Should Rule #2 apply to Law Enforcement or not?

[cxm]

Texas

Here in Texas there are no special laws with the respect to the use of force or deadly force for LEOs.

Texas law allows you to threaten to use deadly force, IF you are justified in using deadly force. Basically this means it is a crime for an officer to threaten the use of deadly force (i.e. draw on a person) if the officer is not in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death to himself or others, or the person involved is not engaged in other conduct that justifies the use of deadly force.

How that plays out in real life is less clear, but that is what the law says. I know the Texas DPS goes to some lenght to train their new troopers of this fact... and other agencies may well too.

So should safety rules apply to everyone? Absolutely... it is just a matter of shades of gray.

FWIW

Chuck

 

[NineseveN]

Kinda early isn't it? I just hate days when you feel that way at mid day....

Oh yeah, I'll hold out until Friday though, discipline is the key.

After reading the thread again, I don't think that this is a Rule 2 issue. When a peace officer points his weapon at a subject he does mean to shoot that person if the subject doesn't comply with the instructions he is given. This is no different then the armed citizen who doesn't shoot the mugger, who stops in his tracks and then turns and runs when the citizen aims his weapon.

But Jeff, the thing I am concerned with is whether or not a police officer should intend to or be willing to shoot a non-violent suspect with no indication of credible threat.

The way it is now, in order to break leather in most places there is no requirement to satisfy in regards to why the gun was drawn. No questions are asked (at least that I see) as to what prompted the gun to be drawn. This is problematic in a number of ways as it can lead to negligent discharges that hurt or kill innocent people or criminals whose crimes or actions have not met the requirements for lethal force. This is bad for the suspects who still have rights, this is bad for us concerned citizens, this is bad for the image of police departments. Just as in the case of CCW, though I realize there are some differences, breaking leather without sufficient cause is bad news. We get arrested for that, police are not held accountable for it unless someone gets hurt or there is an accident, that's a bad way to approach the issue. Reacting only to the tragedies is poor form in problem solving.

Tell me, what would be so wrong with asking police officers to satisfy or demonstrate a requirement being met to break leather in all cases, not just when something goes wrong or someone gets hurt? All they have to demonstrate is what prompted them to do it (suspicious movements, violent history, vicious disregard or non-compliance etc...).

When I made my complaint about being held at gunpoint in a case of mistaken identity over a rather petty crime, the response I got was "that's just our procedure". It's a bad procedure.

 

[fjolnirsson]

Well, I haven't read this thread just yet, but I'll answer regardless of that.

Should Rule #2 apply to Law Enforcement or not?

Yes. I was taught in the police academy that rule #2 does indeed apply. You don't point your gun at someone, unless you are ready and willing to shoot them. Plain and simple.

 

[Jeff White]

NineseveN,
I'm sure that there are as many variations of policy as to when an officer can point his weapon at a suspect as there are police departments. The community that the department serves usually sets the standards for what's acceptable and what's not.

Tell me, what would be so wrong with asking police officers to satisfy or demonstrate a requirement being met to break leather in all cases, not just when something goes wrong or someone gets hurt?

Just make a call to the chief or the mayor or a councilman and you'll probably find out that the officer will be in the office justifying why he pointed his gun at a citizen. There are requirements and policies.

An officer working in a suburban or rural department would probably be fired if he/she went about business the same way an officer who worked a ghetto beat. Different populations require different approaches to policing. In the ghetto areas the gangs try to be the force to be reckoned with and will attempt to intimidate everyone including the police. So they have to be dealt with more forcefully then people from other areas.

Some situations are always handled with a maximum show of force for everyone's safety. Around here, we always do a felony stop on stolen vehicles, even though it's most likely kids out joy riding. Why? Because no one wants to get into a gunfght the one time it might be a real bad person who stole the car for use in a robbery etc. If the joy riding kids didn't want to be brought out of the car at gunpoint, they shouldn't have borrowed it.

Jeff

 

[NineseveN]

Just make a call to the chief or the mayor or a councilman and you'll probably find out that the officer will be in the office justifying why he pointed his gun at a citizen. There are requirements and policies.

I have no problem with anything you described, I would just like to see and know that more places are like Texas is described by CXM. Checks and balances are needed at every level of power. In some ways, I think we needlessly handcuff LEO's, in others, I think there is simply not enough oversight.

Sorry if this was the wrong forum, no hard feelings if you move or lock it of course. Thanks for the discussion as always.

 

[TallPine]

When a peace officer points his weapon at a subject he does mean to shoot that person if the subject doesn't comply with the instructions he is given. This is no different then the armed citzen who doesn't shoot the mugger, who stops in his tracks and then turns and runs when the citizen aims his weapon.

Exactly! Which is sorta what I was trying to say before.

So I guess the issue is indeed "what level of threat justifies being willing to shoot (point a gun at) a person?" (which is certainly a strategies and tactics question, though it may also have legal ramifications, especially for a non-LEO)

I really don't think the threshold is all that different for a LEO and non-LEO ... it is just that a LEO is about 10,000 times more likely to face such a threat and the corresponding decision.

 

[1911Tuner]

Returned

NineSeven said:

>
I had the exact same situation, but I got no real apology, and I was covered for being mistaker for someone that perpetrated a petty crime. That's just inexcusable IMHO.<
*******************

No argument there either. The only problem is that there isn't a reliable indicator to the cop on the scene as to how exactly to know which one will
take his presence in stride and which one will kill him given the slightest hint of an opportunity. No way of knowing that this one is sincere when he strikes a friendly pose and that one is using that ploy to put him at ease until he sees an opening. It's very true that there are many cops who are a little too quick to slap leather over a minor thing...even some who are too quick on the trigger. There are also a few who apparently weren't quick enough.


And:
>In my opinion, you serve the community, your safety comes second unless your life or the lives of others are in clear danger from a credible threat.<
*****************
A very idealistic stance, and in an ideal world it would work very well.
In reality, though...it's easy to tell a man to ignore his desire to live in deference to public safety and/or the suspect's rights and wait until he knows there's a credible threat before responding.

Even easy to tell yourself that you'll do likewise under any and all conditions...
but when it's mano e mano that idealism goes down the crapper. When the subject nervously shuffles his feet...not necessarily as an opening stroke to an attempt to kill..but just from plain nervousness. Or when he fully intends to comply, and reaches for identification in order to speed along the compliance process...things enter a shady area that make the situation dangerous.

As has been noted here a couple of times:
If you wait until you actually see a weapon, or even see the subject reaching for one before unholstering...your response may be too late. Ever tried to
yank a pistol out of a retention rig in a hurry?

I recently put on a demonstration for my newly aquired nephew, who had adopted an attitude that he could handle anything because he consistently scored high during qualifications. This would be an education for him. Range, 10 yards on steel plates. He wore his duty rig, I carried my pistol Mexican-Style under a medium jacket.

Side-by side, 10 feet apart with me standing just slightly forward of him to his left...he waited until he saw my hand move before reaching for his Sig. Without exception, he cleared leather about the time my second shot rang the steel.

Reversing the drill, I waited for him to move before reaching for mine. My shots hit before he could aquire his target...10 times out of 10 tries. He is an athletic 23 year-old with very good reflexes. I'm 54 and have seen better days. He came away with a different perspective.

Please note that I am neither a fast-draw artist nor a trick shot...nor a world-class shooter. My draw to first shot times are about average, or maybe a shade quicker on a good day. Sure, I'm probably better than your average gang-banger by a good margin...but good doesn't always take the field. Lucky shots kill too.

So...Where do we draw the line? Is there an easy answer that covers everybody? I tend to think not.

 

[jd25q]

Just being willing to do something does not mean you intend to. "Or" is operative here. I wonder why you’d be willing to shoot a non-violent suspect that has shown no evidence of threat…

I'm finding it impossible to have a discussion with you. What part of anything I've said makes you think I'm willing to shoot a non-violent suspect that has shown no evidence of threat?

 

[NineseveN]

I'm finding it impossible to have a discussion with you. What part of anything I've said makes you think I'm willing to shoot a non-violent suspect that has shown no evidence of threat?

You said:

The rule starts out "Never". Therefore an exception disproves it. Never does not allow exceptions.

If I point a loaded gun at someone for a period of time, and don't shoot them, then clearly I either wasn't willing or didn't intend to do it, at least not under the circumstances as they existed. If I was willing and intended to do it then the only thing standing in my way is the trigger.

The statement you read of mine about rule #2 included the words "willing" and "or", I then went on to define "willing" and "or". This was in response to your saying that the rule starts out "never" and trhus is todes not allow for any exceptions. But there are no exceptions. You try to produce some, but everything you have produced follows under what one would reasonably be "willing" or would reaosnably "intend", thus not exceptions becasue my definition of the rule include both of those word and the operator word, "or" menaing, either one can be satisfied to hold the rule true, or even both.

I then said:

Just being willing to do something does not mean you intend to. "Or" is operative here. I wonder why you’d be willing to shoot a non-violent suspect that has shown no evidence of threat…

Because my contention is, you do not break leather and draw a bead on someone unless you intend to or are willing to fire on them and destroy or kill them (doesn't that sound like my basis for rule #2? yep, that's it). You are trying to tell me that there are, and I quote you, "exceptions".

Since I am indicating that you should not hold a non-violent suspect with no credible indication of threat at gun point because you should not break leather unless you intend to or are willing to shoot (and why would you want to or be willing to shoot someone that poses zero threat?), the only possible exception to that statement would be that you would infact point a gun at a non-violent offender or one without a credible indication of threat. If I contend that a gun should not be pointed unless you are willing or intend to shoot, and you advocate pointng a gun at a non-violent suspect with no indication of threat, the only conclusions I can draw is that you would be willing or intend to shoot such a person or that you feel that pointing a loaded firearm at someone is a safe thing to do and thus, rule #2 does not apply to you.

Why would you point a gun at someone you were not willing or did not intend to shoot?

 

[NineseveN]

No argument there either. The only problem is that there isn't a reliable indicator to the cop on the scene as to how exactly to know which one will
take his presence in stride and which one will kill him given the slightest hint of an opportunity. No way of knowing that this one is sincere when he strikes a friendly pose and that one is using that ploy to put him at ease until he sees an opening. It's very true that there are many cops who are a little too quick to slap leather over a minor thing...even some who are too quick on the trigger. There are also a few who apparently weren't quick enough.

Dude, I was in line at a mini-mart with about 7 bags of Doritos in my arms, my back was turned to the officer who was 12-15 yards away, he drew on me with my back to him and started yelling for me to get down. I had no idea who he was talking to, what if he would have shot me for non-compliance?

It turns out, he never saw my face, my clothing and build were not similar to the suspect who damaged some property and ran. There was absolutely no reason to see a threat from a guy in the mini-mart with an armful of Doritos who did not even match the description of your suspect, not even close.

If an officer dies in the line of duty, it's a tragedy, if I died while getting snack chips, it is disgusting, deplorable and inexcusable.

A very idealistic stance, and in an ideal world it would work very well.
In reality, though...it's easy to tell a man to ignore his desire to live in deference to public safety and/or the suspect's rights and wait until he knows there's a credible threat before responding.

Then don't become a cop. I didn't ask anyone to become a police officer.

Aside from that, it's a slippery slope you're on now; do we hold everyone at gunpoint anytime they interact with an LEO? Full cavity searches? After all, it's easy to tell someone to ignore his desire to live in deference to public safety and/or the suspect's rights and wait until he knows there's a credible threat before responding...what if there's a bomb in someone's colon? Could be, but who needs credible suspicion of that threat or any checks and balances or qualifying conditions? After all, the poor guy that volunteered to be a cop just wants to go home safe and sound. What about me? I'd like to do that as well. Oh, I forgot, I don't count as much. I can't ask the guy with the gun and the badge to ignore his oversimplified and irrational fears and preserve my rights and safety and respond appropriately. If he kills me on accident, maybe there will be a sympathy thread for me on THR. My family will be so overjoyed!

Sorry guy, that doesn't cut it. I am not asking for one to wait until shots are fired or a gun is present and in the cop's face, credible suspicion alone is enough, but anytime a police officer breaks leather they should have to be accountable for why they did it. Period. If they cannot demonstrate that a reasonable and credible threat existed, they should be disciplined, sanctioned, fired or arrested for needlessly endangering a citizen.

Even easy to tell yourself that you'll do likewise under any and all conditions...
but when it's mano e mano that idealism goes down the crapper. When the subject nervously shuffles his feet...not necessarily as an opening stroke to an attempt to kill..but just from plain nervousness. Or when he fully intends to comply, and reaches for identification in order to speed along the compliance process...things enter a shady area that make the situation dangerous.

the difference is, if I break leather and there is no reasonable threat, I get to spend a night or a few hundred in the slammer and lose my right to keep and bear arms for reckless endangerment, brandishing and any number of offenses that would apply. If I accidentally shoot someone while needlessly drawing my gun or pointing it at someone, I got to jail for a long, long time and lose my right to even own a firearm, forever. I don't get paid leave.

As has been noted here a couple of times:
If you wait until you actually see a weapon, or even see the subject reaching for one before unholstering...your response may be too late. Ever tried to
yank a pistol out of a retention rig in a hurry?

I recently put on a demonstration for my newly aquired nephew, who had adopted an attitude that he could handle anything because he consistently scored high during qualifications. This would be an education for him. Range, 10 yards on steel plates. He wore his duty rig, I carried my pistol Mexican-Style under a medium jacket.

Side-by side, 10 feet apart with me standing just slightly forward of him to his left...he waited until he saw my hand move before reaching for his Sig. Without exception, he cleared leather about the time my second shot rang the steel.

Reversing the drill, I waited for him to move before reaching for mine. My shots hit before he could aquire his target...10 times out of 10 tries. He is an athletic 23 year-old with very good reflexes. I'm 54 and have seen better days. He came away with a different perspective.

Please note that I am neither a fast-draw artist nor a trick shot...nor a world-class shooter. My draw to first shot times are about average, or maybe a shade quicker on a good day. Sure, I'm probably better than your average gang-banger by a good margin...but good doesn't always take the field. Lucky shots kill too.

So...Where do we draw the line? Is there an easy answer that covers everybody? I tend to think not.

There is a middle ground between in your holster and pointed at someone's COM, it's called low ready or guard, but it was dismissed in the other thread so I thought not to bring it up. If you cannot outdraw someone who is fishing out a concealed weapon when you are at low ready or guard, you have no business carrying a firearm to protect anyone in an official capacity.

 

[jd25q]

Why would you point a gun at someone you were not willing or did not intend to shoot?

Just go back and read your own posts. Particularly the ones where I enumerated a couple scenarios and you responded by saying you agreed.

That's really all I've got to say about this.

 

[NineseveN]

Just go back and read your own posts. Particularly the ones where I enumerated a couple scenarios and you responded by saying you agreed.

That's really all I've got to say about this.

Those that I agreed with holding them at gunpoint, met the requirement of "credible threat", thus no exceptions there. If you say there are exceptions, then you are willing to point a firearm at someone that shows no credible indication of threat, since pointing a firearm implies a willingness or intent to shoot, destroy or kill, well, you do the math.

I know you think I'm attacking you, I'm just going by what you say. If you find me a situation where it is okay to point a gun at someone with no credible reason to suspect a threat and I agree, there's your exception, not what you've posted thus far.

 

[1911Tuner]

Slippery Slope

NineSeven...I'd suggest that you apply to the academy...land a job doin' the job...and report back in about three years. Ya just might have a little different twist on these issues...if you survive it.

Tuner---------->Out!

 

[Jeff White]

NineseveN said;

Dude, I was in line at a mini-mart with about 7 bags of Doritos in my arms, my back was turned to the officer who was 12-15 yards away, he drew on me with my back to him and started yelling for me to get down. I had no idea who he was talking to, what if he would have shot me for non-compliance?

It turns out, he never saw my face, my clothing and build were not similar to the suspect who damaged some property and ran. There was absolutely no reason to see a threat from a guy in the mini-mart with an armful of Doritos who did not even match the description of your suspect, not even close.

If that's the entire story, and I've got no reason to think it's not, then you should have called the chief and asked about the department's policy. If it was a young hot dog who was just looking for an excuse to draw his weapon, he certainly would have been reminded of the department policy.

As I stated before, a peace officer's weapons are there to ensure compliance, not just for self defense. We do use them in an offensive role. That is the difference between peace officers and armed citizens. Rule 2 still applies to everyone.

Jeff

 

[NineseveN]

NineSeven...I'd suggest that you apply to the academy...land a job doin' the job...and report back in about three years. Ya just might have a little different twist on these issues...if you survive it.

Tuner---------->Out!

Who says I did not. truth is, I took the exams, passed and then decided on a more lucrative career elsewhere. I am sure I would have a different twist if I had not done so, but that is not relevant in my opinion.

That's one of the old arguments, you know, you have to do the job to understand it. I somewhat agree, but the sticker is, this is a government for the pople, by the people. Police officers serve us, and when they act according to policy, and that policy needlessly endangers people, regardless of the outcome, they should have to answer for it. In some departments, they get to make mistakes, very serious ones, and as long as no one gets hurt or killed and the department is not open up to liability, nothing is done. Some departments don't do things like that, some do. I dont need to understand how dangerous it is in order to know that pointing a firearm at someone is dangerous and unsafe. If that lack of safety is intentional and justfied, fine, but when it is not justified, heads should roll. Something as simple as "we live in a dangerous society" should not be cause for recklessly pointing a firearm at anyone you encounter, for anyone, police officers or citizens.

You should grow up how I did, in my life, or just live it for three years, in my head, with my thoughts and experiences, you'd have a different twist on your thoughts when you were done as well. There's the rub, individual accounts may vary, what should not vary, are the requirements for aiming a deadly weapon at someone and it should not be done without sufficient cause, which IMHO breaks rule #2.

 

[NineseveN]

NineseveN said;


If that's the entire story, and I've got no reason to think it's not, then you should have called the chief and asked about the department's policy. If it was a young hot dog who was just looking for an excuse to draw his weapon, he certainly would have been reminded of the department policy.

As I stated before, a peace officer's weapons are there to ensure compliance, not just for self defense. We do use them in an offensive role. That is the difference between peace officers and armed citizens. Rule 2 still applies to everyone.

Jeff

It is and I did, I was told it was procedure for the officer to ensure their safety to draw their weapon when they felt threatened. But there were no requirements or justification needed, it went on the officer's word, if he or she felt threatened, that was enough...they did not have to justify the fear. I know you guys have a tough job, but that's not an excuse. He was a young guy, and to be fair, I don't know if he ever killed anyone through negligence, so I guess that makes it okay.

Heh. We'll have to agree to disagree then. Fortunately, some departments see it the same way I do. More and more as I am finding out because of this thread.

Peace.

 

[torpid]

There is a middle ground between in your holster and pointed at someone's COM, it's called low ready or guard, but it was dismissed in the other thread so I thought not to bring it up. If you cannot outdraw someone who is fishing out a concealed weapon when you are at low ready or guard, you have no business carrying a firearm to protect anyone in an official capacity.

What's the issue against this?
(missed other thread)

.

 

[NineseveN]

What's the issue against this?
(missed other thread)

.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=179132

Read it, it only got to page 4 before it was closed.

 

[1911Tuner]

Life

NineSeven spake:

>You should grow up how I did, in my life, or just live it for three years, in my head, with my thoughts and experiences, you'd have a different twist on your thoughts when you were done as well.<
******************************

I could say the same. You think I got knife scars growin' up in an affluent part of town? A gunshot wound from hangin' out at the local YMCA?
Nose broken three times and lost teeth from playin' tag football down at the
schoolyard on Sunday afternoons? Hardly.

You've presented some good arguments here, and made some valid points...some of which I completely agree with...others that I partly agree with...and some that I don't agree with at all. That was the purpose of the debate, after all...but I think it's time that I withdraw from it.

Cheers...

 

[NineseveN]

NineSeven spake:

>You should grow up how I did, in my life, or just live it for three years, in my head, with my thoughts and experiences, you'd have a different twist on your thoughts when you were done as well.<
******************************

I could say the same. You think I got knife scars growin' up in an affluent part of town? A gunshot wound from hangin' out at the local YMCA?
Nose broken three times and lost teeth from playin' tag football down at the
schoolyard on Sunday afternoons? Hardly.

You've presented some good arguments here, and made some valid points...some of which I completely agree with...others that I partly agree with...and some that I don't agree with at all. That was the purpose of the debate, after all...but I think it's time that I withdraw from it.

Cheers...

That was the whole point, that the whole "you should experience this or that, live the life of XXXX before you comment on it" argument in this discussion is useless. I brought it up not to assume or insult, but to illustrate that these types of statements don' do a whole lot for the discussion. I apologize if I have offended you as that was not my intent.

 

[Geno]

.

.

 

[Jeff White]

Doc2005,
If you're really being called to testify, you shouldn't be discussing the case on an internet forum.

After it's over, why don't you start a thread in Legal and Political on the case?

Jeff

 

[Geno]

Thank-you...shall do!

Thank-you...shall do!

 

[1911Tuner]

I apologize if I have offended you as that was not my intent.

I know ya didn't...and I wasn't offended. I just see that there's really no point in my continuing on this one. It seems that we've arrived at the point of agreeing to disagree, and most likely because neither of us is havin' any luck expressing our thoughts clearly. Like you noted that I seemed to be taking a hard line in defending all cops under all circumstances...you seem to have an idea of black and white. Black? Draw! White? Don't draw. The problem with that is that there is a wide expanse of varying shades of gray in every encounter with no way to tell which one is a killer and which one is a walk in the park. The rules of engagement change with each engagement.

Cheers!

 

[NineseveN]

I know ya didn't...and I wasn't offended. I just see that there's really no point in my continuing on this one. It seems that we've arrived at the point of agreeing to disagree, and most likely because neither of us is havin' any luck expressing our thoughts clearly. Like you noted that I seemed to be taking a hard line in defending all cops under all circumstances...you seem to have an idea of black and white. Black? Draw! White? Don't draw. The problem with that is that there is a wide expanse of varying shades of gray in every encounter with no way to tell which one is a killer and which one is a walk in the park. The rules of engagement change with each engagement.

Cheers!

Indeed. Cheers man. Nice chattin with ya. Let's go find a thread we can agree on now dammit, I like you too much to bump heads this much. :banghead: