Anti-Cop Activist Pastor Trains With Maricopa Country Sheriff's Office (and alters views appropriat

A progressive pastor who has lead protests against law enforcement said “his attitude has changed” ... after a local law enforcement agency invited him to a training scenario simulating life threatening situations.

source

Many of the internet experts in this forum are always preaching about how an LEO--or Service Members, or Secret Service, or whathaveyous--should react during a life- or personal safety-threatening situation, and most, if not all, have never had any type of training in these situations.

So is the case with Reverend Jarrett Maupin, a "former Democratic congressional candidate who describes himself as a 'Progressive Baptist Preacher,' a 'Civil Rights Campaigner,' and a 'Radical Political Activist' on his Twitter profile."

Maupin agreed to undergo some training and then simulations of scenarios that an officer could encounter. The video says it all, so I hope that some of you who think it's so simple to make these decisions at the time of the confrontation aren't exactly what you think, and obviously things happen where the officer can get shot as well as an unarmed assailant, and both scenarios can be justified with logical decision making.

Here, enjoy these videos, and use them to actually reflect on things. Life isn't black and white.



And now the three different scenarios from Maupin's point of view:







I post these videos because I simply want people to understand that these scenarios are not as easy to deal with as many think. Couple that with the fact that ANY call to which an LEO responds can result in a scenario like this. They must be ready to react at any given moment, and must suspect nearly everyone to be capable of something like this. This does not mean that they see everyone as an enemy, but just as a potential threat to their life--there truly is a difference.

So, those of you who have never undergone training for or been in these types of situations, what are your thoughts? Could you do better both protecting your life or not firing at the unarmed person.

I fully understand that actual LEOs (hopefully) train in these scenarios frequently and consistently, and Maupin (and the newscaster who went through this as well) only received short training, but that doesn't deminish the fact that human error is an actual thing, and often times one doesn't have the timeframe with which to make an absolutely informed decision, and must react on instinct and with what little information that they can gather in the few seconds during these scenarios.

Maupin's takeaway from this training is perfect--hopefully some of you can come to similar conclusions from watching the videos.

Take Care.

SM

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Why do you use the term anti-cop? Is he an anarchist? Or are you just intending to bias readers.
I recognize these tactics and they are not honorable.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Asking us not to be bias but trying to prove a point using an extremely bias view point?
Makes sense

This training is far from perfect, the first video proves it.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Well, it's the headline of the story from the source to which I forgot to link, but have since added.

So, you recognize the tactic of using the headline from the main source of a thread, or what? I never once mentioned "anti-cop" in my discussion of the story. My apologies for forgetting the link, but you sure are quick to avoid any meat of my post in order to call out an relatively insignificant thing in my OP.

But, you know, why talk about substance when we can argue semantics?

And please, don't bring race into it like you did my other thread...it had no place there, and it has no place here.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I fully agree. A good majority of these shootings occur because the perp/suspect refuse to behave in a way that is non-threatening.

I've had my run ins with cops. It can be a very tense situation but I've never felt threatened by a cop nor have I acted in a way that would allow any LEO to view me as a threat. I'm pretty liberal too.

a reply to: Sremmos80

And I made reference to that characterization of the training in my OP, maybe just not as directly.

But tell me...how am I being biased in any way in this thread?

If by biased, you mean me calling out people who have never trained in this type of scenario, but try to act like experts in this forum--well that's not bias, that's called me calling out a problem. And if doing so by using evidence of an activist who change his viewpoint after undergoing some training is somehow underhanded or sneaky (my words, not yours), then I think I may just have to give up on the people in this forum altogether.

Why aren't any of you addressing the questions I asked in the OP, but instead trying to resort to ill-conceived Ad Hominem attacks against me?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No I am saying using the biased view of police training videos to show how on the training is 'perfect' is showing us it from a biased view.
As in the videos obviously are made to show the cop in the right.
Was nothing against you.
The only situation I would even put my self in is the one with the two guys fighting and I would not shoot him for walking up to me.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I still fail to see a bias in doing that, but that's neither here nor there, as this forum and this post are meant to discuss the actions of law enforcement and how they are trained and how they react to aggressors or, often times, non-aggressors.

But in all honesty, if you were being approached by a dude much bigger than you who was already in a heated confrontation and you had a weapon, even as a civilian, you'd be legally justified in the shooting as you could easily show that you feared for your life or personal safety.

Where is the discussion concerning the ridiculous decision by the aggressor to charge angrily at a police officer who has his weapon drawn? Why do we avoid that discussion altogether?

I never once said nor impied that the training shown in these videos is perfect--I'm using it as a tool to show all the arm-chair LEOs who think they would handle a situation better than trained LEOs that it's not quite as easy as you think, and that maybe they should listen to the lessons learned by this pastor in the videos as to how he now perceives officer-civilian interactions.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Pretty blatant propaganda in my opinion. I fully believe that they were coached on how they should respond.

Why did they both shoot the guy that had been fighting just because he walked toward them? Probably because that scenario occurred after the one wherein they had just been shot. They were already on edge from the first scenario and not wanting to fail again, reacted offensively. Its not really accurate to real world and proves nothing.

Just a bit of speculation but I call shenanigans.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You fail to see the bias in using police sponsored videos to show how interactions go down?

Anyway, about the guy walking at me, no shooting should not and would not be my fist option.
Especially if I had on me what the average officer carries.
Regardless of the legality of it.
Sad state of affairs when we have the right to kill some one cause they are bigger then you and look mean

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: SlapMonkey
You fail to see the bias in using police sponsored videos to show how interactions go down?

*sigh* Everyone will yell bias at one point or the other, the difference here is that this was a voluntary thing done by an anti-LEO activist who, like you, probably thought that:

Anyway, about the guy walking at me, no shooting should not and would not be my fist option.
Especially if I had on me what the average officer carries.
Regardless of the legality of it.

You know, it wasn't but a couple of years ago that I said I'd never grow a beard, yet here I am four months into it. I also said I'd never sell my '66 Mustang, but life necessitated otherwise. I also said I would only have one child, but 10 years after our first, here we are a year into our second.

My point is that sometimes things in life don't happen as you plan. You may think you would never do this or that, but when you are dealing with the variable of an angry individual over whom you have zero control or knowledge about what they're going to do in the next five seconds, you're naive to think that there are absolutes in such a scenario. In fact, if you believe that, you're too naive to be participating in this conversation--again, if that's what you believe.

I am trained in a street-fighting style of martial arts, and I have a CCDW permit that I exercise on a daily basis. My hope and goal until the day that I die is that I never have to use either one on a human being in order to protect myself or my family, but I have both the self-defense skill and the permit as a just-in-case scenario.

Maupin found out quickly that ideologically held beliefs can disappear in an instance in the face of a threat. He also learned that if you don't pay attention and have these skills or weapons available at the ready, it's easy to get shot with nearly zero clue that it's going to happen.

Sad state of affairs when we have the right to kill some one cause they are bigger then you and look mean

See, this is the problem--you're not identifying the correct factors in the equation. We don't "have the right to kill some one cause they are bigger then you and look mean." We have the right to kill someone in self defense if they are perceived as an imminent threat to our safety and life or the safety and life of others. They can be 3'5" tall and weigh 60 pounds, but if all indications say that they have the ability to cause grievous bodily injury or death, it's either them or me, and it isn't going to be me. If you feel differently, well, that's your right. I would say it's an unrealistic view, but it's your right to hold that view.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

I could agree with your interpretation if it wasn't for the fact that this guy is an obviously public figure with long-held ideological views on law enforcement and how they interact with suspects and citizens.

But I'm pretty certain that, psychologically speaking, it'd be pretty easy to describe the realities as to why someone would only fire on the individual what is coming right at them and within striking distance. I'm guessing the subconscious fight-or-flight response kicks in, and when you're holding a gun, the fight becomes much easier.

But, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least give you a star for calling out a logical possibility.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

but I call shenanigans.

The video was used to prove a point to a person that is critical of police actions as of late and the point is so he could see how fast a situation can get deadly, so I don't see why this would be called shenanigans.

Also know with proper training the outcomes of those scenario's would probably have been different.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If you refuse to discuss things with out insulting my intelligence then we are done.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Please cite the insult to your intelligence in my response. Sure, I'm a bit snarky, but if it's because I said your seemingly strict adherence to your claim of not shooting is naive, or that I said you're holding an unrealistic view if you feel differently about something I claim, I must assert that those are not insults to intelligence, they are just my opinions concerning the responses you are giving, and I feel I'm backing up my opinion with plenty of evidence as to why.

Or, was it the part about being naive if you believe that you can hold black-and-white views about scenarios with variables that you can't control? If so, I'm sorry, but that's just a fact--nothing goes to plan when another human element enters the equation.

But I agree--we can be done here, because as much as I like a good old-fashioned four-square ho-down (I don't know what that means, either), we just seem to be going back and forth with no progress.

Best Regards.