Should Rule #2 apply to Law Enforcement or not?

[NineseveN]

I pose this question to you all to hopefully breed some discussion that was brought about as a result of this thread. I don’t want to talk about that incident specifically, but more so a point brought up by one of our members that rule #2 of our coveted firearms safety mantra does not apply to Law Enforcement (or later as the member says, in some instances).


First, let me define my understanding of the rule and explain what it means to me in this particular context.

Rule #2:
Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to or are willing to destroy.

In the context of this discussion concerning Police officers and suspects, should it be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat?.

The care with which one treats rule #2 shows a lot about how seriously they take safety, and in the realm of law enforcement or even military, it shows a lot about their character in regards to doing their job.

In my opinion, you do not point a weapon at anyone or anything you are not willing to or have intent to destroy. Does this rule apply to Law Enforcement or not? My position is that a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat has no business being held at gunpoint by a police officer. Remember, threat can mean a number of things; the operative word here is “credible”.

If someone has a knife, but they are not attacking anyone, and seem calm, yet the threat of deadly force exists because they have means and opportunity. Covering them with your muzzle because you are willing to shoot them if they use the threat they have demonstrated to have within their means and power is not intending to shoot them, but it is meeting the level of force or threat with appropriate levels of force or threat because you would be willing to shoot them (and intentionally I would think) if they act upon the threat they have demonstrated (holding a deadly weapon and not responding to verbal commands to surrender).

Covering a subject (i.e our bookie in the other thread) with no credible indication of threat is not appropriate in most, if not all circumstances. Covering someone with your muzzle because of a threat that “could be” (i.e. hypothetical) is not appropriate because if we allow wild hypothetical scenarios to determine when it is appropriate to become willing to use and demonstrate the ability of force, ever single action with a police officer would fall under the realm of “could be” (hey, you never know who’s gonna snap out and whip out a gun, right?) and we would have to accept things such as traffic stops at gunpoint.


If you feel differently, please demonstrate for us some situations where no credible or reasonable threat exists yet a police officer should cover the subject with the muzzle of a firearm. But you and I have derailed this thread enough, care to take me up on that challenge in a new thread? I'll start it and we can get back to discussing the correct topic in this one.



Disclaimer/general notice:
Now, let me say that I do agree that there are some folks on this board that are most assuredly anti-LEO, their bias is obvious. We all know LEO’s are human and make mistakes. We should not focus on insulting the officer when they make a mistake if that mistake is a product of a certain police procedure or mechanic of training, we should focus on the training or procedure. For rogue cops that break the law or do things wrong, the criticism should stop there if no training or procedural issue is present unless the officer is protected by the so-called “thin blue line” where they get away with a crime (negligent homicide, manslaughter, whatever) where a normal citizen would be stripped of their rights, taken to court and possibly sentenced to incarceration.

However, the same can be said of the flip side of that coin. Holding law enforcement officers to a higher degree of scrutiny than is appropriate or higher than one would any other civilian in a high-impact profession is wrong, thinking the police are always in the wrong is just as bad as thinking they are always in the right or that somehow the rules don't apply to them. Both methods of thought are counterproductive and false, and I see a lot of such bias both ways here. I think the pot and the kettle need to realize that they can both be black.

The reason I bring this up is that I do not want this to be a cop or citizen bashing thread (us VS them has no place here, it should be this side of the issue VS that side of the issue). I know that some heated things may come up during the discussion, but let’s try to keep our tempers down (I have as much of a problem with this as anyone).

 

[TexasRifleman]

Well, the 4 rules are for "Gun Safety". Life isn't always safe


There is no difference for us non LEO's. If I am in fear for my life and I present my weapon to stop further advances (it's legal in Texas to "brandish" to show force might be used if things continue) I may very well cover my possible assailant as I order him to back down. There may or may not be a weapon visible to me. If this possible attacker then assumes a more passive stance, should I put the gun away?

If I do this to keep Holy Rule Two happy, I've left plenty of opportunity for something much worse to happen to me.

Like any rule, some common sense is needed along with the application of the rule.

 

[NineseveN]

Well, the 4 rules are for "Gun Safety". Life isn't always safe


There is no difference for us non LEO's. If I am in fear for my life and I present my weapon to stop further advances (it's legal in Texas to "brandish" to show force might be used if things continue) I may very well cover my possible assailant as I order him to back down. There may or may not be a weapon visible to me. If this possible attacker then assumes a more passive stance, should I put the gun away?

If I do this to keep Holy Rule Two happy, I've left plenty of opportunity for something much worse to happen to me.

Like any rule, some common sense is needed along with the application of the rule.

I think that once a threat is established that prompts you to break leather, it is logical to assume that keeping your gun on the person is reasonable. My concern is more for instances where this is no prior indication of threat. If you are in fear for your life, there has to be some reasonable level of threat for you to get from Point A (normal day in the parking lot) to Point B (breaking leather and defending yourself or others).

I should have covered this in my initial post, all apologies.

 

[P95Carry]

While all 4 rules are important and partly mutually exclusive - I have always regarded #2 as the vital ''catch-all''. If the other three are disobeyed then still no-one gets hurt.

However, I consider that a gunpoint situation can still employ rule #2 easily - it only requires that the muzzle point slightly off a target - tho still presenting an awesome deterrant effect. In that condition too rule #3 should followed.

I don't consider the rules of safety need differ one iota between LE and others.

 

[Technosavant]

I'm with P95Carry.

If an officer feels the need to have weapon in hand (but no clear and present danger to life and limb, just the possibility thereof), then it isn't asking too much for that LEO to point the thing in a "safe" direction. It can be brought to bear very quickly (more so than a person can draw and fire on the officer), and so should not present a threat to officer safety.

I'm willing to cut slack on having the gun in hand vs. in holster, but if shooting isn't imminent and/or yet justified, keep that thing pointed somewhere safe.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I should have covered this in my initial post, all apologies.

No no, I think I misread you. I see what you are saying now..
Not sure yet, it's an interesting question.

 

[Jeff White]

Rule 2 applies and has always applied to the police. Yes, we sometimes point our weapons in order to gain control of a situation and discourage the subject from making any decisions to resist. But rest assured that if the person resists or makes a move that could be perceived as hostile, we do intend intend to shoot. I always tell the subject that any move he makes that is not what I instruct him to do will be considered a hostile act.

The nature of the job requires us to aim weapons at someone we don't intend to shoot unless that person gives us reason. I'm not going to engage in stereotyped western movie actions and wait for the suspect to draw first.

As for the other thread, I wasn't there, I don't know the suspect's background so I'm not in any position to comment on if it was appropriate to attempt to arrest him at gunpoint.

Jeff

 

[tellner]

Alas, our newest Supreme Court Justice doesn't believe in it. He wrote a scathing dissenting opinion in Tennessee vs. Garner saying that the need to make an arrest outweighed the right to life of non-dangerous non-violent fleeing suspects.

 

[NineseveN]

I'm willing to cut slack on having the gun in hand vs. in holster, but if shooting isn't imminent and/or yet justified, keep that thing pointed somewhere safe.

My thoughts exactly, and I brought this up in the other thread (as did at least one other person). low ready or guard position would be completely appropriate I would think.

But it does bring about a situation of pre-emptive solution. Perhaps having a gun aimed at you when you pose no threat heads off any stupid thing you may do to cause an officer to perceive a threat and be forced to fire on you? I don't know necessarily, because then we're geting into "everyone is a violent felon until they prove otherwise" territory, and I don't think we need to go there. Of course, I am not a cop, whether that means anythign or not.

Using a firearm for the compliance of a non-violent or non-threatening person seems to be excessive (I know cops hate that word, sorry guys and gals), what do you do if they don't comply? Shoot them? If you tell them to sit down and they don't, or to get up and they can't or won't, but make no indication of threat, do you shoot them? Of course you don't, so why is the gun drawn and aimed at them?

Thanks everyone so far for not turning this into an "Us VS. Them" thread.

 

[TallPine]

I'm going to throw a little monkey wrench in this ...

If Rule #2 applies equally to LEO and non-LEO (notice I didn't use that "c" word ), then should it not also be true that it is equally valid for a non-LEO to draw a gun in some situations but keep it pointed down/away from any persons...? (but which is often considered "brandishing" in some jurisdictions)

I'm not trying to veer off-topic, but it seems to me you can't examine one rule in exclusion of other related "rules", such as "don't draw your gun unless you intend to shoot."

Following those two rules mindlessly means that if you draw your gun, you must point it at the "threat", and if you point it at the threat then you must shoot (or else maybe you never draw and get killed instead ). But obviously there may be instances where a gun is drawn (maybe even pointed) but the threat de-escalates and no shooting does/should occur.

It seems like a little "common sense" should apply regarding drawing/pointing guns depending on the threat level.

 

[jd25q]

In the context of this discussion concerning Police officers and suspects, should it be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat?

This statement is based on the false premise that by holding someone at gunpoint I intend to shoot them. Precisely why I said the rule doesn't apply in certain circumstances.

I have not suggested that we should hold someone at gunpoint who is "no credible threat". That is why I referred to "some" circumstances.

I think that once a threat is established that prompts you to break leather, it is logical to assume that keeping your gun on the person is reasonable.

Sounds like you agree with me completely. This practice is however in direct violation of rule #2. Again, why I said it doesn't always apply.

 

[NineseveN]

Sounds like you agree with me completely. This practice is however in direct violation of rule #2. Again, why I said it doesn't always apply.

Someone who has shown to be a threat not even minutes or seconds ago (which is why you broke leather in the first place) is and should still be considered a credible threat (as would someone with a particularly violent history). Your level of response to this threat may change (stop shooting or refrain from shooting after drawing if they drop the weapon), but the threat still exists based on prior actions indiciating threat (or else why would you break leather in thefirst place?). This is a far cry from one that has never shown threatening behavior at all.

Because there is still a lingering threat, being willing (which is part of being willing to or intending to) to shoot if the suspect escalates back to the previous level of threat that prompted you to break leather in the first place. Again, not the same thing as holding a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat at gun point.

 

[scout26]

Former MP Commissioned Officer here.


Rule #2 applies to everyone all the time. (as do the other three.)

Remember it also protects the officer......from Internal Affairs investigations, lawsuits, job loss, etc, etc, etc.

That's the beauty of the four rules, easy to remember and you only have to be a "C" student (get 75% right ) before something REALLY BAD can happen. Yes, you violate one and something BAD can happen, but you have to violate two (or more) for you to hurt someone (or yourself).

 

[Shawn Dodson]

My concern is more for instances where this is no prior indication of threat.

My mindset, when I was an LEO, was that although a felony suspect might be cooperating *at the moment,* things can change in the blink of an eye. The following video exemplifies how quickly a cooperative, seemingly non-threatening minor violator can become deadly violent:

http://www.rcfop.com/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=60

1. Click on "Reality & In-Car Video"
2. Click on "Deadly Traffic Stop-The Shooting of Trooper Mark Coates"
3. Click on "Click Here To Watch Video"

During felony stops I put muzzle on threat. Interrupting crimes in progress, investigating suspicious activity, or certain other situations I used my judgment as to whether or not to put muzzle on threat(s). The intent is gain and maintain control of a serious offender, whose capacity for violence is unknown, until he/she can be properly secured.

 

[P95Carry]

Shawn - the vid (awful slow streaming!) very much proved how a trooper can be deceived - tragically so.

It goes to show just how much cops have to be alert and aware to an almost ever present danger threat. I do not envy some of that work one bit. ''Life on the line'' does very adequately describe a lot of duty time.

 

[jd25q]

Because there is still a lingering threat, being willing (which is part of being willing to or intending to) to shoot if the suspect escalates back to the previous level of threat that prompted you to break leather in the first place. Again, not the same thing as holding a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat at gun point.

You are really presenting two extremes, and what I'm trying to stress is all the stuff in the middle. That's where most situations play out.

Perhaps where we are differing is in the definition of "credible threat".

Suppose I am stopping a car where an occupant is suspected of robbing a store some days ago. That is a violent felony, and a good reason to suspect that he may be armed, or at the very least take drastic measures to escape. He's going to be ordered out at gunpoint.

Next scenario, car chase. You try to stop the car for something and find out it's stolen as the guy speeds away. A felony, but not violent. By running from the police he's clearly indicating a willingness to take drastic measures to escape even to the point of endangering himself, the pursuing officer, and the general public. Whether he stops on his own or wrecks he's coming out at gunpoint as well, at least until he's proned out.

Next, serving a felony warrant at a residence. Say felony larceny. Unless there is some other information (prior threats to L.E., etc.) or he has a bad history I say take a couple guys and knock on the front door and ask him to come along.

Next, stop a car, talk to driver who is still in the car. As I come back to run his information I find out he's got an outstanding felony warrant. Depends on what it is, but assuming no problems to this point I'll usually ask him to get out, maybe stall a bit first to allow backup to get a little closer.

You are correct in stating that we need more than mere suspicion. But it doesn't have to be an overt threatening act at the moment of confrontation either. Other knowledge of the circumstances has to come into play. I feel the first two situations constitute credible threats, the second two do not. Of course there is considerable room for gray between them, and this is where good judgement must be exercised.

 

[Jeff White]

NineseveN,
What you aren't taking into consideration is that the armed citizen doesn't routinely do things to people (like take them into custody) that may make them react violently no matter what their previous record is like. It's a judgement call. The first time I ever pointed my weapon at someone in the line of duty I was checking out a suspicious vehicle. We had received a report of a vehicle with out of state plates (OK IIRC) cruising through a residential neighborhood late at night. We found the vehicle in the parking lot of a 24 hour grocery and one of the officers sat on it for an hour. The driver never did come out. A couple hours later, near the end of the shift, I was driving by and observed the driver getting into the vehicle.

I drove onto the parking lot and asked him if he needed assistance (he got out and raised the hood as I pulled onto the parking lot). He stated he had a dead battery and he would call his friend. I asked him for his ID and then asked what he was doing in town. His answer was vague, had a girlfriend here, but couldn't tell me her last name....Then I asked about being in the residential neighborhood and if she possibly lived there. At that time he started getting a hostile attitude and just about the time he was getting into the four letter words about my parentage, the hit tone came over the radio.

I took three steps back as I drew my weapon and ordered him to the ground. Turned out that the warrant was for failure to appear on DUI, but considering everything, being out of state, vague, evasive answers and increased hostility as the contact continued, and the fact I was alone, I don't feel bad about pointing my weapon at him and proning him out. At the time I got the hit tone, he was becoming more hostile and I had no idea who he was or what he was wanted for.

No, he hadn't articulated any threat to me when I pointed my weapon at him. But for all I knew he was wanted for some violent crime and had all kinds of officer safety alerts attached to his file.

Armed citizens don't do these things. That's why the threshold of when a peace officer points a weapon at a subject and an armed citizen does is different.

Jeff

 

[WvaBill]

If there is no perceived threat, there is no justification to present force.


on edit...

No, he hadn't articulated any threat to me when I pointed my weapon at him.

You nonetheless perceived a threat.

WVB

 

[Ankeny]

My mindset, when I was an LEO, was that although a felony suspect might be cooperating *at the moment,* things can change in the blink of an eye.

Reminds me of the time a buddy of mine considered the apprehended but not yet cuffed felon to no longer be a threat, so he holstered up. The next thing you know the bad guy has the gun and the good guy is on his ass hanging onto the revolver with all the grip he can muster to keep the cylinder from turning. My friend ended up with a Smith model 29 firing pin stuck through the web of his hand. Damn close call. I bet he wished I had been on duty at the time with my .45 pointed right between the guy's eyeballs.

If there is no perceived threat, there is no justification to present force.

Would that be an immediate threat, or would the possibility of the situation going into the toilet suffice?

 

[P95Carry]

If there is no perceived threat, there is no justification to present force.

Bill - in principle I want to agree 100%, believe me - but if you or anyone got thru that vid link given above - you might see the late Trooper Coates dealing with (seemingly) the most reasonable and laid back guy you could imagine.

Until everything went belly up - so, some judgement calls can IMO be all but impossible to get right - every time. Some bad guys are darned good actors.

 

[Jeff White]

WvaBill,
One could make a pretty good case that anytime a peace officer has contact with a citizen there is a perceived threat. A search of just this forum will bring up plenty of examples where what started out to be a routine contact for a minor infraction turned terribly wrong.

Perhaps we should just hold everyone we meet at gunpoint? I don't think either of us wants to live in a society like that.

Jeff

 

[1911Tuner]

Rule 2

Rule 2 is subject to modification according to circumstances. The term "Held at gunpoint" applies sometimes, and other times not.

If the threat...or the perceived threat assumed by a reasonable man...is
at a level that indicates that the perpetrator will likely use lethal force in order to elude arrest, or continue to place others in deadly jeopardy, then he is covered...Held at Gunpoint (sic) until he either stands down or is shot.

I read a cop's covering a suspect with a gun as a way of saying:
Don't move...and I ain't whistlin' Dixie!" At that point, the perpetrator has been given his final warning.

Many times, the time from delivering that final, unspoken warning to shot is very short, and measured often in tenths of seconds. The cop says HALT!
the suspect plants his feet and reaches under his coat...and the next sound is a gunshot or three. All of this can occur in less time than it takes to say it.

I can promise one thing to one and all...If I wake up to the sound of somebody coming through a window in MY home, I'll flush Rule 2 right down the toilet...and No...members of my household won't be sneaking through any windows. They all know better.

 

[NineseveN]

You are really presenting two extremes, and what I'm trying to stress is all the stuff in the middle. That's where most situations play out.

Perhaps where we are differing is in the definition of "credible threat".

That might be, let's see how this plays out.

Suppose I am stopping a car where an occupant is suspected of robbing a store some days ago. That is a violent felony, and a good reason to suspect that he may be armed, or at the very least take drastic measures to escape. He's going to be ordered out at gunpoint.

It would depend on what determined that there was "a good reason to suspect that he may be armed, or at the very least take drastic measures to escape", if it's just your fear of getting hurt, then no. But since I assume this robbery was done at weapon-point, no reason not to perceive a credible threat. Cover away.

Next scenario, car chase. You try to stop the car for something and find out it's stolen as the guy speeds away. A felony, but not violent. By running from the police he's clearly indicating a willingness to take drastic measures to escape even to the point of endangering himself, the pursuing officer, and the general public. Whether he stops on his own or wrecks he's coming out at gunpoint as well, at least until he's proned out.

Car chase: the suspect has already endangered the lives of others and has shown as you said, "a willingness to take drastic measures to escape even to the point of endangering himself, the pursuing officer, and the general public", so cover away.

Next, serving a felony warrant at a residence. Say felony larceny. Unless there is some other information (prior threats to L.E., etc.) or he has a bad history I say take a couple guys and knock on the front door and ask him to come along.

You've been playing the home game, haven't you?

Next, stop a car, talk to driver who is still in the car. As I come back to run his information I find out he's got an outstanding felony warrant. Depends on what it is, but assuming no problems to this point I'll usually ask him to get out, maybe stall a bit first to allow backup to get a little closer.

Sticky situation if we don't know what the felony is, but I think you have it covered.

You are correct in stating that we need more than mere suspicion. But it doesn't have to be an overt threatening act at the moment of confrontation either. Other knowledge of the circumstances has to come into play. I feel the first two situations constitute credible threats, the second two do not. Of course there is considerable room for gray between them, and this is where good judgement must be exercised.

Why do most of you LEO’s take every thread concerning the subject of LEO's as an attack against you by us? I would think that most would be clear in what I was stating when I posed the question and made my points. I have seen officers draw guns on shoplifters walking briskly (walking, not running) before they attempted to detain the suspects with verbal commands. I have also seen LEO's hold a man at gunpoint for arguing (yes, arguing, not threatening, not beating, not anything, with no violent history what so ever) with his wife over their daughter's grades because he dropped the F-Bomb at his wife and the cop thought he was talking to him and that profanity declared 'vicious intent and obvious disrespect for the safety and authority of the responding officer'. We have read of other instances on this very sight, some fatal where the LEO seemingly had no business breaking leather, and I took issue when you said 'rule #2 does not apply to LEO's'.

I am not out to get you guys, honestly, but I'm not gonna sit here and wave the police officer pom-poms for you when I think you're wrong.

 

[NineseveN]

NineseveN,
What you aren't taking into consideration is that the armed citizen doesn't routinely do things to people (like take them into custody) that may make them react violently no matter what their previous record is like. It's a judgement call. The first time I ever pointed my weapon at someone in the line of duty I was checking out a suspicious vehicle. We had received a report of a vehicle with out of state plates (OK IIRC) cruising through a residential neighborhood late at night. We found the vehicle in the parking lot of a 24 hour grocery and one of the officers sat on it for an hour. The driver never did come out. A couple hours later, near the end of the shift, I was driving by and observed the driver getting into the vehicle.

I drove onto the parking lot and asked him if he needed assistance (he got out and raised the hood as I pulled onto the parking lot). He stated he had a dead battery and he would call his friend. I asked him for his ID and then asked what he was doing in town. His answer was vague, had a girlfriend here, but couldn't tell me her last name....Then I asked about being in the residential neighborhood and if she possibly lived there. At that time he started getting a hostile attitude and just about the time he was getting into the four letter words about my parentage, the hit tone came over the radio.

I took three steps back as I drew my weapon and ordered him to the ground. Turned out that the warrant was for failure to appear on DUI, but considering everything, being out of state, vague, evasive answers and increased hostility as the contact continued, and the fact I was alone, I don't feel bad about pointing my weapon at him and proning him out. At the time I got the hit tone, he was becoming more hostile and I had no idea who he was or what he was wanted for.

No, he hadn't articulated any threat to me when I pointed my weapon at him. But for all I knew he was wanted for some violent crime and had all kinds of officer safety alerts attached to his file.

Armed citizens don't do these things. That's why the threshold of when a peace officer points a weapon at a subject and an armed citizen does is different.

Jeff

Jeff, becoming hostile as you said it, is a notion of threat. It shows a willingness to escalate a situation, even if only to that level and a lack of control. I would tend to agree with your actions, especially if the suspect was close to you or breeched your personal space at any time.

 

[NMshooter]

Rule #2 does apply to civilians across the board.

If, in your judgment, the person you are confronting is a threat to your life, you are justified in showing them your muzzle. Or at least assuming a low ready position.

The question is whether or not the judge, and possibly jury, agree with your assessment of the threat.

So far, on the couple occasions I have had to point firearms at people my actions were considered justified. I try not to do it if I believe there is any other action I can do to stop things from getting worse.

Military stuff is a different can of worms, with all sorts of thorny questions like collateral damage, and has been argued over for most of recorded history. I have no easy answers here either, other than the less folks on my side die, the happier I am, even if it means a few people in the wrong place at the wrong time get killed. You can believe that and still make a reasonable effort not to kill those you do not intend to, but it will happen sooner or later.

Hard to say sorry at that point, but it is even harder to say sorry when you are dead, so some erring on the side of personal survival is to be expected...