Inside London's Armed Police Force - Marine reacts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 бер 2024
- With such an important mission in this high profile area, being an armed police officer is certain to be an incredibly stressful job given the level of scrutiny and discernment needed
Original video: • Inside MET police fire...
👍 Support the Channel and Get Access to Extra Content:
/ combatarmschannel
😎 Shorts Channel:
/ @cacshorts
💻 DISCORD SERVER: / discord
👚 MERCH:
www.redbubble.com/people/Comb...
💡 Have any other dope military videos you'd like me to check out? Feel free to comment and let me know!
🤙 Thanks for watching, commenting and supporting the channel!
👋 Background info on myself: I am a prior Marine infantryman currently serving in the Army. I've been through specialized Close Quarter Battle training, security guard training, subterranean warfare course, urban surveillance training, foreign weapons training, helicopter insert/extract master, as well as numerous training with other militaries and their equipment.
Instagram: / combat_arms_media
#england #metpolice #london
The instructor isn’t telling the reporter the guy holding the gun was a student, he’s playing devils advocate. Asking the reporter about his thought process, seeing if he had noticed the students behind cowering and so on. He’s doing the training scenarios just like an officer would.
Yeah it seems they run the entire line of policing along with their firearms training. Firearms, medical, and then the legal aspect. These are just the questions a defense or civil attorney is going to ask. I kind of like this style of training.
Unfortunately prosecutions of armed officers are common and they are ultimately accountable. However the judge of hindsight is always helpful and this is why they all handed in their blue tickets. They are trained to assess the situation but sometimes they make the ‘wrong’ call and will have to answer for it. Sad state of affairs
Except the jury are the ones that ultimately decide their guilt. And they almost ALWAYS find them not guilty. I've yet to ever hear of a firearms officer who genuinely shot someone fearing for his safety or the safety of another and was then convicted of murder and imprisoned.... @@simonglogiewicz2425
Also it's not a war / combat, you're job is to save people, help them. Yes, shoot to neutralise but never shoot to kill. Disarming and neutralising but not killing. My grand father was a military police (they operate in the countryside in France) and he said the very same thing to me
Like the instructor said the moment the gun left his hand he was no longer a threat to life, so shooting him again is illegal. Its the same in war, except under certain circumstances, well unless you're American, you can commit all sorts of war crimes because America hasn't signed up to the conventions most other Western countries have.
The instructor is raising the sort of issues that the "independent" investigators bring up or are put to officers in the courts.
Remember this is UK civilian law enforcement not the US Military.
Believe me, the IOPC are anything but independant, they make a living out of trying to sack officers who make any little mistake or one bad judgement!
Hardly exactly a model authority themselves - they were in court last year and had to pay compensation of £96,000 to 6 police officers who spent 7 YEARS under investigation.... restricted, can't move departments, no driving courses, no firearms courses, no extra training, all in case you get "sacked"... nothing but restricted and sat behind a desk for 7 years because of the IOPC.
He’s just highlighting 1001 things police officers go through in a split second and for the journalist to justify his actions
Last year a man in the US was killed while holding a gun on a suspect. Mistaken identity unfortunately but it goes to show why this training is necessary
@@Horizon301. also he says what why just go in tunnel vision do the job listen it’s not the army it’s police and most off these officers would have been on the army already .
There are laws and they are very tough and they understand different angles as it happens so much .
USA has killed many people because of their kill them till they dead tactic .
That’s how you loose information , preservation of life is important.
Uk sas kill everyone and leave 1 to answer for intel .
These guys are trained by professionals not American fools
This is what our laws are like, UK armed police don't shoot to kill, they cannot continue shooting if the suspect no longer has the weapon.
It’s the same in the US…all about eliminating the threat with the required force
@@fod1855 yeh it's just that in the US the police don't tend to stick to those laws.
@@fod1855 Doesn't seem that way lol, your officers seem to mag dump everyone until they are dead.
@@Owen7070the US police don't stick the the laws because of the whole qualified immunity doctrine....
We don't have that here in the UK.
They have to be completely responsible for their actions and prepared to explain their reasoning to a jury if necessary. It's then up to said jury to decide if their actions were reasonable and proportionate...
It's very rare that they are ever found guilty of murder in such circumstances although manslaughter convictions are more common
@@Owen7070 To be fair the laws are retarded
if you read a headline having not seen the video "Officer shoots kid 6 times after he dropped gun" it sounds really bad and I think that's what the instructor was trying to explain after a police shooting everyone has an angle and will pick up anything that makes it sound unjustified or excessive.
I think there is a difference in approach between the US and Europe.
In the US police will fire until the bad guy stops moving.
In Europe police will try use just enough force to stop the bad guy and then keep him alive to bring him to justice.
Dead men dont sue...and live prisoners pay for crime when death is an easy way out.
No the police in the US want to bring the bad guy in to face justice as well. The police here much like what Mr. CAC was saying is police in the US are trained to use an escalation of force until the threat is neutralized, not just shoot first ask questions later.
And then they get let go by the prosecutor
Another person that thinks American cops only want to kill. Why do you people think this way?
that is why you aren't a cop. you're a soldier.
European police (generally speaking) when facing an armed suspect will resort to using a firearm if the situation calls for it, but they will try not to kill the suspect. European polie will NEVER EVER EVER EVER shoot a suspect that is already down "just to be sure" unless they see that the suspect is still actively trying to harm people. You dont empty another six rounds into a suspect that is already down, that would be disgusting and murder.
it would’ve been murder because as the police officer said, he shot him in the back , didn’t announce anything and before even confirming the suspect still had the gun he then shot him on the ground 6 more times, pretty much overkill and the gun had obviously flown out of his hand when he hit the floor after the first shot
Shot placement and and announcements are pretty irrelevant to how reasonable that use of force is
There are still mitigating factors why all that happened though, all the unseen things in the guys waistband, pockets, strapped to his chest. Those are all things that a police officer has to take into account too,not just what can be seen.
He was asked why he kept shooting and journalist said, "I wanted to make sure he was dead." It sucks but in the eyes of the law that's tantamount to a confession of intent to commit murder. Shooting an unarmed, unresponsive subject is almost impossible to justify. That was probably the worst answer he could've given. UK police should never shoot to kill. We definitely hold ourselves to higher standards than rest of the world.
@@Loroths So shoot to do what then? Injure?
@@JustMeHere359 well...yeah? I'm no expert in police training or anything but they try to neutralise the target. That doesn't mean kill. There's a heavy preference in not killing them. That's how the UK is these days. It is rare but occasionally deaths do occur, and then the poor police sod who pulled the trigger faces years of scrutiny and inquests, potential murder charge. It's just not worth it for them.
Uk law puts British police officers under tight scrutiny.
The discharge of a firearm by a trained officer could lead to a court case.
If that officer has been found innocent, then the officer has to go through police disapliary procedure. They may still end up losing their job.
Descalation of a situation is very much part of the training.
i know what you meant but i couldn't help but laugh at "descaling". for a moment there i genuinely thought "what has limescale build-up got to do with it"
@@Simon-hb9rf lol descalation of a situation.
Unlike the military where they take kill shots and do dead checks, the UK police have to do the opposite and preserve life.
This is exactly the point of the video, showing the difficult decisions to be made that potentially land the officers on the wrong side of the law.
But the question still remains as to why are they being crucified because they decided to answer the call to a deadly situation and risk their own lives to save others only to have the public cry out they are murderers?
@@Pierce-xb6vi There have been some inquests that have led to trials, the officer’s identity is usually protected unless found guilty. That is very rare and there have some vexatious cases but also ones of public and legal concern.
It is part of policing by consent.
@@Pierce-xb6viwe have had some high profile tragedies where completely innocent people have been shot by police who didn’t exercise enough caution.
It’s very few, but take that in the context that the number of fatal police shootings in total in the U.K. is extremely low - in England and Wales, the most fatal police shootings in recent years was 2017 - with a total of 6 police shooting fatalities. The average since 2013 is 2.6 fatal shootings a year.
Since 1990, there have been a total of 82 - average of 2.48 a year.
In that context, where there are so few fire arms deaths at the hands of the police, most shootings get a lot of scrutiny because it is so exceptional.
@@sputukgmail 4000 armed incidents a year in London alone but only 2.6 police shootings a year, it seems they are able to deescalate the vast majority of armed incidents without shooting anyone. I wonder what similar figures for the US would look like.
@@conorstewart2214 true, the whole balance seems different - but I note that is 2.6 /fatal/ shooting by the police. The total number of times they opened fire will have been significantly higher I’m sure, as not all incidents are de-escalated or result in fatal shootings - however even when needing to resort to firing a weapon, it seems British police seem to keep the resulting deaths very low - which I assume allows people to stand trial/justice instead of “summary execution” without trial.
You're not tripping, this is what we expect of officers.
Some of the things that training officer said was obviously nonsense for that situation. It's just that every time you pull the trigger you have to be able to justify the decision. Literally every single time you pull the trigger you have to justify it. You can't pull it twice, you have to re-assess and decide that this is NECESSARY to my or someone elses survival.
The officer was just trying to get the Journalist to justify his actions and see the different angles they have Officers have to look at it from.
But that's not to say we're actually lax about it either. If this was a real situation, the Journalist would've been imprisoned for that. He fired on someone with his back turned unaware of police presence without regard for the safety of the criminal or the hostages. He didn't even give the criminal a chance to surrender. Then after he incapacitated the target, he fired an additional 6 times. If that wasn't bad enough, he justified it by claiming that he wanted to make sure the other person was dead. That's nothing other than murder.
Police aren't there to kill criminals, they're there to apprehend criminals and ensure their safety. If a police officer wanted to ensure someone was dead, that person deserves to be in prison. Officers or civilians, nobody should be actively trying to kill anyone.
The second situation he might have been justified in firing at the lady at the first instance of the firearm being pointed at someone. But after that as more time passed, he would slowly lose that justification as it appears she might be able to be reasoned with. And of course when she drops the firearm all justification goes away. The officer would also be scrutinised for not firing at the lady when she pointed her firearm at someone else, it worked out this time but it might not have. You say that that dude could do a lot of damage with the knife at that distance, and that is absolutely true. But he's shocked from your entrance, he's not immediately charging at you, you need to give him an opportunity to surrender.
You're looking at things from a soldiers perspective. These guys are police officers. They're not supposed to kill people. It's not kill or be killed. Most of the time just the presence of armed police officers is enough to deescalate a firearms situation without any shots fired. These guys don't need to be firing their weapons at the first sight of someone that might potentially be a threat or not. These police officers need to be held to higher standards than everyone else, even higher than soldiers such as yourself. That's their role in society.
Must be a huge culture shock for people in the US, much less a military man. But that's what we expect from our officers. They're here to ensure the safety of everyone and uphold justice.
I do however think that sometimes we hold them to too high of standards. It's often very unfair towards these officers, as if we won't allow them to make reasonable mistakes without losing their jobs.
Excellent post. I have a lot of time and respect for police officers, for the very reasons you stipulate. As a Briton I can only really comment from the UK perspective, but, with all due respect to anyone serving in either capacity, I feel the police get a really tough time from society while the military tend to get something of a free pass when it comes to their conduct.
Squaddies can get drunk, brawl and smash a bar up on a night out from a base - even possibly assault one or more members of the public - and most people just shrug and pretty much say "Boys will be boys - they have a tough job and they're serving their country, don't be too hard on them". On the other hand, a cop just has to lose him temper a bit with a suspect and swear at them or maybe handle them a little more roughly than usual during an arrest, and everyone from eyewitnesses to people just reading about it on the news will say the cop was "out of control", "violent" or "racist" (if they were a different colour from the suspect) and should be sacked, or some other knee-jerk judgement call.
In the area of firearms though, inevitably the scrutiny of the police is much stronger than that of the military, as the purpose of them carrying firearms is very different. What's often forgotten - or not even appreciated in the first place - by most members of the public is that the environment that armed police operate in is becoming increasingly challenging. As we saw here, the replica weapons are becoming increasingly convincing, and we are seeing new generations of criminals - either from foreign places where high levels of gun crime are expected, or younger ones who have grown up immersed in a more casual gun culture - for whom indiscriminate carrying and brandishing of firearms and casual wounding or killing (including of police officers or other authority figures) is considered acceptable and even necessary to gain 'respect' or to evade punishment. In the face of that, armed police are under extreme pressure, as everyday society - including many politicians and judges - does not understand how dangerous the situation is on the streets today.
Instructor asking the reporter because he wants to know his thought process. Looks like an intended questions and process to trigger what kind of thought process the reporter had.
Police are law enforcement, not judge, jury and executioner. Minimal force but maximum effect.
The cop is right to make him question if a student had picked up the gun.
That’s the major difference between U.K. and US cops. Also surprised the US Marines don’t have more of this mentality given they are more professional than US cops.
You can’t go round blasting everything.
Love to have a go on that trainer.
Love the vids!
it does remind me of why i was so against the US using military personel as a "policing force" in occupied countries, you can imagine the fear of living under the boot of a military force with such rules of engagement and absolutist thinking.
yeah, a part of the trainers scenarios are out there, but US cop style "mag dumping" just isn't a thing in the EU. The UK is not special in that regard.
Which is a shame really
@@RifleEyezA shame? It just means European police forces don't just let anyone have a firearm like they do in the US. The statistics of fatalities and injuries kind of justifies that philosophy. It's why over the years UK police in general have voted to not have every officer armed. Because if they were, they know the bad people most definitely would be. In the US, there are 400 million guns. And the death rates reflect it both with police and civilians.
@@steveb6386so instead the majority of UK police only have a taser, and best case in any shooting they could maybe buy some time for the special units to arrive and worse case they just become another victim,
@@chugachuga9242 But shootings very seldom happen. 80 or so per year in all of UK. Not like 80 per day in US. The police themselves don't want all officers to be armed.
@@steveb6386 yeah but in the very beginning of the video they literally say that there are 4,000 armed incidents in London alone, many of which could have very well involved firearms. Amount of shootings don’t always equate to amount of police encounters with people who have a gun.
Of course the UK only has a tiny fraction of the firearms on the street that the Americans have. It should be noted that UK cops very seldom discharge their weapons and it is very rare that that shoot anyone. Maybe their thinking and training isn't quite as ridiculous as you might imagine.
He is American. He won't get it.
If you and the person you’re responding to are so derisive, why bother watching? Don’t you understand he’s trying to learn and appreciate the difference? Or are you just here knock him?
@@ChocoLater1 sorry that he's American. Oh, and I'm sorry you're a Brit
He's not though, is he - he's just coming up with ridiculous logic to which is a sensible view - in his view the officers should just keep shooting until the person is dead. That's called murder. The ONLY reason you should be shooting someone is to stop a threat, not necessarily to "kill them", as british police have demonstrated you can often stop a threat by firing one or two shots, not proceeding to empty 20 rounds into them "to make sure" they are dead.
Do you not think continually shooting someone who is now unarmed, lying on the floor, not moving, is "justified" and "sensible use of force"? If you do it really does show why the US has such a big gun problem with officers having a reputation for shooting people...
@@sprint955st
@sprint955st ...well said...he's a soldier and has a different Outlook...he's not trained in policing...
The instructor is trying to get the bloke to explain his decision making, justification, and checking he wasn’t just shooting because he thought he had to. Asking whether it was a student who had picked up the gun was a pertinent question, did he consider it and why he believed it wasn’t.
This is almost an interesting case study between British and USA attitude towards guns and police training.
I’m over here in England, I can tell you now if there was something like 100 people being held as hostage, it would not be the police going through that door. It would be the SAS / SBS.
And how much backlash would the SAS get if they had shot someone while trying to neutralize the threat. Bad guy or not? This interview said that most police would get jail time for firing their weapon in a terrorist setting.
Damn right!
@@Pierce-xb6vi SAS are military. They're not police officers. Their job roles are fundementally different and they're held to different standards. Members of the armed forces are not liable for collateral damage if it can be reasonably justifed and if the operation was planned in good faith.
If the SAS were called in, the situation has already gone to shit and it's extremely likely there's going to be casualties anyway, the SAS are just there to minimise casualties.
Unless there was some critical error made, backlash would get directed at the people that called the SAS in in the first place. Not at the SAS itself.
40 years ago but not now, UKSF are outstanding maybe even the best in the world but after things like the Bataclan things changed wasted time equates to dead people.
No it isn’t, if it’s a spontaneous incident, ARVs are always the first deployed, and will be first there. If it’s crime related, CTSFOS would also highly likely be deployed too as they’re trained in D9. If it’s terrorism related, ARVs are deployed first and foremost, surrounding forces will also deploy, CTSFOs would also deploy. SF are also deployed if it’s terrorism, they will not be if it’s crime related/non terrorism. Every spontaneous terrorism attack has been dealt with by ARVs as the first wave, except Streatham which was surveillance
Hi @combat arms. It's not combat... It's policing. That's the difference
Explain your comment? Just because they aren’t in a different country fighting an army doesn’t mean it can be combat?
Remember, this is civilian law, not a military war zone.
The police in the UK are held accountable for their actions unlike in the US.
I watched a clip of US cops dealing with a mentally ill guy.
There were 10 cops all pointing their guns at the guys front door.
The guy came out and was obviously unarmed.
They set the police dog on him and because he jumped back in fright they all opened fire.
He was hit 16 times, but the thing that really got my attention was the amount of bullets that were spraying everywhere and most of them were nowhere near the target. Some were 6 feet off target and they even killed the dog who hadn't even got to the guy.
If someone is that shit at aiming a firearm they should not be allowed to carry one.
✌❤🇬🇧
reminds me of that video of the US police trying to deal with someone who was in a small private plane with a knife, clearly either high mentally ill or both, it was too close quarters to go in after him so they tried to talk him out, but every time he started moving towards the door and the cops got a visible sightline on him they shot him with beanbags making the suspect retreat back into the plane.
they had the guy coming out of the aircraft at least four times usually after promising him that they wouldn't shoot him again if he showed himself, only to then shoot him again, making him retreat.
the airport was shut down for 4 hours before they finally realised shooting the suspect with bean bags as soon as you see them doesn't encourage them to keep walking towards you. but by this time the suspect didn't trust them anymore and they had to go in after him anyway putting everyone at greater risk
honestly its like US police have never even heard of the term "de-escalation" they just ramp up any situation more and more until the shooting starts.
@@Simon-hb9rf I think the expression is "fucking useless twats". 😂
We see it time and time again with American police they are always all guns blazing imo in a uncontrolled fashion in comparison to UK police from what I've seen is controlled and calm rather than 20 cops firing all at the same time going everywhere i have nothing to back this up and only based on what I've seen but i think pretty much every time a UK police aims at the suspect in most cases the suspect gives up and drops any weapons they might have.
American police are completely out of control over something minor let alone something huge.
SATS training is some of the best judgemental shoot training available and done on the fly. The debrief is like what you'd get in court as soon as you discharge your weapon in the line of duty.
Hey man. I'm not combat trained or anything but I do know the civilian armed police go by very different rules of engagement to military, also British rules vs American are completely and utterly different. The difference is night and day. Police never shoot to kill here. And only discharge weapon once before reassessing situation. The moment any officer discharges their weapon automatically the next 2 years of their life is going to be legal hell and may drive them to depression. Regardless of situation I hear they are taken off firearms duties.
So you think us Americans just want to kill?
A police officer has to think about a lot of things as opposed to a solider
A police operates under the jurisdiction of national law and public places whereas a soldier can commit war crimes in the battlefield and go away without being charged with those crimes
Point well made.
Perhaps this US combat soldier should look at what happened to Gus Kohntopp, the chap in the AC-10 who fired on british soldiers in 2003 WITHOUT authority to fire and WITHOUT confirming that they were indeed hostile? NOTHING!
Nothing at all. 1 british soldier killed and I believe 5 injured. Because an American from the Idaho national guard decided he wanted to open fire of his own accord despite not having permission or even being certain they are enemies (when they weren't). Just demonstrates the American mentality whereby they don't consider much at all before choosing to open fire, and in this case killing an ally soldier and injuring 5 others...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_Fighter_Squadron,_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_incident
Quick to criticise the way the british police with restraint... wonder what he'll make of this riduclous blue-on-blue?
Soldiers are still subject to the rules of engagement, even abroad and can be prosecuted under UK law if found to have acted illegally.
Hearing your input and perspective around the 19 minutes mark was very interesting. Thank you!
I was stopped by an American policeman for overtaking on a double white line. I got out of the car to speak to him and he went for his gun. I was the father of two young children at the time ..
Sadly guns have made Americans live in fear and make them paranoid...
It's interesting seeing how frustrated you got watching the active shooter simulation :D The UK's armed police are definitely some of the best trained police in the world, however the amount of scrutiny they face from simpy carrying loaded firearms is crazy to me. Most european police forces carry firearms! Why people in this country have issues with it i will never understand!
We have some of the best trained police officers in the world precisely because we hold them to high standards.
We have issues with it because we value life. We think that even criminals deserve to live. We've learned from our history. And most importantly we're in a situation where we can afford to disarm the population and majority of police officers. We're in a position where we have so little violence that requires firearms, that we can criticise our firearm police to keep them to this standard.
If we had more gun violence, we'd need more armed police officers. If we needed more armed police officers, we wouldn't be able to ciriticise them so much.
@@bakersmileyface agreed!
However consistently criticising them is not a foot in right direction. I agree all of our civil services should be held completely accountable for their decisions & behaviours.
In today’s age a suicide bomber could be shot and there would be a group (however small) that would call for injustice. Strange world we live in!
This is not combat. This is policing in the UK.
The Desert Eagle, tagged 136, does have a coating. It looks as though it has undergone Cyanoacrylate (Superglue) fuming to reveal latent prints. Commonly used, mostly in the crime lab but also at crime scenes, on a variety of surfaces touched or handled during the commission of a crime.
A lot of the British Armed Police are instructed by former Officers in our Army that served in Northern Ireland, and with that work, they learned how to not fire on a civilian, despite the inherent danger. The British troops in civilian warfare had genuine children throwing grenades and IEDs/ pipe-bombs at them but we couldn't fire back because that would be an un-justified killing of a civvie, especially when the target is a child. The troops had to allow the population to launch attacks at them and learn better how to not fire in response of anger and better work out our medic-teams, so we had better response to pick up and return our troops. The IRA and various Republican units got armed and got very good at working their units, and some of these units got genuinely scary. The South Armagh crew ended up with various long-range rifles that could take out British troops over the border, they also got hold of a 50-Cal, and several RPGs.
Dope shirt 👍👍
The questioning by the officers at the end is EXACTLY how the officers who shoot any person would be treated by a prosecution barrister in crown court, when they are charged with murder. It's a real eye-opener for those who haven't seen it or don't know how it works. The instructor is very correct - a man holding a gun pointing up into the air does not necessarily warrant being executed on the spot - it shows a difference between the American mindset and British mindset. A verbal command should be given, if said person then makes a committed action (points the gun at someone, turns towards the officer gun in hand, or raises it towards the officer) it would give the officer FAR more justification for shooting the person.
Just simply shooting someone (and multiple times at that) because they had a gun in their hand isn't necessarily lawful - it's made far worse by the person being on the floor, the gun can clearly be seen on the left hand side NOT in the hands of the person who had been shot yet the reporter acting as the officer continues to fire multiple shots - each one of these shots would likely be deemed "unlawful" in a court because at that point the person posed no IMMEDIATE risk to the lives of anyone present, he doesn't have the firearm in his possession so the immediate risk is negated.
The UK is very clear - reasonable force, and an officer IS accountable for each and every shot they fire, they can't simply fire 20 shots at someone to "make sure they are dead". "To make sure someone is dead" is murder, and it wouldn't be reasonable. Shooting someone once or twice holding a gun and aiming it at you, who then falls, to their knees, and then goes to aim the gun at the officer or a person again would likely be shot a third and possibly a fourth time, but this would be argued to be justified.
Shooting someone repeatedly without pause and consideration between each shot is nothing but murder, you have clear intent to kill that person and that isn't "reasonable force" in most cases. You can shoot to stop a threat - not repeatedly shoot 20 times when 1 or 2 shots would have stopped the threat. That is the difference between the UK and the USA.
And yes - I'm a non-firearms officer in a UK police force, in the UK officers are either unarmed in the traditional sense, but might have a taser, or armed with a rifle and a pistol, usually a glock, often these officers will also have taser as they should always have a "less than lethal" option available. A lot of forces also have "baton guns" which look a bit like a H&K MP5, but fire "Baton rounds" which hurt like hell but don't cause any serious injuries typically, and are a lot less likely to be fatal than a live round.
I don't want to be politcal about it - but the US in my opinion is far too gung ho - "shoot first" and "ask later" mentality. It's almost as if they execute anyone with a weapon with very little reasoning, in the scenario here the reporter didn't give any verbal commands to the person or even make his presence known, he literally just shot him non-stop.
You're also making a huge assumption "If you are definitely the shooter"... but here's the key thing, the officer (being played by the reporter) doesn't know that for sure. He has literally walked in, gave no commands, made a huge assumption that the man with the gun is the one who shot people (who's to say the gunman who shot them isn't in another room?), and then executed him on the spot and proceeded to shoot him even when he no longer had the weapon in his hand. If this is viewed as "acceptable" in the USA then i'm not surprised that the USA is the way that it is.
Headshots aren't done - far too risky. Leg shots - no - again, too easy to miss, legs move backwards and forwards, you could aim for a lower leg as the person moves it and miss, if you aim for their torso you probably won't miss. A torso is also likely to stop a round and it's worth noting that a lot of forces use "Hollow point" rounds to avoid penetration and secondary injuries to other parties.
In the SECOND scenario, the officer would be FAR more justified in shooting the female. The weapon which as far as you can tell, you believe to be real, it's being pointed directly at someone (not up at the ceiling) and therefore if you believe there is an imminent threat to that other person's life, yours or your colleague's life, then you can use reasonable force - in this case said force would probably result in the female being shot. But again, shot once, pause, re-asses, not shoot 20 times to make 100% sure she is dead - that's simply murder and nothing but.
The part about ARV's (AFO trained officers) responding to medical calls is also 100% correct. I serve in the same force as these officers albeit not firearms. I once responded to a car collision whereby a woman was allegedly trapped in the car.
An unmarked firearms unit, driving exactly the same sort of Black BMW X5 you see here also attended and arrived a few minutes before we did.
I couldn't focus on this video due to the sheer amount of nostalgia on your shirt! I recognized about 99% of the characters
That bear ass mannequin with the orange strap on his leg had me 💀💀💀🤣🤣 12:25
Interesting to see how an American, former military person, sees this scenario. He's ok with shooting a person, who was not pointing a gun at anyone, in the back, and then putting a few more into him whilst on the ground. That's really not how it works in the UK.
the land of the free and home of excessive force
Yeah, the way he said 'you get so tunnel visioned' that's the difference between police (well, EU/UK police anyway) and military. You CANNOT get tunnel vision as a police officer. Your job is to stop immediate threat to life, not to kill the guy.
We often have large empty building that are due to be demolished or can't be used for whatever reason here where I work. They get used by the police for armed response training, then by the dog squad, then by the bomb disposal teams. Also other people use it for training... But they get to training in real buildings they havent been in before.
Sooo....
US: Shoot until percieved threat is eliminated
UK: Announce, Assess, Respond, Reassess
Which has the lower bodycount?
BEARING IN MIND THE GUY YOU'RE SIDING WITH SHOT A HOSTAGE WITH HIS FIRST SHOT!!
Many years ago I met through a friend a retired Met police firearms instructor. I thought he had maybe sold insurance! Very unasumming, very quiet, but a steely gaze. 😮
Wasn't Wayne Couzens was it? :p
@@davedavids57 No, not his name.
You're a thoughtful man, so I was somewhat shocked at your immediate reaction to the strict criteria the police have when pulling the trigger here. I thought the length of training and need to requalify each year would make it clear how high the standards are for armed police in the UK. Those questions should be asked - potentially ending someones life is not something anyone should take lightly.
Mag dumping is a big no-no. Once the person is no longer a threat, continuing to empty bullets into them is essentialy seen as execution by law enforcement. I appreciate you come at this from a different experience in the military and a different culture of policing in the States.
insane vid as usual ! cheers from Belgium (you could maybe react to our spacial force groupe ? thank's)
In the UK, armed police officers will only shoot when it is undeniable that the person they are shooting is indeed a threat and they don't aim for kill shots, they simply shoot once then reassess then if the person is still considered a deadly threat then they shoot once more.
Police are trained to aim at centre mass. They don't aim to wound as the risk is too great.
Thing is as you can see officers are trained to basicly engage and shoot once if enemy engages back wich means the hostile is disarmed, you can secure the weapon and help them to then arrest them so thats why if they are already dropped on the ground they wont shoot them agqin to kill them (idk if this is 100 percent true but correct me in the bits where im wrong)
Tough scenarios!😮😎
After he dropped the weapon he was no longer a threat so shooting after that it is classed as excessive force.
To serve and protect means something different to American police i guess
Wanna call all America cops murders like your British friends?
This is the fundamental difference in culture. As far as I'm concerned I expect this from our armed police. You don't assume anything, guns aren't common. Our police, have proper standardised protection (not dependent on city or police chiefs), they won't shoot someone holding a knife unless they're actually using it on a person. They do shoot dangerous dogs if they're attacking. Our values are very different in terms of the value of life. Even if you're a f-up.
Instant critical thinking of scenarios in training reduces innocent people being shot.
UK is probably an extreme case. But I think in most of Europe, mag dumping into suspects isn't a thing...
The differences between British and American attitudes, policies and mindsets are mind-blowingly huge. It's no big thing for an American officer to shoot a gunman, but for a British officer, the moment he is armed he has to answer for his every thought and action, and the chances are 90% he will be found at fault at some point/s. The basic thing he has to instill in his brain is very simple - You are damned if you do, and damned if you dont!...and that goes for whether or not he discharges his weapon. If his statement isn't word perfect, he will condemn himself. If for example he thought he'd kicked the perp's weapon away when he hadn't, or said he didn't kick it away when he did, - a simple enough thing to happen in the heat of the moment - he's virtually signed himself on a charge of one kind or another. In another scenario, if he is unsure of precisely what he saw/didn't see, he's in bother! Was his line of sight clear? Was it too dark for him to see exactly? Did he think the gunman was aiming to shoot, or was just pointing the weapon at him or vaguely towards him? Did he think he was about to be shot or was it just a threat?
There are a thousand different scenarios that require several thousands of possible responses, so the officer is really in a no-win situation.
For the SAS it's a slightly different matter, for they are given either the Shoot-to-Kill order beforehand - or not, as the case may be. They still have to answer for their actions.
Today, IRA murderers have had their prosecutions and/or sentences commuted, and many more have been granted amnesty; but British soldiers are still being prosecuted 30-50 years after the event!! I can't see that happening in the US!
First thought when the pistol with the big scope appeared on the screen "do they also have a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range"
Acid atracks by st crims led to pol doing 'tactical contact' with motorbike crims, hitting with cars.
No they didn't. That was nothing to do with acid attacks. That's to do with the rise in moped enable crime (of any sort). Phone thefts are common on moped/escooters. I serve in the same force in the UK as the officers in the video, I'm a non-firearms response officer. VERY few pursuit trained drivers can actually make use of "tactical contact".
Also not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but firstly you are approaching it from a military point of view in terms of how to process the situation, which is the right thing for you given what you do, but also firearms, and also ammunition are very hard to come by in the UK so police are already less worried about being shot themselves, and the officers involved in such opperations have many support officers, so the officer going to provide aid is closely watched by his coworkers.
They question you like that to test the Mentality
I live in the NorthEast of England and we have armed response police. We are a community of 75.000 and my brother is armed response unit. ARU . He once put his body suit on my son and he was about six and his legs just gave way,it was so funny. ❤️🇬🇧
This is how it works in Finland aswell. I don't think you're being reasonable here - our training prepares us to do this, and whenever situations like these arise, it pretty much goes like this. If necessary, use force to neutralize the threat, but only use deadly force if absolutely necessary. Wounding shots are priority, if possible. I think saying you can't take information in in these situations is a matter of training, stress innoculation.
05:30 - I'm hoping the guy just meant a flash suppressor! haha
haha nice shirt dude!
saluud!°
we had a acid attack in the UK only a few weeks ago
There's been a couple in 2024 but the one in London but all the headlines, they go in waves you go a few years without any then you get a spare in quick succession
Cop here somewhere in North East England - ammonia/alkaline attacks are much more more common than you think and out of several I attend a year - none have ever been on the news or local papers. So many incidents occur without the public knowing.
I love that shirt!!!!!
As a Marine, didn't they hand you your ass in training so that you wouldn't screw up when it was for real?
As a person serving in the military you are trained for military situations. You were trained to identify threats quickly and take the most efficient path to neutralising the threats you identified. For the safety of your unit and the achievement of your mission. In a military context a "fair fight" is the last one you ever want to walk into - because it MIGHT be the last one!
Policing is a different mission. It has different priorities, different rules of engagement. For example in that school shooter scenario wandering around with the muzzle of his weapon pointing up, while the trainee had a stone cold lock on him, would not have been the time to shoot - for a cop. Yelling "Armed Police! Drop the weapon! Now! Drop it now!..." would have got his attention. What happens then is up to him - if he drops it he gets to meet a judge. If his muzzle starts to come into line with anyone else, THEN the cop shoots. But thats with the benefit of hindsight, not in the moment. The training is so that the cop CAN make those calls in the moment - just like your training in the Marines enabled you to react according to YOUR rules of engagement.
At the same time, one of the principles in the training is exactly the same - they give you the ambiguous shit and every opportunity to screw up - so you can do exactly that and learn from it. Then, JUST like in the military, they tear you a new asshole in the exercise debrief and tell everyone and their cat how badly you fucked up.
Better somebody spanks your ass in training than a real scenario rips it off and burns it.
They have to do 31 days straight at 8 hours a day in order to stay certified. That's one month to get up 250 hours every year. To be honest.. these guys get more firearms training than a lot of SF`s do. Definitely more than the basic soldiers. One must stop, and think about actually challenging these guys?? I am assuming the medical training is included in this time or as an after day training regime.
The jurisdiction of the Met is basically anything inside the M25, so does branch out a bit further than what most people consider as London
React to Inside Brazil’s Elite SpecOps Unit Storming the Favelas
"someone might paint a orange tip on a real gun"- oh they have done that in the UK. Its part of the reasons why the cops wanted more protection for when they use lethal force.
There's currently a case going through the courts at the moment - a police officer is on trial for murder. He shot a guy who was driving a car at other police, the car had been used the day before in connection with firearms offences and the guy driving was a known criminal who had just been released from jail for firearms offences.
Did the reporter guy even use his sights? His grip on the pistol was like a choking grip and his was shooting like it was firing multiple shots not using his sights.
Where did you get it?
i think this highlights the difference between the british attitude to the police using guns and americans, the uk would hold their police a lot more accountable it feels as america is shoot first think later and thats acceptable.
That is literally the case, as a british officer myself. Non-firearms but it's basically how it is.
you are not wrong and are very much right, if there is an active shooter you need to ensure the safety of others first and that very much may include neutralising the hostile with a lethal amount of force, maybe dont mag dump but putting something like 5 shots towards the combatant is not for from expected but these regulations are bs and train people to take one shot and act if the threat does something not to prevent the threat from acting again. from all the officers i have spoke to recently they have also said its bs with too many rules that they cant do a good job
I don't think they're saying that *that* guy is an innocent student with a gun, but they want them to think when it happens for real that it could be the case.
They are questioning his judgement. The issue is he has walked in and just shot a man in the back repeatedly (including one of those shots actually hitting an innocent student). He made no verbal commands to "drop the weapon". In the UK the firearms officers have to believe that their life, the life of a colleague or a member of the public is in IMMINENT danger. In this situation it is likely not to be deemed as such, although the person has a gun, we firstly aren't sure he's the shooter - he could be anyone, and the reporter has just ASSUMED that he was the shooter. Secondly the gun is being pointed towards the ceiling, nobody at that point is at IMMINENT danger, so shooting him would lead to a lot of scrutiny, especially as he gave no verbal commands or announced his presence, he just walked in and shot him repeatedly.
If the subject had raised the gun towards a student, turned to face the officer and raised the weapon, he would be very likely justified in shooting person.
The force used however has to be reasonable. Is it reasonable to shoot someone who points a gun at you, or someone else? Yes.
Is it "reasonable" for them to be shot numerous times, the gun to go flying, and despite the subject clearly no longer having the gun, continue to shoot them... in his own words "to make sure they are dead"? No - it's not.
You are shooting to stop the threat - not to kill them. Shooting with the intent of killing someone is attempted murder. If you can stop the threat by shooting once or twice, taking a brief moment to re-assess, and then finding you don't need to shoot again that is what is expected of you.
Not to do what americans do, which is keep shooting until they don't move - essentially just executing them on the spot. I had this discussion with an american many years ago - his response was "dead men don't sue cops".
Sorry are police in the USA trained professionals or a bunch of men with itchy trigger fingers who get to decide whether someone lives or dies based on how many times they want to pull the trigger?
Police in the UK have to justify all force via the national decision model. Firing 7 rounds is 7 separate uses of force and the officer would have to justify each individual round fired using the NDM. Also the aim isn’t to kill the individual, the aim is to take action to stop the threat and then reassess the situation. if you fire one round and it puts the suspect down and he drops the gun then the threat level diminishes and it’s the officers job to then render first aid to that individual.
Armed police in the UK have one of the toughest jobs in society as they’re under so much scrutiny which is why their training is so tough. It’s a shame they don’t get more support from the government/justice system and general public.
Of course he’s playing devils advocate. They should be thinking about all these things. Your thoughts are terrifying.
The instructor part where he's grilling him with 'What if's isnt really in the training as such, but this is all in response to that officer being charged with murder... We have a thing called the IOPC which are basically the hind-sight assholes, who will throw all this at you if you did shoot someone. So the instructors are basically doing this to show the public, this is what cops are up against when they have to deal with a situation like this, because someone in the IOPC will literally just try to make a career over screwing you.
Thank fuck for the law in the UK that make sure country won't become like USA where cops think they can justify being trigger happy on daily basis.
Wanna keep talking trash?
Our country works a bit different from y'all's, especially the trash president we have. A lot of people won't go down in 2 or 3 shots. That's why most of us Americans are wanting to fund police more, so they get better training.
@@unreal4010triggered
@@unreal4010totally agree the US is a different beast and it’s impossible to compare the policing in the UK and US. people say American police are trigger happy, and in some cases I’m sure that’s true, but when you have a general population who may be better armed than you, and very well trained in the use of the firearms they have it’s totally understandable that they are the way they are. Just look at the countless videos of what police in the states have to deal with compared to here in the UK!! Also take into account the sentencing differences and you can see why so many felons in the US would rather die than go back to prison. For the most part here in the UK they get a slap on the wrist and prison ain’t that bad for them here.
Desert eagle looks like it's been in a superglue chamber they burn superglue to find fingerprints
Uk ctfo are trained by ex sf and serving sf for close quarter combat
Hi Theo! The event they use as a simulation you were wondering about, took place in November 13rd of 2015 in Paris. There was a wave of terrorist attacks in the heart of the french capital. The same evening, three highly populated locations were targeted, resulting in 130 deaths and hundreds of wounded: A soccer stadium, a café and a concert hall called the Bataclan. The islamists opened fire from the entrance, so the crowd attending the rock concert, was trapped between the terrorists and the stage. It was a carnage... Some people managed to escape and some were taken as hostages. There was a huge operation by the french police and military to track and neutralise the terrorists in the Bataclan, as well as those who escaped the police and tried to hide or leave the country. Every parisian was scared at this time, and to this day it is still a traumatic memory for many. It could be interesting for you to cover it indeed.
The trainer is definitely examining his thought process and questioning their his decisions.
UK Armed Police do not operate the same way as the the militarily. And are bound to different laws and policies than the US police. Their actions are more focussed on defending themselves or others, so first they will attempt to de-escalate the situation. They only engage when there is an 'active threat' and afterwards as seen in the video begin life saving first aid if possible.
(LEO from a force NE England) I am unarmed however we do not have a continuum of force over here. We used the NDM (national decision model) while adhering to our code of ethics and using our use of force legislation (which there is a lot) to influence our decisions. Reasonable force to be used to match the threat. For instance resistant subject, you would be unlikely to keep increasing ur use of force one at a time for instance baton strikes may cause significant injury to the subject, Pava (very strong pepper spray we have) may be useless due to too many parties involved therefore as unarmed officer taser may be the most appropriate option in that scenario to bring the incident to a close.
Where I Police we have several ARV (armed response vehicles) with Officers with various skills within our jurisdiction 24/7 - could be 10-15 cars double crewed or less. They attend any incidents not just serious threat to life. Could help out ur average Bobby with a domestic to helping look for a missing person. Initial course following a 3 year probation is 14 weeks for basic firearm authority. Lowest level then a further 4 full days traininf every 6 weeks. SFO and CTSFO do much more on top of that so very highly skilled indeed.
Curious. Which force? I'm response team in the Met.
Durham constabulary by any chance? A lot of our response driver courses are outsourced to Durham and the Welsh police forces, a colleague of mine did his with BTP in Ebbsfleet last year and only a few are actually done in house in the Met.
Around 10 years ago a NATO anti terrorist conference was held in the UK, the French delegate objected to it being held in the UK and kept moaning. The the US delegate pointed out that the UK since 1965 to 1990 had received on average more terrorists attacks in each year then the rest of NATO put together during this whole time. The US delegate was respectful and right.
The UK is the modern educator on Anti-terrorism, from Armed raids to sophisticated international money tracking. Any IED or equivalent since the war in Iraq to Afghanistan was 'fingerprinted' all via the UK as a study in bomb making, it's sources and ingredients. This identifies Iran , or Moscow or Left Wing Terrorist groups, Isis etc as the source.
The Brits are top tier of this kind of stuff.
It's just not true that the Met or British Police in general are experts in firearms or counter terror tactics. The PSNI are amazing at that, the UK Special forces are amazing at that. 98% of all those incidents happened in NI. Where the police carry and train with firearms from day one, carry guns everywhere they go, on or off duty and are allowed to practice in their free time. However the Met police allow an office to have a gun in a static position if they have completed a 20 day (4 week) non residential course and passed a test. This qualifies them in both hand gun and semi auto rifle. Armed response unit officers have a 30 day course non residential (six week) course. Given that the vast majority of these officers have never touched a gun before the idea that these officers are good is silly. The time most officers get to train is not enough. A cook or mechanic in the British army has to have completed the 26 week residential standard infantry course and even then they are only qualified on one weapons system and not considered front line troops.
A former colleague of mine said that the only time he got through immigration at top speed after flying to the US was when he put his US address as Quantico; he was visiting the FBI to lecture on anti-terrorism. He was a Chief Superintendent, not in the Met, nor PSNI. (The FBI guys were great when they made a return visit. One was a former Marine and loved it when I acquired a load of RM stuff for him.)
English law is completely different to US law. In the US...if you have a gun ..and someone is on the floor possibly dead...the guy with the gun is a murderer and it doesn't matter if an officer shoots him dead. This is because US police are the law. Its a police state. With English law...the police only upholds the law ..or enforces the law... all decisions on life and death belong to the court and judge...not the officer, unless his personal safety is in danger 100%. This is why average officer in the uk has no gun. In one scenario...you saw the husband or boyfriend assaulting the woman on the bed ..the police came in ..and the guy put hands up...the woman was panicked...but she had the gun trained on the guy...she may have shot and killed him...the policeman's duty in the UK is to protect all persons lives...victim and assailant...and to ensure the safety of the assailant even. Had the woman not dropped the gun after calls to do so...she could have been shot dead. It was the laws job to punish the assailant...not hers. Full stop. The officer could only preserve the law...not the victim. Very confusing ..eh? The idea that the police officer decides everything in the states is why They have nearly 1000 dead civilians every year. Police are only there to enforce the law ..not to judge jury and execute. US police is very primitive policing. Sorry..it is.
In Australia, it is different again.... every police officer is armed...but if you use that firearm...you are more than likely....99% sure .... to end your career. Police officers dont find a need to handcuff every person, no matter what. If they arrest you... you are still innocent until a court says you are not. So handcuffing is only used for very violent offenders that are actually caught red handed by police. If some one says you assaulted them ..then police wont handcuff you just on their say... they take you ...register you ...give you a court day and usually bail on own recognizance for first offence. No money involved. Then it is between you and the accuser and a judge to decide. Less innocents in jail. But in Australia ... if your crimes requires a special police squad to be called... you are more than likely already listed as dead. They wont fuk around after you start terrorism. If you shoot a police officer in Australia, they will call the tactical groups ... you wont get a day in court ..believe me. That conduct, that knowledge keeps Australian police relatively safe in nearly all situation's. Australia has as little as one or two shootings by police per year. The US has 13 times as much population as Australia..so on a comparison... Australian police would probably shoot 13 to 26 people per year on average .. and yet have one of the highest solved crime rates in the world. Ask yourself where US policing is going wrong.
A summary analysis of 176 cases in New South Wales, Australia, covering the period
1862 to 1982, found accidents made up 71.5% of fatalities (42.6% motor vehicle and
28.9% other accidents) while deliberate shootings and other attacks accounted for 28.4%
(Morris, 1985) --- This shows that only (50) officers died over a 120 year period through a time when every Australian had guns same as people in the US do today.
I was gonna attempt a long winded response as to why and how your being missled, but i think the only example i need to give is the situation with the Australian youtuber FriendlyJordies, if you've heard of it. Long story short, his home was firebombed twice by a local crime syndicate, and the NSW police told him theres nothing they can do about it because they're less staffed organized and trained than the local gangsters. So if police aren't able to protect you in a country that your not even allowed to protect yourself in, how do you ensure your freedom and well-being?
Fund the police and get them better training. There are going to be people that won't follow the law, that's why you need police. Biden doesn't even care about America nor us, so he hasn't even funded the police at all. All they need is good training.
And when you say police decide everything in every state is just wrong.
It ain't the guns fault, it's the people carrying it.
I agree with you. Totally bonkers. Next they will be saying the gunman didn't identify as a gunman therefore let him continue.
Basically in the uk unless there is an IMMINENT threat to life they shouldn’t be firing their weapon. That’s why it’s such a difficult job to do in the UK, and that’s why they should be given more respect by the public. Totally different to the States. I have a friend who was in the Royal Marines, he now does this, and he said it’s easily one of the hardest courses hes ever done.
As far as I know as an arm chair general who just reads up on stuff like this, most of them are swat trained so why wouldn’t they throw a flashbang in on the first guy then take them into custody? I can’t see how that officer would be alone on a call like that
They aren't all trained with flashbangs or grenades of any sort, only CTSFO's are (the ones in grey). The far more likely unit to be first on scene at any firearms incident is an ARV - crewed by the officers you see in the BMW cars, all wearing black. They don't carry grenades, aren't authorised to use them and aren't trained in their use.
It would be like saying "Why don't all American police officers have RPG's in their car?".
I serve in a UK force myself, as a non-firearms officer.
It's crazy to see your viewpoint on this, but this is pretty much how from what I've heard also the way the Police of Finland operates, every single shot has to be calculated and justified, no matter how stupid the scenario might seem, and also under the national law, everyone has a right to life so that even includes suspects of crime, so minimal force is always required, killing is the absolute last resort. Everytime a police officer in Finland even fires a gun, the Prosecutor's Office starts an inquiry into the event. So yes policing and the use of guns are extremely tightly regulated in Europe. It's law enforcement, not the Armed Forces
You would be very surprised by the stupid stuff that people may do in tense or shocking situations, a lot of the time they don’t think logically or are in shock.
Also they aren’t telling their officers those things, they are questioning them to get them to justify their actions, something that is likely to happen if it goes to court.
Hey brother you should react to bard's of war Canadian military fights in Afghanistan I highly recommend it I over an hour long but well worth ut
I will say, no- one in firearms wants to kill. The psych tests would usually weed them out. The scary one is by far the replica firearms. We had an incident some years back now where a person was seen in the high street with a pistol, and appeared quite agitated. Made his way to a public landmark in town, where armed units cornered him. He pointed his weapon at the armed police units, and was shot, which ended up killing him, despite being within half a mile of a hospital. The gun was found to be harmless. The police officer was exonerated, as at the range, it was impossible to tell, and came under definite threat. The officer still turned in his firearms ticket, as he couldn't get past having killed someone who really needed a psych intervention.
Couldn't tell if that is "cag" on your cap? Haha no it's combat arms channel , my bad , I was thinking combat applications groups 🤔🤓
i dont remember 150 people gettting shot in france
We don't shoot to kill
He keeps talking about the dude at the end having a knife and how much damage that can do, did he not see the woman had a gun ? He never mentioned it
16.54...who a seconds later had the gun?....Iranian Embassy Siege....Who had a Grenade on the staircase?....Different tiers doing their job...
The situation with the guy with the gun is truly over thinking. If he'd taken the weapon off the perpetrators the victims wouldn't be behaving that way. Nobody will want to be a firearms officer and held to this standard.
From 15:15 onwards, the instructor is asking the reporter these obtuse questions, not because he thinks they are good questions, but because this is exactly the sorts of dumb questions that members of the public who have never been in a situation like this in their lives will ask when a cop does their job.
The instructor knows these are ridiculous questions, and so he asks them, just to highlight how ridiculous they are.
I would not be armed police officer in the uk for every reason highlighted in this video.
This guy clearly never played a FPS
Bataclan was horrific. The French police were brave. There is video of them clearing cafes with bodies on the floor with just two street officers.
I know the guy reacting is going what do you mean to the police officer but he is saying in every other situation things can change .
He knows the guy was a threat but wanted to explore the tv guys mindset to sudden changes in environment
He makes sense once you understand he’s speaking theoretically