Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/31/2005 6:05:42 AM EDT
After a spirited discussion last night at a LE get together, I thought that I might get a wider opinion from the LEO's here. If this works out, I might try to post a scenario under this title weekly but we will see how this goes.

The 'rules' are simple, to post in the poll above all that I ask is that you are a current/former LEO or have a solid grasp of the Use of Force Continuum through LE work. If you aren't LE but have an opinion on the topic then post in the reply section only. Feel free to qualify your poll answer with a reply.

Here it goes: The Scenario-

It is a bright sunny day and you are working a patrol beat in your area. As you are patrolling, a car passes you traveling in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed. After making a u-turn and accelerating to close the distance, you close on the vehicle and run the tag. The tag is expired by over 6 months and you decide to make the stop. After activating your equipment the vehicle slows and begins to stop but not in a hurry. After several blocks the vehicle finally comes to a stop on the side of the road. You call in your position and begin to exit your marked unit. As you stand up the driver of the stopped vehicle jumps out and stands in his driver's door. The driver assumes a solid combat stance and has a semi automatic pistol in his right hand. He is holding it at his side and saying nothing but he is mainaining a good Weaver stance waiting to see what you are going to do. You are still behind your driver's door and begin to draw your weapon. The driver has NOT raised the pistol to point it at you YET but waits to see what your intentions are, never speaking.

Your Options:

1. Using cover, you order the suspect to drop his weapon while pointing your weapon at him. After the second command, you fire on the suspect. He is hit and goes down.

2. Using cover, you call for more assistance. Before their arrival the driver announces that he has just killed his wife and can't go on demanding that you kill him. The driver maintains his position but begins waving his weapon around. Do you fire?

3. Using cover, you call for more units. When they arrive a perimeter is established and neotiations begin in an attempt to diffuse the situation. The SWAT team ends up handling the situation and you are out.

4. You use another option not listed above. Please list.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 8:15:18 AM EDT
I voted for #1. If he doesn't drop it by two commands he's dead. Everyone here knows that our reaction time is slower than the suspects action time. Also he didn't pull the gun out to show it to me so I see his actions as hostile.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 8:32:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLawDog:
After a spirited discussion last night at a LE get together, I thought that I might get a wider opinion from the LEO's here. If this works out, I might try to post a scenario under this title weekly but we will see how this goes.

The 'rules' are simple, to post in the poll above all that I ask is that you are a current/former LEO or have a solid grasp of the Use of Force Continuum through LE work. If you aren't LE but have an opinion on the topic then post in the reply section only. Feel free to qualify your poll answer with a reply.

Here it goes: The Scenario-

It is a bright sunny day and you are working a patrol beat in your area. As you are patrolling, a car passes you traveling in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed. After making a u-turn and accelerating to close the distance, you close on the vehicle and run the tag. The tag is expired by over 6 months and you decide to make the stop. After activating your equipment the vehicle slows and begins to stop but not in a hurry. After several blocks the vehicle finally comes to a stop on the side of the road. You call in your position and begin to exit your marked unit. As you stand up the driver of the stopped vehicle jumps out and stands in his driver's door. The driver assumes a solid combat stance and has a semi automatic pistol in his right hand. He is holding it at his side and saying nothing but he is mainaining a good Weaver stance waiting to see what you are going to do. You are still behind your driver's door and begin to draw your weapon. The driver has NOT raised the pistol to point it at you YET but waits to see what your intentions are, never speaking.

Your Options:

1. Using cover, you order the suspect to drop his weapon while pointing your weapon at him. After the second command, you fire on the suspect. He is hit and goes down.

2. Using cover, you call for more assistance. Before their arrival the driver announces that he has just killed his wife and can't go on demanding that you kill him. The driver maintains his position but begins waving his weapon around. Do you fire?

3. Using cover, you call for more units. When they arrive a perimeter is established and neotiations begin in an attempt to diffuse the situation. The SWAT team ends up handling the situation and you are out.

4. You use another option not listed above. Please list.



4. You use another option not listed above. Please list.


If he's standing in the doorway of his car, and I'm still in mine, I KNOW (don't ask) that my immediate reaction would be to ram my squad car into his, to disorient him & buy myself some time. After that, depending on the situation, somebody's probably gonna get hurt.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 9:23:09 AM EDT
I'm getting my gun out and on target as fast as possible, giving two commands, and firing.

I just watched the "In the Line of Duty" training tape about an officer who faced off against an older gentleman with a rifle. Even after repeated warnings by the officer, and after the old guy pointed the rifle at the officer, the officer still did not fire. So the old guy proceeded to kill the officer right there on the side of the road. His dying screams on the dash camera still make me sick to my stomach.

Dave
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 9:31:14 AM EDT
I'll yell some commands as I'm firing. Reaction is way slower than action and by the time you try to react he's probably already firing.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 7:22:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 5:41:59 PM EDT by Bowhntr6pt]
If all the guy is doing is holding a weapon NOT POINTED AT YOU OR ANOTHER PERSON, and he has not communicated a direct threat TO YOU, ALL YOU HAVE AT THIS POINT IS A NON-COMPLIANT CITIZEN WHO IS ARMED.

We have all delt with armed non-compliant persons on the street, perhaps not all armed with guns, but armed with knives, sticks, etc. Did you tell Mrs. Jones to drop the curtain rod twice then open fire??

For me, if the situation played out, I would "hold in place" for back up. THIS PERSON IS DANGER CLOSE TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE. He will most likely make my decision for me... I will react to his actions. I will do what he forces me to do.

The hard and tough lesson to learn in LE work is sometimes the perp gets the first move. In the situation above in #1, he has the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY, but has not physically done anything to support the third element, and that is JEOPARDY.

To justify shooting the guy he must have:

ABILITY- In this case, he does as he is armed.

OPPORTUNITY- In this case he does, he is there armed, you are there as a potential target, well within the range of the weapon he has.

JEOPARDY- I submit to you that BASED ON THE SENERIO, he has not "made a move" to infer/imply JEOPARDY. If all he does is stands there, allbeit a fucked up situation, he has not crossed that GOLDEN THRESHOLD.

Situation #1 stipulates that he is holding the gun at his side. Just because a person is armed DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN OPEN FIRE. However, should the guy behave in a manner that you feel you can ARTICULATE how he satisfied the element of JEOPARDY, the shoot..........

In response to COLLEGECOP

The older guy in the video you referred to satisfied the element of JEPORDY because he engaged in the action of loading the rifle while being ordered not to. In this case, ABILITY was there, OPPORTUNITY was there, and JEOPARDY was there via the inference that harm was imminent.

BASED ONLY ON WHAT IS IN #1, I would not shoot but you can sure bet that I'm holding dead center and taking up slack .

Edit: damn spelling
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 7:34:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jadams951:
I'll yell some commands as I'm firing.



Since when do you fire as you issue commands ?

DEVILS ADVOCATE MODE ON..............

I would sure hate to face a shooting review board based on your reactions:

Q. Why did you shoot?

A. Because he had a gun.

Q. Did he point it at you?

A. No

Q. Did he point it at anyone else?

A. No

Q. Did he make any sudden movement that caused you to believe he was going to aim at you?

A. No

Q. Did he say anything to you/another that caused you to reasonably believe he was about to do you/another harm?

A. No.

Q. So what exactly was it, in your own words, other than he simply had a gun, that made you reasonably fear immediate great bodily harm and or death to your person or another?

A. I'll let you fill this one in

Link Posted: 8/31/2005 9:39:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:

Originally Posted By jadams951:
I'll yell some commands as I'm firing.



Since when do you fire as you issue commands ?

DEVILS ADVOCATE MODE ON..............

I would sure hate to face a shooting review board based on your reactions:

Q. Why did you shoot?

A. Because he had a gun.

Q. Did he point it at you?

A. No

Q. Did he point it at anyone else?

A. No

Q. Did he make any sudden movement that caused you to believe he was going to aim at you?

A. No

Q. Did he say anything to you/another that caused you to reasonably believe he was about to do you/another harm?

A. No.

Q. So what exactly was it, in your own words, other than he simply had a gun, that made you reasonably fear immediate great bodily harm and or death to your person or another?

A. I'll let you fill this one in




Read my state's laws on self defense and deadly force. Nothing says I have to wait for someone to stab me or shoot me before I can defend myself.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 11:00:35 PM EDT
OK, this is simple to me. The getting out of the car, and assuming a combat stance oriented toward me with a gun in his hand is an overt aggressive act that puts my life at extreme risk for great bodily injury or death. I almost got my ass killed once because I waited too long in a similar scenario. It went from a guy with a gun to a guy with a gun pointed at my head before I could comprehend it. When it was over, I was absolutley shocked that I wasn't shot. The reactionary gap is real. The bad guy with the gun can move unbelievaby fast. By the time your noggin figures it out- you're behind the power curve. When he gets out of the car with the gun, you should not hesitate. You do so, and expect to get shot if not dead. The guy who bails out of the car on me with a gun in his hand and turns toward me gets shot. As many times as it takes. If you wait till he points it at you, you are too late.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 4:05:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SPDSNYPR:
OK, this is simple to me. The getting out of the car, and assuming a combat stance oriented toward me with a gun in his hand is an overt aggressive act that puts my life at extreme risk for great bodily injury or death. I almost got my ass killed once because I waited too long in a similar scenario. It went from a guy with a gun to a guy with a gun pointed at my head before I could comprehend it. When it was over, I was absolutley shocked that I wasn't shot. The reactionary gap is real. The bad guy with the gun can move unbelievaby fast. By the time your noggin figures it out- you're behind the power curve. When he gets out of the car with the gun, you should not hesitate. You do so, and expect to get shot if not dead. The guy who bails out of the car on me with a gun in his hand and turns toward me gets shot. As many times as it takes. If you wait till he points it at you, you are too late.



Remember guys, the initial post laid out a SPECIFIC situation. Stick to THAT SITUATION ONLY. Don't IF and BUT this thing to fit the bill. Of course us LEO's are not going to "give" a bad guy anything... but we are also handicapped by the law when it comes to "Justified use of deadly force", in my opinion.

Even on real news footage, you see multiple times where officers are faced with such a "standoff" where the perp in on the edge of getting hosed legally, but just does not cross that ever so thin line.

I think I know the point of this post, I have had many a discussion about this same topic as well. I am sure that the poster will let us know more, as well as his take on the subject.

I believe the point that needs to be made, which is misunderstood by LEO's, is the fact that we are "behind the power curve" when it comes to being able to use deadly force. Once use, it must be backed up with specific facts that directly led you to believe the deadly force was NECESSARY and REASONABLE at the time. NOT BECAUSE YOU "had a close call one time".


BOTTOM LINE... YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR YOUR ACTIONS, NO ONE ELSE. IF YOU FEEL THAT SHOOTING IS THE ONLY WAY, THEN SHOOT. I JUST DON'T THINK DF IS A MUST UNDER THE SPECIFIC FACTS SET FORTH.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 7:21:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jadams951:
I'll yell some commands as I'm firing. Reaction is way slower than action and by the time you try to react he's probably already firing.



+1

If I stop a car and the driver gets out with a gun in his hand, he gets shot. Period, end of story.

Nobody jumps out of a car with a gun in their when a police officer stops them, unless they intend to hurt that officer.

Does the BG have:

ABILITY? Yep, he's got a gun in his hand.

OPPORTUNITY? Yep, he's got a gun in his hand.

Am I in JEOPARDY? Yep, he's got a gun in his hand.

Action beats reaction everytime. Sorry, but I'm not waiting to get shot at before I shoot. As jadams951 pointed out, Texas state law is clear on this point. I think that I could clearly articulate my reasoning and actions to a Grand Jury, the Feds, and IAD.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 8:01:06 AM EDT
Everything that has been posted so far is EXACTLY what led a room full of LEO's from my Agency to a pretty good shouting match. The scenario is based upon a traffic stop that occurred here and the Officer didn't fire when the guy got out of the car. After the suspect waived his pistol the Officer instead got on his PA and talked the guy into laying down the weapon without shots being fired. The dashcam footage was tough to watch because of the fact that several times during the encounter the driver CLEARLY crossed the threshold into lethal force. I have to give a half-hearted golfclap to the Officer (younger troop) for how he handled the stop and basically withholding the shot. The question becomes how far do you as an Officer want to crawl out on that limb and risk not going home. The older troops, to a man, would have shot the driver two or three different times during the stop. The younger troops opted to be WAY more patient. Now you see the 'rub'. It struck me that the different lines of thought were drawn along age/years of experience.

My opinion: The driver has acknowledged your position and authority by yielding to your vehicle/presence. The driver also knows that an Officer is armed and prepared to defend themselves. The driver has made a concious decision to exit his vehicle armed. By assuming a combat/Weaver stance he has in fact articulated his intent without speaking. He will get to loud and clear commands to drop his weapon before I fire. Texas is a pretty liberal State when it comes to these situations both Legislatively and Civilly so that is an advantage that I have over others here from more restrictive States. The correct answer is an unknown to me so far because I can see both sides.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 9:37:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLawDog:
Everything that has been posted so far is EXACTLY what led a room full of LEO's from my Agency to a pretty good shouting match. The scenario is based upon a traffic stop that occurred here and the Officer didn't fire when the guy got out of the car. After the suspect waived his pistol the Officer instead got on his PA and talked the guy into laying down the weapon without shots being fired. The dashcam footage was tough to watch because of the fact that several times during the encounter the driver CLEARLY crossed the threshold into lethal force. I have to give a half-hearted golfclap to the Officer (younger troop) for how he handled the stop and basically withholding the shot. The question becomes how far do you as an Officer want to crawl out on that limb and risk not going home. The older troops, to a man, would have shot the driver two or three different times during the stop. The younger troops opted to be WAY more patient. Now you see the 'rub'. It struck me that the different lines of thought were drawn along age/years of experience.

My opinion: The driver has acknowledged your position and authority by yielding to your vehicle/presence. The driver also knows that an Officer is armed and prepared to defend themselves. The driver has made a concious decision to exit his vehicle armed. By assuming a combat/Weaver stance he has in fact articulated his intent without speaking. He will get to loud and clear commands to drop his weapon before I fire. Texas is a pretty liberal State when it comes to these situations both Legislatively and Civilly so that is an advantage that I have over others here from more restrictive States. The correct answer is an unknown to me so far because I can see both sides.



I was waiting for you to come back and say it happened to us and it was a plainclothes cop chasing someone or something that got out of the car.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 9:58:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jadams951:

Originally Posted By TxLawDog:
Everything that has been posted so far is EXACTLY what led a room full of LEO's from my Agency to a pretty good shouting match. The scenario is based upon a traffic stop that occurred here and the Officer didn't fire when the guy got out of the car. After the suspect waived his pistol the Officer instead got on his PA and talked the guy into laying down the weapon without shots being fired. The dashcam footage was tough to watch because of the fact that several times during the encounter the driver CLEARLY crossed the threshold into lethal force. I have to give a half-hearted golfclap to the Officer (younger troop) for how he handled the stop and basically withholding the shot. The question becomes how far do you as an Officer want to crawl out on that limb and risk not going home. The older troops, to a man, would have shot the driver two or three different times during the stop. The younger troops opted to be WAY more patient. Now you see the 'rub'. It struck me that the different lines of thought were drawn along age/years of experience.

My opinion: The driver has acknowledged your position and authority by yielding to your vehicle/presence. The driver also knows that an Officer is armed and prepared to defend themselves. The driver has made a concious decision to exit his vehicle armed. By assuming a combat/Weaver stance he has in fact articulated his intent without speaking. He will get to loud and clear commands to drop his weapon before I fire. Texas is a pretty liberal State when it comes to these situations both Legislatively and Civilly so that is an advantage that I have over others here from more restrictive States. The correct answer is an unknown to me so far because I can see both sides.



I was waiting for you to come back and say it happened to us and it was a plainclothes cop chasing someone or something that got out of the car.



This just goes to show you (you being a figure of speech) how difficult and complex situations can be. Just the ever so slightest "twist" or "variation" changes things 100 fold.

If I were in that position, and all the guy did was stand there, non-compliant, I would not fire. However, if he made any movement that I FELT was an attempt to fire at me, of course I would shoot.

I still believe that, BASED SOLELY ON THE GUY STANDING THERE WITH GUN AT HIS SIDE, it would be an up-hill battle when reviewed by a review board.

Lets all just hope we don't find ourselves in that position !!
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:55:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLawDog:

Here it goes: The Scenario-

...After several blocks the vehicle finally comes to a stop on the side of the road....As you stand up the driver of the stopped vehicle jumps out....The driver assumes a solid combat stance and has a semi automatic pistol in his right hand...

Your Options:

If you love your family, you drop him right there without warning.




Any one of you that waits to see what his intent is beyond the part where you see the pistol are gambling with your life. I have absolutely no doubt that these circumstances justify deadly force....without any warning whatsoever.

Link Posted: 9/1/2005 4:20:24 PM EDT
First i'm gonna clarify that i am not an LEO but i do have experiance with use of force and vehicle tactics.

You're already out of your car and behind the car door. your first duty being to yourself, i would suggest finding better cover as a car door won't stop shit. Hopefully you have correctly angled your vehicle during the stop so you can effectively use your hubs as relatively decent cover. Exposing yourself as little as possible, get a bead on this guy. Yell to drop it, call for backup.

If the gun gets pointed in my direction, dead. If the gun gets pointed in the direction of an innocent, or he appears to be moving to take a hostage, dead. Sudden movement as if to fire, dead. "Die you f-ing pig," dead. If not, do your best to negotiate.

-Best outcome is he heeds your advice, drops the gun and you take him into custody.
-Second is the specialists handle the situation
-Third is you kill him

-A bad outcome is if stomone other than him gets injured or killed
-The worst outcome is that person is you.

I agree with Bowhntr6pt and all of his points. It's unfortunately easier to be the badguy than the cop.

txleapd: It's ability opportunity and intent. Sometimes people call it ability, jeopardy and intent. You forgot the intent part of the equation and instead duplicated opportunity/jeopardy.

Ability: He has a gun

Opportunity: he is in range to use the gun

Intent: I believe this is where we lack justification. He didn't point the gun at you or yell "Die Pig!"
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 5:02:40 PM EDT
Reverse, floor it, present squad as a barricade to suspect, exit, seek cover, give commands. If at anytime that weapon comes up, he's dead.

Attempting to draw and shoot is a no-go w/o creating distance and cover since he already has the drop on you. Also, attempting to ram the suspect vehicle is a no-go as he can easily jump out of the way and if he jumps the right way, he can put rounds through your door as you make impact with his vehicle.

He's already got the drop on me. It's a worst case scenario.


Sheep
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 5:04:50 PM EDT
This is a shitty situation. I had one with a female with an 8" butcher knife about 8' away from me. Text book, I should have shot her, but I didn't and we talked her into dropping the knife. Now, I had cover, two partners and perimeter containment. But I should have shot her. I think I was my harshest critic.

It all depends is the answer. However, given the situation you described, I would have shot the guy while yelling a warning. Can't beat reaction time with a guy who produces a pistol.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 5:38:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
First i'm gonna clarify that i am not an LEO but i do have experiance with use of force and vehicle tactics.

You're already out of your car and behind the car door. your first duty being to yourself, i would suggest finding better cover as a car door won't stop shit. Hopefully you have correctly angled your vehicle during the stop so you can effectively use your hubs as relatively decent cover. Exposing yourself as little as possible, get a bead on this guy. Yell to drop it, call for backup.

If the gun gets pointed in my direction, dead. If the gun gets pointed in the direction of an innocent, or he appears to be moving to take a hostage, dead. Sudden movement as if to fire, dead. "Die you f-ing pig," dead. If not, do your best to negotiate.

-Best outcome is he heeds your advice, drops the gun and you take him into custody.
-Second is the specialists handle the situation
-Third is you kill him

-A bad outcome is if stomone other than him gets injured or killed
-The worst outcome is that person is you.

I agree with Bowhntr6pt and all of his points. It's unfortunately easier to be the badguy than the cop.

txleapd: It's ability opportunity and intent. Sometimes people call it ability, jeopardy and intent. You forgot the intent part of the equation and instead duplicated opportunity/jeopardy.

Ability: He has a gun

Opportunity: he is in range to use the gun

Intent: I believe this is where we lack justification. He didn't point the gun at you or yell "Die Pig!"



Exactly, INTENT or JEOPARDY which ever you want to call it, is missing. SIMPLY BEING THERE ARMED DOES NOT SATISFY THE ACCEPTED STANDARD FOR THE USE OF DF.

If this were the case, you would see many more armed folks getting killed by police every day. All of us have seen countless "REAL LIFE" situations unfold on TV where LEO's simply were not justified to kill.

I have been trained in 3 States, have worked LEO in 3 States, and have been a Training Officer with two departments, this can be a VERY complex and "emotionally charged" topic.

I believe that the differences in opinions displayed by the younger vs older officer is indicative
of the current training philosophy regarding the use of DF. Older officers "cut their teeth" under less strengent standards, ie: fleeing felon rule.

Although the 3 States I policed in each had different mechanisims for academy training (Civilian Run vs State run) the guidelines regaurding the use of DF were the same as I outlined.

Remember... your decision to KILL must be based on stopping an act/omission that is likely to cause immediate death or great bodily harm. Standing with a gun pointed at the ground does not meet that standard. AND THAT'S THE STANDARD THE INITIAL POST SET FORTH.

But like I said before, to each his own.........
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 7:16:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SheepDog_556:
Reverse, floor it, present squad as a barricade to suspect, exit, seek cover, give commands. If at anytime that weapon comes up, he's dead.

Attempting to draw and shoot is a no-go w/o creating distance and cover since he already has the drop on you. Also, attempting to ram the suspect vehicle is a no-go as he can easily jump out of the way and if he jumps the right way, he can put rounds through your door as you make impact with his vehicle.

He's already got the drop on me. It's a worst case scenario.


Sheep



I believe the scenario dictated that you were already standing next to your car when the subject jumped out gun in hand. You could jump back into the cruiser, put it in reverse, back up, slide it sideways and jump back out and take cover. The alternative is you could simply stop behind every vehicle slightly angled with the drivers side away from the car. this is SOP for many departments. It allows you to take cover without changing the position of your car and making yourself a sitting duck in the process.

I'm also not thrilled with the idea of running the guy over as it still requires the jump back in your car throw the shifter, etc. If you were sitting in your car when the guy jumped out with the gun and pointed it at you, i would wholly recommend running him over or high tailing it to a position of relative safety where you could engage with your long gun if neccecary. Ramming the vehicle is stupid because as the situation clearly shows, the threat is not the vehicle, it's the guy standing next to it.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 8:18:41 PM EDT

Our shooting policy is pretty good.. I was always taught and learned especially with simunitons during the academy, action is faster then reaction. We all know its not like the movies where he falls on the first shot.. so I voted for give the orders and shoot.. maybe give the orders while pulling the trigger. We can all discuss what we would do but like others said, after situations like these are drawn out and end peacefully you think.. I could of killed him/her in that split second.. happens all the time.. just that lil voice in your head tells you what to do in that split second.

And like others say i'd rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 10:26:58 PM EDT
Any witnesses around?
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 10:50:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 10:56:34 PM EDT by tac45]
#1. He has the means to cause u harm and is not giving up those means upon command. You can now presume he has deadly force intentions on you. You do not get into a standoff with an armed individual by yourself with little to no cover! And If I wait for him to initiate a gunfight it could be to late for me to react now.

I just took a simunition class and had a very similar situation except the guy had the gun to his head. We got into a stand off where I repeatedly yelled commands but did not fire because he didnt have the weapon on ME. All of a sudden the gun was on me before I new it I was dead. Never had time to react. Learned very important lesson that day. OODA loop people, OODA loop.
Link Posted: 9/2/2005 4:05:12 AM EDT
There seems to be no question that everyone agrees that this hypothetical bad guy has ability and opportunity. I'd like to give my .02 on the subject of intent.

I said before that if he took his sweet time coming to a stop, jumped out of the car and into a combat stance, holding a gun, I'd drop him right there without warning. I interpret his intent as hostile. I'm really having trouble understanding how you guys aren't seeing this.

Is it because the scenario outlined says that he just stands there waiting to see what you are going to do? My answer is based on the fact that I wouldn't wait.

Remember, this gun is not merely sitting harmlessly in his CCW holster, or cased in the back seat. It's in his hand. Why does someone getting stopped by the police grab a gun, jump out of the car, and go into a combat stance? The answer is simple, it's to go into combat.

Drop him, it's the only answer.
Link Posted: 9/2/2005 4:15:08 AM EDT
It's not a problem helping out a guy who wants to commit suicide by cop.

When the dude has a gun in hand and is facing me from behind a door he's going down. Efforts to talk him down may appear heroic but are foolhardy; officer survival comes first.

[Al Sharpton]You can shoot him in the leg![/Al Sharpton]
Link Posted: 9/2/2005 5:12:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
txleapd: It's ability opportunity and intent. Sometimes people call it ability, jeopardy and intent. You forgot the intent part of the equation and instead duplicated opportunity/jeopardy.



You're right, my bad. But, I do remember also saying this...

"Nobody jumps out of a car with a gun in their when a police officer stops them, unless they intend to hurt that officer."


Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
Ability: He has a gun

Opportunity: he is in range to use the gun

Intent: I believe this is where we lack justification. He didn't point the gun at you or yell "Die Pig!"



Like I said, if I stop someone, they know I'm a cop. If they get out of their car with a gun in their hand, I believe that their intent is to cause me harm. No where does it say that I have to let them point a gun at me or start shooting for me to prove their intent beyond all reasonable doubt before I defend myself.

I plan on going home to family after each and every shift. I can deal with all the other crap that's associated with an on duty shooting.
Link Posted: 9/2/2005 5:18:43 AM EDT
1) Call out your stops BEFORE turning on the lights.
2) You can hit "R" and increase the distance, as soon as the door opens, or zippy starts getting out.
3) If commands don't work, and I mean the first time, he can be pummelled with bullets.............
4) If he has claimed he has killed someone else, and starts waving the gun................. pummelled with bullets.

Link Posted: 9/2/2005 6:32:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tac45:
I just took a simunition class and had a very similar situation except the guy had the gun to his head. We got into a stand off where I repeatedly yelled commands but did not fire because he didnt have the weapon on ME. All of a sudden the gun was on me before I new it I was dead. Never had time to react. Learned very important lesson that day. OODA loop people, OODA loop.



If anyone else had the sims training you realize just how vulnerable you can be in the situation like that and how difficult it is to hit a target that is moving and firing at you. Really lets you know we are not invincable.
Link Posted: 9/2/2005 8:57:19 AM EDT
I appreciate all of the feedback so far and realize that it isn't just my fellow LEO's that struggle with this difficult topic. The threshold is an ever evolving and moving point with no clear-cut crossover.. I have tried to get the video from the Commander in charge of them, but 'no dice'. So the actions presented can only be offered from the narrative which I tried to keep as factual as possible.
Link Posted: 9/2/2005 11:55:28 AM EDT
Option 1(A): Draw, Shoot (maybe give a command or two in there somewhere).

This is a good, healthy debate to have.

This exact topic comes up every couple of training sessions.

We have a very good response, and this is one of the reaons I love simunitions. We take an instructor, have them unholster their weapon and either put it at their side, exactly like in this scenario, or point it at their own head. Then the doubting officer is allowed to draw and point their weapon at the instructor. We also "encourage" the officer to give some commands. Nine times out of ten, the instructor gets the first shot off.

The point is, the action is almost always faster than reaction. Heck, a bad guy can often DRAW from a CONCEALED carry and get the first shot off before the officer pointing a handgun at him can shoot. You also can't talk and shoot at the same time (or at least it is very difficult). Toss in the extra factor of giving commands, processing the threat, making a constant "shoot/don't shoot" decision, trying to call on the radio and listening to that, back-up, fighting tunnel vision as your heart rate hits about 180, and your reaction time has been diminshed severely. We train all of our folks on this exact topic, and it is established agency doctrine that the suspects know we are the Police by our uniforms, cars and everything else, and anyone who confronts us while armed has the ability to kill us before we can shoot. DOctrine is that we don't wait, and use approriate levels of control to end the situation IMMEDIATELY, no commands or negotiation are necessary. While many other variables come into play, a person who has a weapon in this kind of scenario is an immediate threat, particularly since our officers KNOW by their experience and training (why demonstrating this with Simunitions is so important) that the person can shoot them before they can get any rounds off, and no warning is required before going to deadly force. If faced with this, I already know what I am going to tell the Grand Jury, and all of our folks should be able to recite something pretty similar (in fact, we often throw out "Grand Jury"-type questions during the AARs after our sims scenarios).

"I was in fear for my safety because I was readily identifiable to any reasonable person as a Peace Officer by my uniform, badge, equipment and marked car. I know form my experience and training, including live fire training with marking rounds using my sidearm, the weapon I was carrying that day, that an armed suspect can fire at me and hit me before I can make the concious decision to respond to their aggression, even if my weapon is already pointed at them, because actions are faster than reactions. No reasonable person would confront a Peace officer during a traffic stop while carrying a weapon in their hand, and there I had no reason to believe anything other than the fact that he intended to use the weapon against me. I did not give him that opportunity, because I feared that my life was in danger, and I used my sidearm to stop that imminent threat.
Link Posted: 9/4/2005 3:46:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garage-Logician:

Originally Posted By TxLawDog:

Here it goes: The Scenario-

...After several blocks the vehicle finally comes to a stop on the side of the road....As you stand up the driver of the stopped vehicle jumps out....The driver assumes a solid combat stance and has a semi automatic pistol in his right hand...

Your Options:

If you love your family, you drop him right there without warning.




Any one of you that waits to see what his intent is beyond the part where you see the pistol are gambling with your life. I have absolutely no doubt that these circumstances justify deadly force....without any warning whatsoever.





+1 The threat to the officer's life is present, even if he has not yet touched the gun, but is just reaching for it. I don't have to allow him to decrease the reactionary gap any further than the threat posed when he exited the vehicle with a gun in hand. Drop the gun, Drop the gun..bang..bang..bang..bang....repeatedly until he complies...Anything else you can call brave, unjustified, whatever you want. I call that suicide by BG. Instead I will grant him his obvious wish, every time, first. Then go home to my family, safe and then .
Link Posted: 9/4/2005 11:35:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garage-Logician:
There seems to be no question that everyone agrees that this hypothetical bad guy has ability and opportunity. I'd like to give my .02 on the subject of intent.

I said before that if he took his sweet time coming to a stop, jumped out of the car and into a combat stance, holding a gun, I'd drop him right there without warning. I interpret his intent as hostile. I'm really having trouble understanding how you guys aren't seeing this.

Is it because the scenario outlined says that he just stands there waiting to see what you are going to do? My answer is based on the fact that I wouldn't wait.

Remember, this gun is not merely sitting harmlessly in his CCW holster, or cased in the back seat. It's in his hand. Why does someone getting stopped by the police grab a gun, jump out of the car, and go into a combat stance? The answer is simple, it's to go into combat.

Drop him, it's the only answer.

I'm not LEO. I have done some interesting (dangerous) jobs. The "combat stance" is the clincher for me. Once the bad guy has "squared off" with you, the fur is going to fly. Shoot him. Go home to your family that night.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 3:14:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2005 3:16:20 AM EDT by FredM]
If you require the poll voters to be LEOs then could you put a "I just want to see the results" option?


Thanks


ETA as a nonLEO I would shoot.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 12:10:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 12:12:51 AM EDT by cmoth]
Bowhntr6pt

If you are going to wait for someone to point the weapon at you, you are placing yourself way behind the curve. That's not only stupid it's irresponsible. At the moment someone presents a firearm in the manner described, he is clearly preparing to use said weapon therby presenting an imminent threat. Your argument sounds more like an attorney attempting to win a civil suit rather than an LEO trying to protect others from someone who has decided to place them at risk.

The trooper that showed "restraint" by not shooting and yacking over the PA handed control of the scene over to the nut with the gun. It's great that it turned out fine, that the guy was probably an EDP or something like that. But, he played on luck, one day, that'll play out badly. Not worth the gamble. It doesn't have to be a threat to the officer to be a good shoot. It presents an imminent threat to OTHERS, namely the unknowing motoring public. If he pops a round off, even inadvertantly, and hits someone, you are responsible for not cancelling that threat. If the round goes the quarter mile, through a window and into a house killing somebody, same. Bad cop, no donut.

Same scenerio with a knife, club or weapon requiring contact distance is diferent but, the scenerio is concerning a firearm. I do not mess around when somebody brings out a gun.

ETA: I'm 11 year LEO and an LEO instructor. Weapons and UOF.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 12:24:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:01:06 AM EDT
I don't understand why this is so difficult for thoes of you who would not take action (shoot) the offender. What is your number 1 rule, YOU GO HOME ALIVE. If you have a partner, YOU AND YOUR PARTNER GO HOME ALIVE. There is no excuse to risk your life or your partners life on what an armed offender might do. The use of force paradigm has a disclaimer;" Officers will not unreasonably endanger themselves or another person to conform to the restrictions of this order or directive." Now I don't know if all departments have this disclaimer or something similar in wording but to my mind it means I go home alive. To answer the question, if he doesn't follow my lawful order to drop the gun, he gets all 9 rounds of .45.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:51:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 2:51:45 AM EDT by bobafett126]
The subject displays a

"solid combat stance and has a semi automatic pistol in his right hand. He is holding it at his side and saying nothing but he is mainaining a good Weaver stance "

after exiting the vehicle. A LEO should be able to articulate this person appears to have some firearms training, military or otherwise. This person is a clear threat based alone on his actions and lack of communicating any other intent.

As a firearm instructor for a police department in Washington state, I can tell everyone here that I would be training my officer's to fire after attempts at verbal commands met without success.

Washington State has lost 3 officers in the past few years, all by their own firearms. (suspects have taken them away). What we are learning from their sacrifices is that action will always beat reaction and the model of "creating distance and time and calling for backup" is flawed and should be removed from "the book". Officer's are killed by hesitating and our state is training in a new, direct engagement direction very much in contravention to the previous models of lethal force scenarios.

If this sounds crazy, think again. How many LEO's have now received "active shooter" training since Columbine? I bet most everyone. How many of us would have considered forming an H.K . team from the first four responders and going in to seek and take out the threat in an active shooter scenario? Bypassing injured children and even other officers? to take out the shooter?

The world is continuously evolving, as should our training and our responses. TxLawDog, I'm sure the officer involved in your sitation is a good cop/deputy. But his response is exactly what I've been told to train OUT of the officer's that work here in Washington.

Bottom line, I'm a glad a fellow brother is ok. I could give a rats ass about the driver. As far as I'm concerned, he should be dead.

Bobafett126
10 years fulltime law enforcement (nothing compared to alot of you all, but just wanted you to know where I am coming from!)

Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:29:30 PM EDT
Even my backwards ass admin monkeys have seen the light on this issued. They launched a Rapid Action Deployment directive and have gotten gear for it as well. we're getting prepped and I've started working on the training regime already.

What is the new term that the admin pukes are kicking around now?... "immediate deanimation".

Only a desk-johnny with a serious infection of vicarious liability would hang onto that term but, I agree with the sentiment..
Top Top