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

[ens189]

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?)

I'm rarely if ever partnered up. Between rendering first aid and relaying a good description of the suspect or giving chase and letting the cards fall where they may I don't think there's a wrong answer there. I don't have a high level of medical training, given my skill set the smarter option might be to give chase while radioing in for medical to the cashier's location.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I'm rarely if ever partnered up. Between rendering first aid and relaying a good description of the suspect or giving chase and letting the cards fall where they may I don't think there's a wrong answer there. I don't have a high level of medical training, given my skill set the smarter option might be to give chase while radioing in for medical to the cashier's location.

That was my line of reasoning, you likely (you as in LEO, not necessarily you specifically) have more training in Non Lethal Force or Detainee Handling, or Police Pursuit then you do rendering emergency First Aid for a serious wound

I took Combat Life Saving class every year in the Army, sure I could easily knock out a tourniquet or NPA, but anything crazier than that and i'm straight lost as it's just theory haha

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

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.

That's a tough one. I want to say render first aid. Seems like you'd have to pursue though.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

That's a tough one. I want to say render first aid. Seems like you'd have to pursue though.

Pretty much, have to neutralize the potential threat so you don’t end up with multiple victims instead of one.

Had a similar situation years ago responding to a report of two people shot by a known suspect who stole a car and was driving to go kill a 3rd person the caller knew. Partner and I crossed paths with the suspect vehicle on our way to the victims house. Partner asked if we should go to the victims or go after him and we went after him. He ended up crashing into a ditch a few miles away and we found a suitcase full of rifles and handguns in the back of the truck and an SKS in the cab with him. Maybe we could have saved them (not likely if I remember their injuries right) or maybe we would’ve just ended up with a 3rd homicide and a heavily armed felon on the rampage. Would make the same choice if I had to do it again.

 

[JamesRussler]

Hello, my name is Kevin, and I have been a police officer for sixteen years in a city of 30,000. In the immediate area of the city, there is approximately 150,000 people. My department has over 30,000 calls per year, and we average 3 murders and 20+ shootings per year.

I have been a supervisor for the last 8 years, with the last two as a lieutenant in charge of a shift of 16 officers. In addition to running my shift, I am also a district commander in charge of an area of 15,000 citizens. Before I became a supervisor, I was the defensive tactics instructor for the department for ten years. I was also a taser instructor for ten years.

I am considered a use of force expert, and have testified and given depositions for court proceedings regarding the use of force by officers. Some of those cases involved the death of the suspect after the use of force by officers. I believe I can be fair and objective regarding the use of force by police officers and recognize the seriousness of this polarizing topic. I hope we can have a candid discussion on the topic of police shootings, and I appreciate your participation in this discussion.

I want to that Cubo for hosting this discussion and thank the other panel members for their input.

I have detailed three high profile police shootings, and it was difficult and required a lot of thought to wade through the many high profile incidents of police shootings. There are many more that I could have chosen, but I tried to choose incidents that are complex and can inspire discussion and debate.

I hope you all enjoy and appreciate this discussion of the topic of police shootings, and the reasons behind an officer’s decision to use lethal force.

I also have included a post that discusses possible ways to reduce police shootings, but also examines possible reasons for the number of police shootings. Gun violence is a serious topic that has no easy solutions, and I don’t have all the answers to this topic, and I am not sure anyone else does as well.

Again, i thank you for your involvement and input on this discussion.

-Kevin, aka nhbbear

Nice to meet you, Kevin!

It’s in the news; it’s all over social media; it’s in the streets and ingrained into the culture. For some, it is a fact of life, taught and learned at an early age; yet for others, they simply don’t believe it exists-akin to Bigfoot or some lake monster. I am talking about police violence, in particular, police shootings, or officer involved shootings(OIS).


We will be discussing this issue in depth, from several different viewpoints in a new format, a War Room Roundtable discussion. Most of you know me as nhbbear, but I occasionally go by Kevin. I am a 16 year veteran of a police force, where I currently serve as a lieutenant. I am in charge of a shift/platoon of 16 officers and I oversee a district of 15,000 people, which contains some of the most historically violent areas my city has to offer. I am also a use of force expert, having been a defensive tactics instructor for over ten years, as well as a taser instructor. I have been called upon to testify about a police officer’s use of force in courtroom settings as a use of force expert. You may have read some of my threads in the OT, “A Bear’s eye view: stories from the street” which I wrote at the prodding of some of the old OT members several(6) years ago. Anyway, I am very familiar with aspects of OIS, officer involved shootings, and I will be facilitating this discussion.


Myself, along with Cubo de Sangre, have collected some of the best and brightest minds sherdog has to offer(oh, ok-we started a thread and the last ones to say “not it” were forced, at gunpoint, into being on a panel for this discussion, in a new format being presented in the war room courteous of our President, no, not that small handed orange president-out very own, Cubo.


So this is how this is going to work: we have a topic(other round table discussions are in the works, some along similar veins, and others in a different direction with all new panels), which is presented by a poster(in this case, me) and the topic will then be discussed by the panel for a set period of time. Then the discussion(via a sticky thread) will be opened up to the public so you can insult us on a job well done, er ..whatever.


War Room rules still apply, so keep it civil and try to add to the discussion rather than (gif of billy Maddison -we are all dumber gif). We have tried our best to vet our panel members so that they can intelligently add to the discussion, or at least have a slightly different perspective that we might not have thought of. We have police officers that range from very experienced(Graverobber) to a rookie police officer(Wolf), hell, we even have a forest ranger type of lawman who spends his days protecting us from those that would steal our pick-a-nick baskets, eh Boo Boo(never mind, some of you fucks are just too young for that one). We have lawyers of the Johnny cockring variety, some that just fell in love with the law and wanted to see justice prevail against all odds(pause, for small tear rolling down my cheek), and some, well, I have no idea what the fuck they do, but they’re here, damn’t, and they will add to the discussion.


So, without much further ado, let’s begin, shall we? (And yes, some of this issue will overlap with our eventual gun control laws panel, our mental health panel, and our sexual fetish panels).

Okay, let's do this...

October 20, 2014, a 17 year old black male was shot 16 times in the back while walking down the middle of the street in Chicago. Laquan McDonald was high on pcp and armed with a small pocket knife. He was causing a disturbance and acting erratically. He had slashed the tires of several vehicles, including a police vehicle.


McDonald was walking away from officers when Officer Jason Van Dyke shot McDonald in the back. No officer attempted to provide medical assistance to McDonald as he died in the street. Chicago police released the results of an internal investigation that determined that Van Dyke had acted appropriately when he shot McDonald in the back.


Mayor Rahm Emanuel fired police chief Gary McCarthy, widely regarded as the top cop in America prior to this event.


Chicago erupted in protest, and what resonated the loudest was the silence of the Chicago officials who refused to release any dash camera footage for thirteen months before finally relenting and then released the video showing the murder of McDonald.


Prosecutor Anita Alvarez stalled on the investigation for over 400 days before charging officer Van Dyke with the murder of the seventeen year old. In June of 2017, three officers were indicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice for their tampering of the investigation. In October of 2018, four years after the shooting, Van Dyke was found guilty of sixteen counts of aggravated assault and found guilty of second degree murder.


Prosecutor Alvarez lost her bid for re-election and Mayor Rahm Emanuel has announced he will not run for re-election in the upcoming election. Emanuel was expected to run for President after his tenure in Chicago, which now seems very unlikely.


As for the investigation, Van Dyke claimed that McDonald lunges at him with the knife. After the video clearly showed that was false, he changed his defense, claiming that he feared that McDonald would charge at him with the knife, or throw it. He also cited a 2012 report that there were knives capable of firing a bullet. Van Dyke had only been on scene for 30 seconds before firing, despite 8 officers being in close proximity that did not fire, nor feel the need to fire their weapons. Officers on scene had called for a taser, or other less lethal options due to the fact that McDonald had not made any active attempts to harm officers with the knife.


Now, here is where I will condemn the response of American police officers to subjects armed with knives. Often cited, the “twenty one foot rule” has been used to justify officers using lethal force against knife wielding subjects. The rule states that a subject armed with a knife can close a distance of twenty one feet on an officer in seconds. Studies have shown that once an officer perceives a threat, it will take an average of 1.5 seconds to react to the threat.


Where this rule originated from was a seminar in which the question was posed “what is the minimum safe distance when dealing with a subject armed with a knife?” One of the instructors replied “I don’t know, 21 feet” which launched a series of demonstrations in which a subject could close that distance very quickly. Soon, that “rule” was falsely interpreted to mean that an officer is justified in using lethal force on a subject armed with a knife if they are within that distance.


Further studies refined the 21 foot rule to state that an officer that has their firearm out of the holster, should maintain a distance of at least 21 feet when facing a subject armed with a knife or blunt instrument, or seek cover or a barrier between the officer and that subject.


The 21 foot rule, and American police response to knife wielding subjects has been further shown to be excessive when looking at how other countries’ police forces deal with the same threat. The police in the UK have perfected their response by using less lethal force, shields, and batons. The UK police only killed five subjects in a ten year period. Granted, the police in the UK do not face the same threat as American police when it comes to firearms, but the rate that American police use lethal force on knife wielding subjects is much greater than the police in the UK.


Concerning the McDonald incident, the actions of officer Van Dyke were clearly excessive, in that he shot McDonald in the back, as he was walking away from Van Dyke and other officers. At the time of the shooting, McDonald posed no immediate threat to the officers, or the general public. The argument that he could have run away from officers and possibly attacked some random citizen fall into what I call the “what if “ defense. The “what if” defense is invalid because it deals in uncertainty and not in known facts.


For example, regarding police pursuits(maybe a future subject?) an officer that attempts to stop a vehicle for running a stop sign can only use the facts they have at hand-that a subject failed to stop at a stop sign. They can not use, for example, an argument such as “what if they have a body in the trunk,” which is why many pursuits are now called off because of the extreme risk pursuits cause to the general public, the officers, and yes, the suspect.


So in the McDonald case, an argument that McDonald “could charge; could run; could throw the knife” are invalid. You can only deal with what threat or action the subject is doing at that moment, not what they could do in the future. If he was armed with a firearm, it is a different situation because a firearm has the range and the lethality that a small knife does not.


In my opinion, officers in the McDonald case should have contained the subject, waited for less lethal options, such as a taser or bean bag rounds, and followed at a distance until they had other options than lethal force. Also, when dealing with a subject with a knife, an officer can not close the distance and then claim that they were in fear, or at risk of serious harm or death.


The McDonald case is an example of a bad shoot by police, and horrible mismanagement of both the investigation, and the handling of the media and freedom of information(FOIA) requests, in not releasing the video for 13 months, which reeks of a cover-up, which it was.



The next shooting we will look at, is what myself, the department, and a jury of the officer’s peers deemed a good shooting.


On August 13, 2016, officers Dominique Heaggan-Brown(DHB-come on, that is a damn long name), and

I agree with you about Laquan McDonald, assuming the facts are as you represented them to be (it's been a while since I read that story, so I appreciate the summary). The officer did not face a threat so immediate that deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. As the SCOTUS has held:

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so."​

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1,11 (1985). Here, the officer was on the scene for about 30 seconds, and there were many other officers present. The suspect was running away, but he was not actively trying to stab anyone. Officers were armed with non-lethal weapons, such as tasers. There is no indication that if the officer had waited an additional 30 seconds, anyone would have been killed or injured. These facts suggest that the officer escalated the situation unilaterally, without an immediate need to do so. It's not so much that the suspect was running away; it's that he wasn't posing a sufficiently immediate risk to life and limb to justify use of a handgun to subdue him. Cf. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) (officers' firing of 15 gunshots at suspect to end high-speed police chase was reasonable, where suspect led police officers on a high-speed chase, spun-out in a parking lot, accelerated through blockade, almost hitting an officer, and was attempting to speed away on a public street). The officer's use of a handgun here was grossly disproportionate to his need to subdue an erratic suspect who was merely armed with a knife, running away from officers, and who was not immediately threatening officers or third parties.

On top of all that, it sounds like the officer took some dishonest / culpable actions afterward. The fact that no one rendered aid to the dying suspect shows that the officer (and others) were not so concerned with ending a threat to the public as they were with ending the suspect. The officer's invocation of hypothetical threats (including the aforementioned "knives capable of firing a bullet") was pretty much an insult to the public's intelligence. Officers may only rely on objective circumstances actually confronted, as this officer surely knew. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) ("the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation").

To be fair, McDonald did pose a risk to the public. If he were actively trying to stab someone at that moment, my opinion would change. See, e.g., Plumhoff, Garner, supra. But those were not the facts the officer confronted. For that reason, I agree with the jury in this case, and with your assessment as well, @nhbbear .

Note that the law is extremely deferential to police judgments at the scene, and purportedly refrains from "inappropriate second-guessing of police officers' split-second decisions." See Plumhoff, supra. You are surely aware of this pronouncement of the law. I disagree with this approach, however, because it imbues police interactions with a sense of urgency that is not always necessary or justified. The need for officers to make "split second decisions" is actually minimal, and such decision making should be discouraged when it is not necessary. Moreover, it makes little sense for our Constitution to protect a plethora of civil rights for all citizens, then to allow officers to deprive all of those rights on the basis of a nearly irrefutable presumption that the officers "split second decision" is correct. After all, what good is a Sixth Amendment right to jury trial or Eighth Amendment protection from cruel punishment when an officer can administer the death penalty right there on the sidewalk?

EDIT: Sorry to all the non-Americans reading. I am familiar with U.S. law only.

 

[JamesRussler]

The next shooting we will look at, is what myself, the department, and a jury of the officer’s peers deemed a good shooting.


On August 13, 2016, officers Dominique Heaggan-Brown(DHB-come on, that is a damn long name), and his partner were on patrol in Milwaukee, Minnesota, when they observed a vehicle they believed to be suspicious. The officers initiated a traffic stop, during which two subjects fled from the vehicle. DHB and his partner pursued a subject later identified as 23 year old Sylville Smith, after noticing that Smith was carrying a handgun. According to testimony, DHB’s partner yelled “he’s got a gun” as they were pursuing him. Smith ran around the side of a house, where he slipped on the grass. DHB then fired one round, striking Smith in the upper arm. Smith then threw the gun over a fence, but It was too late, as 1.69 seconds after the initial shot was fired, DHB fired a second shot, striking Smith in the chest, killing him.


The firearm that Smith was carrying was a glock 22, with an extended magazine with 23 rounds. The firearm was reported stolen several months earlier in a burglary.


Smith had a lengthy criminal record that included robbery, possession of a concealed weapon, theft, and I guess we could add felon in possession of a firearm, fleeing, and possession of stolen property due to his actions before he was shot. Smith had been charged with a shooting in February of 2015 and witness intimidation after trying to force the witness to recant a statement made to police. The witness did recant and the charges were dropped. All in all, a good kid.


The fallout of the shooting was three days of rioting, burning, looting, and shots fired at police and firefighters who were attempting to put out the fires. 6 million dollars in damage occurred during these three days.


Smith’s family claimed that Smith had learning disabilities and carried a handgun because he had been shot and robbed in the past. However, Smith’s family and the community also claimed that the firearm was planted by police.


The family also contended that DHB should not have been on the force due to prior claims of misconduct prior to the shooting. However, in my opinion, Smith should not have been on the street due to his long criminal past, so that’s a wash and we shall just focus on the shooting.


Milwaukee police chief Flynn urged the release of the body cam video, however, the state department of justice refused, citing that it would taint a jury pool should charges be filed. Charges were filed against DHB, who was found innocent of all counts. Smith’s family had to be removed from the courtroom due to a disturbance during the trial.


So, we have a subject, fleeing police while carrying a stolen firearm, who is shot two times by a police officer. The time between the first shot and second was only 1.69 seconds, which is clearly not enough time to process the actions of the firearm being tossed over the fence. As the defense experts testified, the decision to fire that second shot was made before the weapon was thrown.


DHB was fired for an unrelated incident where he was accused of sexually assaulting a male two days after the shooting.

Here are my qualms about this case:

(1) The propriety of the shooting turns on claims made against the decedent, who is not alive to rebut them. It's a classic case of "he-said, he-dead" (apparently the body camera didn't capture everything). If the decedent ("Smith") was actually carry a gun, it makes a much stronger case that the officer's actions were reasonable. After all, guns can be drawn and fired in a matter of seconds, posing a risk to all persons within range (including the officer). On the other hand, if the decedent was not actually carrying a gun, and it was planted (as his family claimed), the officer's actions fall squarely within the rule of Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). In my experience, officers do often lie about threats they confronted in order to escape liability. Police have planted evidence on suspects and committed perjury to secure convictions. It's not as rare as some believe. The cop in this case doesn't exactly sound like a straight shooter (no pun intended), so why should he get the benefit of the doubt?

(2) There's no indication that Mr. Smith was actually aiming the gun to fire it. In fact, it looks like he was trying to throw it over the fence to "ditch" it (i.e., to discard it). So is it okay for officers to shoot all suspects during chases when the suspects attempt to discard their weapons? That's a difficult question; there's no easy answer. Like I said above, guns can be aimed and fired in a matter of seconds, so there's a huge risk in allowing a suspect time to discard his weapon. On the other hand, allowing officers cart blanche to shoot / kill all suspects under these circumstances basically erases the need for an arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing, and deprives the suspect of his rights entirely (to be fair, some people would think that's a good thing). Suspects should be encouraged to disarm; shooting them like this basically incentivizes them to shoot the officer first.

At the end of the day, the circumstances here are just too manipulable to make out a clear-cut case for exoneration. When an officer shoots someone under "he-said, he-dead" circumstances, those circumstances ought to be viewed with extreme skepticism. I wouldn't necessarily convict the officer, but I would launch a full, thorough, and independent investigation. FWIW, the jury cleared him, and they were able to see the evidence up close. I trust and accept their verdict.

 

[JamesRussler]

Next, we will examine a police shooting that is a bit more ambiguous. Obviously, I have my opinion, which I will save for the end.


On March, 18,2018, Sacramento police officers were called to a neighborhood in regard to a subject breaking out car windows and the sliding glass door to a residence. The first unit to arrive was a police helicopter with a thermal scope. The helicopter pilots relayed to the ground units that they observed a subject wielding what they described as a “tool bar” and breaking out the window of a residence.


As ground units arrived, the subject, later identified as 22 year old Stephon Clark, fled from officers. The officers engaged in a brief foot pursuit, following the subject as he jumped over a wooden fence. Clark then entered the backyard of his grandmother’s residence, where he was cornered in the yard. As officers approached, Clark advanced towards them holding something in his hand. One of the officers believed it was a gun, and shouted “gun, gun, gun!” Three seconds after the officers yells “gun” one officer gave him commands to show his hands before firing. The officers, using the corner of the residence, gave Clark commands to to drop the weapon. Clark was then shot 8 times, with officers firing a total of 20 rounds. Clark was struck once in the leg from the front, three times in the side, and four times in the back. The entire incident was captured on a camera from the helicopter, as well as body cameras. Officers administered first aid after several minutes, citing the fear that he had a gun being the reason it was several minutes before aid was given.


The video footage was released three days after the shooting. The community was outraged, with the grandmother calling the officers “murderers.” Family members claimed that Clark was a loving father of two children. Clark has multiple convictions for multiple robberies, domestic violence, prostitution related offense, and other offenses. He was on probation for a 2014 robbery at the time of his death.


The officers involved had 8 and 6 years experience.


After the shooting, there were multiple protests, including protesters shutting down highways and preventing entrance to a Sacramento Kings game. Clark’s family hired Benjamin Crump, notorious lawyer for the mike brown family and other persons that died from a result of police shootings. The family stated that Clark was not given ample time to surrender. The grandmother also claimed that she heard no commands from police, but that was disproven with the body cameras worn by police.


The mayor initially supported officers, then backtracked. Al sharpton made comments and spokeswoman for Trump stated he was supportive of law enforcement and that it was a local matter. There was criticism that one of the officers told another to mute his mic minutes after the shooting. No charges yet in the shooting, officers are back to work.


My personal thoughts on this incident is that it was a justified shooting. Dark environment, subject in dark clothes, who had just broken out the window of a residence and several vehicles. Attempted burglary, subject fled from police and refused all orders by police. Subject had a cell phone, which officers believed was a gun. Family claimed he did not have enough time to surrender, but had plenty of time while fleeing police to surrender at any time, including as officers gave commands. My opinion of the location of Clark’s injuries indicate he was shot in the front, causing him to turn away from the remaining shots, which struck him in the side as he was turning, then the struck in the back. This all occurred in seconds.


As for the protests, my usual response is to look at the number of shootings that are not protested. Sacramento has an average of 40 homicides per year, none protested, save for police shootings. None of the murders drew protests, none resulted in shutting down the highway, or professional sports games-an attempt to disrupt financial proceedings in the city.

Here's the bodycam video:



This guy was actually unarmed. He was holding a cellular phone. The fact that it was dark is a good reason for officers not to shoot, IMO. The fact these officers yelled "gun, gun, gun" when he wasn't holding anything remotely resembling a gun is a strong indication that our law allows officers to be reckless in using deadly force. They obviously just assumed it was a gun with no justification other than the fact that he was holding it. I'm not comfortable with that as a justification for deadly force. "I can't see" and "I don't know" are not good reasons to fire 20 shots at someone (btw, also thereby endangering the lives of bystanders).

IMO, this shooting was not justified.

I must stress though: I don't like pieces of shit. This guy ("Clark") sounded like a loser looking for trouble, and he found it. I don't have much sympathy for him, if any. My opinion is confined strictly to the legal propriety of the shooting, and to the implications of the shooting for my beloved country. I do not co-sign the riots, I disavow any racial angle to this story, and fuck Benjamin Crump.

 

[nhbbear]

If you had a European style ballistic sheild, would that change this calculation for you?

I would want lethal force, of course. But I have at least three knife disarms without any intermediate weapons, just good old fashioned dumb luck. Ok, one was pepper spray, but he still had the knife when I stepped on his hand. This guy had cut his elbows and his wrists on both arms. So when I ordered him to drop the knife, I ordered him again. He cried out that he couldn’t. Then I realized that he could not let go because he had cut all the tendons and his hand turned into a claw. He lost so much blood that he was a light gray color(from dark skinned black).

Now that i have kids, I am telling you that I will not take the risks that I did tens years ago.

 

[JamesRussler]

I detailed three police shooting incidents, though I could go in detail about multiple shootings, some justified, some not. The ones that were not justified resulted from either a lack of training, lack of options(no less lethal force options), or quickly escalating situations where the officer(s) had to make a split second decision in which mistakes were made. American police kill an average of 1,000 people per year. 60% of these subjects were armed with firearms. Others were armed with knives or blunt instruments. Still, others were unarmed, and that is where the problem lies.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you as to the "armed" shooting, at least partially. There are many armed standoffs that turn into police executions because of the popular belief among officers that "gun + suspect = FIRE AT WILL." Aside from depriving suspects of Constitutional rights, sometimes these suspects are not complete pieces of shit. Sometimes they are in fact the victims of police overreaction / escalation. I still expect law enforcement officers to act as professionals and not precipitate the crises they react to.

But as to the unarmed shootings, yeah that's a huge problem. Unless someone is aiming a realistic fake gun at officers, officers should never be "mistaken" about the threats posed by innocuous objects such as cell phones, waistbands, or garden hoses.

The issue with police shootings in the United States is unique, because there are almost 400 million firearms in circulation owned by citizens.


A brief look at gun violence in the US



Police officers respond to thousands of murders, and many times that number in shootings that do not result in deaths. As a society, we focus on only the murders, especially mass shootings, while ignoring the number of shootings, or shots fired incidents.


In 2015 alone, there were almost 14,000 incidents where children were injured by firearms. Obviously, this includes accidental shootings, but many children are victims of shootings in criminal situations. 17,000 mass shooting incidents have occurred since 2012. Over 13,000 people were killed by gun violence in 2015. Almost 25,000 people were injured by gun violence in 2015, not including accidental shootings or attempted suicides. And as stated, there has been an increased number of mass shootings and an obsession by the media to discuss the mass shootings in schools, the Las Vegas incident from last year, the night club in Miami, Sandy Hook Elementary, and the Virginia tech shooting-just to name a few. The problem I see with the focus on mass shootings is that the media ignore the fact that there are many more people killed each weekend than many of these mass shootings.


So why do I bring up all these statistics? It’s simple, America is a violent place. With so many guns in circulation, and so many incidents of violence and murder, the possibility of facing an armed subject by police in the US is a serious issue. We could look at cities like Chicago, where over 500 people were murdered just a few years ago. Baltimore has seen a large increase in gun violence, as well as many other cities. We ask our police officers to respond to all of these incidents, then use restraint in dealing with suspects that may, or may not be armed with a firearm.


It is extremely difficult for police to know when a subject that flees from a traffic stop, a high speed pursuit, a response to one of these shootings, whether the suspect they are chasing is holding a cell phone or a gun, or when they are reaching near their waist are they reaching for a gun?


The answer to reducing police shootings is not clear, nor is it an easy answer. It is very difficult for society to understand the effects of adrenaline or fear of death that police officers experience when chasing a suspect. It is also uncomfortable for police to accept the incidents where an officer makes an error in judgment that results in the unjustified death of the suspect. We become very defensive and often resort to blaming the victim for running from, or fighting with police. We often bring up the criminal background of the suspect as justification for the shooting. We also get frustrated and angry at the protesters and media for the criticism of these incidents. I find myself being very frustrated and angry at these protests because they are almost exclusively race related, while the protesters ignore the high numbers of murder and violence committed by African Americans against other African Americans. There is no avoiding race issues when discussing police shootings because these are the incidents that attract the most media attention and result in protests. There are rarely protests when a white person is shot by police. It is counter productive to ignore the issue of race as it relates to police shootings even though more whites are shot by police than African Americans.


So, to get back to the discussion of how to reduce the number of police shootings. One aspect jumps out to me in regard to the way American police respond to the mentally ill or knife wielding subjects. Looking at the way police in the UK respond to subjects with knives, and adopting some of their tactics would reduce some of the shootings. First off, UK police do not have the problem of the number of guns in circulation, but they still have to deal with the mentally ill and subjects with knives, which are particularly popular there(maybe because they lack the access to firearms). Since 2000, UK police have shot and killed 45 people. That is a very low number. In a ten year stretch, there were only five people shot and killed. The number of police shootings in the UK has increase since 2016, which accounts for a third of that total number.


So how do UK police deal with these subjects? Few UK police even carry firearms. These officers have to resort or less lethal force, such as tasers and batons. They also carry ballistic shields that they use very effectively to protect the officers and disarm the suspect. Police must maintain distance, which is the most important tool available to officers when dealing with knives. Also utilizing cover and barricades, such as a vehicle. Utilizing distance and less lethal weapons can neutralize suspects with knives. Unfortunately, not all police have access to these tools. It’s absurd that some departments, such as the NYPD and Chicago police departments, only arm few officers with tasers or bean bag rounds. Usually, only supervisors carry tasers, which does not help the average officer that does not have less lethal tools at their disposal. Obviously, it is not feasible to arm all 36,000 NYPD officers with tasers, but there needs to be more officers armed with less lethal force to be able to neutralize suspects not armed with firearms. You can’t limit the options of officers if you want to lower the number of police shootings.


In addition to giving police officers less lethal options(I carry a taser, baton, and pepper spray), an increase in training when dealing with the mentally ill has been proven to reduce the need to resort to force. CIT training, crisis intervention training/teams teaches officers to recognize subjects in crisis and how to de-escalate these subjects. Increasing de-escalation training is crucial to reducing the use of force by police officers. Teaching officers to remove their egos from the equation and isolate their emotions can also reduce the use of force. It is difficult to remain calm when a subject is aggressive or insulting you. But police officers have to be able to take these insults without losing their temper, which increases the use of force, and the level of force used. I watched an officer have to restrain himself after an arrest spit in his face. Also, another officer recognized the possibility that this officer could lose his temper and restrained this suspect. The officer that was spit on used incredible restraint that most people would not be capable of if a person spit in their face.

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.

I have extremely high standards for officers. I expect that they show restraint when a mentally ill person attempts "suicide by cop," and I expect them to intervene effectively during an active shooter situation (e..g, the Parkland Shooting). I don't expect them to be perfect, but I do expect them to be professional. Deadly force must always be the last resort. Instead of using the "objectively reasonable" test, I would adopt something closer to the "damn fucking sure test" (well, maybe something a little more practical than that). I never lose sight of the fact that when an officers kills someone, that person has parents, children, siblings, relatives, and friends who are affected. It's like Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven:



In my opinion, the law is far too lenient on police uses of deadly force.

That said, the USA is a violent, deadly place. There are many reasons for this, and that's perhaps a good subject for another sticky thread.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

Here's the bodycam video:



This guy was actually unarmed. He was holding a cellular phone. The fact that it was dark is a good reason for officers not to shoot, IMO. The fact these officers yelled "gun, gun, gun" when he wasn't holding anything remotely resembling a gun is a strong indication that our law allows officers to be reckless in using deadly force. They obviously just assumed it was a gun with no justification other than the fact that he was holding it. I'm not comfortable with that as a justification for deadly force. "I can't see" and "I don't know" are not good reasons to fire 20 shots at someone (btw, also thereby endangering the lives of bystanders).

IMO, this shooting was not justified.

I must stress though: I don't like pieces of shit. This guy ("Clark") sounded like a loser looking for trouble, and he found it. I don't have much sympathy for him, if any. My opinion is confined strictly to the legal propriety of the shooting, and to the implications of the shooting for my beloved country. I do not co-sign the riots, I disavow any racial angle to this story, and fuck Benjamin Crump.

With respect to the Sacramento shooting, that’s when totally of the circimumstances comes into play some. It wasn’t just that he held up something dark in a way they perceived as pointing at them. Otherwise they could and would shoot every person walking down the street at any time for the same thing. Add in it’s a guy reported to be breaking into cars and is now running from police and possibly trying to break into a house to get away from them, it’s not unreasonable to believe or fear that someone doing all of that has a higher probability of being armed and when they turn and point something small and dark at you an officer with similar training and experience would probably feel the same fear.

 

[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?

Ok, so first I will say that the militarization of police began in the sixties with unrest and then the Vietnam war. Lots of vets came home and became police officers. That is also when the gangs began to become militant as well, and many vets cane home to join gangs as well.

The militarization of police took another step after the famous LA. Ann robbery where officers were outgunned by guys with AR rifles and armor. That was a wake up call that police could not be unprepared.

Finally, I will say that I joined in 2002. This was obviously post 9/11 and was right smack in the middle of the DC sniper attacks. Then the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began when I was in the academy.

When the vets began to return from those places and join or return to police forces, I saw a change in almost all the guys carrying patrol rifles. The fed government also began giving military vehicles and weapons to police officers and many departs said “well, hell yes we want a tank.”

However, I also saw a change as less lethal options became more available. The trend began to reverse itself.

Then, attacks on police officers began, first in Tacoma Washington, with four officers being murdered. Then mike brown happened and we saw a lot of high profile and unprovoked attacks in Dallas, Missouri, and NYPD just to name a few.

This caused cops buttholes to tighten for a while. It seems things are calming down again, but every officer coming on now has seen all of these events. I have been shot at, and so have three officers I have worked with.

Just this morning, my officers served a search warrant and recovered a m-240 fully auto light machine gun(not light at all, in fact it had a mount) along with 18 other rifles and 24 metal military boxes of ammo.

My point is that the police militarization seems to be in response to the threats facing police officers. War vets also bring with them another level of that as well. Even though overall crime has been going down, and murders and shootings from the 60s and 90s which saw gang wars in the streets, police are constantly reminded that there are a lot of guns out there and people willing to use them.

I sincerely hope that the violence in our communities continues to decrease and in turn, law enforcement can unclench their buttholes, but if I were a Chicago Officer, I would not take the chances I do on patrol.

 

[nhbbear]

10 years fed LEO. My job involves arresting large amounts of people alone in the middle of the desert, mountains, canyons etc.

Backup can sometimes be literal hours away and the nearest road (dirt or otherwise) could be a half days walk. My AOR ranges from a major metropolitan area to the type of terrain I just described.

I have a very solid use of force record and due to the types we arrest I usually get my message across with solid officer presence and no nonsense crowd control techniques. My biggest beef is the lackadaisical approach many departments take to use of force training which trickles down to the agents I work with.

I am a three stripe purple belt, long time wrestler, and I won my one and only MMA fight. I believe this is why I’ve never actually even thought about drawing my firearm in a use of force situation because I feel so confident in my skills. I feel if more LEOs took this approach there would be a lot less “bad” shoots.

I 100% agree with your comments regarding departments lacking defensive tactics training. I used to get so frustrated because we only trained officers when they were new. I badgered three chiefs to allow me to do more training, but I can only remember about five times we did training for the veteran officers. To be honest, training guys with 20+ years of experience sucks because the old bastards don’t want to train.

I am 100% sure that my bjj training has had a large impact on my being able to subdue some seriously dangerous guys. One guy, I actually got stopped on the street a few times by hoodrats that said “I can’t believe you whipped his ass” because this guy was such a big badass. I got lucky, but I will still take the props and respect.

 

[nhbbear]

With respect to the Sacramento shooting, that’s when totally of the circimumstances comes into play some. It wasn’t just that he held up something dark in a way they perceived as pointing at them. Otherwise they could and would shoot every person walking down the street at any time for the same thing. Add in it’s a guy reported to be breaking into cars and is now running from police and possibly trying to break into a house to get away from them, it’s not unreasonable to believe or fear that someone doing all of that has a higher probability of being armed and when they turn and point something small and dark at you an officer with similar training and experience would probably feel the same fear.

Agree. But the community can’t or does not want to understand totality of the circumstances

 

[JamesRussler]

With respect to the Sacramento shooting, that’s when totally of the circimumstances comes into play some. It wasn’t just that he held up something dark in a way they perceived as pointing at them. Otherwise they could and would shoot every person walking down the street at any time for the same thing. Add in it’s a guy reported to be breaking into cars and is now running from police and possibly trying to break into a house to get away from them, it’s not unreasonable to believe or fear that someone doing all of that has a higher probability of being armed and when they turn and point something small and dark at you an officer with similar training and experience would probably feel the same fear.

I understand that. I presume that if the police are chasing after him, it's because they believe he's engaging in criminal activity, and that criminals tend to be more dangerous than normal people. I'm sure the officers feel some level of fear, and I don't begrudge them for that. It's the fact that one officer yells out "gun, gun, gun," when in reality he could not see. That's basically like saying "open fire"—literally shooting first and asking questions later.

If the guy was actually holding a gun, or realistic replica gun, I would have no problem with shooting him. That is definitely a situation where an officer's "split second decision" is needed.

 

[nhbbear]

21 years OTJ in a town with 30k residents in the worst county in the state (but one of the best/slowest towns.) SWAT 10 Years. Active Shooter instructor 7 years. DT instructor - though it's more of a formality than legit. Trained in muay thai a couple years and did a little catch/sub wrestling but don't actively train now.

I'd like to address the statement that the UK handles knife wielding maniacs better than we do. If you have a knife and I have a gun, well, you done fucked up. There is no reason I should use the same force as you or should even try to disarm you if your intent is to stick me. My job is to stop threats, not to be a pin cushion.

I got into Thai boxing as well. I met some guy while lifting and the crazy bastard Thai kicked a metal pole. I commented on it and we became friends and trained together for about 2 years. He wrote for black belt magazine and made several trips to Holland for training.

My point is that he taught me how to kick really hard and I really really want to Thai kick someone before I retire.

And i am certainly never advocating that we be someone’s voodoo doll. But with adaquste lethal force and training, as well as the less lethal tools, we should be able to disarm knife wielding subjects without killing them. The use of less lethal force does not always work, or the subject is too violent to risk even attempting less lethal

 

[Bloody Pulp]

I understand that. I presume that if the police are chasing after him, it's because they believe he's engaging in criminal activity, and that criminals tend to be more dangerous than normal people. I'm sure the officers feel some level of fear, and I don't begrudge them for that. It's the fact that one officer yells out "gun, gun, gun," when in reality he could not see. That's basically like saying "open fire"—literally shooting first and asking questions later.

If the guy was actually holding a gun, or realistic replica gun, I would have no problem with shooting him. That is definitely a situation where an officer's "split second decision" is needed.

He yells it out because that’s what he perceived it to be based on the totality of the circumstances and his training and experience, and he doesn’t want his partner to step out and get blasted. If he was alone he wouldn’t have yelled out gun and the result would’ve been he same I think.

 

[sleepwalk]

My name is Matt. For the past fifteen years, I've been a patrol officer in a city of around 30,000 and certified as a PT instructor, field training officer, rifle operator, taser operator, and currently on a short list for sergeant. I'm not a use of force instructor or a lawyer but I'm happy to lend my thoughts and shoot/non-shoot experiences to the thread.

I'm also having issues with sherdog regarding quotes. Hopefully I'll be able to respond to some of the previous posts soon.

 

[nhbbear]

Seems bizzare that there aren't enough tasers issued, as to excessive force, the easy availability of guns combined with a certain percentage of overaggressive/unsuitable personality members of law enforcement, combined with a general bad attitude of some people to police, I'm surprised the figures aren't higher. I've had a few interactions with UK police, the majority fine, a few were aggressive cops, the difference was my reaction was calm

Calm is always best; both with cops and the public. When you have unsuitable personnel with badges, they can escalate problems very quickly. They have bad attitudes, are rude to people, show no respect, and often use too much force.


The public can be such assholes that they can even make calm officers lose their shit(see the few times I lost my shit-one incident, during a near riot, the other officers stopped and watched me because they had never seen me lose my temper). But when you have a hotheaded Officer, it can make things so much worse.

In response to tasers, some departments are just so big. Equipping all 36,000 NYPD officers would be so expensive at $1500 a pop. Plus, they have so many officers that swarm to scenes, that not that many tasers would be needed, however, they restrict their tasers to only supervisors, which seems unwise to me. You don’t have to equip everyone, but you shouldn’t have to call for a taser to come to the scene.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Note that the law is extremely deferential to police judgments at the scene, and purportedly refrains from "inappropriate second-guessing of police officers' split-second decisions." See Plumhoff, supra. You are surely aware of this pronouncement of the law. I disagree with this approach, however, because it imbues police interactions with a sense of urgency that is not always necessary or justified. The need for officers to make "split second decisions" is actually minimal, and such decision making should be discouraged when it is not necessary. Moreover, it makes little sense for our Constitution to protect a plethora of civil rights for all citizens, then to allow officers to deprive all of those rights on the basis of a nearly irrefutable presumption that the officers "split second decision" is correct. After all, what good is a Sixth Amendment right to jury trial or Eighth Amendment protection from cruel punishment when an officer can administer the death penalty right there on the sidewalk?

Great paragraph.

 

[nhbbear]

My name is Matt. For the past fifteen years, I've been a patrol officer in a city of around 30,000 and certified as a PT instructor, field training officer, rifle operator, taser operator, and currently on a short list for sergeant. I'm not a use of force instructor or a lawyer but I'm happy to lend my thoughts and shoot/non-shoot experiences to the thread.

I'm also having issues with sherdog regarding quotes. Hopefully I'll be able to respond to some of the previous posts soon.

It seems you and I have very similar career paths. Similar city size, training.