2 minutes ago, Hastings said:

Boy.

lmao I give up... Conclusions, sources, all the bullshit doesn't help or change reality. Russia can do whatever the fuck they want, same with everyone else and their policies but let's face it. The majority of the people who make these policies aren't the ones in the actual situations. Officers can and will do what they think is appropriate. Even if that means they might lose their job, and respect because they did "something wrong" in the eyes of society.

I review back to a bodycam of a couple of officers trying to subdue a suspect who was high as a kite inside his mother's vehicle and were on the side of a highway... The officers tried tasing him, and he grabbed one of the officers taser (Which in itself is a deadly force authorization) but there was a couple of officers so they just kept trying to fight him and take him into custody. He ended up dying at the scene (The family sues the officers saying their taser is the reason he died) and still on scene, and the bodycam rolling he's trying to explain to his sergeant or whoever was in command what happened and while doing so he got mad cause he kept saying he's fucked, he's going to be fired, his life is over. 

Personally, I think the kid died cause he used laced weed and that's probably why he died.

 

2 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

lmao I give up... Conclusions, sources, all the bullshit doesn't help or change reality. Russia can do whatever the fuck they want, same with everyone else and their policies

Hastings was just saying (but correct me if I'm wrong dude) that US cops should be more trained to use their firearm efficiently in non-lethal ways, just like Albo suggested they should be trained in using other means than their gun to take down a suspect. That's all they said. All you can reply to that is "bullshit", "do whatever the fuck you want", and other rude comments on top of trying to belittle people personally instead of discussing their arguments. I truly wonder why you even created this topic in the first place if you had this state of mind to begin with.

 

2 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

The majority of the people who make these policies aren't the ones in the actual situations. Officers can and will do what they think is appropriate. Even if that means they might lose their job, and respect because they did "something wrong" in the eyes of society.

Just like any other policy really. Does that mean everyone should do whatever they want just because they think it's appropriate? Nope. That's how the world is made. Policies are written for people to follow their loose or not-so-loose guideline. For example, this forum has guidelines (let's call them policies). They've been written by moderators. Often, I broke them, intentionally, because I considered it was appropriate. And occasionally, I get warned because I transgressed them. Does that mean I still was right to break the guidelines because I, and only I thought it was appropriate? No, I was wrong, that's all.

Edited May 25, 20169 yr by Hystery

27 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Just like any other policy really. Does that mean everyone should do whatever they want just because they think it's appropriate? Nope. That's how the world is made. Policies are written for people to follow their loose or not-so-loose guideline. For example, this forum has guidelines (let's call them policies). They've been written by moderators. Often, I broke them, intentionally, because I consider it's appropriate. And occasionally, I get warned because I transgressed them. Does that mean I still was right to break the guidelines because I, and only I thought it was appropriate? No, I was wrong, that's all.

Policies differ. The majority of them for policing (Hints what I'm trying to get at. Policing policies, not a LCPDFR website) aren't good for the officers who have to abide by them. I do ride alongs with officers who have to deal with those policies. The most annoying policies we have to deal with is that we can't get involved in pursuits unless it's a felony or threat to the citizens. Policies can be both good & bad. Some are dangerous for the officers while others may help. Some policies say you can't use your taser unless you're more than 15 feet away and are trained on it and blah blah blah. 

And I made this thread as a way to vent but mostly to show a video I saw and talk shit on the suspect. Hints "Law Enforcement, Current Events & Society" 

I try not to go "After people personally" but it happens. Sorry, well kinda sorry.

3 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

Policies differ. The majority of them for policing (Hints what I'm trying to get at. Policing policies, not a LCPDFR website) aren't good for the officers who have to abide by them. I do ride alongs with officers who have to deal with those policies. The most annoying policies we have to deal with is that we can't get involved in pursuits unless it's a felony or threat to the citizens. Policies can be both good & bad. Some are dangerous for the officers while others may help. Some policies say you can't use your taser unless you're more than 15 feet away and are trained on it and blah blah blah. 

And I made this thread as a way to vent but mostly to show a video I saw and talk shit on the suspect. Hints "Law Enforcement, Current Events & Society" 

Bolded stuff definitely is another attempt to belittle someone instead of addressing their points. By saying that, you're implying I'm not intelligent enough to notice where this thread was posted nor what it is about. And then you say:

4 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

I try not to go "After people personally" but it happens. Sorry, well kinda sorry.

C'mon.

I'm aware this is about policing policies, and not a LCPDFR website, what I made was an analogy. Just because policies sometimes don't fit a certain situation doesn't mean they should be ignored as a whole, and doesn't automatically give you the right to do so. With that being said, I'll close this parenthesis on my end because I fail to see how it is related to what was discussed above, namely the use of non-lethal ways instead of going out all OK Corral style as if it was the 1800's.

2 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I'm aware this is about policing policies, and not a LCPDFR website, what I made was an analogy. Just because policies sometimes don't fit a certain situation doesn't mean they should be ignored as a whole, and doesn't automatically give you the right to do so. With that being said, I'll close this parenthesis on my end because I fail to see how it is related to what was discussed above, namely the use of non-lethal ways instead of going out all OK Corral style as if it was the 1800's.

lol I don't even really understand why or how we got to this point... But oh well. I'm not replying anymore. Talk to you later bud.

56 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 For example, this forum has guidelines (let's call them policies). They've been written by moderators. Often, I broke them, intentionally, because I consider it's appropriate. And occasionally, I get warned because I transgressed them. Does that mean I still was right to break the guidelines because I, and only I thought it was appropriate? No, I was wrong, that's all.

I really like how you used this as an example. An entire discussion can be had on this itself. 

4 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

lmao I give up... Conclusions, sources, all the bullshit doesn't help or change reality. Russia can do whatever the fuck they want, same with everyone else and their policies but let's face it. The majority of the people who make these policies aren't the ones in the actual situations. Officers can and will do what they think is appropriate. Even if that means they might lose their job, and respect because they did "something wrong" in the eyes of society.

Reality is you can't do something because you are poorly trained, but instead of admitting this you sorta go 10-year-old here and scream in anger. I thought you do have some knowledge and/or experience on topic, hence I tried to explain my thoughts. Clearly, my opinion was wrong. Someone who can't cope with a different opinion on the Internet, can't possibly have anything to do with the profession that involves interactions with real people. Au revoir. 

On 5/20/2016 at 0:16 PM, Hystery said:

Honestly... it's not that violent. I mean, this kind of thing is more common than you think, don't get all upset over it like that.

Really? Have you ever had your ass beat and put in a choke hold? It is pretty violent and very scary. And why shouldn't we be upset that a police officer doing his job was nearly killed? I understand it is part of the job but that doesn't make it okay or any less upsetting. You claim your father is a police officer. Are you saying it wouldn't be upsetting to see a video of your father nearly being killed by someone?

On 5/21/2016 at 0:26 PM, Hystery said:

Well, it's not a matter of agreeing, but a matter of accepting some facts when they're presented to you. You say policing was easier and safer 20 or 30 years ago? Alright. 20 to 30 years ago, I guess you imply that policing was easier in the 70s, 80s and 90s, for various reasons. Let's take a look at a very, very simple list, shall we? The list of the fallen officers in the LAPD. Considering it's a city with a high crime rate and high population, it should mean officers are in great danger.

Between 1970 and 1979, 16 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Between 1980 and 1989, 20 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Between 1990 and 1999, 15 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Between 2000 and 2009, 7 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Between 2010 and 2016, 3 officers were killed in the line of duty.

Simple numbers, simple facts. As you can see, policing was NOT safer or easier in the past for various reasons and variables, and it IS safer and easier nowadays, for an equal number of reasons and variables.

Looking at one statistic from one police department? That is a pretty small sample size considering you are making a claim about policing as a whole in the US. You mention there are many variables but then don't mention those variables or talk about how they effect your statistics.

On 5/25/2016 at 5:40 PM, Hastings said:

Well, as a standard procedure Russian police is trained to shoot tires of a moving vehicle from a moving vehicle. They also are trained to shoot limbs to minimize the damage to suspects, and they do it quite often, facing subjects armed with axes and/or multiple unarmed suspects. Part of my training during army firearms course also involved less lethal firearms usage. Standard Russian army and police firearms are 9mm Makarov pistol and AK74SU. My point is that if in your country that isn't done it doesn't mean it's impossible.

I have heard you make this claim many times on this forum, so many times that I am interested in seeing evidence of this. I am not trying to say you are a liar but as someone who has a decent amount of firearms training himself from various different sources I have met few people who can make these kinds of shots on moving targets who are trying to attack them. Not saying it can't be done, just saying I have not met too many people or seen too many instances where it actually happened. Who knows, maybe Russian police just have so much training that they are super badass special forces snipers.

On 5/25/2016 at 7:34 PM, Hystery said:

Hastings was just saying (but correct me if I'm wrong dude) that US cops should be more trained to use their firearm efficiently in non-lethal ways

The problem is that firearms are lethal weapons and I was trained that you don't point your firearm at something if you don't intend to shoot and you don't shoot something if you don't intend to kill it. What happens when someone is holding a baseball bat and the police decide "well I'm just going to shoot him in the arm so I don't have to kill him" then when they take the shot they miss and end up killing him? Are they going to be held liable? And if so why? They didn't intend to shoot him in the chest and kill him, they were doing their best to try and take him alive. My point is you shouldn't shoot someone unless you are willing to take the chance that they might die as a result, so if your intention is to use a less-lethal tactic/tool of taking a suspect into custody then a firearm should not be used at all.

Edited May 29, 20169 yr by l3ubba

1 hour ago, l3ubba said:

Really? Have you ever had your ass beat and put in a choke hold? It is pretty violent and very scary. And why shouldn't we be upset that a police officer doing his job was nearly killed? I understand it is part of the job but that doesn't make it okay or any less upsetting. You claim your father is a police officer. Are you saying it wouldn't be upsetting to see a video of your father nearly being killed by someone?

There's upset and upset. There's upset as in showing that we disagree with what is showed to us, and there's upset as in starting to insult people who have a divergent opinion like it's been the case on this thread. No, I wouldn't be upset, simply because I can make the difference between facts and my personal feelings.

1 hour ago, l3ubba said:

Looking at one statistic from one police department? That is a pretty small sample size considering you are making a claim about policing as a whole in the US. You mention there are many variables but then don't mention those variables or talk about how they effect your statistics.

The OP claimed policing was less dangerous in the past, without even mentioning a single department nor example, but it didn't seem to bother you. However, me using one real life example to prove my point seems to indeed bother you. Either you've double standards, or you just decided to be picky on stuff depending if you agree with it or not. As for variables, there are medicine progress (someone getting shot is less likely to die than in the past thanks to fast EMS response and surgery), better tactics, better organization between officers, better tools (better dispatch, centralized database accessible through computer, tasers, pepper spray, etc). And the list goes on. I didn't bother mentioning them because I thought they were pretty obvious, but here you go.

1 hour ago, l3ubba said:

The problem is that firearms are lethal weapons and I was trained that you don't point your firearm at something if you don't intend to shoot and you don't shoot something if you don't intend to kill it. What happens when someone is holding a baseball bat and the police decide "well I'm just going to shoot him in the arm so I don't have to kill him" then when they take the shot they miss and end up killing him? Are they going to be held liable? And if so why? They didn't intend to shoot him in the chest and kill him, they were doing their best to try and take him alive. My point is you shouldn't shoot someone unless you are willing to take the chance that they might die as a result, so if your intention is to use a less-lethal tactic/tool of taking a suspect into custody then a firearm should not be used at all.

Hence the use of different weapons was mentioned in this thread such as tasers. Bean bags weapons could also be a possibility.

Edited May 29, 20169 yr by Hystery

1 hour ago, l3ubba said:

I have heard you make this claim many times on this forum, so many times that I am interested in seeing evidence of this. I am not trying to say you are a liar but as someone who has a decent amount of firearms training himself from various different sources I have met few people who can make these kinds of shots on moving targets who are trying to attack them. Not saying it can't be done, just saying I have not met too many people or seen too many instances where it actually happened. Who knows, maybe Russian police just have so much training that they are super badass special forces snipers.

Yes, they receive training. No, they usually are not super badass whatever. 

With regard to the proofs here's what I got: for the drive-buy I can offer you actual dashcam pursuit recordings. If memory serves me correctly I offered those before but you turned the offer down with a wonderful 'I don't care what is in those videos it doesn't prove anything'. 

Under the Federal Law "On Police", article 19, a police officer must, while using a firearm, cause as little harm to the suspect as possible. Under Art. 23 a police officer has no right to shoot to kill while dealing with certain suspects but can use the weapon otherwise. 

Pursuant to the said law has been adopted a firearms training manual for the Internal Affairs personnel by the order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs dated 11.09.2000, with a detailed description of handgun exercises No. 8 (requires to hit a moving target from a moving vehicle), No. 10 (requires to hit an arm with the weapon of a target). It's in Russian, of course. I don't think you would trust my translation but surely there must be a person around you who can translate this. 

http://www.alppp.ru/law/bezopasnost-i-ohrana-pravoporjadka/29/prikaz-mvd-rf-ot-11-09-2000--955.pdf

And of course there are plenty of news articles describing how police officers use firearms to hit limbs. But for some reason I already am sure you would dismiss all of it. I wonder why is it so hard to believe somewhere people might do things differently. 

Edited May 29, 20169 yr by Hastings

3 hours ago, Hastings said:

I wonder why is it so hard to believe somewhere people might do things differently. 

Not even that people might do things differently, but that it actually might... *gasp*... work?!

4 hours ago, Hystery said:

Not even that people might do things differently, but that it actually might... *gasp*... work?!

That's the kind of shit I get pissed about. Officers being injured, and killed. I went after you personally. Oh fucking well. 

7 hours ago, Hystery said:

Hence the use of different weapons was mentioned in this thread such as tasers. Bean bags weapons could also be a possibility.

P.S. Have you ever used either? A taser or a bean bag? There's also policies (Yes. I said policies, like you've mentioned before also) that dictates an officer can not use either unless a certain distance, and can only use it in certain situations. Bean bags guns can't be used unless you're more than 15 feet or else it'd be considered a deadly weapon (I've shot those suckers, and trust me. They'll take the sand out of a shooting target) and tasers. Most shoot once at a time, and then you also have to hope it works on the person and doesn't get stuck on their clothing cause if it does you're fucked. Same concept for if they're close-by. You gotta hope for the best. And in alot of these REAL situations officers have to deal with. Hoping ain't gonna do shit but get you injured or killed. 

https://www.facebook.com/305421646274244/videos/606058762877196/

Or perhaps he should of used a taser before it started. Tasers make the world safer right? Prevent serious crime from happening?

6 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

I went after you personally. Oh fucking well. 

That's really not a healthy attitude to have on here. It creates a bad atmosphere. Could you at least try and be a little civil and empathetic? Part of debating is understanding where the other side is coming from, and to be quite honest you're simply coming across as immature and less people are going to take you seriously. I'm all for having a healthy debate but your attitude makes me realize that the majority of debates on here are with 12 year old mindsets.

You raise some good points, but you ruin it with your attitude. If you weren't being such a fool I might have even chimed in and supported your statements.

Edited May 30, 20169 yr by AlconH

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

There's upset and upset. There's upset as in showing that we disagree with what is showed to us, and there's upset as in starting to insult people who have a divergent opinion like it's been the case on this thread. No, I wouldn't be upset, simply because I can make the difference between facts and my personal feelings.

The OP claimed policing was less dangerous in the past, without even mentioning a single department nor example, but it didn't seem to bother you. However, me using one real life example to prove my point seems to indeed bother you. Either you've double standards, or you just decided to be picky on stuff depending if you agree with it or not. As for variables, there are medicine progress (someone getting shot is less likely to die than in the past thanks to fast EMS response and surgery), better tactics, better organization between officers, better tools (better dispatch, centralized database accessible through computer, tasers, pepper spray, etc). And the list goes on. I didn't bother mentioning them because I thought they were pretty obvious, but here you go.

Hence the use of different weapons was mentioned in this thread such as tasers. Bean bags weapons could also be a possibility.

The video upsets me because I have close friends who are police officers, some of which I consider brothers and sisters and I know if that was a video of them nearly getting killed I would be pretty upset. It is about having empathy for a human being. As for the insults thrown around on this thread I haven't paid much attention to them because they are just a waste of time.

If I am honest I didn't read through every single post on this thread. I skimmed through and your post stuck out to me because it had statistics and numbers, something that catches my eye. Is that fair on my part, no and I will admit that I was wrong. I don't like it when anyone, regardless of whether or not I agree with their side of the argument, throws around "facts" without having anything to back it up.

13 hours ago, Hystery said:

Not even that people might do things differently, but that it actually might... *gasp*... work?!

That being said, I like the uncalled for sarcastic response. I thought we were having a civilized conversation and I don't think anything I wrote warranted that kind of response. If this is the road this conversation is going down then I am going to step away.

16 hours ago, Hastings said:

Yes, they receive training. No, they usually are not super badass whatever. 

With regard to the proofs here's what I got: for the drive-buy I can offer you actual dashcam pursuit recordings. If memory serves me correctly I offered those before but you turned the offer down with a wonderful 'I don't care what is in those videos it doesn't prove anything'. 

Under the Federal Law "On Police", article 19, a police officer must, while using a firearm, cause as little harm to the suspect as possible. Under Art. 23 a police officer has no right to shoot to kill while dealing with certain suspects but can use the weapon otherwise. 

Pursuant to the said law has been adopted a firearms training manual for the Internal Affairs personnel by the order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs dated 11.09.2000, with a detailed description of handgun exercises No. 8 (requires to hit a moving target from a moving vehicle), No. 10 (requires to hit an arm with the weapon of a target). It's in Russian, of course. I don't think you would trust my translation but surely there must be a person around you who can translate this. 

http://www.alppp.ru/law/bezopasnost-i-ohrana-pravoporjadka/29/prikaz-mvd-rf-ot-11-09-2000--955.pdf

And of course there are plenty of news articles describing how police officers use firearms to hit limbs. But for some reason I already am sure you would dismiss all of it. I wonder why is it so hard to believe somewhere people might do things differently. 

I don't recall saying that or the context in which it was said however I did read the document you linked and I found the sections you were talking about in regards to training. Law enforcement is a subject that interests me and I enjoy studying how different agencies (both foreign and domestic) train and employ different tactics and if I had a better way of translating all 96 pages of that document than cutting and pasting everything piece by piece into Google Translate I would be interested in reading the rest of it.

The only reason I would dismiss news articles is because the news only focuses on stories that get them ratings and/or fits their agenda. While a police officer shooting a weapon out of someone's hand might be a great story one week the next week there could be a more major story that people care more about. Not to mention that if something is common practice and done frequently the media doesn't usually report on it. How many stories do you hear about a police officer investigating a routine shoplifting from a Walmart? Hardly ever right? And if you do it is usually because something bizarre or crazy happened during the call. I'm not saying that media reports don't mean anything, just saying that I rarely trust them as my sole piece of evidence.

I am a very skeptical person and it is nothing personal towards you so I wouldn't take it that way. I am used to being lied to almost on a daily basis so I like to verify things for myself. I can understand how that can be a little irritating especially when it is a subject that you might know a lot about, I know I get irritated when I tell someone something that I know is a fact and they continue to question me but that is just who I am and it is difficult for me to change that.

1 hour ago, l3ubba said:

I don't recall saying that or the context in which it was said however I did read the document you linked and I found the sections you were talking about in regards to training. Law enforcement is a subject that interests me and I enjoy studying how different agencies (both foreign and domestic) train and employ different tactics and if I had a better way of translating all 96 pages of that document than cutting and pasting everything piece by piece into Google Translate I would be interested in reading the rest of it.

The only reason I would dismiss news articles is because the news only focuses on stories that get them ratings and/or fits their agenda. While a police officer shooting a weapon out of someone's hand might be a great story one week the next week there could be a more major story that people care more about. Not to mention that if something is common practice and done frequently the media doesn't usually report on it. How many stories do you hear about a police officer investigating a routine shoplifting from a Walmart? Hardly ever right? And if you do it is usually because something bizarre or crazy happened during the call. I'm not saying that media reports don't mean anything, just saying that I rarely trust them as my sole piece of evidence.

I am a very skeptical person and it is nothing personal towards you so I wouldn't take it that way. I am used to being lied to almost on a daily basis so I like to verify things for myself. I can understand how that can be a little irritating especially when it is a subject that you might know a lot about, I know I get irritated when I tell someone something that I know is a fact and they continue to question me but that is just who I am and it is difficult for me to change that.

I think I can look it up, it wasn't that long ago. It'll just have to wait till the end of my shift.

News articles can hardly be a source of any reliable info on their own, I would never argue with this. But I'm honestly out of options with proofs here, taking the language barrier into account. The only way I see it is I firstly provide you with the legal background and afterwards with its practical implementation reflected in videos and news. Please keep in mind that police training only 26 years ago was a state secret, and they are still reluctant to make public too many info. Even the document I linked is for internal use only (that is why I didn't link the latest version, it was amended in 2013 when militsya became police). If you can think of more convincing proofs I would do my best to provide them.

Just to clarify one more time: I'm not trying to say some police force is more qualified than other, or tell how American police should do their job (at least since our crime rates are not in Russia's favor). I deeply respect American police and don't think that I would be qualified to do the job they do.

5 hours ago, AlconH said:

I'm all for having a healthy debate but your attitude makes me realize that the majority of debates on here are with 12 year old mindsets.

You raise some good points, but you ruin it with your attitude. If you weren't being such a fool I might have even chimed in and supported your statements.

That's the thing though... The whole reason I created this thread was to share a video that shows an officer being beaten. It wasn't to debate use of force or anything else. 

I'm a rage-full guy. I don't have a stress reliever and so whenever I get mad, if I get mad, Lots of it comes rushing out. I've tried doing stuff to try and ease out the stress and rage but nothing really works or atleast I don't have much access to stuff seeing as I can't drive. 

7 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

That's the thing though... The whole reason I created this thread was to share a video that shows an officer being beaten. It wasn't to debate use of force or anything else. 

Then don't have the debate. You're choosing to respond in that manner. No one is forcing you to.

8 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

I'm a rage-full guy. I don't have a stress reliever and so whenever I get mad, if I get mad, Lots of it comes rushing out. I've tried doing stuff to try and ease out the stress and rage but nothing really works or atleast I don't have much access to stuff seeing as I can't drive. 

Doesn't really excuse you from being civil and mature though, that's part of adult life. If you can't handle it, don't respond.

39 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

I'm a rage-full guy. I don't have a stress reliever and so whenever I get mad, if I get mad, Lots of it comes rushing out. I've tried doing stuff to try and ease out the stress and rage but nothing really works or atleast I don't have much access to stuff seeing as I can't drive. 

Im sorry, you what?

Earlier in this very thread you claimed to be persuing a career with the police after trying fire and ambulance services first, which sounded odd anyway. I sincerely hope you reconsider if you are a 'rage-full guy'. That is NOT a good trait for a police officer at all, especially the way you just described it in your own words.

And by the rest of that comment in the quote, i dont think you actually are as actively persuing a career in the emergency services as you say you cant drive!? In the uk all services require you to hold a full driving licence, from a quick search it seems very much the same in america. 

That brings into question alot of what you have stated. 

I hope you get the help you need for your rage but please, stop with the ridiculous arguing for the sake of it in this thread mate.

3 hours ago, Hastings said:

I think I can look it up, it wasn't that long ago. It'll just have to wait till the end of my shift.

News articles can hardly be a source of any reliable info on their own, I would never argue with this. But I'm honestly out of options with proofs here, taking the language barrier into account. The only way I see it is I firstly provide you with the legal background and afterwards with its practical implementation reflected in videos and news. Please keep in mind that police training only 26 years ago was a state secret, and they are still reluctant to make public too many info. Even the document I linked is for internal use only (that is why I didn't link the latest version, it was amended in 2013 when militsya became police). If you can think of more convincing proofs I would do my best to provide them.

Just to clarify one more time: I'm not trying to say some police force is more qualified than other, or tell how American police should do their job (at least since our crime rates are not in Russia's favor). I deeply respect American police and don't think that I would be qualified to do the job they do.

I'm not saying that I didn't say it I just can't recall it and don't know what the context in which I said it was (and my opinion on whatever we were talking about back then might have changed).

I understand the difficulty, Russia still isn't the greatest when it comes to Freedom of Information. I probably will never fully understand it because I do not live in Russia and I don't know or work with any Russian police officers. I also understand you are not trying to dictate the way American police do things or say that Russian police are better nor am I trying to dismiss alternative tactics. I am just trying to learn about other police tactics and educate people on the way things are done in the US and why they are done that way.

Edited May 30, 20169 yr by l3ubba

4 hours ago, l3ubba said:

I understand the difficulty, Russia still isn't the greatest when it comes to Freedom of Information. I probably will never fully understand it because I do not live in Russia and I don't know or work with any Russian police officers. I also understand you are not trying to dictate the way American police do things or say that Russian police are better nor am I trying to dismiss alternative tactics. I am just trying to learn about other police tactics and educate people on the way things are done in the US and why they are done that way.

That's what I want to do as well. I'm interested in foreign policing and the US probably maintains one of the most interestingly organized police in the world. I only recently engaged in conversations with actual LEOs and realised how little I actually knew about the topic. 

In case you're interested here are some videos for you -- all official videos released by the MIA. They all show the drive-by technique, and I'm yet to find a good shooting footage. Russian police doesn't have bodycams and usually all other recordings are seized as evidence.

00:58 you can clearly see sparkles from bullet hits. 

 

Here on 07:37 you can see the officer in the far left car shooting tires of the white van, and as shown later, quite successfully. 

 

This is not Russia, it either Georgia or Armenia, I'm not sure. On 03:17 you can see the officer shooting the tires (All post-USSR countries generally have the same police training standards except those that are in the EU now)

 

[/spoiler[