If that is the way you read my post, go ahead.
 
Just don't waste your phone call.

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading here.

Cops are suppose to protect you and keep you safe. When your in some type of situation, maybe about to be beat up, and call on your cell for help and a 5'2" 110lb squeeky voiced bleached blonde shows up, you gonna feel relieved and safe?
Maybe this isn't a good analogy but hope you get the picture.
Women are geared to do certain things in life as men are. I can't believe all these gun owners who think women can be just as efficent at law enforcement on the street as a man would. And i'm not talking about a 5'2" 110 lb squeeky voiced man. You guys must be really whipped to spout this stuff or your wives may be reading this later and you want to be sure to get poontang tonight, in that case I understand.
Lets here from some of the LEOs here on there experiences with female officers. Any out there willing to relate some stories?

I suppose all you whipped guys would like to see women in combat roles because you know they could do the job as good as a man. HA!

Call me what you want, but I'll never count  on a woman to bail me out of a physically tough situation.

It's her job, isn't it? She is doing what she's supposed to do.

If we're going to talk about requirements of being hired as a cop, then I think ALL cops should be 6'4, 245 pounds, bench 400 pounds and run a mile in 3 minutes, weather your male OR female  [shock].

Do you think the guy would be dead if it was a large fit male officer making the stop? Would a large male officer have felt so threatened by a man walking towards him and refusing to stop that he thinks shooting the guy several times in the chest is the only solution?

What you said AlClenin is it in a nutshell.

he probally didn't understand English, and his illegal alien family is going to sue the hell out of them.

If I tell someone who is walking toward me to stop repeatedly and they refuse and continue to advance, YES I would feel threatened. Would I immediately shoot him, no. Everything depends on a whole lot of circumstances in a given situation. We can sit here and create hundreds of [i]"what if's"[/i]

The fact of the matter is, there are a series of steps in the use of force. Such as the use of her nightstick, mace, sidearm. Did she try to use her nightstick, mace? I don't know, I wasn't there. Why did the motorist get out of his car? Was he saying anything as he got out of his car? Was he saying anything as he walked toward her? As he was walking toward her, did he pick up his pace and move more quickly toward her?????????????????

There are way too many scenarios AND not enough [i]facts[/i] to sit here behind a safe computer and judge her actions in a split second.

We definitely don't know all the facts. All we have to go on is what was reported: traffic stop, passenger shot dead. Perhaps he fit a profile also. That surely would make it justified right?

This is a discussion area. I don't think anyone should be told not to discuss this here. If we only discussed things here that we know all the facts, this wouldn't be much of a discussion forum.

As far as facts go, I don't know for a fact that terrorists attacked the U.S. All I think I know is what was reported in the media. Does this make it not a fact?

Anyway, now that I read the article again, I probably shouldn't have mentioned the profiling thing. He was a passenger. The report says nothing about where the driver was. I could see it being a bad situation if the officer was trying to keep control in a situation with more than one person adding to the threat.

I dunno. Sorry. I'll keep quiet now ;)

Look at it from a civillian standpoint.

You're at a range, and someone is messing with your car, attempting to break in.. You lay your weapon on the table, turn and tell him to stop..Instead, he walks toward you..What happens now?
(Your weapon is within easy reach..)

Unless one is IN the situation the officer was, second guessing is just mental masturbation..What you do, and what you say you will do may be radically diffrent things in a time of stress..

Meplat-

My point exactly.  A male officer would have pulled his weapon and told them to stop also.

Maybe the guy would have stopped with a male, we will never know.

One less idiot the rest of us need to worry about.

No mace, no night stick.

Uhm-and since the guy was at a traffic stop, was not seen in the attempt to commit burglary, in fact was simply advancing when told by an officer not to-this example doesn't wash.

And a police officer would have several intermediate levels of deterrents, from pepper spray baton and/or stun gun, on up to the handgun, whil the average range goer would not-this example doesn't wash.

And, firing multiple rounds into the chest of a guy whom you've caught in the act of burglary, is a bit different than shooting a guy who's walking towards you-and many states won't let you shoot in defense of property, either.

This example doesn't wash.

Juggernaut

Suppose I shoot the guy. Would I be on "administrative leave" until my friends are finished investigating?

What we've got here...is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week - which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.

coyote3

Shoot! I'am not going to start wrestling someone, in hopes he won't get my gun and kill me or others. Would it be logical to unload my weapon, toss it into bushes so the bad guy won't get it and start fighting. Have you ever conducted a car stop? Have you ever got shot at during a car stop? Have you ever got into a brawl at a car stop, while armed? Have you ever been confronted with this situation? I didn't think so!

Once again.......[b]ARMCHAIR WORRIERS[/b]!

I don't think that there is enough information here to make a judgement about this incident yet.

Is it acceptable to use deadly force to stop an apparently unarmed subject who is refusing to comply with commands? Generally, no. Most of the time when I have pointed weapons at other people, in real life, non-training events, I have gotten non-compliance. I also (thank God) haven't had to use deadly force on anyone, either. Language barriers, physical disabilities, mental illness, intoxication and plain old stupidity were all factors in the lack of compliance. It goes with the territory. Deal with it.

This is not a male vs. female issue, either. In my experience, female officers are less likely to use force than male officers (and the stats back up my opinion). The prevailing wisdom is that females are more likely to talk folks into complying (and veteran officers learn this as well).

That all being said, I imagine there is more to this than the skimpy newspaper story said. We will have to see. If she shot someone who was not actively aggressive, then it was a bad shoot and she should face the consequences. The flip side is that if she had an articulable fear for her safety, she should walk. Another thing to consider is that officers get into "good" (in the legal sense; there really isn't a good deadly force encounter) shootings all of the time and still get reamed on the Admin side. And with good reason; just because you had a legal right to use deadly force doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to use good tactics and not put yourself in a situation where you have to make that kind of decision. Sometimes, there is nothing wrong with backing off and waiting for help, and it is often the wisest and best choice. Many, many police shootings are preventable from the officer's side if they would have used better tactics and never given the bad guy an opening.

Okay, lecture mode off.

Why do they have batons/night sticks at all if it is OK to shoot someone who is WALKING towards them and not following orders to stop?

I'm trying not to argue about whether or not this was a legit shooting or not, but more that the fact that it was a female officer probably made the shooting more likely.

I think I'll stop arguing about whether or not the shooting was justified until more details come out (if they ever do).

Thanks for the good input. I'm curios about the female vs. male use of force statistics. Do they differentiate between lethal and non-lethal force? Looking only at situations where force was used, are women more or less likely than men to use lethal force as opposed to non-lethal force?

I hope that womenz doesn't get assigned to patrol fun shows or lots of people are going to get shot for "reeking in a threatening manner"!

[blue]Because you posted:[/blue]
[red][/red]

Thats why! You should reread my posts on the on the use of force. I never said to shoot before using other means of force.

Ok, I have read 3 pages so far and it seems everyone has missed the point. That is, no single officer should be out on patrol alone! Even if you're 6'4" and 250, there's always going to be someone who is just a little bigger and a little tougher than you. It's just a fact. Saying that women shouldn't be police officers just because of size is about the biggest crock of sh*t I have ever heard! The badge they wear is all the same size, man or woman. If the criminal chooses to exploit that size for his gain, then it's just tough sh*t if he gets tagged and bagged.

Now with that said, had a partner been in that vehicle, the outcome might have been different. Even if it was two women. They could have had the luxary of fighting with him. One could have used Mace, a taser, or a baton while the other covered with a weapon. Or they could have both done so. But if he had tried to tackle one of them there would have been someone there to help.

Retention of your firearm is critical. You can't afford to get in a wrestling match with someone if you are alone. Because if they get your gun, you are dead. It's that simple. You have to keep them at an arms length at least. Distance and spacing is life. Now maybe she could have backed up to create that distance. But how far could she have gone? Far enough to allow a potential threat to reach into her patrol car and grab her shotgun? A line was clearly drawn when she ordered him to stop. He chose to cross that line. And he is responsible for his death. Even someone that didn't speak English would have understood a gun pointed at them meant stand still and follow directions!

Instead of blaming this female officer, place the blame where it belongs....on the criminal and the State of Florida. How much longer are we going to continue putting one deputy, city officer or trooper in a car? It is a two person job, regardless of sex. Having two people here could have made the difference. But we don't even yet know that much. He could have had a knife, or a pipe or anything. If that was the case, shooting would have been justified with two officers present.

Now I am not advocating the use of lethal force liberally. But what I am saying is give police the tools they need to get the job done so they don't have to shoot. A radar is nice, as is a great radio, a good warning light system and even a dash cam (which I am sure this trooper had), but the most useful thing you could give a cop is a PARTNER! If you have enough people to subdue a perp, then there will be fewer lethal force cases out there. They will be able to get the job done without firing because it won't be necessary. Would that be expensive? Yes. But it's the only way unless we want to keep seeing these kind of incidents.

I agree, two people should have shot him!!!  [:D]

I believe that the most qualified and capable person should get the job, regardless of gender.

You're probably correct in what will happen.  BUT, English or not, a gun pointed at me communicates all I need to know.  Hands on the car, assume the position.  (Best bet, stay in the car, hands where the officer can see.)

Not quite. In FL, someone breaking into your house is considered armed (based on case law).  Therefore, someone shot in a situation you describe would simply have got his.  Investigation?  Of course, as it should be.

Right.  Like we'll even be sure we ever get all the details from the silly media.  Only the officer and the perp were there.  Also, there are standards for shooting at distance.  Someone with a knife can be shot at 21 feet (that's the specification, but any sane person would say approximately) because that person can still keep coming and kill you.  Since many people can kill someone without even exhibiting a weapon, I agree with the officer's call on the situation.  

Being told to stop, I would.  I haven't been pulled over in nearly 30 years, but if I were, I'd stay in the car, turn on the interior light, and keep my hands on the wheel.

I posted no mace, no night stick because the article makes it sound like SHE DIDN'T EVEN TRY THESE OTHER LESSER MEANS OF FORCE BEFORE BLASTING THE GUY. You took my comment out of context idiot.

Boy, If I were the officer, I would love to have you guys on my jury.

The use of deadly physical force is usually based on a "reasonableness" standard, to whit would a "reasonable" person or officer feel threatened of death or serious bodily injury from the person advancing on them, and was their use of deadly physical force the ONLY means that the officer could employ to stop their assailants unlawful use of force.  This is a legal question as to the legalities of one's actions and is judged AFTER the incident occurred as to whether or not the officer is culpable for any criminal wrongdoing.

The use of force continuum starts from the simple "officer presence" and continues to "verbal commands", then "physical contact/pain compliance", next "chemical agents", next "impact weapons", and finally deadly physical force (shooting, strangling, running them over with your car, etc.).  It does not require an officer to attempt to use each level of force in succession before resorting to a level of force that it necessary to control a subject.  If an officer is facing someone who is combative, they may need to immediately escalate to chemical agents or impact weapons without first trying the lower level of force.  In fact, many deadly physical force encounters start with "officer presence", and skip all other levels and go straight to deadly physical force, if the threat to the officer warrants it.  

Now, according to the article, all we know is that the officer felt threatened and fired several fatal shots at the subject.  This means that she used deadly physical force.  In order to justify her use of force, it must be REASONABLE that she could have been killed or suffered serious bodily injury had she not IMMEDIATELY utilized deadly physical force (shooting him) to stop his unlawful use of force.  Based upon the article, and the article alone, there is NO evidence that the officer was actually in a position that would have resulted in her death or serious bodily injury had she not used her firearm.  This does not mean that there are not other factors, only that if the article is 100% correct on all counts, then this shooting is completely unjustified.  The subject may have been armed, or advancing while making threatening movements and statements, that were not included in the article and these types of things could make the shoot justified.

In any regard, if you find yourself in a position that you feel threatened of death or serious bodily injury, then of course you should use whatever amount of force (including deadly physical force) is necessary to protect yourself.  Just be forewarned that it doesn't make you justified in your actions.  The County Attorney and police are going to look at the circumstances and say to themselves, "Would any reasonable person in your place have felt threatened of death or serious bodily injury"?  If they think that you acted in a manner that is "unreasonable", then you are probably going to be charged.

Excessive force can be applied to both male and female officers.  I know of one male officer who is being sued for excessive force, simply because he is out of shape.  The plaintiff’s claim that had the officer not allowed himself to get so out of shape, he would not need to resort to "higher force levels" but instead would have been able to control the situation with mere physical force.  They might very well win.  

...continued.

Regarding females as officers:
Some women make excellent cops.  Some women make horrible cops.  Same with men.

Traditionally, women are less likely to use physical and deadly force than male officers.  However, when female officers DO use force, they are far more likely to move to a higher level of force than their male counterparts.  In instances where male officers might try to "fight it out" with a subject, a female officer might be more likely to back off and draw her firearm or chemical agent.  Again, it all depends on what is "reasonable".  Would you expect a typical female officer to wrestle with one or more subjects that are bigger, and stronger than her, or would you expect her to use a higher level of force that is reasonable to control the subject(s), while keeping her from placing herself in a position that could cause serious injury or death.

I personally know a female officer that I love to come to my rescue over many male officers.  This woman is tough.  In fact she is tougher than many men, but she looks very feminine.  She has on one occasion fought hand to hand by herself against 3 bigger, and stronger, male subjects.  She won.  She can run 1.5 miles in just over 7 minutes (she was a professional athlete before becoming a cop).  She can do 50 pushups in a minute (the same way the men are required, she doesn't believe in double standards).  She is by far, in the minority when it comes to female officers.

There are so many female officers that are hired due to circumstances that have nothing to do with police work.  There are many women out there that carry a badge, who should not IMHO.  There are a larger number of women than men that don't belong on the street, because they were hired solely based on gender and not ablility. If you have a crappy human being, they are going to be a crappy officer.

The female officers that I know that push hard and try to reach the male officer standards make some of the finest officers.  Unfortunately, the huge majority of female officers do only what is required to sneak under the "female adjusted" standards, and that is the biggest problem as I see it.

Let's allow this to be tried in the media that we all know and trust......[rolleyes]

Great, this shows your intelligence, resorting to personal attacks. I took it out of context? There was no context to your post. You should learn how to post messages. Grow up little boy.

[smoke]

Does anyone remenber this?:




June 6, 2001, 2:21PM

Friends baffled at accidental police shooting
Associated Press
McKINNEY -- Cathey Howard-Kalimah knew all about security. She taught it to aspiring security guards and police academy students at the North Texas Job Corps branch in this north Texas town.

That's why friends and neighbors remained baffled today as they wondered how the 31-year-old mother of two could have been shot to death in her home Tuesday by a police officer's gun that accidentally discharged during a burglary investigation.

Friend and former colleague Rakelle Sanford said Howard-Kalimah would have known to be cautious when she came home Tuesday to check on a burglar alarm that had started going off that afternoon.

Sanford said she blames the police for what happened. "They definitely messed up," said Sanford, 26, who was at the family's home to drop off a card and flowers. "Cathey knew the security trade. She teaches it."

Authorities said the officer, whose name they refused to disclose, walked around the outside of the house and saw the back door slightly open. As the officer attempted to go inside, the door apparently popped open, hit the officer's weapon and caused it to fire, police said.

A single bullet went through the door, striking Howard-Kalimah in the chest. She died at the scene.

"The officer is really hurting right now," Police Chief Doug Kowalski told the Dallas Morning News for today's editions. "She was upset, stressed, emotionally distraught."

Police said the officer, who has been with the department for more than three years, has been placed on administrative leave. Police are conducting an investigation.

Friends and neighbors said they were skeptical about the police's handling of the situation.

"A police officer was involved in the shooting and police officers are investigating it," Sanford said. "Hopefully, the truth will come out."

The sparse, quiet neighborhood with one bumpy road cutting through seems an unlikely site for a shooting.

"Nobody comes down our little street," said Anna Means, 39, who lives across the street from Howard-Kalimah's family.

That all changed Tuesday about 8 p.m., when Means said she saw the first police car arrive on the scene. Means said she didn't hear the gunshot but within 10 minutes, the street was packed with police cars, ambulances and helicopters.

When she tried to find out what happened, Means said an officer yelled at her to "Get back in the house." She said police told neighbors there had been a burglary.

"I know she's made peace," Sanford said of her deceased friend, a charismatic leader whom she called a mentor. "I hope she didn't realize what happened, that she went fast."

The jazz lover and mother from North Carolina married her high school sweetheart, Jeemil, Sanford said, before moving to Texas two years ago. Their children are ages 13 and 4.

"I don't go to funerals," Sanford said. "But I feel like I need to attend hers because she enriched my life." The funeral will be in North Carolina.

Howard-Kalimah's family has retained a lawyer, who said he also plans to investigate the shooting.

"I hope and I expect that there will be a sharing of information with the police," attorney Dick Sayles said. "We haven't had an opportunity to do our own investigation. Upon the investigation, we hope that whatever is appropriate and right will be done."

If you'll go back and re-read you'll see that there was indeed a context to my comment. I quoted the article right above my comment. The article made no mention of her using anything other than lethal force. I pointed this out by saying "no mace, no nightstick".

You answered my question of "why do they even have batons/nightsticks if it is ok to shoot someone for WALKING in a threatening manner" by quoting me saying "no mace and no nightstick" in that context. What kind of answer is that? It makes no sense.

sometimes a stick and pepper spray just es them off more.  who wants to be within a foot or two distance to some one who may be trying to kill you?  i dont think she woke up that morning and said, "humm...i feel like  someone today."  it could be possable that the guy didnt due what she instructed and maybe just needed to be killed.  but untill we have all the facts of the case, lets not judge her.

Quoted:


This is REALLY getting old. I feel like I'm explaining something to my five year old nephew. I have re-read my posts, everything makes sense to me, but your logic.

We are supposed to analyze this whole thing from a very short article from the media, thats ridiculas. We can beat this topic into the ground and still get nowhere. It is for this reason, I will no longer be posting on this thread.

Funny, I feel the same way.



Good.

IMHO I think that what the officer did was right on.......if the facts show that he was approching her while she ordered him to halt but keeps coming thing she has ground to use lethal force.....I would do the same thing.

Please tell me you don't carry a firearm.

Are you serious?

Are we to believe that you actually support the supposition that an officer is legally justified in shooting a person that doesn't immediately comply with the officers wishes, EVEN IF THE PERSON POSES NO RISK TO THE OFFICER?

Well, how about this:

You location has posted speed limits, does it not?  If you violate those speed limits, when an officer confronts you, in your opinion, he is justified in shooting and killing you rather than writing you a ticket?  After all you were warned beforehand, because of the signs.

I can argue much more effectively that you are a bigger threat driving a moving vehicle above a posted speed limit, than ANY human being poses just by walking.


REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A VERBAL ORDER TO STOP WALKING IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR KILLING SOMEONE.

Oh,

What if the guy was mentally retarded?  What if he was being kidnapped and he was trying to escape and tell the officer what happened?  What if he just had a heart attack and was trying to just get medical attention?

Kill 'em.  Kill 'em all.  After all, it's not your ass, at least not this time.

Do you think women should be in military combat?
If not, why?

I don't think anyone is saying that we should abolish all government, just that we should have one that isn't so fucking trigger happy and agressive towards citizens. This guilty until proven innocent crap needs to stop.

Btw, if they were wrongfully convicted, are they really scumbags?

Is this a good reason why men should not be cops...?

[url]http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/2777945p-3563179c.html[/url]

Sure, lets get rid of all male cops and have women only.

Seriously though, the difference is that you can't say most male cops are likely to rape young girls in the back seat, while you can say that most female cops are likely to be less powerful than the average man. If they are less powerful than a man, and faced with a situation in which force is nececarry, it seems like they'll be more likely to resort to lethal/excessive force, since they are unable to effectively apply non-lethal force.

Before you go running off pointing out that  many women cops could probably kick my ass or something similar, let me say that yes, there are exceptions to any generalization. In this case, if a woman is able to meet the standards(*see below), fine let her be a cop, but I suspect standards have been adjusted in the name of political correctness with the goal of getting a "more diverse" police force out there.

*What sort of tests do cops have to pass to get the job? Are there any physical tests such as strength tests? If not, do you think there should be?

This should not be about women vs. men as cops. I'm 5-9 175 and run and lift 4-6 times a week. There are many bigger, faster, meaner, smarter people that I deal with on a regular basis. I like to think I'm above average physically. That being said I've had my ass kicked a few times!

I think we'll have to wait for some facts to decide this. Why be in a hurry? If a person is walking towards you at a normal pace, how long do you think it will take? Would you have time to go from verbal to physical to chemical to ASP to lethal? That in itself is in fantasyland.
As was stated before, sometimes a tactical repositioning in necessary(haul ass like a scalded assed ape!). Nothing wrong with that at  times.

Legally, we certainly don't know. Morally, some of you think you do. In many jurisdictions disparity of force is a legal justification to use lethal force. She might be in over her head. She might be a great officer. We need more information to decide anything other than a person was killed by the police.

AlClenin, you have beat this horse to death several times over. Why not wait for more information. Then you can make an informed decision.

To be hired by an agency, typically you have to meet certain requirements.

Written test
Oral board exam
Mental exam
Physical (medical) exam
Physical fitness exam
Background investigation

In addition, many states have established organizations that "certify" individuals as having met certain requirements.  These Police Officers Standards and Training boards set the minimum qualifications for individuals to meet and be hired as law enforcement officers.  Most agencies will not hire someone if they cannot meet these requirements, as state law usually requires the individual to be certified by the board before they can be a sworn officer.

In essence, the board sets the standards for all cops in a state.  The individual agencies adopt, and in some cases modify the standards to be more strict than specified, and only hire individuals who can meet these requirements.

However, just like the military, there are two standards for physical ability.  There is one for male, and one for female, further broken down into age groups.