Poortake

@poortake

that is a poor take

Joined July 2020

342 Following

20 Followers

1.3K Posts

poortake retweeted

(TCAG) Командир Бред Кроуфорд (CDR Brad Crawford)

@evo1tactical

6 months ago

One part of this that seems to be getting overlooked is the initial use of force by a federal agent. Based on the available footage, a civilian was assualted. The individual stepped in and raised his hand while the other hand was on the phone and not offering resistance. At that moment, the roadway had already been cleared and the situation appeared to be deescalating. Instead of creating space or stepping back, which officers are trained to do once a scene is stabilized, the agent escalated the encounter and physically attacked the individual. From a use of force and legal perspective, that raises serious concerns. If an officer initiates physical force without an active threat, that can meet the definition of assault and battery. That context matters. Use of force analysis does not start at the moment shots are fired. It starts with the first contact and every decision leading up to it. Ignoring the initial escalation and focusing only on the final seconds gives an incomplete and misleading picture. These are exactly the kinds of questions that need to be examined objectively rather than brushed aside.

poortake retweeted

(TCAG) Командир Бред Кроуфорд (CDR Brad Crawford)

@evo1tactical

6 months ago

I do not usually comment on political posts, and this is not intended to be political. As we all know a tragic event happened in America. I am speaking strictly from a professional training and use of force perspective. Before coming to train Ukrainians, I spent years training various law enforcement organizations through my company on use of force and high risk encounters. That background includes departmental policy, police training standards, threat assessment, de escalation, and the legal thresholds for justified and unjustified shootings. Several facts matter here. The individual involved was a licensed concealed carry holder from the state. He was legally permitted to carry a firearm, including in a public setting such as a protest. There was no violation of law simply by his possession of the weapon. At no point did this individual draw, point, or openly brandish the firearm. The weapon was physically removed from him by law enforcement officers prior to the shooting. Once that occurred, the immediate deadly threat no longer existed. When a weapon is secured and officers have physical control of a subject, the legal and training based justification for deadly force disappears. At that stage, the situation transitions to control, restraint, and de escalation. Deadly force is reserved for an active, imminent threat, not a past or hypothetical one. Any use of deadly force also carries an absolute responsibility to consider public safety. Officers are trained to identify their backstop and ensure that rounds fired do not endanger civilians or fellow officers. In this case, there were multiple officers and civilians directly within the potential line of fire. The risk of catastrophic injury, friendly fire, or unintended civilian casualties was extremely high. Equally important, this incident does not align with established de escalation principles. Rather than slowing the encounter, increasing distance, and reducing risk, the situation was escalated rapidly to lethal force after control had already been achieved. That is the opposite of what modern policing doctrine teaches. Based on the available video footage, camera angles, and observable officer behavior, this incident reflects failures in threat assessment, use of force decision making, backstop awareness, and de escalation. From a professional standpoint, it represents a breakdown across multiple training and policy standards. This is a tragic outcome. It deserves a serious, objective review grounded in established law enforcement practices, not emotion or politics. This definatley deserves a full independent investigation and review.

evo1tactical's tweet photo. I do not usually comment on political posts, and this is not intended to be political. As we all know a tragic event happened in America. I am speaking strictly from a professional training and use of force perspective.

Before coming to train Ukrainians, I spent years training various law enforcement organizations through my company on use of force and high risk encounters. That background includes departmental policy, police training standards, threat assessment, de escalation, and the legal thresholds for justified and unjustified shootings.

Several facts matter here.

The individual involved was a licensed concealed carry holder from the state. He was legally permitted to carry a firearm, including in a public setting such as a protest. There was no violation of law simply by his possession of the weapon.

At no point did this individual draw, point, or openly brandish the firearm. The weapon was physically removed from him by law enforcement officers prior to the shooting. Once that occurred, the immediate deadly threat no longer existed.

When a weapon is secured and officers have physical control of a subject, the legal and training based justification for deadly force disappears. At that stage, the situation transitions to control, restraint, and de escalation. Deadly force is reserved for an active, imminent threat, not a past or hypothetical one.

Any use of deadly force also carries an absolute responsibility to consider public safety. Officers are trained to identify their backstop and ensure that rounds fired do not endanger civilians or fellow officers. In this case, there were multiple officers and civilians directly within the potential line of fire. The risk of catastrophic injury, friendly fire, or unintended civilian casualties was extremely high.

Equally important, this incident does not align with established de escalation principles. Rather than slowing the encounter, increasing distance, and reducing risk, the situation was escalated rapidly to lethal force after control had already been achieved. That is the opposite of what modern policing doctrine teaches.

Based on the available video footage, camera angles, and observable officer behavior, this incident reflects failures in threat assessment, use of force decision making, backstop awareness, and de escalation. From a professional standpoint, it represents a breakdown across multiple training and policy standards.

This is a tragic outcome. It deserves a serious, objective review grounded in established law enforcement practices, not emotion or politics.

This definatley deserves a full independent investigation and review.

375

998

375K

Poortake

@poortake

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users