Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 8/14/2010 5:54:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 6:03:37 PM EDT
Should I even ask why you want to know?

Link Posted: 8/14/2010 6:03:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2010 1:05:22 AM EDT by Molon-Labe]
Didn't realize this was in the BOTS forum. Sorry.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 6:47:52 PM EDT
If the shooting is constitutionally reasonable under the 4th Amendment (i.e.: justified) then there would be no liability, even if the officer failed to qualify.

However, if the shooting was unreasonable under the 4th Amendment, then liability could exist. Under City of Canton v. Harrisi, the inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. Thus, if the department had a training program that was deliberately indifferent to a known training deficiency, and the training deficiency is the cause of the violation then there can be liability. In deliberate indifference for inadequate training, the Supreme Court stated the following:

The issue in a case like this one, however, is whether that training program is adequate; and if it is not, the question becomes whether such inadequate training can justifiably be said to represent "city policy." It may seem contrary to common sense to assert that a municipality will actually have a policy of not taking reasonable steps to train its employees. But it may happen that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need. In that event, the failure to provide proper training may fairly be said to represent a policy for which the city is responsible, and for which the city may be held liable if it actually causes injury.ii

However, the plaintiff would need to show that the failure to shoot a particular numerical score was the cause of the unreasonable shooting. This may be hard to show if the qualification course is purely test of accuracy. However, if the qualification includes a measure of decision making, then this would be easier to show.

If the officer accidentally shot an innocent third party, then failure to shoot a particular score for accuracy would have a bearing upon the constitutional violation, which would be a 14th Amendment Due Process claim rather than a 4th Amendment unreasonable force claim.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 6:59:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:05:27 PM EDT
Not that I know of. But from what I've been told, if I were to shoot someone with a weapon I wasn't qualified with, I'd have to find my own legal representation as I violated departmental policy.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:06:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:07:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KegHead:
If the shooting is constitutionally reasonable under the 4th Amendment (i.e.: justified) then there would be no liability, even if the officer failed to qualify.

However, if the shooting was unreasonable under the 4th Amendment, then liability could exist. Under City of Canton v. Harrisi, the inadequacy of police training may serve as the basis for 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 liability only where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. Thus, if the department had a training program that was deliberately indifferent to a known training deficiency, and the training deficiency is the cause of the violation then there can be liability. In deliberate indifference for inadequate training, the Supreme Court stated the following:

The issue in a case like this one, however, is whether that training program is adequate; and if it is not, the question becomes whether such inadequate training can justifiably be said to represent "city policy." It may seem contrary to common sense to assert that a municipality will actually have a policy of not taking reasonable steps to train its employees. But it may happen that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need. In that event, the failure to provide proper training may fairly be said to represent a policy for which the city is responsible, and for which the city may be held liable if it actually causes injury.ii

However, the plaintiff would need to show that the failure to shoot a particular numerical score was the cause of the unreasonable shooting. This may be hard to show if the qualification course is purely test of accuracy. However, if the qualification includes a measure of decision making, then this would be easier to show.

If the officer accidentally shot an innocent third party, then failure to shoot a particular score for accuracy would have a bearing upon the constitutional violation, which would be a 14th Amendment Due Process claim rather than a 4th Amendment unreasonable force claim.

Wut???
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:08:09 PM EDT
99 times out of a hundred the qual requirements are individual agency policy mandates, NOT state statutes. In my area if the LEO is performing his lawful duties and shoots and kills someone as long as the shooting is justified it doesn't matter if he used a bazooka. To answer your question more directly, I have never heard of an officer being hung out to dry because he used the "wrong" weapon during a justified shoot.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:09:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:10:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:14:23 PM EDT
OP a very good question. This could also apply to the OC we carry.

To your question, we've had several OIS's and they've all been deemed good shoots. I wasn't privy to every detail though. The city PD and the Sheriffs Office are both issued handguns. City has glocks and the SO has Sig's. You can carry anything with a .40 flavor though as long as you qualify. We are also issued ammo but I know of some that carry different ammo on their duty rig.

With the AR's you can carry anything as long as you qualify. Even ammo. When we qualify we are given Remington 55gr fmj mc, but not issued anything (plus, I wouldn't carry that on duty anyway). We carry any .223/5.56 that we buy. Yes, we have more than 3 deputies....a lot more.

Good question and it got me to thinking. I'm going to do a little more research.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:16:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By USP45Tim:
Not that I know of. But from what I've been told, if I were to shoot someone with a weapon I wasn't qualified with, I'd have to find my own legal representation as I violated departmental policy.


So your fellow officer is down, your weapon is broken, you take his firearm and shoot bad guy.

It's now a policy violation/bad shoot?

Good shoot. There are exceptions to policy.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:16:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:16:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If the cops in the Hollywood shootout had actually used the AR-15's they got from the gun shop, shot and killed the bad guys....bad shoot/policy violation?
Good shoot.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:17:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By USP45Tim:
Not that I know of. But from what I've been told, if I were to shoot someone with a weapon I wasn't qualified with, I'd have to find my own legal representation as I violated departmental policy.


So your fellow officer is down, your weapon is broken, you take his firearm and shoot bad guy.

It's now a policy violation/bad shoot?


Now you're giving me a headache

I think any agency would be hard pressed to pursue any charges/violations after handing out a medal.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:25:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Bossier1:
OP a very good question. This could also apply to the OC we carry.

To your question, we've had several OIS's and they've all been deemed good shoots. I wasn't privy to every detail though. The city PD and the Sheriffs Office are both issued handguns. City has glocks and the SO has Sig's. You can carry anything with a .40 flavor though as long as you qualify. We are also issued ammo but I know of some that carry different ammo on their duty rig.

With the AR's you can carry anything as long as you qualify. Even ammo. When we qualify we are given Remington 55gr fmj mc, but not issued anything (plus, I wouldn't carry that on duty anyway). We carry any .223/5.56 that we buy. Yes, we have more than 3 deputies....a lot more.

Good question and it got me to thinking. I'm going to do a little more research.




The department gives you XX number of offical rounds. You supplement with your own ammo. Big shootout, bad guy is shot with your ammo.

Policy violation/bad shoot?

I always asked for and received extra rounds. If not, I probably would have had some extra personal rounds in the vehicle. I wouldn't have used them unless it was a SHTF situation. If you are authorized to use deadly force, then killing the BG with department ammo, your car, a rock, or a knife isn't going to make a difference legally. They gave us enough rounds for 3 magazines +1 in the chamber. I filled another 4 magazines and kept then in the vehicle. I also had extra shotgun shells. If it came down to using my personal ammo to stay alive, policy would be the last thing on my mind.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:33:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By USP45Tim:
Not that I know of. But from what I've been told, if I were to shoot someone with a weapon I wasn't qualified with, I'd have to find my own legal representation as I violated departmental policy.


So your fellow officer is down, your weapon is broken, you take his firearm and shoot bad guy.

It's now a policy violation/bad shoot?


I sure wish you were my Ass Chief. I like your thought process.

man is the SOP GO nit pick BS rubbing my ass raw lately. I really just want to go to work and clean house. I am getting to the point where I feel like telling some people Stick It and ride my shift out taking calls.

WOOO boy am I glad I am on Vac all this week. Another 4 days and I am sure that attitude will be gone. . . .

Link Posted: 8/14/2010 7:34:55 PM EDT
If you are authorized to use deadly force, then killing the BG with department ammo, your car, a rock, or a knife isn't going to make a difference legally.... If it came down to using my personal ammo to stay alive, policy would be the last thing on my mind.


I'm thinking the same thing. We recently discussed using improvised weapons, and came to the same conclusion. You might have some violation of a policy, but if you were justified in the amount of force used it probably wouldn't be questioned by the department. The wrongful death suit, maybe, but they'd have to overcome a no-bill and independent clearing by another agency.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 8:01:51 PM EDT
Even if you wont get thrown in jail for using an unqualified weapon, why risk it? you could face disciplinary action if you are caught with it up to and including termination. Im sure your existing weapons will suffice until the next qualification session as well. If you get in a car wreck or something on duty and then take you in an ambulance and find a weapon in your vest or trunk you will probably have to answer for it.

This is especially a concern with officers carrying subcompact handguns concealed that they havent qualified with. It raises the question to the public of whether the officer is carrying it with the intention of making it a throw down murder weapon.

I wish i could carry an AR on duty or shotgun slugs but im not willing to risk the punishment of getting caught versus maybe possibly using it once in my career.

One of my mentors keeps telling me to learn to maximize the potential in yourself and the equipment that you already have. Im pretty sure that if i ran up on him with a rifle, he could still kill me with a pistol.
Link Posted: 8/14/2010 8:24:29 PM EDT
Unfortunately, often times liability concerns dictate officer safety. This should not be the case.

Officers are often thinking about liability which slows their OODA loop during a critical incident.

It's a good shoot any day of the week.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 12:47:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Not a failure to train. Just the officer used a particular weapon/ammo without a qual sheet.



ive never heard of it....our department is in the hole right now on training ammo and time to qual for secondaries
i know several guys who carry their back ups in their cars, that they havent qual'd with...is it against policy? yep
if the shit really came down to where they had to use those guns justifiably, would they be prosecuted? honestly i dont
think so
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 3:38:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 4:31:47 AM EDT
Damn you gave me a migraine......and I can't wait to approach the higher ups with this question :)
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 4:40:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By staringback05:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Not a failure to train. Just the officer used a particular weapon/ammo without a qual sheet.



ive never heard of it....our department is in the hole right now on training ammo and time to qual for secondaries
i know several guys who carry their back ups in their cars, that they havent qual'd with...is it against policy? yep
if the shit really came down to where they had to use those guns justifiably, would they be prosecuted? honestly i dont
think so


This is more the issue.

You are only issued X number of rounds. Those X number of rounds won't even fill your basic magazines to capacity, so you use some of your own ammo to supplement.


If your issued 30 rounds of 147 gr 9mm Speer Gold Dot, and supplement it with your own 147 gr 9mm Speer Gold Dot..................who's gonna know which rounds killed the BG when the time comes.

Dump em all in a pile on the desk and then load your mags and you will honestly not know one from the other.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 4:54:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 4:57:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 5:00:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 5:03:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 5:05:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 5:20:15 AM EDT
My home agency and my current team have two different policies. For my agency you may only use a gun you have qualified with. On my team, you can use any gun using the same "platform" as what you qual'd with. So when I qual up with a semi auto pistol, I can use any semi out there. Same for shotgun, M4, and bolt action rifle.

As far as ammo goes I am issued two different types, one from each. From my agency i'm only issued 50 duty rounds. From my team I am issued an unlimited number. It's a pain
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 5:28:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 5:35:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rangehunter:
On my team, you can use any gun using the same "platform" as what you qual'd with. So when I qual up with a semi auto pistol, I can use any semi out there. Same for shotgun, M4, and bolt action rifle.

As far as ammo goes I am issued two different types, one from each. From my agency i'm only issued 50 duty rounds. From my team I am issued an unlimited number. It's a pain


My agency is the same as far as quals go. Qualify with a semi auto pistol and you can carry any one you want. Same with wheel guns, rifles, and shotguns. Issued ammo is scarce though. You get issued 60rds of some kind of federal soft point 5.56, a few boxed of 12ga buck and slugs, and 1 box of .45. If you need more (which you do) then it's up to you. We have guys who have been carrying the same nasty looking .45 ammo for 5+ years because they don't want to buy a box on their own and the agency sure as hell ain't going to replace it.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 5:56:10 AM EDT
We could only carry the firearm we qual'd with. You could qual with your primary and a backup. The department provided ammo for your primary and you provided approved ammo for the back up. Maybe your agency could have a list of approved ammo. That would solve the problem. Your policy should cover this. Does your department have a written firearms policy with an ammo section? If not, suggest it to the range master or one of the higher ups.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 6:34:11 AM EDT
We used to. I think there were 8 different kinds of handgun ammo we could purchase and carry. Now that the department decided to issue us ammo its only one type. Think I may type a letter today regarding some of this.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 6:43:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
...because he did not have a current qual record with the firearm/ammo used?




Never.... that I know of.

Sure, you may receive some discipline, but that is it. What is legal is one side, while policy is another.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 6:44:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By USP45Tim:
Not that I know of. But from what I've been told, if I were to shoot someone with a weapon I wasn't qualified with, I'd have to find my own legal representation as I violated departmental policy.


So your fellow officer is down, your weapon is broken, you take his firearm and shoot bad guy.

It's now a policy violation/bad shoot?


Depends on the police department but I would say good shoot/no policy violation.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 6:52:33 AM EDT
Bama is this a plea for you to try and get some free ammo??? J/K.

First off, you guys are lucky because my *former* agency (.Gov) didn't allow us to carry any type of long... no shotgun, no AR, no .22LR rifle. Our duty was a 229 in .40, while only one of our BUG options was a .40. The others were .357Mag / .38SPL or 9mm.

As for your specific question, I've never heard of an officer getting jammed up legally for shooting someone with an unapproved weapon off-duty. The law doesn't state that you're only an officer if you have your badge, your comission card, and your agency approved firearm / ammo. It states you're an officer if you're certified by your agency. Policy may dictate something different, but that seems to be the problem when agencies are run by lawyers instead of ground-pounders that get the job done safely!!

I'm looking forward to more info on this and I'll even ask my Criminal Justice course director on Wednesday when I see her. She's got a lot of experience in this area from what I've been told.
-SleeperShooter

Oh and Bama, PM sent.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 6:55:50 AM EDT
Sounds like a CALEA nightmare...
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:01:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2010 7:02:49 AM EDT by crwdplsr]
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By Bossier1:
OP a very good question. This could also apply to the OC we carry.

To your question, we've had several OIS's and they've all been deemed good shoots. I wasn't privy to every detail though. The city PD and the Sheriffs Office are both issued handguns. City has glocks and the SO has Sig's. You can carry anything with a .40 flavor though as long as you qualify. We are also issued ammo but I know of some that carry different ammo on their duty rig.

With the AR's you can carry anything as long as you qualify. Even ammo. When we qualify we are given Remington 55gr fmj mc, but not issued anything (plus, I wouldn't carry that on duty anyway). We carry any .223/5.56 that we buy. Yes, we have more than 3 deputies....a lot more.

Good question and it got me to thinking. I'm going to do a little more research.




The department gives you XX number of offical rounds. You supplement with your own ammo. Big shootout, bad guy is shot with your ammo.

Policy violation/bad shoot?


Policy violation at best, which may hurt you in a civil trial......unless of course you can prove your dept was to "cheap" and therefore negligent in supplying you with "enough" ammunition.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:06:15 AM EDT
Two page formal letter sent to my range head. This should be interesting. Standby for the updates :)
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:06:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If the cops in the Hollywood shootout had actually used the AR-15's they got from the gun shop, shot and killed the bad guys....bad shoot/policy violation?


Good shoot...........again could be a policy violation because City/Desk Jockies may want to under their desks to avoid a civil suit and good luck finding a jury to not side with cops on THAT one.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:11:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:15:32 AM EDT
If your breaking policy, is it still a good shoot? The problem that comes up is when the civil attorney proves you violated department policy when you smoked his dead client. Most departments would throw you under the bus in a heartbeat to save their ass. So while it may be a good shoot as far as any criminal law, public, and the GD is concerned , your gonna end up screwed in the end. I think most departments, especially CALEA have specified their GO's to the point that no matter what you do your screwed, but the department will be safe.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:17:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BiteDog:
Unfortunately, often times liability concerns dictate officer safety. This should not be the case.

Officers are often thinking about liability which slows their OODA loop during a critical incident.

It's a good shoot any day of the week.


This........and........any justified use of deadly physical force is a "good" shoot is one you walk away with without any extra holes in you regardless of what weapon you used.

Imagine this scenario: You are fighting for your life with a suspect who is trying to grab your weapon - you don't have a BUG because you are not authorized to carry one. In the struggle you see a small pistol on the ground next to you - it's the suspects gun which he dropped in the scuffle so he went for your sidearm. While hanging on for dear life while he is trying to wrench your pistol from its holster, he suddenly succeeds and gets your sidearm - you grab the pistol on the ground and shoot him with it and kill him.

Good shoot or Bad shoot?
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:18:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By txcop893:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By staringback05:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Not a failure to train. Just the officer used a particular weapon/ammo without a qual sheet.



ive never heard of it....our department is in the hole right now on training ammo and time to qual for secondaries
i know several guys who carry their back ups in their cars, that they havent qual'd with...is it against policy? yep
if the shit really came down to where they had to use those guns justifiably, would they be prosecuted? honestly i dont
think so


This is more the issue.

You are only issued X number of rounds. Those X number of rounds won't even fill your basic magazines to capacity, so you use some of your own ammo to supplement.


If your issued 30 rounds of 147 gr 9mm Speer Gold Dot, and supplement it with your own 147 gr 9mm Speer Gold Dot..................who's gonna know which rounds killed the BG when the time comes.

Dump em all in a pile on the desk and then load your mags and you will honestly not know one from the other.


Not if it's a completely different brand.


That would be a policy violation........
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:22:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:23:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Tango7:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Not a failure to train. Just the officer used a particular weapon/ammo without a qual sheet.



Oh no... the liability weenies have invaded your department too... I'm sorry brother.


. Risk managers instead of leaders.

Leadership is dead. ( One of the reason WepTek got out of LEO work )

Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:25:42 AM EDT
We only qual with Winchester white box, or the xmas tree rounds. Our GO states we can carry one specific brand of ammo right down to the grain size. So when they pull my brass and see its a different brand i'm sure they would run with it.
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:25:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2010 7:27:22 AM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top