Contagious Shooting?

[bill2]

Below is an article from Slate magazine. It refers to the shooting of the bridegroom last week just before his wedding. The author discusses contagious shooting, where one person shoots and it causes others to start shooting. I have never heard of this before; the author mentions it as though it has been around for awhile.

Any comments on this by someone who has heard of this before?
____________________________________
http://www.slate.com/id/2154631/?nav=tap3

Catch and Shoot
The perils of "contagious shooting."
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006, at 2:35 AM ET
Fifty bullets fired at three unarmed men last Saturday. Forty-three fired at an armed man last year. Forty-one fired at Amadou Diallo. All by New York police; all cases fatal.

Why so many bullets? "Contagious shooting," proposed the New York Times in a front-page story on Monday. "An officer fires, so his colleagues do, too."

It's natural to grope for a rational or mechanical explanation in cases like these. But it's not clear which kind of explanation this contagion is. If it's rational, it should be judged like any rational process, and cops should be culpable for it. If it's mechanical, it should be controlled like any mechanical process, starting with the guns supplied to police. We can't keep doing what we've been doing: giving cops high-round semiautomatic weapons because we trust them not to blast away like robots, then excusing them like robots when they blast away.

Supposedly, contagious shooting was coined four decades ago to explain copycat police fire during riots. Once you start describing a behavioral phenomenon as a predictable sequence of events—"post-traumatic stress disorder," for example—people start reading it as an excuse. Seven years ago, during the Diallo case, a lawyer for one of the accused officers pointed out that "contagious shooting" was in the New York Police Department patrol guide. "I suspect that this phenomenon may play an active role in this case for my client," he told reporters.

What makes contagious shooting a handy legal defense is its mechanical portrayal of behavior. You're not choosing to kill; you're catching a disease. In the Diallo era, the NYPD patrol guide explained that the first shot "sets off a chain reaction of shooting by other personnel." Officers "join in as a kind of contagion," said the Times. They "instinctively follow suit," said the Daily News, as one shot "sparks a volley from other officers." On Monday, the Times said contagious shooting "spreads like germs, like laughter." One former NYPD official called it the "fog of the moment." Another said "your reflexes take over." A third told CNN, "It's sort of like a Pavlovian response. It's automatic. It's not intentional."

This mess of metaphors is telling. Nothing can behave like germs, sparks, laughter, fog, instinct, and conditioning all at once. That's the first clue that "contagious" is being used not to clarify matters, but to confuse them. Another clue is that the same people who invoke it often point out that the number of shootings by police is low and has been falling. An urge that's so commonly resisted can't be irresistible.

Here's a third clue: Prior to Monday, "contagious shooting" had appeared in 25 articles in Nexis. Half of them were about cops or soldiers; the other half were about basketball. Three years ago, for example, contagious shooting "rubbed off" among Duke players; last year, it "spread" among the Philadelphia 76ers. Anyone who follows sports knows that writers reach for such silly metaphors when they have no idea why something happened.

Maybe cops can get off with this defense. But it carries a price. If lethal police reactions really are contagious, then the sensible response is to control them like a disease. As Al Sharpton—who says 10,000 things a year and is right at least twice—pointed out Monday, contagious shooting as an explanation for this week's tragedy is "even more frightening" than malice, since it implies that such incidents will recur. The most famous invocation of contagion in law enforcement, delivered eight decades ago by Justice Louis Brandeis, became a centerpiece of the 1966 Miranda case. "Crime is contagious," Brandeis wrote. "If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

How can you control a contagion of police overreaction? By controlling the crucial mechanism: guns. The key number in the Diallo case wasn't 41; it was 16. Two of the four officers accounted for 32 of the 41 bullets, because each of them emptied his weapon. NYPD rules "require that the officers carry nine millimeter semi-automatic pistols with 16 shots in the magazine and the first trigger pull being a conventional trigger pull and all subsequent trigger pulls being a hair trigger pull," one defense lawyer told the jury. That's why the officers fired so many shots so fast: Their guns, loaded with 64 rounds, "were all capable of being emptied in less than four seconds."

Same thing this week. Thirty-one of the 50 bullets reportedly came from one officer's 16-round semiautomatic. One reload, two clips, total mayhem.

This is why Mayor David Dinkins and his police commissioners, including Ray Kelly, originally opposed giving cops semiautomatic weapons. In 1993, when they gave in, they put a 10-round limit on the clips. A year later, Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his commissioner lifted the cap. They argued that cops shouldn't be outgunned and would handle the weapons responsibly. It's the same argument the National Rifle Association makes for the freedom to use firearms: Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Contagious shooting blows that argument away. If cops fire reflexively, there's no moral difference between people and guns. They're both machines, and based on recent shootings, we should limit clips or firing speed to control their damage. No responsibility, no freedom.

Alternatively, we could reassert that police are free agents, to be trusted with weapons and held responsible—not excused with mechanical metaphors—when they abuse them. You can't have it both ways.

 

[tellner]

The job of the NYPD's lawyers - like all defense attorneys - is to do whatever they can to get their clients off. If it means coming up with pseudo-medical garbage they'll do it. If it means stretching the truth a bit, they'll do that, too.

I predict that the cops will skate. A modest settlement will be paid to the families of the deceased. There will be more pork for the NYPD next year for "sensitivity" and "awareness" seminars and more money for firearms training.

 

[bill2]

I wonder if they use that defense, will it end up making the NYPD look bad since they didn't train the officers not be caught up in "contagious shooting". It does sound like another medical condition that will enable someone to escape responsibility, assuming that they were not justified in shooting. I'm not saying that they weren't, politically charged cases like this tend to have waves of information or horse manure come out as the story evolves.

 

[mr_dove]

I would see it as more of a type of negligence. Instead of identifying a thread yourself you shoot merely because the officer next to you is shooting. You assume that HE has identified a threat and you trust his judgment instead of making your own assessment.

I can't find the info at the moment but I thought I read that only half of the officers on the scene opened fire. 4 or 5 other officers did not fire their weapons.

This would seem to bode poorly for those who were shooting if half of the officers on the scene could not justify the use of deadly force.

 

[Skywarp]

Like when sharks and piranhas go into feeding frenzys.

 

[Zoogster]

Contagious shooting? While on some level it works as an excuse because lots of people pointing weapons suddenly hearing a loud deafening shot would be startled, I think the truth is much different.

I think many police are not making the choice between firing and not firing when confronting a dangerous suspect, but to kill or not to kill. Once one officer judges lethal force is justified and necessary and starts shooting others trust the decision to kill and follow suite to kill the danger and stop the threat ASAP. I don't know if potential lawsuits from surviving wounded suspects has anything to do with making sure that once the decision to use lethal force has been made it results in the death of the suspect or not, but you have to wonder. I have seen seen video of police shootings where clearly after the first half a dozen rounds the suspect is no longer a threat and weapon is falling, yet they continue to fire until the suspects riddled body hits the ground. What may have been survivable by the suspect after treatment becomes definately fatal.

But you must keep in mind in the field shootings are done without hearing protection. So between the half deaf officers and the adrenaline rush they have in what may be a life and death situation, once the decision to fire has been made, especialy on a dark street with muzzle flashes blinding people (now you have deaf and half blind cops shooting) they are going to have some overkill to insure the target who they can only see as a silhouette at this point won't possibly pose a threat when they stop firing.

It would be hard to safely dictate a policy of what deaf and half blind officers should do once a fellow officer begins shooting on a dark street. Should they trust his judgement and join in, or wait and potentialy allow return fire to be given?

There is no perfect answer with police, that is why I like thier numbers limited (by funding) and allowing citizens the tools to protect themselves. Vans filled with police riding around at night lead to things like this. You can be sure if even one of them actualy was armed (legaly or not, or course not in NYC but for arguments sake) or they found a weapon anywhere in the vehicle afterwards this would have gone under the radar.

 

[Kentak]

I don't know about the appropriateness of that term, but I think there is some validity to the notion that there was a group psychology at work during that incident. It is well-known that people will do things as part of a group that they might be hesitant to do individually. I'm not suggesting anything particularly sinister or conspiratorial, just situational. The decision to respond with lethal force is not always clear cut for an LEO, I would think. Sure, a guy rushes you with a knife, or turns and raises a gun. Those are no brainers. But what about the less obvious. The guy who makes furtive movements, or won't show his hands. Is it a weapon or a cell phone? Is he reaching for his ID or a knife? Does he not understand your commands, etc? I certainly don't believe LEO's are bloodthirsty. They don't want to *take* human life, just protect their own and that of others.

So, here you had a situation that might not have been clear cut. There was some discussion about a gun. The car moved toward an fellow officer. Someone made the decision to shoot. Once that first shot was taken, there was, perhaps, less hesitancy about the justification in the minds of the others. If others are shooting, perhaps I should shoot, as well.

I'm reminded of the cliched scene in the war movies where opposing forces find themselves in a Mexican standoff. Each side tries to convince the other to lay down their arms. Instead, one nervous guy lets one off--and it's on.

Or, not.

K

 

[pcosmar]

Kentak
"If others are shooting, perhaps I should shoot, as well."

Please,no offence, but what exactly. I mean sight picture, or general direction.

 

[dave_pro2a]

At best the very idea is an explanation, NOT an excuse.

Punish to fullest extent of the law. Let no union rep or poltically appointed supervisor stand between them, and justice for their actions.

Personally I think that to shoot, when you don't know WHAT you're shooting, or WHY, is the highest form of intentional negligence.

 

[pcosmar]

Wait, I heard something, was that a deer...

 

[offthepaper]

Quote from mr dove:
"I can't find the info at the moment but I thought I read that only half of the officers on the scene opened fire. 4 or 5 other officers did not fire their weapons.

This would seem to bode poorly for those who were shooting if half of the officers on the scene could not justify the use of deadly force."
-----------------------------------
Exactly.
I think that point alone will be pivotal in a trial.
Sure did'nt seem to be a single mindset on that night.
__________________

 

[FNHP35]

The fact that the others did not fire might or might not have any bearing on the validity of other Officers decision to fire. The one's that did fire will have a different vantage point than the ones that didn't fire. Plus, we don't know if the ones that didn't fire didn't fire because they didn't feel that they were in danger, or because they didn't want to shoot because of what was behind them. Maybe they didn't have a chance at hitting the subject? We don't know, so we can't factor that in.

Onto the article. I read the article. I have heard of it before. It's why we yell out something when we are about to use a bean bag shotgun. I don't really feel like it's a "problem". Each Officer has to make up their mind when/if to shoot. If the shoot is bad, then you can't blame the first Officer that shot. It was your decision to fire, no one elses. There are certian situations in which change that, for instance when you're dealing with a police sniper and someone making a command decision to use lethal force, but in most street situations, you are the one making the decision.

What does bother me is that people are making a big deal on how many rounds were fired. What does it matter if 50 rounds or 1 round was fired? We have to look at the orginal reason for firing (and whether or not we agree on that, doesn't really matter). If there was a valid reason to fire, and that valid reason continued throughout the encounter, then seems to me the amount of rounds fired has no bearing on the case. If it comes out that the person was hit after a reasonable person would have recognized that the threat had ceased to exist, then we have an issue. But we also have to look into the situation, what were the conditions when the Officer fired? Bright daylight? Easy to see the weapon that the subject has? Easy to see that the subject was no longer a threat? Or was it dark, hard to see what position the subject is in and that the subject had ceased to be a threat? Plus, how many Officers were at the location? If it's one and an Officer fires 50 rounds into a person and many of the rounds hit after they guy has stopped moving and is no longer a threat, then we surely have a problem. But if it's 5 Officers shooting at the same time, then the round count goes up. Makes perfect sense, each Officer is acting in defense of himself or another person at a precieved threat to someone's life. There is nothing wrong with that.

Zoogster: I have never met an Officer who has ever even mentioned that theory of lethal force (shooting to kill someone so that they don't get sued). In fact, in every class (and informal conversation with Officers) I've been to the focus has been to stop the threat, not kill. If you have some evidence that that is what is going on, I would love to hear it.

Andrew

 

[geekWithA.45]

I'd say "contagion shooting", to the extent that it actually exists, is an adaptive response in a warfare context.

If one of your fox hole mates starts shooting in a certain direction, it's probably reasonable to assume that he knows something you don't, and whatever he's shooting at would benefit from additional shooting, which improves your overall odds of survival.

Outside of a warfare context, I'd say that the dynamic mentioned above seque into group psych elements of "distributed responsibility".

Like groupthink, it's rarely a good thing.

 

[dave_pro2a]

"I've got a disease, it's contagious, it's NOT MY FAULT!"

Geesh, what about proper training and restraint do they not understand?

 

[pcosmar]

Zoogster
"It would be hard to safely dictate a policy of what deaf and half blind officers should do once a fellow officer begins shooting on a dark street. Should they trust his judgement and join in, or wait and potentialy allow return fire to be given?"

Rule # 4 ?

 

[mete]

The problem certainly does exist. Remember that the typical LEO never fired a gun until he became a LEO and typical LEOS never fire their gun on the job !! A seasoned military combat veteran is far less likely to have the problem .Better training reduces it also. Also remember that in a city things get confusing in that sounds have many things to bounch off .

 

[Blakenzy]

Yes! Finally someone said it! Perhaps "contagious shooting" isn't the appropiate phrase, maybe mindless firing would describe it better. We have all read about it more than once. During a felony stop one police officer starts shooting and all the rest join in, even if they have no clear vision of the threat or any idea of what exactly is going on. I am not trying to bash cops here, mind you, just discussing a little contructive critisism

Perhaps cops, before performing a felony stop if time permits, should be trained to coordinate amongst themselves who will be the designated shooter(s). Example: Five cops cover the threat, but only two are the designated shooters, preferably armed with high power semiauto rifles to deliver accurate effective fire on the threat if there is one. The other three keep their sidearms trained in the direction of the potential threat but with their safeties on and their fingers off the triggers. They only fire if and only if they positively identify an active threat, it is in their direct line of sight, and it is not being engaged by a designated shooter at the time.

I'm no expert but I guess with enough training this could be accomplished. Round counts would go down and indiscriminate fire which poses a peril for innocent bystanders would be some what quelled. Any thoughts on this?

 

[benEzra]

"It would be hard to safely dictate a policy of what deaf and half blind officers should do once a fellow officer begins shooting on a dark street. Should they trust his judgement and join in, or wait and potentialy allow return fire to be given?"

Question #1: Who is your fellow officer shooting at? The suspect you think he's covering (who may well be still standing there with his hands on his head) or the other guy you can't see from your vantage point? Shoot the guy with his hands on his head just because you heard someone else fire some shots, and you are in DEEP trouble.

Question #2: Did your fellow officer just shoot the suspect, or was that an accidental discharge into the ground? BTW, Massad Ayoob recounts at least one case in which one partner fired a warning shot and the other partner thought the shot was fired by the bad guy, and "returned fire" against the unarmed man, killing him. Big no-no.

Question #3: Did your fellow officer's shots stop the threat? Because if they did, and you shoot the suspect some more, you may have just committed manslaughter.

Question #4: Can you elucidate to a jury exactly what action by the suspect prompted you to shoot? "I heard my partner start shooting" isn't grounds for the justifiable use of lethal force.

And so on. As someone else has mentioned, shooting because someone else starts up might make sense in a military conflict, but not in a law enforcement situation (IMHO).

 

[svtruth]

Has anyone

been afflicted with contagious shooting at the range when all those other shooters are firing?
Does contagious shooting break out amog skeet and trap shooters?
Do the other duck hunters in a blind open up when one does?
Contagious shooting sounds like a bogus cover up for training breakdown.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yo, Mr. FNHP35

It's why we yell out something when we are about to use a bean bag shotgun

Where can a body get a holt of some of those bean bag shotgun shells? I think they would be good to keep the neighbor's dogs outa my trash cans.