# Video of gun-grab attempt



## KenpoTex (May 17, 2008)

Don't know whether to title this one "Why cops need combatives training" or "Never let your guard down." 
Either way, the deputy was lucky there were other officers around to help him out.



> A Michigan man convicted of killing his wife and son tries to grab a deputy's gun. The courtroom brawl is caught on camera.
> 
> A Calhoun County Circuit Court Judge found Michael Fisher guilty of the December 2006 murders of Candy and Michael Fisher, Jr. While the judge read his verdict, Fisher jumped up, charged a nearby deputy and reached for his gun.


 
article and video here:
http://www.wkrg.com/news/article/order_in_the_court_killer_reaches_for_gun/13862/


----------



## ackks10 (May 17, 2008)

don't know why he had a gun in the courtroom in the first place, just because of crap like that, here in NJ you can't take a your gun inside a courtroom,but i do agree with you about the training someone needs to look at that tape and say ,back to the drawing board:anic:


----------



## MJS (May 17, 2008)

ackks10 said:


> don't know why he had a gun in the courtroom in the first place, just because of crap like that, here in NJ you can't take a your gun inside a courtroom,but i do agree with you about the training someone needs to look at that tape and say ,back to the drawing board:anic:


 
I agree.  One has to wonder how someone could get in.  AFAIK, courts have metal detectors and usually have some sort of security there to screen people.  If this gy had it concealed, the security obviously wasnt doing their job.  

As for the officer...I'd say some gun/weapon retention techniques are in order.

Mike


----------



## KenpoTex (May 17, 2008)

um...I'm not sure if I understand what y'all are saying.

The bad guy was _un_armed and was trying to get the officer's gun out of his holster.

I don't think it's really that uncommon for officers on court-duty or bailiffs to be armed (at least not in the courthouses I've been in).


----------



## Archangel M (May 17, 2008)

They can be in court in prison jumpsuits but not handcuffs or stun belts...when will the courts wake up?


----------



## jks9199 (May 17, 2008)

Each court sets its own rules on who may be armed while in court.  I know some that allow any LEO to carry and others that allow LEOs to carry concealed, but only the court deputies/bailiffs can carry openly, and a few that prohibit anyone but the court deputies or bailiffs from being armed.

I've never heard a really good argument, personally, for disarming uniformed law enforcement officers in court.


----------



## ackks10 (May 17, 2008)

i will say this one more time, in NEW JERSEY!!!!! i said, you people live in other parts of or out of the USA, it is because of things like the  guy going for the 
the deputy's gun,that NJ don't let the court  deputy's carry in court.:anic:


----------



## arnisador (May 17, 2008)

If the deputy knew he had help, playing it safe and defensive while he waited for the others to help wasn't necessarily a bad startegy. As long as he doesn't get the gun, the other deputies will take him down (relatively) easily.


----------



## Pacificshore (May 21, 2008)

I'm surprise more of why the bad guy, being sentenced for murder isn't in handcuffs and secured either into the chair or table...


----------



## kyosa (Sep 28, 2008)

Most court bailiffs and court security are armed with Tasers and a side arm in the mid-west, not sure about the rest of the country.  If someone is trying to get your gun from your holster you MUST protect the gun and keep them from getting at it.  This can be done with one hand or two.  I'm sure the officer is holding onto his gun with everything he can and letting the other officers deal with the dirt bag.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 28, 2008)

It's almost impossible to be 100% on gaurd 100% of the time...

...that being said...

...when on duty, you've got an obligation to be 100% aware. Now that doesn't mean someone can't get "the drop" on you, but you should be in a state of awareness all of the time whe non duty. 

Also, when he went for the gun, the other officers should have stepped up and put a bullet in his head. 

As harsh as that may sound, I don't think the risk to innocent life is worth putting on the line in cases like this. They were lucky and tasered the guy, but the only 100% sure method to keep him from grabbing the gun would have been to step up, place your barrel against his head, and pull the trigger. 

He made the decision to go after a firearem (thereby freely accepting the consequences of that decision) and the only way to ensure the safety of innocents in cases like this is to neutralize the threat ASAP.


----------



## Franc0 (Sep 29, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> It's almost impossible to be 100% on gaurd 100% of the time...
> 
> ...that being said...
> 
> ...


 
Yep, that fact that he left the courtroom laughing showed that they were way to easy on him. Though we didn't see footage of him after being taken away, IMO, he should've left that courtroom at the least bloody and severly beaten. 

Franco


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 29, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> Don't know whether to title this one "Why cops need combatives training" or "Never let your guard down."
> Either way, the deputy was lucky there were other officers around to help him out.
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting this video, Ken.....good training aid!

The other officers FAILED to do their JOB!  They should have drawn their gun and SHOT THIS GUY IN THE HEAD!

These officers failed to do what was necessary to protect innocent life, because they failed to escalate to the LEVEL of the threat!  All that would have needed to have happened was for the officer defending his gun to lose his grip and his retention holster fail.....and some folks would have been shot already.

Not an indictment of these officers, but a training point for the future.  This is not a wrestling threat, this is a shooting one!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 29, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> It's almost impossible to be 100% on gaurd 100% of the time...
> 
> ...that being said...
> 
> ...


 
CONTACT WOUND dead center of Mikey's face would have ended his disarm attempt pretty decisively!


----------



## Drac (Sep 29, 2008)

It is for reasons like this that we do *A LOT* of defensives against gun grabs drills...Training *MUST* be *ONGONG* and *CONTINUEOUS..*


----------



## Brian King (Sep 29, 2008)

I tossed a guy once a few years back. Not a bad guy just young and being a young guy he was stupid and impulsive. He was having troubles with a gal and sought answers with his friends Jose and Jack  and caused a little fight with the gal and one of her boyfriends (like I said he was stupid) We had to toss him and he wanted to fight so we held him until the police showed up. When the cops came as often is the case he calmed down and quit fighting. I stood by while the offers interviewed him so I could BS a bit with the cops and find out how the night was going at the other clubs and such. This stupid fella was facing no charges and only had to leave the area, not even 86d from the bar, just tossed for the night. This young idiot while talking to the cops decided to reach over to one of the cops whose back was turned to him (there were three or four cops in the immediate area) and try to jerk his pistol out holster. He immediately got the beat down he deserved. I asked him a few minutes later what the heck (I used a different term then as cussing was normal at that time in my life) was he thinking? He looked at me blankly and said Dude, I dont know? 
I never saw that young man again, never had to go to court to testify so I assume he pleaded to some kind of deal and may even be out of jail/prison by nowor not.

He was stupid admittedly so but as I carried then (still do on occasion) I also learned a lesson. If you give an idiot an opportunity do not be surprised when they take it.

The guy in court should have bleed at the least. He learned it is ok to at least try and he will again during his prison career. 

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 29, 2008)

Drac said:


> It is for reasons like this that we do *A LOT* of defensives against gun grabs drills...Training *MUST* be *ONGONG* and *CONTINUEOUS..*


*
This is the one true absolute statement in this thread.*  Training for officer's must be ongoing and continuous.  As for the end result of this situation well the officer's in the court did manage to subdue him and the tasering was effective.  The larger fear of firing a fire arm on this individual after he had already made the grab would be that you might hit the officer who he is trying to grab the gun from.  In the end the officer's managed well.

My only critique would have been to be in a little better position and ready but like a poster said before you simply cannot be ready all the time.  

In the midwest officers and bailiffs are usually armed.  Multiple reasons for this are simply that the judge, prosecutors, people in attendance deserve to have people there that have the means to protect them.  It would be far to easy to get into a court and hurt/kill someone other wise.


----------



## Kreth (Sep 29, 2008)

I wouldn't be surprised if the defendant "ran into" a door or two once they were off-camera, and rightly so...


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 29, 2008)

I don't know how to use the multi-function thingy for quotes so I will try and address the points as I remember them. 

First, let me preface by saying this is my department and I am friends with everyone in that video (at least the ones wearing brown. LOL)  Second, I am one of our PPCT training instructors and we used this to illustrate certain points of what to do/not to do.

1)  Not on video, but the inmate was in leg irons.  Up until that point he had not caused problems while being incarcerated.  if you look at the video clip again, you will see yellow tape across part of the gallery.  We were expecting more trouble from the family side so that is where the focus was aimed.  That was also the reason for the other deputies and TASER that were right there.

2) Bailiff's in our county are NOT armed.  The people you see in the video are fully sworn LEO's even though they are currently assigned to the transport division.

3)  Before the incident in Atlanta, our department saw the need for the deputies (non-road) that worked in close proxemity of inmates to have a higher level security holster.  We switched to level 3 holsters due to the prediction of some progressive firearms instructors that they would need more security than speed.  As a side note, I was one of the people that did the main evaluation for the level 3 holsters and picked that particular holster.  One of the things that I liked about it is, that unless you are in the driver's seat and know how it works it doesn't come out, but if you do it is still easy to draw.  I had a couple guys from our local ERT who also compete MMA try to unholster mine without me even trying to resist them and they were both unable to get past the first level (thumb strap).  I know nothing is absolutely fullproof, but there is a HIGH level of protection with that particular holster.

4)  Easy to second guess NOT shooting the guy, but again in close quarters like that wrestling around you have to worry about your other officers and pass-through rounds.  After this incident we did alot of scenarios with gun grabs and deploying your own duty knife if you have to secure your firearm and can't draw it.  Also, as we discussed in AAR's you have to have the mindset and training AHEAD of time to be able to act under pressure.

We were all lucky that it didn't go worse, and truly feel that it was a wake-up call with lots of lessons to learn from without as much pain as it could have been.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 29, 2008)

Deploying the knife with the other hand makes much sense to me, esp. if otehrs are not nearby to assist.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 29, 2008)

celtic_crippler said:


> but the only 100% sure method to keep him from grabbing the gun would have been to step up, place your barrel against his head, and pull the trigger.


 Yeah but then there's all that paperwork afterwards ya know? Such a pain. 



celtic_crippler said:


> He made the decision to go after a firearm (thereby freely accepting the consequences of that decision) and the only way to ensure the safety of innocents in cases like this is to neutralize the threat ASAP.


 From what I could see in the video the officer's gun didn't clear the holster which is always a good thing in a situation like that. 
Better to have tasers and stun-belts than actual firearms in a courtroom. There are certain career criminals who will stop at NOTHING to prevent going back to prison again.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 29, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> I don't know how to use the multi-function thingy for quotes so I will try and address the points as I remember them.
> 
> First, let me preface by saying this is my department and I am friends with everyone in that video (at least the ones wearing brown. LOL)  Second, I am one of our PPCT training instructors and we used this to illustrate certain points of what to do/not to do.
> 
> ...


 Good points all!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 29, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Yeah but then there's all that paperwork afterwards ya know? Such a pain.


 That should never be a consideration when deciding what level of force is required by the situation.  Such distracting thoughts at the time gets cops killed.



MA-Caver said:


> From what I could see in the video the officer's gun didn't clear the holster which is always a good thing in a situation like that.
> Better to have tasers and stun-belts than actual firearms in a courtroom. There are certain career criminals who will stop at NOTHING to prevent going back to prison again.


 True....at least for anyone who's job is direct control of the prisoner.  Disarming all officers in the courtroom is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 29, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> MA-Caver said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but then there's all that paperwork afterwards ya know? Such a pain.
> ...


Sorry, my remark was made tongue in cheek, however true it may have been. But either way I cannot see the justification of an officer simply putting his sidearm against a prisoner's temple and pulling the trigger... *unless* they were also armed (succeeding in obtaining another officer's weapon) and ready to fire that gun at ANYONE, that image is just too... Nazism/Communism or whatever "ism" you want to call it. Also discharging a weapon into a struggling MASS of people hoping that the prisoner doesn't jerk his head out of the way at the last possible second is just too much of a risk. Likewise the bullet will pass through the skull, the brain and through the skull again and continue traveling... alibet at a slower speed ... say a loss of a couple hundred feet per second but still fast enough to continue into the body of an officer trying to restrain him. 
Guards are NOT executioners and the prisoner WAS heavily outnumbered and in process of being subdued. He'd been tasered as well so that should well put him out of the fight. 




sgtmac_46 said:


> MA-Caver said:
> 
> 
> > From what I could see in the video the officer's gun didn't clear the holster which is always a good thing in a situation like that. Better to have tasers and stun-belts than actual firearms in a courtroom. There are certain career criminals who will stop at NOTHING to prevent going back to prison again.
> ...


 Maybe, but there are other officers outside the court room that could be called in at a moment's notice who are armed. Prisoners of that caliber should be restrained at all times via handcuffs attached to belts and ankle chains that limit anything more than an ambling shuffle. They can thrash around but not do too much.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 29, 2008)

Drac said:


> It is for reasons like this that we do *A LOT* of defensives against gun grabs drills...Training *MUST* be *ONGONG* and *CONTINUEOUS..*


 
This is ooo true Drac and still people believ once they learn it it is always there.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 29, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> This is sooo true Drac and still people believe once they learn it it is always there.


 Well, when you think about it... it *is* always there... just not as *effective* compared to ... say, practicing it on a regular/frequent basis. :uhyeah: 

I mean I can probably do the TKD roundhouse kick but most likely will end up on my *** immediately afterwards. :idunno:


----------



## Drac (Sep 30, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> This is ooo true Drac and still people believ once they learn it it is always there.


 
*That* is an one of the going problems and attitudes when in comes to in house training...Many officers believe that the skills they aquired in the academy 5-20 years ago will be there if needed...Now if you had to deal with physical altercations everyday since you graduated the academy,then yes..However some of these officers have *NEVER* had a physical confrontation..Many believe that they don't need any of that 'ka-rotty" crap because they carry a gun...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 1, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Sorry, my remark was made tongue in cheek, however true it may have been. But either way I cannot see the justification of an officer simply putting his sidearm against a prisoner's temple and pulling the trigger... *unless* they were also armed (succeeding in obtaining another officer's weapon) and ready to fire that gun at ANYONE, that image is just too... Nazism/Communism or whatever "ism" you want to call it. Also discharging a weapon into a struggling MASS of people hoping that the prisoner doesn't jerk his head out of the way at the last possible second is just too much of a risk. Likewise the bullet will pass through the skull, the brain and through the skull again and continue traveling... alibet at a slower speed ... say a loss of a couple hundred feet per second but still fast enough to continue into the body of an officer trying to restrain him.
> Guards are NOT executioners and the prisoner WAS heavily outnumbered and in process of being subdued. He'd been tasered as well so that should well put him out of the fight.


 WTF do you think his hand was around the grip of?  A lollypop?!  And what do you think his intent was a friendly game of slap and tickle?

A weapon, intent and a delivery system.....that is what justifies lethal force for law enforcement.....this guy had all three.

Want to tell how long in fractions of seconds it takes to fire that gun once it clears the holster?

And what does being outnumbered matter if he gets the gun free?

By the way, skulls are excellent bullet stoppers.




MA-Caver said:


> Maybe, but there are other officers outside the court room that could be called in at a moment's notice who are armed. Prisoners of that caliber should be restrained at all times via handcuffs attached to belts and ankle chains that limit anything more than an ambling shuffle. They can thrash around but not do too much.


 I agree with the last part....a belly chain and leg shackles would have reduced his mobility.


----------



## CHAOS (Apr 7, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> WTF do you think his hand was around the grip of? A lollypop?! And what do you think his intent was a friendly game of slap and tickle?
> 
> A weapon, intent and a delivery system.....that is what justifies lethal force for law enforcement.....this guy had all three.
> 
> ...


 
As for bullet stopping skulls, Id rather not take that chance if my partner is on the other side. And I dont know what the laws are in Ga., but I am an LEO in Texas. And you would be crazy to use deadly force in that situation with that much backup. You would deffinately lose the civil suit, but you may be charged with deadly conduct, excessive force, negligent homocide, or even murder. You see, in my world its not what you should have done, but, how the public sees what you did. In that case dont expect to get 100% backing from your department if you shoot the suspect at point blank range with 4 large men holding on to him. The public will see that as an execution, not justifiable homocide. And the DA will run with the public since he is an elected official here.
  There are many different aspects of "self defense" in law enforcement

And its been established by the US Supreme court that a defendant is not receiving a "fair trail" if he is in hadcuffs and leg restraints because it gives the impression of "guilt" to the jury and therefore makes it a biased jury. Now after the guilty verdict, he is the property of the state and they can immediatly restrain him.

There is a whole lot more the job than most people realize.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2009)

I disagree. If hes grabbing for a weapon hes a deadly force threat. Screw perception if it means someone getting killed. Backup or not, a deadly threat is a deadly threat. Courtroom security needs some revision, espically after the slaughter in that Atlanta courtroom a couple of years ago.

I think shock belts are a solution. Put it under the clothes and zap his *** if he gets out of hand.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2009)

CHAOS said:


> As for bullet stopping skulls, Id rather not take that chance if my partner is on the other side. And I dont know what the laws are in Ga., but I am an LEO in Texas. And you would be crazy to use deadly force in that situation with that much backup. You would deffinately lose the civil suit, but you may be charged with deadly conduct, excessive force, negligent homocide, or even murder. You see, in my world its not what you should have done, but, how the public sees what you did. In that case dont expect to get 100% backing from your department if you shoot the suspect at point blank range with 4 large men holding on to him. The public will see that as an execution, not justifiable homocide. And the DA will run with the public since he is an elected official here.
> There are many different aspects of "self defense" in law enforcement
> 
> And its been established by the US Supreme court that a defendant is not receiving a "fair trail" if he is in hadcuffs and leg restraints because it gives the impression of "guilt" to the jury and therefore makes it a biased jury. Now after the guilty verdict, he is the property of the state and they can immediatly restrain him.
> ...



First of all, whether he's receiving a fair trial is up to the judge and other judges, so that question is entirely outside the realm of control of the officers involved......it's a non-issue from an LEO standpoint.  The judge controls the court room, and decides how he wants prisoners brought in. 

Second of all, having lots of 'backup' is not a decider about whether someone is a legitimate threat......how much back up did the two dead Oakland SWAT officers have when they were storming the building?  Dozens?

As for what the 'public' sees it as, the public is generally WRONG!  Had this guy managed to break the holster it wouldn't matter how many 'large men' were holding him down......several of them would be shot. 

In any lethal force situation there are three important questions.....

Is there intent? 
Is there a weapon? 
Is there a delivery system to bring that weapon to bear?


I'm not second-guessing these guys, maybe i'd have done the same thing......but the conclusion that this is NOT a 'lethal force' situation because they outnumber him is, well......caca.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 8, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I disagree. If hes grabbing for a weapon hes a deadly force threat. Screw perception if it means someone getting killed. Backup or not, a deadly threat is a deadly threat. Courtroom security needs some revision, espically after the slaughter in that Atlanta courtroom a couple of years ago.
> 
> I think shock belts are a solution. Put it under the clothes and zap his *** if he gets out of hand.


 You're absolutely correct, and since a shock belt isn't visible to the jury, the issue of it somehow influencing their decision is a non-issue.


----------

