Quantcast

Man who disarmed criminal shot by responding police

Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics and Training' started by Jeff White, Feb 26, 2018.

  1. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,647
    Location:
    Georgia
    You wouldn't ask the question if you were

    (and yes, I have been trained in doing it, and no, I would not attempt to do so in this context or any similar context, even if I had a pair magically appear at the time)

    This is very true for traditional metal cuffs, obviously not the same when dealing with flexi cuffs. It is said guys often decide to fight after they feel the steel on their wrist, even if they had not intended to until that point, some pretty nasty injuries have resulted from a guy (or gal) starting to resist violently with that hunk of metal swinging off the one wrist that it is on. Technique does play a big role in reducing that risk of course, but if you don't know what you're doing, you are unlikely to do it in a way that minimizes this risk
     
    RPZ and JeffG like this.
  2. bearcreek

    bearcreek Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    899
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    ;)Best be careful about making assumptions like this in real life.
     
  3. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,647
    Location:
    Georgia
    Quoted for truth.
     
    RPZ, Choctaw and JeffG like this.
  4. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,130
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    I see zero reasons to carry flex-cuffs as the likelihood of needing them (either as a citizen or off-duty law enforcement officer) is practically nil, and the fact is, hand-cuffing an unwilling subject with either mechanical restraints or flex-cuffs can be difficult at best. Just view any episode of the TV show "Cops" for 30 minutes of bad hand-cuffing (and those folks are considered "trained."
     
    Choctaw and JeffG like this.
  5. Choctaw

    Choctaw Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    524
    Location:
    Texas
    Totally agree with this. I have been in since 1987 and try to have cover with me before handcuffing a suspect. Without proper training and experience, handcuffing a person who is resisting to a positive degree can turn into a nightmare. And as Jeff posted, if you cuff the wrong person you will soon be wearing them yourself. Don't do it.
     
    Warp likes this.
  6. DannyLandrum

    DannyLandrum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2017
    Messages:
    109
    I think your general attitude and approach is exactly, 180 degrees wrong, Jeff.

    "A perfect example of why you should immediately comply with an officer's instructions." Yes, but you fail to mention that much more importantly, it's a perfect example of why cops should be trained correctly in deadly force; i.e. *IF* the guy with a gun is pointing said gun *AT* you, the officer, or raising it to do so, then by all means, shoot him down; but - on the other hand, if said guy with gun is *NOT* pointing said gun at you or raising it to do so, then it's not an imminent threat and no you can NOT shoot him. That's the all-important critical distinction.

    Frankly, you sound just like the gun-ban crowd who try to pretend like it's impossible for the cops to ever tell the bad guy from the good guy, and thus CCW is a bad idea and will only get innocents killed. No, no, no - it's simply NOT hard to tell AT ALL, 99.99% of the time, this case being the outlier if you can even call it an outlier (it's really not even in this case). I guarantee you the (wrongful) shoot-ee was NOT pointing the gun at the cops. This is 100% pure and simple a negligent police chief who needs to take responsibility for very poor training -- for instilling the exactly-wrong attitude into his / her officers' training, to-wit: "anyone with a gun is always a bad guy" which is precisely what the notoriously anti-gun St. Louis city government and police force believe and train for.

    "No amount of training is going to give the officers ESP so they can tell who the good guy is when they arrive on the scene."

    Red herring / non-sequitor: You don't need a lick of ESP to tell that if a guy is NOT pointing a weapon at you, and is generally submissive and explanatory as opposed to aggressive or coy, you shouldn't and legally can't use deadly force, particularly absent any knowledge that this is your bad guy as described by the RP. All you need, actually is common sense and experience - common sense and experience that is, which is NOT constantly over-ridden by the gun-hating police chief and city government, by constantly training you to ignore your common sense and shoot anyone with a gun, even if your instinct tells you they're not a threat - due to the gun-hating politics which taint the training.

    "I really don't know why so many people have such a hard time understanding this."

    That's exactly what I say to the gun-haters who constantly assert that the cops can never tell who is the good guy so only more good people are going to get killed from CCW, when actual ya know, reality doesn't bear that out, and CCW has saved countless lives in incidents over and over and over again, and probably 999 times out of 1000, the cops can easily and nearly-instantly tell who is and isn't the bad guy from their experience and instinct (all of the circumstances combined, including, very importantly, how the other members of the publics' such as the RP's body language is toward the guy with a weapon) -- as long is this instinct isn't undermined by extraordinarily anti-gun training - the "shoot anyone with a gun no matter what" mentality that is pervasive among all blue lefty big city police forces, which means virtually all big cities in this country. The key criteria, other than body language and spoken word of the potential shoot-ee (of which there was plenty in this case) is whether the gun is being POINTED in your direction! If it's not, and if you have no other indication of aggressiveness or a specific description of the guy holding the gun as being the aggressor, as described to you by dispatch while en route, then it's simply not an imminent threat for which deadly force is justified.

    "If you are involved in an armed confrontation it's best not to be visibly armed when the officers arrive and if you are, expect to be ordered to disarm and perhaps even cuffed until things are sorted out."
    Absolutely, yes.

    "Responding officers most often don't know what they are dealing with until they arrive and see for themselves."

    True, but that doesn't mean that police chiefs and mayors don't have a strong ongoing positive duty and responsibility to strive to greatly increase communication with dispatch while en route, to specifically try to clarify who the RP is, and who might or might not be a good or bad actor, as well as a duty to train much much better. Any real, experienced, decent cop in America will tell you that in those circumstances, they would have been able to tell this dude wasn't a threat, and wouldn't have shot. In other words, one of the *reasons* they don't know what they're dealing with is gross negligence in not setting up a system where dispatch tries to pump more info from the RP, where dispatch is trained to give a lot more information en route, and above all, where the officers are properly trained to actually heed that information, mentally prepare before arriving, and make those all-important distinctions. Sometimes it's just inevitable that nothing more can be known about an incident other than basic facts, but I believe that very often, much more info can and should be given to the cops, and the cops specifically trained that a person having a gun does not, per se, mean they are the criminal, deserving of being shot. The focus has to be on the elements of proper deadly force use: (a) deadly threat, (b) imminent, (c) objectively reasonable fear and (d) actual subjective fear - ALL 4 of the boxes must be checked, not just some of them or "all but one" under the law. Here there were only two checked or at the most, three, if you believe that the fear was objectively reasonable - still no imminence if the gun ain't pointed your way or being swung up or around to do so. This is yet another failure of big city blue lefty police chiefs - not setting up a good dispatch system of rules, in addition to negligence in training. The training cannot consist solely of "do whatever it takes to come home at the end of the shift", which is what is actually is in most big cities around the country.

    This is 100% about blue lefty anti-gun terribly-poor TRAINING.

    In my o-PIN-ion.
     
    10mm Mike likes this.
  7. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,264
    No, no, no, no, NO!

    Nor does the law expect any prudent person to do so.

    Too late , then.
     
  8. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,673
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    Just for clarification: Kleanbore, are you saying the law does not expect police to identify an actual threat before using force?
     
  9. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,264
    No.

    The issue is how to "identify an actual threat".

    The direction in which a gun is pointed at a particular moment is not a factor in that determination, for the simple reason that the direction of aim can be changed instantly.

    With gun in hand, the person had the ability and the opportunity to cause death or serious bobby harm. His failure to drop the gun when commanded to do so is a very good indication that the officers and others were in jeopardy. Responding officers would have no choice but to so assume.

    Those three factors define an "actual threat.".
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
    JR24, drband and Warp like this.
  10. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    22,349
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    First off, let's drop the assumption that the police are armed solely for self defense. That's not at all true. The police are armed so that they have the means to enforce compliance with the law. Until the USSC ruled it unconstitutional in Garner v. Tennessee in the mid 80s it was common to use deadly force to prevent the escape of any fleeing felon.

    When officers arrive at an incident they almost never know what's actually happening, who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. Often the actual situation is completely different then the information dispatch gave the officers. Anyone who is armed with anything is a threat. The law does not require you to wait to determine someone's intentions. If someone is holding a firearm and they are told to drop it and they don't, then they are liable to be shot. It's that simple. I once watched a dashcam video of a State Trooper in a southern state spending almost 10 minutes telling a subject to drop his gun before he was shot.

    And exactly how many armed encounters have you had where you used this common sense and experience? I wager that you have had none. Because no one who has never worked the street could possibly make such an statement. People can turn from quiet and compliant into a raging attacker in a second and with no visible provocation. There are many officers who died because they knew the person who killed them and that person had never given them any trouble before so they used their common sense and experience and didn't shoot when they should have or maybe even didn't draw their weapon. Real life common sense and experience, learned through lifetimes, many lifetimes experience tells us that the guy you see in Walmart and greet or non to on the street and has never given you any problems or maybe even never interacted with the police is perfectly capable of snapping and murdering you.

    Dropping your weapon when ordered is only common sense, it's not any kind of loss of respect or manhood. The one time I had occasion to wait on on duty officers to respond while I was holding someone who had been removing parts from my neighbor's truck at gun point, I made certain that I did not have a gun in my hand when the deputy arrived even though I knew him personally and we had worked accidents and backed each other up in the past. And if he had asked me to disarm, my rifle was on the ground and my pistol in my waist band. I would of. Without delay. There would have been no conversation about it.
     
    JR24 and Warp like this.
  11. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,264
    Several drills with varying scenarios in FoF encounters would serve as an ideal teaching exercise fo those who somehow think that an officer could reasonably be expected to take a little time watching things unfold....
     
    JR24 and Warp like this.
  12. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,154
    Police have a hard job and are far from perfect, some are better than others. Which type is responding to your incident? Are they one of those types that don't even like people who carry guns and are not law enforcement? Did dispatch tell them something completely wrong? They often do.
    Cops that people try to kill are often attacked rapidly and without warning. The person trying to kill them knows that cop is armed and is trying to kill them before getting shot. How many such encounters has that cop had drilled into them in training before they arrive on scene to you holding a gun.
    And while I would like to think people often get a warning to drop it, I also know there is going to be many cases where they simply start shooting when someone is holding a gun. Particularly if you shift to see the cop or move the weapon, even if you don't point it anywhere near them they may think you are about to when your body shifts.
    The line between waiting to figure out what is going on and the split second it takes to aim the gun at the cop overlap, and guns are not magic death wands so even if the cop shoots before the gun is aimed at them they can still take a round, its not like the movies where you can wait all the way until the gun is .1 seconds from shooting you and then decisively end the threat while remaining safe. Being faster on the draw doesn't mean you don't get shot. Odds are much better for them before the gun is pointed at them or discharging. So some will assess longer, some will shoot you before knowing much at all.
    It may depend on what day it happens. Did the department just drill into them how bad it was that a cop shot that guy pulling out a cell phone in a tense situation or aiming a finger at them the other day, or did they just remind them with a training video how quickly and unexpectedly other officers have lost their life? And you actually do have a gun, not a cell phone.

    So maybe for the criminal the best time to make a move is when the cop arrives and the person has disarmed and nobody knows what is going on. Maybe even gain control of the firearm, and that cop isn't going to know which one is the good guy if people are in a struggle. Or maybe the criminal will try and get one or both of you shot. Do you stop the criminal from jumping up and going for your gun that is no longer an immediate threat to them in the officers presence?
    Many burglaries and home invasions also have an accomplice outside or waiting in a car nearby that may start to get involved when things are not progressing and they begin to investigate.
    Yeah, life doesn't always have a perfect solution and sometimes you have to wing it and cannot always plan out the best course of action ahead of time although we like to think we can. Being armed still beats not being armed.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  13. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,647
    Location:
    Georgia
    It's also possible the officer will start shooting before yelling "drop the gun", and by the time they finish the command, you're already mortally wounded
     
  14. PoPo22

    PoPo22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    72
    Location:
    Texas
    "It's also possible the officer will start shooting before yelling "drop the gun", and by the time they finish the command, you're already mortally wounded"

    And in some cases that is totally appropriate and reasonable.
     
  15. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Southwestern Illinois
    What about those instances where different officers, possibly even from different agencies, shout conflicting orders to a perp? One yells for the perp to "Drop the weapon!" while another yells "Freeze!", and another yells "Get on the ground!". Whose order gets followed? :confused: :uhoh:
     
  16. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,198
    Don't know what the habit is these days, but if I were currently a Peace Officer I would carry my badge and police ID in a custom fitted wallet, and have it open wide facing any approaching uniformed unit long before they were anywhere near me and clearly with announcing with as much amplification as needed, as many times as needed, "police officer, ________ PD" it "_________ county sheriff" etc.

    I would also keep a jacket or vest in the car adorned likewise front and back in big contrasting letters to throw on if the need arised.

    This costs next to nothing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  17. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,198
    So if I am walking to my car and confronted with a guy with a pistol in his hand down on his trouser seam pointed at the ground I can let fly ....and walk?
     
  18. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,198
    The critical portions of your post apply to anyone faced with a deadly threat. Last I read in my State penal code there are no separate definitions for the justifications for the use of deadly force for any category of civilians. Exceptions being prisons guards for certain categories of prisoners, and executioners.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  19. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,198
    In the 70s when I was a Law Enforcement Spec in the Air Force, which training on the use of deadly force was identical to that of Federal agencies like the FBI, and I sat the Ohio Peace Officers course in 1978 such was not the case. Shooting a "fleeing felon" would land you in Leavenworth or the State pen. I don't know where you get that from, not true.

    Peace officers are armed for self defense under the applicable State laws on the use of deadly force. There are no distinctions in the statutes on this. The Garner case probably was a first to get some muscle being a legal challenge to some cowboy cops in some jurisdictions where the DAs or Grand Juries were otherwise protecting them.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  20. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    22,349
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    Look up Garner v. Tennessee. Shooting a fleeing felon was legal by state law in most of the US until the USSC ruled. One of the arguments the Illinois state legislature used to raise the dollar amount that pushed a theft charge to a felony level was that people could be shot for stealing something valued as low as $150.

    The military standard for the use of deadly force has always been different then the civilian standard in the the military was permitted to use deadly force to protect property.

    Garner did not prohibit the use of deadly force to affect an arrest, it established a new standard. Instead of being simply a felony it stated that an officer could use deadly force to affect an arrest for a “forcible felony”.

    States slowly changed their laws to comply with Garner. Here is the current Illinois Statute on use of force by a peace officer:

    I suggest you are not remembering classes that you took 40 years ago correctly.

    As you can see, peace officers are armed for the primary purpose of enforcing compliance and as the statute says self defense as a secondary reason.
     
  21. RPZ

    RPZ Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,198
    Jeff,

    The Military standard (Air Force, and this was probably the same for other branches of the Services) as regard to criminal subjects was similar to the FBI and other Federal agencies; they may have been worded differently but amounted to the same thing. Only difference in regard to property offhand was the protection of priority resources (like nuclear facilities or a parked C-5 etc) where deadly force would be justified under defined guidelines. In Ohio, deadly force was only justified in self defense - at the time.

    In Texas, currently, the Texas Penal Code makes no exceptions for Peace Officers in the statute concerning the justifications for the use of deadly force.

    As for Illinois "law".. man, looks like Illinois is even worse than California(!). If I lived there, and was stuck there, I would be hammering the legislature to rewrite the law. It is a de facto police state that does not belong in this Union.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  22. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,647
    Location:
    Georgia
    Drop the gun and then raise your empty hands. Hard to go wrong.
     
  23. shafter

    shafter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    889
    Sound advise.
     
  24. Water Garden

    Water Garden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    77
    Location:
    Rural South
    Generally speaking, I agree with warp. There are many reasons that I would caution against it. Mostly due to issues such as restraint hypoxia, nerve damage, tissue damage and other issues that can arise from the application of restraints by someone unfamiliar with how to mitigate common injury.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  25. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,690
    Location:
    Southwestern Illinois
    I agree with that BUT you forgot the third cop that said "Get on the ground!" Raise your hands and he might shoot because you aren't doing what he said. And, in a high stress situation like that, a human's eyes tend to focus rather narrowly and their hearing tends to filter out other sounds if it didn't come from their mouth.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice