DeKalb cops ignore rules in shootings
Department hasn't addressed patterns of policy violations

By DAVID SIMPSON
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/01/06

Advancing into armed conflict without adequate backup. Firing at moving vehicles. Neglecting safety procedures when arresting suspects.

Such practices are clearly prohibited by the DeKalb County Police Department, but records show officers have repeatedly violated those policies — sometimes putting themselves in a position where they had no choice but to shoot.

In the wake of a string of fatal police shootings by DeKalb County officers, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewed internal reports of 31 shootings in which a suspect was killed or injured from 2001 through 2005.

In almost all the incidents, officers shot someone who threatened them with a weapon, and the department determined that 27 of the shootings were "justified." But in its examination of the internal reports, the newspaper found three patterns of policy violations in the moments before officers fired their guns.

•In threeincidents spanning less than 18 months, two lieutenants and a sergeant were found to have improperly ordered officers into confrontations with armed suspectsrather than waiting for SWAT or other reinforcements. Two of the suspects were shot to death; a third was wounded.

•The department prohibits firing into moving vehiclesunless someone is "in imminent danger." But the department's Internal Review Board — a panel of commanders who review all shootings — concluded officers broke that rule in two shootings in 2002 and 2004. In one of those shootings, an officer shot and killed a driver and wounded a passenger in a moving car.

•Officers also violated policy in handling suspects. One officer trying to handcuff a 19-year-old suspect accidentally shot and killed the man as the two struggled. The officer should have had his gun holstered, the review board found. In two other instances, officers failed to recognize risks posed by handcuffed suspects. One of those men, who had not been properly searched before being put into a police car,was killed after he pulled a gun.

Two officers were fired over fatal shootings, but other officers found in violation of department rules received little or no disciplinary action, records show. One of those officers later resigned; the others remain on the DeKalb police force.

From 2001 through 2005, the department's training program in the use of deadly force was also "lacking in some very critical areas," according to a recently released report by an outside consultant.

The tactics used by DeKalb's police officers and the training provided by the department are under scrutiny as the number of fatal shootings by police officers in the county has skyrocketed.

So far this year, officers have shot and killed 11 people — more than any other department in metro Atlanta. One officer also has been killed.

The results of police investigations of the 2006 shootings are not yet available, although interim Police Chief Nick Marinelli said he is expediting the review process and plans to release the findings sometime this month.

Patterns unheeded

Finding patterns is important to reducing violent confrontations between suspects and police, said Samuel Walker, a University of Nebraska at Omaha criminal justice professor who studies the oversight of police conduct.

"Subject them to analysis ... where's the problem? Is it the policy, is it the training, is it the supervision?" Walker said.

But in DeKalb County, even as officers were making the same kinds of mistakes, that analysis apparently did not take place.

Louis Graham, the police chief from November 2004 to May 2006, said in an interview that no one ever pointed out any patterns of recurring mistakes to him.

Shortly after he became chief, for example, Graham approved a recommendation to fire an officer who shot and killed the driver of a moving car. He said he wasn't told, however, that it was the third time in 2 1/2 years that an officer had violated the same policy. (In the earlier two incidents, one driver was slightly injured; the other was unhurt.)

Because the department didn't take note of the patterns, Graham said his department didn't consider altering the department's training.

Eddie Moody, the chief from 2001 to 2004, did not return calls left at his home seeking comment on this story.

Marinelli, who became interim chief in May, said he would comment in more detail later this month, when the department releases the findings of the 2006 cases.

In the meantime, Marinelli said he is putting a process in place "so that you can tell that a pattern is coming and a trend is out there." The department also is changing the training for the current class of police recruits and is implementing other recommendations received this month from the consulting firm hired by the county.

Brown Group International — led by Lee Brown, whose jobs have included Atlanta public safety commissioner and federal drug czar — reported the department's training in recent years did not include courses devoted to"conflict resolution, de-escalation techniques, effective communication, listening skills or simulation training" — all of which might have helped officers defuse violent confrontations.

"We probably need to concentrate more on de-escalation and non-lethal [force]," Marinelli said.

After reviewing a summary of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's findings, Walker said they showed violations of "common-sense" rules that have long been standard police practice.

His advice?

Pull all officers into training sessions to go over the violations and explain how the policies are meant to protect the safety of the suspects — and the officers.

"In some of the better departments, the commanders just keep saying you just have to train, train, train," Walker said.

Mild punishment

The internal reports also raise questions about how officers are disciplined.

Officers involved in non-fatal shootings were unlikely to be subjected to severe discipline, the newspaper found. For example, the two officers who fired into moving cars without hitting anyone were suspended — one for a day and one for two weeks. The officer who killed a driver was fired.

Nodisciplinary action was taken against the two lieutenants found to have forced confrontations rather than calling SWAT. A commander recommended that a sergeant who entered the home of an armed 80-year-old suspect without SWAT backup be demoted, but the department lost the paperwork on his case for so long that commanders decided they could no longer proceed.

The sergeant received "written counseling," according to the records.

The department also didn't discipline any of the officers found to have improperly handled suspects. That includes an officer who failed to search a suspect who was placed in a police car and another who ignored warnings from other officers and approached a car just before the suspect opened fire.

Asked about the discipline administered in those cases, Marinelli issued a written statement saying, "The disciplinary actions taken by former Police Chiefs Eddie Moody and Louis Graham were within their purview and cannot be reversed by me."

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

This article is based on documents obtained under the Georgia Open Records Act.

The newspaper examined Internal Review Board summaries of investigations of 31 shootings in which suspects were killed or wounded from 2001 through 2005.

Police officers typically are identified only by initials and last names in the reports, and their home addresses and phone numbers are not subject to disclosure under the Open Records Act.

The newspaper used police e-mail addresses to try to contact current officers named in this article and delivered written requests to the workplaces of the officers. The newspaper also asked a public information officer to pass along messages.

No current officer responded to the requests for comment.

The newspaper used the last known address and phone number for fired Officer A.A. French to try to contact him.

Reports were not available on 2006 shootings because they still are under review by the department.

www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2006/10/31/1101metshoot.html

mmmkkaaayy.....

we have what?? rogue cops? or cops that are willing to do what needs to be done to nail the bad guys?

www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2006/10/31/1101metshoot.html

Your source is reason enough to disregrad.
The Atlanta Urinal and Constpaition

Ummm, cop confronts BG. BG presents potentially lethal threat to cop. Cop terminates threat. Exactly what additional investigation, regardless of the General Orders, is called for?

One officer trying to handcuff a 19-year-old suspect accidentally shot and killed the man as the two struggled.

So what?

who had not been properly searched before being put into a police car,was killed after he pulled a gun.

OK, that's not good but that is the sort of thing you give a verbal reprimand for.  The guy in the handcuffs made a bad decision.

I'm very critical of cops when they search improperly or setup roadblocks to search people at random just because they're driving down a certain street at a certain time, but I didn't see anything in this article to justify its existence.  It should have never been published.z

So what? The first case is very very close to or actually is negligent homicide or manslaughter, and the second case is the kind of sloppy shit that gets people killed.

What exactly is this story about?

Quoted: What exactly is this story about?

I think this article says that DeKalb is a really screwed up LEO organization.  It is so screwed up that then the AJC is even writing articles pointing out their problems.  It has to be really bad if the AJC does an article.

You are going to buy someone a beer because he had a negligent discharge resulting in a death?

Quoted: Ummm, cop confronts BG. BG presents potentially lethal threat to cop. Cop terminates threat. Exactly what additional investigation, regardless of the General Orders, is called for?

Because departments live and die by policy.

Quoted: Quoted: Ummm, cop confronts BG. BG presents potentially lethal threat to cop. Cop terminates threat. Exactly what additional investigation, regardless of the General Orders, is called for? Because departments live and die by policy.

So do the officers.  We've terminated two officers for violating policy AFTER a good shoot. Just the thing you want your people thinking about when someone is about to kill them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ummm, cop confronts BG. BG presents potentially lethal threat to cop. Cop terminates threat. Exactly what additional investigation, regardless of the General Orders, is called for? Because departments live and die by policy. So do the officers.  We've terminated two officers for violating policy AFTER a good shoot. Just the thing you want your people thinking about when someone is about to kill them.

Remember the GA LEO who was killed because he didn't want to draw his gun because he had been counsled earlier about drawing his weapon.

Quoted: Sorry, bro.  Normally I agree with you but to me this seems like a PD that has grown the balls many other departments lack.  Instead of backing down from an armed suspect they wade into the fray.  If the article said something like a bunch of innocent people were harmed because the PD screwed up, well that might be a different story. Article says 27 out of 31 found justified.  I'd like to know more about the other four.  But I sure as hell don't feel sorry for some young gangbanger who got his head blown off because he wouldn't stop fighting with the officer.  Hell, I'd like to buy that cop a beer and box of ammo. Mark

No problem.  I don't expect anyone to agree with me.  The part of the article that bothers me was the one where they did not fire the officer for violating P@P.

In three incidents spanning less than 18 months, two lieutenants and a sergeant were found to have improperly ordered officers into confrontations with armed suspects rather than waiting for SWAT or other reinforcements. Two of the suspects were shot to death; a third was wounded.

That can be dangerous to the officers but it might have been necessary to reduce the risks to innocent people. Perhaps someone might have been shot that otherwise wouldn’t have been, but these are not innocent people getting killed.

The department prohibits firing into moving vehicles unless someone is "in imminent danger." But the department's Internal Review Board — a panel of commanders who review all shootings — concluded officers broke that rule in two shootings in 2002 and 2004. In one of those shootings, an officer shot and killed a driver and wounded a passenger in a moving car.

I’m assuming this was in a high speed chase since I don’t think the police are shooting at drivers for having expired tags. This also doesn’t bother me any since anyone who runs at high speed from the cops deserves a bullet.

Officers also violated policy in handling suspects. One officer trying to handcuff a 19-year-old suspect accidentally shot and killed the man as the two struggled. The officer should have had his gun holstered, the review board found. In two other instances, officers failed to recognize risks posed by handcuffed suspects. One of those men, who had not been properly searched before being put into a police car, was killed after he pulled a gun.

The first is unfortunate but if you don’t want to get shot don’t resist. The second resulted in a would be murderer getting killed. No tears for him either, although it did put the police and any bystanders at risk. That’s worth making some officer spend a weekend in remedial training, nothing more.

Quoted: Officers also violated policy in handling suspects. One officer trying to handcuff a 19-year-old suspect accidentally shot and killed the man as the two struggled. The officer should have had his gun holstered, the review board found. In two other instances, officers failed to recognize risks posed by handcuffed suspects. One of those men, who had not been properly searched before being put into a police car, was killed after he pulled a gun. The first is unfortunate but if you don’t want to get shot don’t resist. The second resulted in a would be murderer getting killed. No tears for him either, although it did put the police and any bystanders at risk. That’s worth making some officer spend a weekend in remedial training, nothing more.

I got big problems with LEOs shooting suspects in handcuffs.

Secondly, do you want a LEO who can handcuff a bad guys, but cannot find a handgun on them?

End result, no matter how you look at it, the public is not going to believe that the LEO did nothing wrong when they had to shoot a person in handcuffs.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ummm, cop confronts BG. BG presents potentially lethal threat to cop. Cop terminates threat. Exactly what additional investigation, regardless of the General Orders, is called for? Because departments live and die by policy. So do the officers.  We've terminated two officers for violating policy AFTER a good shoot. Just the thing you want your people thinking about when someone is about to kill them. Remember the GA LEO who was killed because he didn't want to draw his gun because he had been counsled earlier about drawing his weapon.

Deputy Kyle Dinkheller.

Quoted: mmmkkaaayy..... we have what?? rogue cops? or cops that are willing to do what needs to be done to nail the bad guys?

Sounds like a few of them might've been situations where an officer put HIMSELF at more risk than policy would call for.

But really, it sounds like a community where either an increasing crime problem or just the roll of the dice has lead to more officer shootings than average this year.  Add to that some scumbag politicians that want to find fault with the cops instead of their constituency, and you end up with the wrong guys being blamed for the wrong things and an ostrich mentality on the real issues.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ummm, cop confronts BG. BG presents potentially lethal threat to cop. Cop terminates threat. Exactly what additional investigation, regardless of the General Orders, is called for? Because departments live and die by policy. So do the officers.  We've terminated two officers for violating policy AFTER a good shoot. Just the thing you want your people thinking about when someone is about to kill them. Remember the GA LEO who was killed because he didn't want to draw his gun because he had been counsled earlier about drawing his weapon. Deputy Kyle Dinkheller.

I remember that.  So many mistakes on the tape.  

Quoted: What exactly is this story about?

Stirring up the usual rabid cop haters on GD....

Quoted: Quoted: Ummm, cop confronts BG. BG presents potentially lethal threat to cop. Cop terminates threat. Exactly what additional investigation, regardless of the General Orders, is called for? Because departments live and die by policy.

Yeah, well a lot of policys are written with civil liability trumping the responsibility of police departments to protect the public.
The sooner some gun wielding scumbag's taken out, the safer the public at large is.

Anywhere around Atlanta is a shithole, and it sounds as if the cops were trying to do their job. The AJC is a shithole paper and the only person worth a crap there died years ago. [Louis Grizzard, also an Author of some damn good books, tho I did not always agree with some of what was in them] My sis used to live by Atlanta and she moved out of state because of how bad it had become.

It does  not sound as if any of the cops in the shoots were CROOKED which I would be more concerned about.

Quoted: Quoted: Officers also violated policy in handling suspects. One officer trying to handcuff a 19-year-old suspect accidentally shot and killed the man as the two struggled. The officer should have had his gun holstered, the review board found. In two other instances, officers failed to recognize risks posed by handcuffed suspects. One of those men, who had not been properly searched before being put into a police car, was killed after he pulled a gun. The first is unfortunate but if you don’t want to get shot don’t resist. The second resulted in a would be murderer getting killed. No tears for him either, although it did put the police and any bystanders at risk. That’s worth making some officer spend a weekend in remedial training, nothing more. I got big problems with LEOs shooting suspects in handcuffs. Secondly, do you want a LEO who can handcuff a bad guys, but cannot find a handgun on them? End result, no matter how you look at it, the public is not going to believe that the LEO did nothing wrong when they had to shoot a person in handcuffs.

Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, it's safer to handcuff the scum and then search them for weapons.

Sure, I am not even a cop and I have seen that done. But who would put someone in his car and leave them there without properly searching them? He should have been searched right after he was cuffed.

And I don't have any problem with them shooting someone who was cuffed. He may not be able to fire accurately, but he might get lucky. Fuck that.

Quoted: Sure, I am not even a cop and I have seen that done. But who would put someone in his car and leave them there without properly searching them? He should have been searched right after he was cuffed. And I don't have any problem with them shooting someone who was cuffed. He may not be able to fire accurately, but he might get lucky. Fuck that.

You're right, he should be searched immediatly upon cuffing, but sometimes events unfold and procedure isn't always properly followed.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Officers also violated policy in handling suspects. One officer trying to handcuff a 19-year-old suspect accidentally shot and killed the man as the two struggled. The officer should have had his gun holstered, the review board found. In two other instances, officers failed to recognize risks posed by handcuffed suspects. One of those men, who had not been properly searched before being put into a police car, was killed after he pulled a gun. The first is unfortunate but if you don’t want to get shot don’t resist. The second resulted in a would be murderer getting killed. No tears for him either, although it did put the police and any bystanders at risk. That’s worth making some officer spend a weekend in remedial training, nothing more. I got big problems with LEOs shooting suspects in handcuffs. Secondly, do you want a LEO who can handcuff a bad guys, but cannot find a handgun on them? End result, no matter how you look at it, the public is not going to believe that the LEO did nothing wrong when they had to shoot a person in handcuffs. Sometimes, depending on the circumstances, it's safer to handcuff the scum and then search them for weapons.

I always cuff then search.

My LT arrested a guy, cuffed, searched, then found a .25 auto stuffed in the back seat. He missed it. It does happen.

I worked with DeKalb SD and PD a LOT in the last month or so and from what I saw, they were very very good.  Good detectives and patrol officers that were actually on patrol.  There was a shooting during that time and again, when I got to the scene it was handled in a professional manner.  

11 suspects shot/killed in a year for an area like DeKalb county isn't much at all.

Quoted: And I don't have any problem with them shooting someone who was cuffed.

Courts have ruled that once a bad guy is in custody (aka handcuffed). then the health and welfare for the bad guy is the LEO responsibility.   If the bad guy dies in custody, then the LEO and the department IS liable for the wrongful death.  That is the law, numerous cases and I know for a fact that this is taught in several police academies.

Quoted: I worked with DeKalb SD and PD a LOT in the last month or so and from what I saw, they were very very good.  Good detectives and patrol officers that were actually on patrol.  There was a shooting during that time and again, when I got to the scene it was handled in a professional manner.   11 suspects shot/killed in a year for an area like DeKalb county isn't much at all.

Let me guess, most/all of the shootings involved black suspects.

Quoted: My LT arrested a guy, cuffed, searched, then found a .25 auto stuffed in the back seat. He missed it. It does happen.

Are you comfortable with this LEO who did not find a .25 auto?  Is this the professional standard you want for all the nation's LEOs?

Sounds like a big LEO safety issue to me

Quoted: Quoted: And I don't have any problem with them shooting someone who was cuffed. Courts have ruled that once a bad guy is in custody (aka handcuffed). then the health and welfare for the bad guy is the LEO responsibility.   If the bad guy dies in custody, then the LEO and the department IS liable for the wrongful death.  That is the law, numerous cases and I know for a fact that this is taught in several police academies.

Duh.

Yet if the person is armed or attacks an officer while cuffed you still use force to bring them under control.

Quoted: Duh. Yet if the person is armed or attacks an officer while cuffed you still use force to bring them under control.

So your only option is to shoot them?

Quoted: Quoted: My LT arrested a guy, cuffed, searched, then found a .25 auto stuffed in the back seat. He missed it. It does happen. Are you comfortable with this LEO who did not find a .25 auto?  Is this the professional standard you want for all the nation's LEOs? Sounds like a big LEO safety issue to me

Of course not. Yet somethings get missed, either by sloppy searching or well hidden contraband.

I took a woman to jail once, searched her, they took her back for the strip search, found a .38 snubby under her tit.

Quoted: Quoted: Duh. Yet if the person is armed or attacks an officer while cuffed you still use force to bring them under control. So your only option is to shoot them?

If they are armed like the suspect in the original article, hell yes.

Quoted: If they are armed like the suspect in the original article, hell yes.

Enjoy your time in court explaining that!

Mr. Bama-Shooter can you explain how the bad guy got the gun after your careful search and handcuffing?

No matter how you answer that question, the defense attorney for the family of the bad guy is going to have a really good day in court.

Quoted: Quoted: If they are armed like the suspect in the original article, hell yes. Enjoy your time in court explaining that! Mr. Bama-Shooter can you explain how the bad guy got the gun after your careful search and handcuffing? No matter how you answer that question, the defense attorney for the family of the bad guy is going to have a really good day in court.

Goes back to if the badguy did not PULL the gun then he would not have been shot.

That has happened before and I have not heard of a single case of the officer being held liable for the criminals behavior.

Quoted: Quoted: And I don't have any problem with them shooting someone who was cuffed. Courts have ruled that once a bad guy is in custody (aka handcuffed). then the health and welfare for the bad guy is the LEO responsibility.   If the bad guy dies in custody, then the LEO and the department IS liable for the wrongful death.  That is the law, numerous cases and I know for a fact that this is taught in several police academies.

If the guy is about to shoot you, a wrongful death lawsuit doesn't matter.

Quoted: Goes back to if the badguy did not PULL the gun then he would not have been shot. That has happened before and I have not heard of a single case of the officer being held liable for the criminals behavior.

hmm....

From a quick Google search, several cases where the LEO was found liable for wrongful death after the bad guy died in the back of a cruiser.

Also, I think the department will settle the case quickly if a bad guy is found shot in handcuffs without a firearm.  I also have to wonder about the LEO ability to do his job if a bad guy still has a firearm after the bad guy is handcuffed and put in the back of a cruiser.

I know I would not want to work with them

Quoted: Quoted: Goes back to if the badguy did not PULL the gun then he would not have been shot. That has happened before and I have not heard of a single case of the officer being held liable for the criminals behavior. hmm.... From a quick Google search, several cases where the LEO was found liable for wrongful death after the bad guy died in the back of a cruiser. Also, I think the department will settle the case quickly if a bad guy is found shot in handcuffs without a firearm.  I also have to wonder about the LEO ability to do his job if a bad guy still has a firearm after the bad guy is handcuffed and put in the back of a cruiser. I know I would not want to work with them

Of course some have been found liable when a suspect dies in custody. Most of them die because of hog tying them and leaving them on their chest and they suffocate. Or stuffing them down between the seat and floorboard.

NOT from the bad guy pulling a weapon and trying to kill the officer.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ummm, cop confronts BG. BG presents potentially lethal threat to cop. Cop terminates threat. Exactly what additional investigation, regardless of the General Orders, is called for? Because departments live and die by policy. So do the officers.  We've terminated two officers for violating policy AFTER a good shoot. Just the thing you want your people thinking about when someone is about to kill them.

Who investigates and determines a "good shoot"?  I'm guessing the involved department because I think this is fairly standard across the US.

In my city, Huntington Beach (and one other community, Westminster), the Orange County Sheriff's Dept. investigates fatal shootings by our police.

www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1340775.php

This may not go away very fast.

ETA it was interesting when I watched a program on the problems with the LA Police Dept. and the rogue element that screwed things up that there were LOTS of "in Policy" shootings that, unbeknownst to the Police Board resulted in millions of dollars of payouts in civil court, mostly pre-trial settlements.  If there were any shootings not in policy in LAPD, they were few.

Just the facts.

Quoted: And I don't have any problem with them shooting someone who was cuffed. He may not be able to fire accurately, but he might get lucky. Fuck that.

I and many others have no real problem getting hands handcuffed in the back around to the front.  10 seconds if I'm standing, 30-45 if I'm seated.  It aint comfy but it's possible.  Never tried it with the newer hinged cuffs, but I can't see as it would make much difference.  It's more about the size of the guy trying it than what's securing the wrists.

Quoted: [ I and many others have no real problem getting hands handcuffed in the back around to the front.  10 seconds if I'm standing, 30-45 if I'm seated.  It aint comfy but it's possible.  Never tried it with the newer hinged cuffs, but I can't see as it would make much difference.  It's more about the size of the guy trying it than what's securing the wrists.

I had a bad guy do that.  Legs irons and a belly belt resolved that problem.  My partner and I never even thought about shooting the bad guy.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ummm, cop confronts BG. BG presents potentially lethal threat to cop. Cop terminates threat. Exactly what additional investigation, regardless of the General Orders, is called for? Because departments live and die by policy. So do the officers.  We've terminated two officers for violating policy AFTER a good shoot. Just the thing you want your people thinking about when someone is about to kill them. Who investigates and determines a "good shoot"?  Just the facts.

Me, many times. Present a credible threat to a policeman, and your death becomes a statistic. Oh, well.

Quoted: Quoted: [ I and many others have no real problem getting hands handcuffed in the back around to the front.  10 seconds if I'm standing, 30-45 if I'm seated.  It aint comfy but it's possible.  Never tried it with the newer hinged cuffs, but I can't see as it would make much difference.  It's more about the size of the guy trying it than what's securing the wrists. I had a bad guy do that.  Legs irons and a belly belt resolved that problem.  My partner and I never even thought about shooting the bad guy.

Did your bad guy pull out a firearm and try to kill you?

Cuffs or not, if the suspect has a gun in his hand, he is going to get shot.  Self defense 101.  

I have yet to see a policy that says a LEO can't defend himself when faced with lethal force.  

If a suspect shoots you while wearing cuffs, you are just as dead as if he hadn't been cuffed up.  

As far as searching, nobody is perfect...there are times when you have multipe suspects and have to get them restrained rapidly and when there are more suspects than officers, you will do a rapid search that can miss something.  As any deputy jailer what they find at the jail.  


It is why some depts have issued vibrating metal detectors to officers...but it costs money.  

Quoted: Did your bad guy pull out a firearm and try to kill you?

Nope.  We had properly searched prior to putting him in handcuffs and placing inside the cruiser.  We placed his firearm, knife, and other person affects in a lockbox bolted inside our trunk.  When he started beating the front seats, side doors, we stopped the cruiser went to the trunk, got out leg chains and a belly belt, not his firearm or knife, pulled bad guy out of the car and restrained him some more.  Additionally, we verified that he was breathing; actually the yelling and spitting gave that part away.  

And even after the two wrestling matches, multiple physical assaults on our persons, biological assaults on our person (spitting), and verbal assaults on our persons, we never thought to use our firearms to shoot the bad guy in handcuffs.

Quoted: Quoted: Did your bad guy pull out a firearm and try to kill you? Nope.  We had properly searched prior to putting him in handcuffs and placing inside the cruiser.  We placed his firearm, knife, and other person affects in a lockbox bolted inside our trunk.  When he started beating the front seats, side doors, we stopped the cruiser went to the trunk, got out leg chains and a belly belt, not his firearm or knife, pulled bad guy out of the car and restrained him some more.  Additionally, we verified that he was breathing; actually the yelling and spitting gave that part away.   And even after the two wrestling matches, multiple physical assaults on our persons, biological assaults on our person (spitting), and verbal assaults on our persons, we never thought to use our firearms to shoot the bad guy in handcuffs.

I'm glad you had the self restraint to keep you from shooting an unarmed and cuffed individual. However in the original post this was not the case, the bad guy pulled a gun on the officer.

Quoted: I'm glad you had the self restraint to keep you from shooting an unarmed and cuffed individual. However in the original post this was not the case, the bad guy pulled a gun on the officer.

So in the original post, was the problem the fact that the LEO failed to properly search the bad guy/police cruiser or was the problem that the public better get used to LEOs shooting bad guys in handcuffs?  

I guess I just don't understand the current state of law enforcment.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm glad you had the self restraint to keep you from shooting an unarmed and cuffed individual. However in the original post this was not the case, the bad guy pulled a gun on the officer. So in the original post, was the problem the fact that the LEO failed to properly search the bad guy/police cruiser or was the problem that the public better get used to LEOs shooting bad guys in handcuffs?   I guess I just don't understand the current state of law enforcment.

It seems, in your current state of enlightened perfection, that neither you nor anyone you choose to associate with has ever missed a potential weapon or contraband after searching a suspect.

You must be supercop with the  Kung-fu grip.