excuse.

It seems the material provides they made no attempt to identify and clarify the situation, instead choosing to open fire.

The SiRT report states otherwise. They did identify themselves and order the subjects to show their hands. The one subject did not and appeared to be either fleeing or taking cover. So, the officers opened fire. Was this the right call? For them, and for SiRT, it was.

Was their marksmanship up to the task? Clearly not. And that, in this case, was a good thing.

 

[brihard]

They didn’t ‘shoot at nothing’. They had a pretty specific description of a threat, because one of the two officers had personally spoken with and collected info from the killer’s wife that morning. They were looking for a male in a replica police car wearing a yellow/orange safety vest. They encountered a male in a yellow/orange safety vest. When they called at him to show his hands he instead ducked and evaded.

Now, has this been a suspicious person call, that would be one thing. But what they knew about the behaviour of the suspect was that he had already killed many, had killed one officer and shot another, had firearms and had possibly acquired another firearm from the dead officer.

So they weren’t dealing with a suspicious person they had what they incorrectly, but reasonably, thought was their suspect. They had every reason to believe a failure to stop that suspect would result in more deaths.

Through an absolute bastard set of coincidences, they thought they were face to face with a mass killer and had every reason to believe he would try to kill them too. IARD training in fact includes a scenario where a positively IDed suspect ignores you completely and starts moving towards a new room with intent to kill. You have the knowledge that they have killed and likely intend to keep killing, and are moving towards new targets, and the training objective basically presents only one correct outcome- shoot them in the back as they calmly walk away from you, before they can get into a new room full of victims. So training had actually primed them for a portion of this set of circumstances.

I can’t speak to their level of proficiency with carbine. I’ll simply say that I would be astonished if they had ever had training where the target itself is moving. Few ranges offer that. In the real situation they had a target at a bit of a distance who ducked, used cover, and moved laterally. I bet most troops would miss as well, given the small number of shots fired. While they were aware of the fire station being a backstop, they were probably hyper focused on what they believed was the mass murderer presenting an immediate threat to their lives and the lives of others.

All in all it was a horrendous combination of circumstances and a complete nightmare. They had less time to decide than it will take you to read this sentence, and all of the observable and perceivable facts DID match the threat that they were hunting- and who they knew was actively hunting other victims. Had it been the guy and had they not shot, and had he entered the fireball and killed, you guys would be shitting all over them in this thread for not taking the shot.

A complete nightmare situation. Fortunately, they missed, and the officer in the car was able to emerge and explain the situation quickly. They then had to carry on hunting the active threat.

Nova Scotia’s SIRT does thorough and fair investigations, and the entirety of the full report is available for anyone here to download and read. I would encourage anyone participating in this thread to do so. They did not find the actions of the officers rose to a criminal threshold. Though they were mistaken in who they were shooting at, their actions, given the circumstances and the information available to them, were within the provision of the criminal code that allows for police to use deadly force.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The SiRT report states otherwise. They did identify themselves and order the subjects to show their hands. The one subject did not and appeared to be either fleeing or taking cover. So, the officers opened fire. Was this the right call? For them, and for SiRT, it was.

Was their marksmanship up to the task? Clearly not. And that, in this case, was a good thing.

Word games.

So they fired at someone (some people) who presented no aggression, no intent and no capability. Simply because the civilian(s) didn't react quick enough. Instead of keep the situation under control they went cowboy and sped away after with out even checking what they had done. Sounds very much to me like they did identify their target or investigate the situation.

Lets keep these guys as policemen! Sounds like they have the qualities we need.

Color me not surprised SiRT cleared these gentlemen.

 

[Halifax Tar]

They didn’t ‘shoot at nothing’. They had a pretty specific description of a threat, because one of the two officers had personally spoken with and collected info from the killer’s wife that morning. They were looking for a male in a replica police car wearing a yellow/orange safety vest. They encountered a male in a yellow/orange safety vest. When they called at him to show his hands he instead ducked and evaded.

Now, has this been a suspicious person call, that would be one thing. But what they knew about the behaviour of the suspect was that he had already killed many, had killed one officer and shot another, had firearms and had possibly acquired another firearm from the dead officer.

So they weren’t dealing with a suspicious person they had what they incorrectly, but reasonably, thought was their suspect. They had every reason to believe a failure to stop that suspect would result in more deaths.

Through an absolute bastard set of coincidences, they thought they were face to face with a mass killer and had every reason to believe he would try to kill them too. IARD training in fact includes a scenario where a positively IDed suspect ignores you completely and starts moving towards a new room with intent to kill. You have the knowledge that they have killed and likely intend to keep killing, and are moving towards new targets, and the training objective basically presents only one correct outcome- shoot them in the back as they calmly walk away from you, before they can get into a new room full of victims. So training had actually primed them for a portion of this set of circumstances.

I can’t speak to their level of proficiency with carbine. I’ll simply say that I would be astonished if they had ever had training where the target itself is moving. Few ranges offer that. In the real situation they had a target at a bit of a distance who ducked, used cover, and moved laterally. I bet most troops would miss as well, given the small number of shots fired. While they were aware of the fire station being a backstop, they were probably hyper focused on what they believed was the mass murderer presenting an immediate threat to their lives and the lives of others.

All in all it was a horrendous combination of circumstances and a complete nightmare. They had less time to decide than it will take you to read this sentence, and all of the observable and perceivable facts DID match the threat that they were hunting- and who they knew was actively hunting other victims. Had it been the guy and had they not shot, and had he entered the fireball and killed, you guys would be shitting all over them in this thread for not taking the shot.

A complete nightmare situation. Fortunately, they missed, and the officer in the car was able to emerge and explain the situation quickly. They then had to carry on hunting the active threat.

Nova Scotia’s SIRT does thorough and fair investigations, and the entirety of the full report is available for anyone here to download and read. I would encourage anyone participating in this thread to do so. They did not find the actions of the officers rose to a criminal threshold. Though they were mistaken in who they were shooting at, their actions, given the circumstances and the information available to them, were within the provision of the criminal code that allows for police to use deadly force.

I concur the circumstances were a complete nightmare. That does not absolve an absolute break down in ones ability to correctly identify a target.

These policemen take oaths and are paid large sums of tax money to wade towards the danger and be able to correctly operate under those conditions, if they are found wanting to such a level as this they should not longer carry a badge and gun.

I think there is conspiracy here around this couple of days; but I don't think its an attempt to hide evidence and circumstance of the killer, I think its a maneuver to try and protect the police forces credibility and probably individual careers.

 

[brihard]

I concur the circumstances were a complete nightmare. That does not absolve an absolute break down in ones ability to correctly identify a target.

These policemen take oaths and are paid large sums of tax money to wade towards the danger and be able to correctly operate under those conditions, if they are found wanting to such a level as this they should not longer carry a badge and gun.

I think there is conspiracy here around this couple of days; but I don't think its an attempt to hide evidence and circumstance of the killer, I think its a maneuver to try and protect the police forces credibility and probably individual careers.

There was no breakdown in ability. They had a white adult male wearing a coloured vest consistent with what was described, standing next to a police car consistent with what was described, they were unable to see the police officer belonging to said car, the person was in an area consistent with where they were hunting the shooter, and when confronted the individual did NOT behave in a compliant and safe way, but rather in a way consistent with trying to evade and/or access a weapon they had every reason to believe he would have had. You take these perceptions couple with the known risk - the last officer who pulled up close to the suspect got shot - and they had a handful of seconds to make a call. They followed their training the best they could, with the limited and shitty facts at hand.

Did it prove to be a mistake? Yes- but a very understandable and justifiable one in the circumstances. There were many other issues identified in the totality of this response, such as situational awareness, communications, etc. but circumstances conspired to put them in the worst possible position to make an immediate life or death decision. They did the best job they knew how, and any other police officer making the same decision in the same circumstances would likely have seen the independent review deem their actions not criminal.

You brought up some nonsense earlier about ‘war crimes’. I can guarantee you that Canadian soldiers shot at and killed people in Afghanistan with way fewer threat cues than this. You’re marching pretty hard on a wrong bearing here.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There was no breakdown in ability. They had a white adult male wearing a coloured vest consistent with what was described, standing next to a police car consistent with what was described, they were unable to see the police officer belonging to said car, the person was in an area consistent with where they were hunting the shooter, and when confronted the individual did NOT behave in a compliant and safe way, but rather in a way consistent with trying to evade and/or access a weapon they had every reason to believe he would have had. You take these perceptions couple with the known risk - the last officer who pulled up close to the suspect got shot - and they had a handful of seconds to make a call. They followed their training the best they could, with the limited and shitty facts at hand.

If that paragraph, to you, equates to open fire then we have vast space between us in our expectations of policing, and I would argue I expect more.

Did it prove to be a mistake? Yes- but a very understandable and justifiable one in the circumstances. There were many other issues identified in the totality of this response, such as situational awareness, communications, etc. but circumstances conspired to put them in the worst possible position to make an immediate life or death decision. They did the best job they knew how, and any other police officer making the same decision in the same circumstances would likely have seen the independent review deem their actions not criminal.

Mistakes at level should be career ending. If that's the best the could do then their best was lacking.

You brought up some nonsense earlier about ‘war crimes’. I can guarantee you that Canadian soldiers shot at and killed people in Afghanistan with way fewer threat cues than this. You’re marching pretty hard on a wrong bearing here.

I could make some snide comment here about irony and target identification but I'm sure you will correct your aim. That wasn't me.

Having said that if we acted like these cops on our CLPs in Afghanistan there would have been a ton of burning white Corollas and Hilux's for no reason. Intent, proximity and capability.

Wyatt Earp: “Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.”

 

[Jarnhamar]

I can guarantee you that Canadian soldiers shot at and killed people in Afghanistan with way fewer threat cues than this. You’re marching pretty hard on a wrong bearing here.

Basically if someone looked at us wrong if you're creative enough with the justification, depending on the year.

 

[brihard]

Wyatt Earp: “Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.”

Absolutely. Accuracy matters. Reality is, shooting at moving targets is training intensive and difficult to safely and effectively execute given the limitations of most shooting ranges. Again, I suspect most soldier would miss the first few shots too. As only five shots total were fired between the two officers, fortunately neither had the opportunity to really correct their point of aim.

Hitting the target is, of course, distinct from making a justified decision to take the shot in the first place. Glad to see we've moved on from that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Absolutely. Accuracy matters. Reality is, shooting at moving targets is training intensive and difficult to safely and effectively execute given the limitations of most shooting ranges. Again, I suspect most soldier would miss the first few shots too. As only five shots total were fired between the two officers, fortunately neither had the opportunity to really correct their point of aim.

Hitting the target is, of course, distinct from making a justified decision to take the shot in the first place. Glad to see we've moved on from that.

You should open up your quote in my reply there is more in there.

Accuracy doesn't begin at aiming a shot. It's begins at correctly identifying the right target. I don't care how accurate someone is, if they are shooting at the wrong target they are inaccurate.

So now we have incompetence in ability to identify the correct target and incompetence with service firearms... Thank go for the later.

Again how these officers continue to be employed by any Police service will forever dumbfound me.

 

[brihard]

You should open up your quote in my reply there is more in there.

Accuracy doesn't begin at aiming a shot. It's begins at correctly identifying the right target.

So now we have incompetence in ability to identify the correct target and incompetence with service firearms... Thank go for the later.

Again how these officers continue to be employed by any Police service will forever dumbfound me.

Apologies, I didn't see the orange quote replies.

Police use of force is not and cannot be measured to a standard of perfection, but rather to what is reasonable in the circumstances. That has been affirmed time and time again in court. These officers had exceptionally little time in the worst possible circumstances to make a decision. The factors they identified absolutely allowed for a justifiable use of deadly force. It proved in this case to be an incorrect interpretation of the facts, and it could have been a deadly one. Fortunately they missed. With that said, in such little time, with so many threat cues and factors matching the suspect to work with, their interpretation of the fact set was absolutely understandable and many if not most police officers would probably have made the same determination, whether or not they were then in that brief time able to translate that into action. This was not a break and enter suspect. This was a mass murderer who showed every ability and intent to continue to kill, and would shoot at and kill police to do so. The fact that, by cure coincidence, an innocent person almost perfectly matched the description they had of the suspect AND behaved in a dangerous way AND was corroborated by a marked police car is a terrible set of circumstances, but one they were still bound to act in. Again, had that been the shooter and they had not fired, I bet you would have been screaming bloody murder about that.

Whether or not you 'expect more' is immaterial. Nothing you've said suggests you're equipped by training or experience to make the kinds of determinations you're making those who are, and who HAVE had to make those determinations, have done so and have cleared them for their actions on that terrible day.

I could make some snide comment here about irony and target identification but I'm sure you will correct your aim. That wasn't me.

That was a total miss on my part. I was wrong and I'm sorry. That was @Eaglelord17 , not you.

Having said that if we acted like these cops on our CLPs in Afghanistan there would have been a ton of burning white Corollas and Hilux's for no reason. Intent, proximity and capability.

I did CLPs in Afghanistan too. Utterly different set of circumstances. Better analogy would be if there had been a series of firefights, several friendlies had already been killed, you had a description of a specific enemy and the vehicle they were last seen in, you encountered him and in a matter of a second or two he tried to take off when you challenged him.

"Intent' of the shooter was abundantly demonstrated already. All the evidence they had at hand was that the matching male they saw was that person. There is no expectation that the person be allowed to concretely demonstrate their intent in the moment, because the human reactionary gap means that's likely he gets the first shot off. The officer's reasonable perception of the threat and articulartion of what they reasonably expect the person's intent to be suffices.

"Proximity": Per the SIRT report, they were around 88 meters away. That's well within the dangerous distance of a believed active shooter with a firearm.

"Capability": All available information was that the suspect was capable of killing, and had done so repeatedly, including one police officer already killed and another injured. Per the SIRT report, one of the two officers who fired had been personally told by the suspect's wife that morning that he had "several rifles described as “guns like the military people have…the ones that are like thirty-two rounds”." Given that when they encountered the individual he was partly concealed behind the car, and was 80+ meters away, it would not be reasonable to expect them to know with certainty exactly what he had access to. In the circumstances, having already been given information that he was armed with at least one long gun, it would be reasonable to believe that that level of threat was still present.

The male was running towards the entrance of the fire hall when he was shot at. Given that they believed on reasonable grounds that the man they were shooting at was the mass murderer the entire province was hunting, and that he had been killing civilians and police right up to that point in time (he had killed three more in the past hour alone), it was reasonable to believe they they had to shoot to stop an imminent threat to life. I don't know what you imagine could have allowed them an opportunity to better determine their target in that situation with the limited time and considerable distance they had to work with.

Again, read the report.

 

[Booter]

Did this guy in the vest know it was someone dressed like a cop shooting people Brihard? And the cops thought this guy in a vest was out of place?

Is it possible that both the officers arriving and the guy guarding the Civis at the station behaved oddly- because of the circumstance, causing people to maybe read the lay of the land as being “off”?

We don’t shoot at people for behaving odd. But when you stack all of this on the back of the interaction it becomes more likely someone would make a mistake. Just conversation.

I’m trying to do Costco on Mother’s Day so I don’t have time to sit with the report.

edit it’s only 6 pages. I read it. That’s what it looks like.

 

[KevinB]

You should open up your quote in my reply there is more in there.

Accuracy doesn't begin at aiming a shot. It's begins at correctly identifying the right target. I don't care how accurate someone is, if they are shooting at the wrong target they are inaccurate.

So now we have incompetence in ability to identify the correct target and incompetence with service firearms... Thank go for the later.

Again how these officers continue to be employed by any Police service will forever dumbfound me.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

If you read the repeated comments above, you would see a reasonable person would be able to surmise that the targeted individual was potentially the shooter - and when they became evasive upon being ordered to show their hands, they became a target due to the situation.

Accuracy has nothing to do with PID - positive identification -
You can argue their PID was poor - but I belief that due to the moment in time there is a reasonableness to their engagement.

Their accuracy was atrocious, and the C2 of the sight was deplorable, as they didn’t know the car belonged to another officer.

There is a lot of fail to the situation- but you cannot judge based on the knowledge of hindsight.

 

[brihard]

Did this guy in the vest know it was someone dressed like a cop shooting people Brihard? And the cops thought this guy in a vest was out of place?

Is it possible that both the officers arriving and the guy guarding the Civis at the station behaved oddly- because of the circumstance, causing people to maybe read the lay of the land as being “off”?

We don’t shoot at people for behaving odd. But when you stack all of this on the back of the interaction it becomes more likely someone would make a mistake. Just conversation.

I’m trying to do Costco on Mother’s Day so I don’t have time to sit with the report.

edit it’s only 6 pages. I read it. That’s what it looks like.

Oh for sure. The actions of the guy in the vest are totally understandable. What he knows is he’s talking to a cop in a cop car, the situation is utterly fucked (he probably knows much less than officers do), and suddenly a civilian car rolls up and two guys with rifles get out nearly 100m away and start yelling at him. No doubt he was spooked. Totally reasonable on his part. That said, none of that feeds the knowledge or reasonable perceptions of the officers. They didn’t know they had another cop on scene, comms were jammed up, and the guy looked, acted, and was situated consistent with a mass shooter who posed an active threat of killing. To them it probably looked like they had caught the shooter dismounting to go wipe out the occupants of the firehall, and then he ran towards the entrance.

I feel for the guy and I hope he gets a good payout in compensation. He deserves it. But not because what they did was unreasonable.