Crime POTWR 2019 Vol 1: Shots Fired! Examining Police Shootings In America

[JamesRussler]

Summation continued:


When I referred to removing egos from the equation, that also refers to the need officers feel to catch that subject that runs from them. It really sucks to let a suspect escape when they flee on foot, or in a vehicle. I have been in quite a few instances where subjects that flee in vehicles, and there is a lot of anger when a suspect flees in a vehicle because they often put officers and the public at great risk. Incident like this involve a lot of emotions, which are difficult to let go. These emotions, when combined with adrenaline, fear, and anger can lead to the officers using more force than necessary, such as an incident in Cleveland where six officers were indicted for a chase that resulted in the death of two suspects after 13 officers fired 137 rounds into the vehicle. 60 police officers were involved in this chase, which was a high profile case, and an example of police officers losing control due to, emotions and fear after this chase began after the vehicle backfired, which an officer mistook as a gunshot. Now, the suspects could have just pulled over when the officers attempted to stop the vehicle, but they did not, resulting in this chase. I would not expect police officers to not chase suspects they believed to have fired shots, or persons suspected of violent crimes, but officers should not engage in pursuits for traffic violations or minor crimes. Like I said, it sucks to let a suspect escape, but it is much worse to have a chase end in a crash that harms or kills innocent citizens when the fleeing vehicle crashes into them. Most departments now have policies greatly restricting vehicle pursuits, and almost all departments have banned firing at moving vehicles unless the vehicle is used as a weapon or is about to hit an officer.


Rewarding officers for showing restraint and respecting the sanctity of life by presenting officers with preservation of life awards is one way of observing good judgment and courage on the part of the officer. Also, training that teaches officers to recognize when it is simply better to use time as a tool to reduce the need to use lethal force. Police officers feel a need to end a confrontation quickly and decisively-there is a feeling of “I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, I have to end this, so something now!” I have experienced this so many times, and it is difficult to separate these feelings from discretion, especially when adrenaline is pumping. It is often better to try and wait a suspect out, to not force a resolution to a confrontation, which often results in the use of force when using time could result in a suspect surrendering without the use of force.


In my sixteen years as a police officer, 8 of which as a supervisor, I was a defensive tactics instructor for ten years, as well as a taser instructor for 10 years, I have trained over 100 officers in the use of force, and i have tried to instill patience and restraint in these officers. I also stress respect when dealing with people, which i have found to be instrumental in reducing the need to use force. I have a very low record of force, and when i have used force, there is little question that it was necessary, and i used the least amount of force to end the confrontation without significant injury to the suspect. I have used hand to hand techniques on suspects that were wielding knives, and even one guy with a machete. I have been cut by a subject with a knife, and had to tell my pregnant wife that I had to undergo aids and hep c testing for six weeks because the knife i was cut by was also used to cut the suspect and was covered in his blood. The suspect only suffered a broken wrist and some cuts and scrapes to his face. I did not use the best judgement when grabbing the suspects knife hand, but I felt it was necessary to prevent the subject from killing himself. I tell this story because there are many incidents in which police officers have used lethal force in subjects that were only a threat to themselves. That makes little sense to me when officers use lethal force on a suicidal subject that presented no threat to anyone but themselves. This is another example of when CIT training can de-escalate a situation without using force.


I know this was a monster of a post, but it is a complicated subject that requires a lot of discussion on many different aspects when considering the use of force by police officers, Especially the use of lethal force. I hope you can recognize and respect the complicated considerations that go into an officer’s use of force. I know this topic will inevitably include the “he just wanted to go home to his family” but put yourself in these situations, and look at it from the officer’s perspective.


Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I appreciate and respect your opinions on this important topic, and I hope you respect my opinions as well.

Thanks for that thoughtful contribution. It’s going to take me a while to read through your posts (unfortunately a busy week). I will respond with something thoughtful, though probably not as lengthy, later this week.

In the meantime, I’m assigning everyone reading this thread to consider three U.S. Supreme Court cases:
1. Graham v. Connor (excessive force)
2. Tennessee v. Garner (deadly force)
3. Plumhoff v. Rickard (limits of deadly force)
These cases help show the general Constitutional framework for police shootings, as well as other uses of force. Be forewarned that deadly/excessive force law is some of the most fact-intensive out there. Little facts make a big difference. I’ll follow up later this week!

 

[curryjunkie]

Thanks for that

In the meantime, I’m assigning everyone reading this thread to consider three U.S. Supreme Court cases:
1. Graham v. Connor (excessive force)
2. Tennessee v. Garner (deadly force)
3. Plumhoff v. Rickard (limits of deadly force)
These cases help show the general Constitutional framework for police shootings, as well as other uses of force. Be forewarned that deadly/excessive force law is some of the most fact-intensive out there. Little facts make a big difference. I’ll follow up later this week!

assigning.....ever wondered why cops don't like lawyers?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yeah, it pisses me off when officers are over aggressive. It presents a poor image of law enforcement, but in my experience, these guys are the minority, but unfortunately, these are the guys that create incidents that leave a bad taste in the public’s mouth, and are much more memorable that the thousands of interactions where the officers were respectful while serving the public. The mike browns, the Laquan McDonalds, are the incidents that people remember, rather than the thousands of non-incidents or good shoots for every one of these bad incidents(i personally believe mike brown was a good shoot, but it was an extremely polarizing incident that resulted in protests, violence, and a movement that continues to drive anger and anti-police sentiment. The mike brown incident was responsible for the hashtags and black lives matter marches, protests, shutting down highways, the murders of police(Dallas), all while ignoring the extreme violence in the communities where many of the police shootings occur. Police have to deal with all these violent criminals, and how are officers supposed to know if the guy that runs from a traffic stop is just some guy running from police, or is this one of the armed criminals responsible for all of these gangland murders.

Most black males don't commit felonies, much less serious violent crimes, and yet you will still defend racial profiling of black males. If you don't want police judged by their worst elements, then maybe don't do the same for blacks especially when you're vested with the authority by the state to rob them of their freedom and even kill them.

Btw when you talk about violence in their communities, that also applies to the cops. Some cop on the beat in some retirement town is usually not the kind of cop people are worried about, its the ones working in the militarized and alienated police forces of the large cities that present the most threat. Ya know, like the ones who will assume their suspect is armed and resort to lethal force

 

[JDragon]

This is shaping up to be a very American discussion, and maybe that's ok because most poster on this board are American, too, and the police violence discussion is largely an American one as well.

Therefore, I am going to make some points and ask some questions to those involved.

1) The subjective element

I learned in this thread that the judgement of whether use of force (especially shootings) is justified is based on the facts available to an officer at the time. Now in the U.S., bodycams have become a thing, and I think that's good for everyone involved. False accusations by suspects can be countered, but also cops who go too far or otherwise would go on a power trip can be kept in check. At the same time, this is always going to be a tough concept to apply. We had a case in Germany where a Hells Angels member shot and killed a SWAT team member through the closed alabaster door. Police had tried to raid his house and had failed to identify themselves; there is no such thing as the castle doctrine in Germany, but the Hells Angels dude credibly stated he had assumed a Bandidos attack on his life.

Conversely, there also has been the case of Iain McLeod who was an innocent Scotsman living in Germany, who was shot and killed during a raid in 1972 as a suspected RAF member. He was killed with shots through the closed bedroom door; the cop claimed he had feared for his life. The case was never brought to trial.

The subjective element is crucial and still so problematic.

2) Culture of violence

I get a really, really bad feeling when I read what @SpAzNeT is writing. I can well understand where he is coming from; it doesn't feel right to put your life on the line for some dipshit criminals, and his experience as a member of SWAT teams certainly has strenghtened that position. But his stance - escalate violence - to me is very illuminative of the larger issue. Sure, every situation is different, and there certainly are instances where this is exactly the right approach to end a situation quickly. But at the same time, there are certainly also situations where standing down, clearing the area, waiting for backup, deescalating etc. is also a possible approach - see the very measured stance @nhbbear has. I think a lot of the issues come down to the culture of violence in the US. To me, it seems that yes, US police has a violence probem and should be trained better (I just LOL whenever I hear about 10-12 week training courses, training should at least be 3-4 years). But the larger problem is the US culture of violence, which includes the reasonable assumption that suspects carry guns, and also the assumption that police must immediately establish dominance and end even non-immediate threats. The rule of law does not crumble instantly if you try to deescalate.

3) Personnel situation

One further issue that gets way too little attention IMO is the personnel situation. Just a short Google search tells me that there are about 800k sworn cops in the United States; that is about 0.25% of the population. Germany has about 275k cops, which is about 0.33% of the population. That means Germany has ((0.33 / 0.25)-1)*100)=) 33% more cops. And that despite the fact that violent crime is much more of a problem in the US than in Germany. Take a look at the facts here:

(Source: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime)

Why am I mentioning this? Well, in my opinion, there are a number of factors to consider.

First, if you are stretched thin and have potentially to wait longer for backup, you will be more likely see yourself compelled to "force" an end to a tense situation.

Second, and maybe more importantly, cops are never alone in Germany. They always have a partner when they are on patrol. This is crucial for many situations and introduces a different dynamic than when people are on their own (as I understand is often the case in the U.S.)

Of course, this does not come for free. And here I believe the U.S. obsession with low taxes comes into play. A well-trained and well-staffed police force comes at a price. Are you willing to pay it?

 

[SpAzNeT]

Just so I’m clear I believe in deescalating when the situation warrants it and will use it when it’s appropriate. Every situation is different and a lot of things come into play when we are dealing with these situations. My CIT training, verbal judo and all my deescalating techniques go out the window when I’m being presented with a suspect who has a weapon and serious bodily injury or death is likely to occur. I would rather end a potential violent encounter quickly than to let it manifest into a more serious issue later. If that means I go hands on quicker during an encounter then so be it. I’d rather go hands on now than have to use deadly force later.

Lack of training is common in the agency that I work in. I have been really lucky in that regards due to the roles I have had in my department and since I put in for every training opportunity I can. Officers straight out of the academy have just enough training to get them or someone else hurt.

You have some good points Jdragon.

 

[jlagman]

This is shaping up to be a very American discussion, and maybe that's ok because most poster on this board are American, too, and the police violence discussion is largely an American one as well.

Therefore, I am going to make some points and ask some questions to those involved.

1) The subjective element

I learned in this thread that the judgement of whether use of force (especially shootings) is justified is based on the facts available to an officer at the time. Now in the U.S., bodycams have become a thing, and I think that's good for everyone involved. False accusations by suspects can be countered, but also cops who go too far or otherwise would go on a power trip can be kept in check. At the same time, this is always going to be a tough concept to apply. We had a case in Germany where a Hells Angels member shot and killed a SWAT team member through the closed alabaster door. Police had tried to raid his house and had failed to identify themselves; there is no such thing as the castle doctrine in Germany, but the Hells Angels dude credibly stated he had assumed a Bandidos attack on his life.

Conversely, there also has been the case of Iain McLeod who was an innocent Scotsman living in Germany, who was shot and killed during a raid in 1972 as a suspected RAF member. He was killed with shots through the closed bedroom door; the cop claimed he had feared for his life. The case was never brought to trial.

The subjective element is crucial and still so problematic.

2) Culture of violence

I get a really, really bad feeling when I read what @SpAzNeT is writing. I can well understand where he is coming from; it doesn't feel right to put your life on the line for some dipshit criminals, and his experience as a member of SWAT teams certainly has strenghtened that position. But his stance - escalate violence - to me is very illuminative of the larger issue. Sure, every situation is different, and there certainly are instances where this is exactly the right approach to end a situation quickly. But at the same time, there are certainly also situations where standing down, clearing the area, waiting for backup, deescalating etc. is also a possible approach - see the very measured stance @nhbbear has. I think a lot of the issues come down to the culture of violence in the US. To me, it seems that yes, US police has a violence probem and should be trained better (I just LOL whenever I hear about 10-12 week training courses, training should at least be 3-4 years). But the larger problem is the US culture of violence, which includes the reasonable assumption that suspects carry guns, and also the assumption that police must immediately establish dominance and end even non-immediate threats. The rule of law does not crumble instantly if you try to deescalate.

3) Personnel situation

One further issue that gets way too little attention IMO is the personnel situation. Just a short Google search tells me that there are about 800k sworn cops in the United States; that is about 0.25% of the population. Germany has about 275k cops, which is about 0.33% of the population. That means Germany has ((0.33 / 0.25)-1)*100)=) 33% more cops. And that despite the fact that violent crime is much more of a problem in the US than in Germany. Take a look at the facts here:

(Source: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime)

Why am I mentioning this? Well, in my opinion, there are a number of factors to consider.

First, if you are stretched thin and have potentially to wait longer for backup, you will be more likely see yourself compelled to "force" an end to a tense situation.

Second, and maybe more importantly, cops are never alone in Germany. They always have a partner when they are on patrol. This is crucial for many situations and introduces a different dynamic than when people are on their own (as I understand is often the case in the U.S.)

Of course, this does not come for free. And here I believe the U.S. obsession with low taxes comes into play. A well-trained and well-staffed police force comes at a price. Are you willing to pay it?

Staffing levels and training time are on opposite ends of the spectrum. If you want to stretch out a training program to "3-4 years" where trainees aren't or minimally paid, then don't expect the amount of personnel you would desire.

 

[JamesRussler]

assigning.....ever wondered why cops don't like lawyers?

It’s not just cops that hate lawyers
If it’s any consolation to you, those cases establish a very cop-friendly framework for uses of deadly force.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

To me, it's clearly a matter of fear and perhaps lack of training. The average even POG in the Army or the Marines does relatively extensive MOUT/CQB Training, I don't think that's the same for all police departments (isn't that what SWAT is for? i'm asking)

There's no reason you can take (no offense to my fellow Veterans) some of the lets say non most intelligent people in the country who don't even undergo Pysch evals before joining (like Cops do), and then train them to operate under stricter ROEs in the military overseas. We couldn't fire until fired upon, i.e. imminent danger.

There's NO reason an unarmed civilian should EVER be shot, period. Escalation of Force procedures should prevent that

I get that things like rubber bullets are looked down upon b/c of physical damage lawsuits, but at least people wouldn't be killed by actual bullets, perhaps that needs to be looked into.

 

[Trotsky]

Attorney specializing in employment and labor law, but with prior experience in criminal defense.

I personally think that the problems with police misconduct have just as much to do with the country's cultural attitudes toward policing as a sort of vanguard for the haves against the have-nots as they do the proliferation of guns in society. Because we've lionized them as the protectors of God-fearing people from the scourge of the criminal underclass, we compulsively build in excuses for their misconduct and refuse to hold them to the same standards as other societies. We basically hold them to the same moral standards as we do our military in foreign operations, which is quite unique in the modern world.

Now, professionally (that is, as a member of the legal profession), I think that misguided laws allocating burdens of proof and persuasion on self-defense are an important driver of some of the horrible outcomes in failing to hold bad apples accountable. It is highly improbable that we as a society could reign in the ludicrously deferential laws on shooting citizens by police officers when we are in the active process of imputing that deference to private citizens through roided-up incarnations of Castle and Stand Your Ground laws, as we recently saw discussed in Ohio. On the basis of these laws, by which a judge must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer (or citizen) didn't act in self-defense, judges (such as the one in the Stockley case) usually make the correct judicial decision in finding officers not guilty. Yet these laws never get brought into the actual discussion on the events, despite the fact that they make it nearly impossible to convict an officer unless you have video of them killing a suspect execution-style.

 

[ens189]

Attorney specializing in employment and labor law, but with prior experience in criminal defense.

I personally think that the problems with police misconduct have just as much to do with the country's cultural attitudes toward policing as a sort of vanguard for the haves against the have-nots as they do the proliferation of guns in society. Because we've lionized them as the protectors of God-fearing people from the scourge of the criminal underclass, we compulsively build in excuses for their misconduct and refuse to hold them to the same standards as other societies. We basically hold them to the same moral standards as we do our military in foreign operations, which is quite unique in the modern world.

Now, professionally (that is, as a member of the legal profession), I think that misguided laws allocating burdens of proof and persuasion on self-defense are an important driver of some of the horrible outcomes in failing to hold bad apples accountable. It is highly improbable that we as a society could reign in the ludicrously deferential laws on shooting citizens by police officers when we are in the active process of imputing that deference to private citizens through roided-up incarnations of Castle and Stand Your Ground laws, as we recently saw discussed in Ohio. On the basis of these laws, by which a judge must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer (or citizen) didn't act in self-defense, judges (such as the one in the Stockley case) usually make the correct judicial decision in finding officers not guilty. Yet these laws never get brought into the actual discussion on the events, despite the fact that they make it nearly impossible to convict an officer unless you have video of them killing a suspect execution-style.

What is your opinion on what I see as the ridiculous overcharging of officers in instances that appear to be "bad shoots". Why would a DA charge murder for something that is possibly manslaughter, thus enabling the officer to have a solid defense regarding malicious intent or pre-meditation?

 

[Trotsky]

What is your opinion on what I see as the ridiculous overcharging of officers in instances that appear to be "bad shoots". Why would a DA charge murder for something that is possibly manslaughter, thus enabling the officer to have a solid defense regarding malicious intent or pre-meditation?

I don't know that there is a rule that covers all with regard to this phenomenon. Depending on the case, it could be that the prosecutor is putting their thumb on the scale for the police or it could be that the prosecutor is trying to make waves. I agree that that is something that is puzzling and seems to happen fairly often, but I could only speculate why.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

My biggest beef is the lackadaisical approach many departments take to use of force training which trickles down to the agents I work with.

Can you elaborate here please?

There's NO reason an unarmed civilian should EVER be shot, period. Escalation of Force procedures should prevent that

On the surface I agree. Seems like most of the unarmed dudes getting shot are thought to be armed. Hard to imagine cops being forced to play by the same ROE as you did in the military (i.e. having to be shot at first before being allowed to shoot). But as it stands, it seems like things really have come to the cops shooting first and asking questions later.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Can you elaborate here please?




On the surface I agree. Seems like most of the unarmed dudes getting shot are thought to be armed. Hard to imagine cops being forced to play by the same ROE as you did in the military (i.e. having to be shot at first before being allowed to shoot). But as it stands, it seems like things really have come to the cops shooting first and asking questions later.

I agree about not being held to the same standards, b/c they're not literally at war, but there's also steps in the Escalation of Force before discharging a firearm that appear to be skipped entirely all too often
the adage 'Show, Shout, Shove, Shoot' as we called it in the Army.

 

[nhbbear]

I have a question that may or may not be off topic.

For a long time we have heard about the militarization of police. Many have seen memes, showing one picture of Andy Griffith, and another showing a cop in tactical gear.

I imagine that if any saw anything that really disturbed you, you would be looking for a change of profession. However, I wonder if their have been things you questioned. Things that got your tin-foil tingling. Change in procedure. Change in law. Changes in training. Ect.

Basically my question is, have you seen or experienced any change in LE, that caused you to question the real purpose of that change.

Not, are you convinced the deep state is about to launch martial law in this country, but what kind of things, if any, have you seen or experienced that caused you pause in a potential nefarious militarization of police?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I agree about not being held to the same standards, b/c they're not literally at war, but there's also steps in the Escalation of Force before discharging a firearm that appear to be skipped entirely all too often
the adage 'Show, Shout, Shove, Shoot' as we called it in the Army.

Do we start charging cops with murder for killing people holding their phones, regardless of them claiming to have believed it was a gun? Thinking in terms of what @nhbbear has said about basing decisions on what is known/believed to be known at the time, this is a tough sell. And how do you say for sure a cop knew something was a phone vs. a gun?

 

[Bloody Pulp]

I agree about not being held to the same standards, b/c they're not literally at war, but there's also steps in the Escalation of Force before discharging a firearm that appear to be skipped entirely all too often
the adage 'Show, Shout, Shove, Shoot' as we called it in the Army.

The comparison doesn’t really work when you consider how the interactions occur. The military can generally get away with a don’t shoot till shot at approach as they generally aren’t being engaged by a dude standing 18 inches away from them or sitting in a car they are poking their face in at the time. If a cop waits for the guy with the gun to actually pull the trigger before they return fire even if they see the gun they would be dead a majority of the time. See Officer Singh for example, he had no time to do anything other than get shot in the face.

Police have a similar adage that goes ask, tell, do. Ask them to do it, tell them do it, force them to do it. The skipping steps depends entirely on the subject they are dealing with. If the guy pulls a gun out of his waistband while you are standing in front of him you don’t start at the bottom and work your way up as you’ll be dead before you finish asking him to drop it.

See this body cam vid for example as well:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-shows-man-charging-police-officer-rifle.html

Goes from gonna help a disabled motorist off the road to almost catching an AR-15 butt stroke to the face in less than a second. Some things can’t be de escalated.

Edit: sorry for the weird delayed quote with no text at first. Sherdog was acting crazy on my phone.

 

[ens189]

Can you elaborate here please?




On the surface I agree. Seems like most of the unarmed dudes getting shot are thought to be armed. Hard to imagine cops being forced to play by the same ROE as you did in the military (i.e. having to be shot at first before being allowed to shoot). But as it stands, it seems like things really have come to the cops shooting first and asking questions later.

My use of force training is quarterly and is an abject joke. We work ground defense approximately once a year and it's treated with the middle school attitude of "I don't want to roll around the ground with a bunch of other guys".

We are still being trained in fucking pressure points. Not to mention at my station specifically, someone with my resume can't get a sniff at being an instructor because everything is based on seniority. So what you have is a bunch of guys who've never put on a gi, haven't been in the field in 10 years, and are riding out their cushy M-F gig until they retire.

I was given the ok to run a LEO only class at my gym by my Professor. I announced it at musters, put flyers up around the station, pimped it on social media for weeks. I showed up three weeks in a row and literally no one ever showed up. That is the trickle down I am talking about.

 

[ens189]

There's NO reason an unarmed civilian should EVER be shot, period. Escalation of Force procedures should prevent that.

I hope you're willing to accept certain caveats to that. There are people out there who are extremely dangerous despite being unarmed. One example I can think of is Mayhem Miller. It is an absolute miracle (and a testament to the officers) that he hasn't been killed during his numerous arrests. He is a massive guy and extremely skilled in every type of unarmed combat.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I hope you're willing to accept certain caveats to that. There are people out there who are extremely dangerous despite being unarmed. One example I can think of is Mayhem Miller. It is an absolute miracle (and a testament to the officers) that he hasn't been killed during his numerous arrests. He is a massive guy and extremely skilled in every type of unarmed combat.

oh no doubt, or if someone is like using their vehicle to run someone over (not sure if that's still 'unarmed') you gotta at least take out the tires (which could flip and kill the person), etc...

I was more referring to the 'guys shot while running' and things of that nature, or shot while already subdued

 

[ens189]

oh no doubt, or if someone is like using their vehicle to run someone over (not sure if that's still 'unarmed') you gotta at least take out the tires (which could flip and kill the person), etc...

I was more referring to the 'guys shot while running' and things of that nature, or shot while already subdued

Glad we're on the same page.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Glad we're on the same page.

you're right tho, there's more caveats than even i'm allowing. Like a guy holding a hostage by strangling or something? shoot that guy

I guess I should've worded it 'People should never get shot by the Cops, unless they clearly present a mortal threat to LEOs, others, innocents'

 

[ens189]

you're right tho, there's more caveats than even i'm allowing. Like a guy holding a hostage by strangling or something? shoot that guy

I guess I should've worded it 'People should never get shot by the Cops, unless they clearly present a mortal threat to LEOs, others, innocents'

That's a scenario that was presented when I was brand new.

You go to the gas station to get a soda. As you exit your vehicle a guy runs out the front door holding something in his hand, could be a gun, could be a knife, who knows. He's taking off towards a crowded park. You look inside and the cashier is writhing on the ground and bleeding.

Do you pull the trigger on the guy before he gets to the park and could possibly hurt more people? Render first aid? Give chase on foot and see what happens from there? It's interesting to see people's answers.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

That's a scenario that was presented when I was brand new.

You go to the gas station to get a soda. As you exit your vehicle a guy runs out the front door holding something in his hand, could be a gun, could be a knife, who knows. He's taking off towards a crowded park. You look inside and the cashier is writhing on the ground and bleeding.

Do you pull the trigger on the guy before he gets to the park and could possibly hurt more people? Render first aid? Give chase on foot and see what happens from there? It's interesting to see people's answers.

I was under the impression you couldn't unless you visually verify he is in fact armed and still posing a threat....what if he drops it during the ensuing chase?

that is an interesting scenario though, I imagine you're supposed to chase (in lieu of letting him go and helping the victim, or one partner stays while the other ensues maybe?)