(ND) Local police policy says when cops can shoot

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
The Bismarck Tribune


February 4, 2003, Tuesday, METRO EDITION

SECTION: Pg. 1B

LENGTH: 540 words

HEADLINE: Local police policy says when cops can shoot

BYLINE: Mike Albrecht

BODY:
The reactions of area law enforcement officers might have been similar to that of a Fargo police officer who fatally shot a machete-wielder early Sunday, according to the policy of local police and sheriffs' departments.

The Fargo man fled in his vehicle when the Fargo police officer tried to arrest him for beating a woman and breaking her nose. The chase ended when an officer set up spike sticks that deflated the man's vehicle tires and he allegedly got out of the vehicle with a machete. Two officers demanded that the man stop approaching and drop his weapon. When he refused, a Fargo officer shot him. Mandan and Bismarck police departments and Burleigh and Morton sheriffs' departments follow extensive, complicated policies primarily dictated by state law to determine when to use deadly force. The policies are similar and can be loosely summarized as: Deadly force can be used by officers to protect themselves or others from death or serious bodily injury or to make an arrest when an officer believes the suspect has killed or seriously injured another person, Bismarck Police Sgt. Michael Wardzinski said.

There are five levels of control officers use to handle situations before resorting to deadly force. They range from the officer's presence to the use of intermediate weapons such as pepper spray. The ultimate decision of when deadly force is necessary is left up to the officer's judgment after he evaluates his target area, where his target is and where the bullets are going to stop, Wardzinski said.

In most cases, the officer must give a command of deterrence and authority such as 'stop, police.' But in an ambush-type situation the commands may not be appropriate, Wardzinski said.

'They don't have to wait for shots by the bad guy, they just have to feel threatened,' Wardzinski said.

If an officer is forced to use a firearm, they are trained to fire 'center mass' or at the middle of the target area.

Wardzinski said officers are not shooting to kill, but due to the stress of a situation and the consequences of missed shots, the center of the target is the best option. Despite extensive training, Wardzinski said, officers' heart rates likely will increase and they may experience tunnel vision in this type of stressful situation.

'We don't shoot to kill, we shoot to stop,' Wardzinski said. 'We can't recklessly deploy deadly force. Once the threat stops we stop shooting.'

Mandan Police Chief Dennis Rohr said Mandan's policy is similar to Bismarck's. He said he doesn't remember the last time, if ever, deadly force was used in Mandan, and he added, 'We haven't had an incident where we even pulled our guns in the last five years.'

Burleigh County Sheriff's Major Nick Sevart said Burleigh follows a similar policy, as do departments across the state, because the policies are dictated by state law.

Morton County Sheriff Bob Erhardt said Morton's policy also is similar.

Bismarck Police Capt. Ralph Mowder said the last time a suspect was fatally shot by a Bismarck police officer was in 1991.

The officer responded to a domestic dispute and was forced to shoot when the Bismarck man raised a knife over a woman in an apparent attempt to stab her, Mowder said.
 
Wardzinski said officers are not shooting to kill, but due to the stress of a situation and the consequences of missed shots, the center of the target is the best option.

Sounds like this guy is opening his department up to a whole bunch of lawsuits. "If you didn't mean to kill, how come you pointed a deadly weapon at my client's husband and pulled the trigger?"
 
And your point is?????

Every police department has a set of policies dictating when it is appropriate to use deadly force.

And we don't shoot to kill......we shoot to stop the threat.

So my answer to the... "If you didn't mean to kill, how come you pointed a deadly weapon at my client's husband and pulled the trigger?".....would be, to stop the threat. And we are trained to shoot COM. If the person dies........he dies........it was not my intention, my intention was to stop the immediate threat that he was subjecting me.......or another person to.
 
You never shoot to kill. You shoot to stop.

Only hunters shoot to kill.

In court, they do not say "why did you shoot if you did not want to kill?" - they will say "why did you shoot our client/perp so many times?? (answer: because he did not stop).
 
My point is that all self defense shootings, civilian and LEO are done to stop the immediate threat. However, in a lawsuit where facts don't mean squat, the entire proceeding is to convince a jury that the shooting was not justified. Any comment like the one above can be used by a defense attorney to confuse and then convince a jury that if the LEO did not shoot to kill, yet in fact he did shoot and did kill, the LEO and his department are liable for the unlawful death of the individual.

Any LEO or civilian that shoots a BG, no matter how justified and obviously legal his actions appear, can expect to be named in an unlawful death lawsuit by the surviving relatives. You need to be aware of that and minimize the chances of the lawsuit succeeding.
 
In this quote...

"Wardzinski said officers are not shooting to kill, but due to the stress of a situation and the consequences of missed shots, the center of the target is the best option."

The only thing that adds confusions is.....

".but due to the stress of a situation and the consequences of missed shots",

You remove that........and I have no idea why he said that, since COM is the best option.......

Which is why we train (I'm a LEO Firearms Instructor) our officers and they are tested on this.......that when they have to fire, they shoot to stop the threat.....period!!

So if one of my officers is involved in a shooting, I am liable for their training. I will testify that he was taught, instructed, etc that he was shooting to stop the threat. And since he will be saying the same thing. If the shoot is a "good shoot"........there is no unlawful death......since the shooting was ruled justified.

You are correct in saying that they will be sued in civil court. This is happening to one of our officers. He was called to a domestic, man with a weapon. Perp was in the kitchen....after trying to talk him out the guy pointed a rifle at two officers standing in a hallway and fired (hitting a wall)........needless to say he was shot (in the leg or hip area I believe), anyway......the shooting was ruled "good" by the DA....but he still got a lawyer to sue!!! Guess his reasoning is he shouldn't have been shot for pointing and firing at a LEO!!!!!! :cuss:
 
Sounds like a pretty standard deadly-force policy. Also sounds like a good shoot.

HKMP5SD, I'm not seeing your point. Or, rather, I understand what you're saying (wrongful death suits go hand in hand with police shootings), I'm just not sure how this opens the department up to additional liability.

Mike
 
Picture Bismarck Police Sgt. Michael Wardzinski in a courtroom where an attorney is trying to sue the city. All the attorney needs to do is convince the 12 jurors that the cop that killed Joe Blow did not mean to kill poor Joe.

The lawyer asks Wardzinski, "Did you state, "'We don't shoot to kill, we shoot to stop,"? Yep.

"Did you tell reporters, "Our officers are not shooting to kill, but due to the stress of a situation and the consequences of missed shots, the center of the target is the best option. "? Yep.

"Did you state that during a shooting incident, the "officers' heart rates likely will increase and they may experience tunnel vision in this type of stressful situation. " Yep.

The lawyer then gets to tell the jury, "As you have heard, the Bismark Police Department's shooting policy does not say they are shooting to kill, only to stop. Sgt. Wardzinski told you that the officers of this department do not always hit what they are shooting at during a stressful situation, so they just aim for the biggest target and start shooting. He said his officers may experience tunnel vision, which limits their perception of the event.

"So, the police do not shoot to kill, but they shot and killed Mr. Blow. They claim they are not very accurate when in shooting incidents. They claim they shoot to stop, but admit the officer may get tunnel vision and focus on some small aspect of the subject, like his chest or the firearm he is holding. How can they then make the decision the threat has been stopped?

At this point, show a couple of the videos where LEO's have shot the weapon out of the hand of the BG, without even injuring his hand. While we know that this is not-realistic, the jury won't.

"They didn't shoot to kill. They didn't even try to shoot to disarm. Yet Mr. Blow was shot and killed. Is that not the definition of wrongful death? There was not need to kill Mr. Blow and the police even said they didn't try to kill him. But he is just as dead and it is their fault."
 
You shoot to stop the threat.

The BG may die.......or may not!!!

You shoot COM because it is the largest target!

And because in the situation described......the stress and tension level are extremely high.......which is why, when we are forced to shoot we shoot the largest target of opportunity COM!

Videos showing the shoting of weapons out of the hands of people are done by highly trained, highly skilled sharpshooters using extremely accurate high powered scoped rifles.

The small aspect will be the weapon/hand he is using...ie, the main source of the threat.....so I can tell when the threat is no longer a threat!!!

Mr X is dead because he choose not to listen to the officer....

Mr X is dead because he was trying to inflict serious bodily injury to another person..........

Mr X is dead because he forced the officer to stop the threat.......

Mr X is dead because it was his fault, his actions forced the officer to act...........

Mr X is dead. His choice.
 
Steve in PA,

I agree completely. However, if lawyers can convince 12 people that OJ Simpson did not kill Nichole Simpson, they can convince 12 people a LEO didn't mean to kill the BG.

Don't make comments like, "We don't shoot to kill, we shoot to stop," which can immediately be turned around to say "if you didn't shoot to kill, why is Mr. BG dead? If you shoot to stop, why didn't you shoot him in the arm or the leg? Why didn't you shoot the gun out of his hand?"

People will believe this and not just the common everyday citizens. Even supposedly intelligent people believe you can shoot to wound or disarm quite easily.

The following exchange was between Col. Charlie Beckwith, Commanding Officer, Delta Force and Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher in April, 1980 while Beckwith was briefing President Carter on the Iran Hostage raid:

Warren Christopher spoke up. He wanted to know that would happen to the guards. There was some confusion caused by my choice of words.

"Mr. Christopher, it's our objective to take the guards out."

"What do you mean? Will you shoot them in the shoulder or what?"

"No, sir. We're going to shoot each of them twice, right between they eyes."

This seems to bother him.

"You mean you can really do that. In the dark, running-"

"Yes, sir. We're trained to do that."

"You mean you're really going to shoot to kill? You really are?"

"Yes, sir. We certainly are. We intend to put two .45-caliber rounds right between their eyes."
 
:banghead:

"Don't make comments like, "We don't shoot to kill, we shoot to stop," which can immediately be turned around to say "if you didn't shoot to kill, why is Mr. BG dead? If you shoot to stop, why didn't you shoot him in the arm or the leg? Why didn't you shoot the gun out of his hand?"



BG is dead because his body did not react well to the added metal/lead in his diet............

Because of the added stress, tunnel vision, chances for missing such a small target as a hand, arm, leg......or gun, because we are not shooting a scoped rifle capable of shooting 1/2 MOA groups at 100 yards is why I didn't shoot the above mentioned body parts........I shot the area with the largest chance of a disabling hit. He died because his body did not react well to the above situation.....not because I wanted him to die!

:banghead:
 
Iranian hostage raid............damn right I was shooting to kill!!!!! :fire:

Military action and police shootings and 180 degrees apart!!!!!!!:banghead:



PS. Gosh I love these smilies!!!! :neener:
 
HKMP5SD,

IANAL, but I'm still not seeing your point. What Steve said.

Mike
 
No problem. It's mostly semantics anyway. More or less it was that in a civil lawsuit, a lawyer can manipulate what you said into something other than what you meant.
 
"No Sir. I shot to live."

In above court room scenario, the defence attourney ought to whip out Exhibit A (machette) & wack off an ear of the prosecution. See what he thinks about time distortion & tunnel vision. ;) Might be worth it to "jump the jury" as well. (Yeah, I know, but we can dream .... )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top