Law Enforcement and Deadly Force

[DGuller]

If the newspaper account is correct, then it seems that the shooting is clearly justified.

So the newpaper article saying he was coming at her is that much different the Cal's version of him coming at her.

The difference was the ability to withdraw.  The newspaper account seems to indicate that she couldn't.

[ulmont]

You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.  If that were the case we would have a lot more police officers injured and killed in the line of duty.

You're kidding, right?  This is from Connecticut:

The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force.

You see this, in the main, requires the police officer or a third person to be under threat of lethal force?

EDIT:  I see we have moved on a bit.  Must remember to reread the entire thread before replying when coming back from an absence.

[Berkut]

If the newspaper account is correct, then it seems that the shooting is clearly justified.

So the newpaper article saying he was coming at her is that much different the Cal's version of him coming at her.

The difference was the ability to withdraw.  The newspaper account seems to indicate that she couldn't.

More importantly, the newspaper account makes it clear she tried to.

[Caliga]

More importantly, the newspaper account makes it clear she tried to.

I believe the Caliga Account, Take 2 made that clear as well.

[Berkut]

More importantly, the newspaper account makes it clear she tried to.

I believe the Caliga Account, Take 2 made that clear as well.

Debateable, but the argument was over whether she could blow him away whether she felt she could get away without doing so or not.

CC seemed to be suggesting that she was under no onus to attempt to get away, and could kill him as soon as he advanced on her, even if she did not feel there was an imminent threat to herself or others.

[crazy canuck]

The lesson is: if it doesn't involve huge tits and/or gas station food, Cal's not the guy to describe it. 

I pictured her with Big tits and a gas station in the background to do justice to Cal.

[crazy canuck]

CC seemed to be suggesting that she was under no onus to attempt to get away, and could kill him as soon as he advanced on her, even if she did not feel there was an imminent threat to herself or others.

Nope, that is terrible summary of what I was saying.  I repeatedly have made the point that she was justified in shoting because SHE DID FEEL AN IMMINENT THREAT TO HERSELF.  In fact I clarified that point for you at least twice.

[crazy canuck]

If the newspaper account is correct, then it seems that the shooting is clearly justified.

So the newpaper article saying he was coming at her is that much different the Cal's version of him coming at her.

The difference was the ability to withdraw.  The newspaper account seems to indicate that she couldn't.

You are right.  I assumed that when I said the reason she shot was because she felt she was under threat, while you went on about having to be in a strangle hold first.

[Caliga]

I pictured her with Big tits and a gas station in the background to do justice to Cal.

Nope, no such luck on the gas station... the guy lives in the middle of a lower-middle class subdivision.  FUN FACT:  Princesca's grandparents used to live about a half mile away.

[Strix]

Well, from my training she definitely was justified in shooting him.

We are basically allowed to shoot to stop the offensive behavior (since we never shoot to kill, hehehe) if we feel threatened with the risk of serious injury or feel that a 3rd party faces the risk of serious injury. It doesn't have to be a threat of lethal force. Than we are allowed to keep shooting until the person in question ceases the offensive behavior.

I saw someone mention a baton (nightstick). It is a good control tool (especially across the shins) but has its drawbacks. It can also easily be a deadly weapon (look up Monadnock Chart).

The other thing that a lot of people without training and/or experience don't realize is that most law enforcement shootings take place within a distance of 7-10 yards from the shooter to the assailant. Why?

Seven yards (21 feet) is known as the reactionary gap[/].  At 21 feet, the officer has about 1 to 1 1/2 seconds to draw his firearm, bring it up to a firing position, and aim before an attacker can reach them. This is not a lot of time even for a well trained officer. And even if the officer gets off a couple shots it's unlikely that the attacker's momentum will be slowed enough to allow the officer to avoid a collision with the person which can be very bad if they have a knife. So why 7-10 yards than? Simple, at 15-20 yards, which looks great in a movie, the officer is probably going to jail or losing his home if the attacker doesn't have a weapon capable of hurting the officer at that distance.

For shits and giggles, try it at home. Stand 21 feet away from each other. Have your friend run at you and see how fast you can mimic dropping your hand to your side and bringing up an imaginary gun. Than try it with first holding something in your gun hand to simulate holding a baton/oc spray i.e. dropping the object than going for your imaginary gun. Have you friend also pretend to stab you and/or go for your gun hand.

And, it sounds like the officer did the smart thing of yelling at the assailant before shooting him. In this day and age of video phones nothing would look worse at trial than an officer shooting someone without some sort of warning even though a warning isn't required.

Though, it does sound like she screwed up when she tried to back away. While it may sound like a good idea, and it may seem like the reasonable thing to do. It probably caused her to slip and fall which ultimately allowed the assailant to get her gun. She is very lucky she wasn't killed.

[CountDeMoney]

Princesca and I were discussing this last night, because yesterday there was an incident in Louisville where a crazy guy was fighting with his wife and she threw him out of the house or something, and someone called the cops because he was a) banging on her door screaming, and b) totally naked.

So this cop arrives, and whips out a taser and tases him, which "didn't work".  So she (yes, lady cop) then attempted to wrestle him to the ground and cuff him, during the process of which he grabbed her gun out of her holster and shot her twice in the legs.  He then shot his girlfriend, and a neighbor who came out to see what was going on.  She then managed to get the gun away from him and shot him in the stomach, but nobody died as a result of all of this.

Anyway, we were discussing it because Princesca's cousin is a Louisville firefighter and was called to the scene, and actually had to ride with the perp to the hospital.

In my opinion--and I'm someone who is against capital punishment generally--in this sort of situation the cop should be allowed to retaliate with deadly force... I would have been fine if she emptied the rest of her clip into this guy's face if that's what it took to stop him.

I think in the past cops in the US used to do so without hesitation, but with people complaining about police brutality these days it seems cops are now expected to avoid lethal force at all costs.

Thoughts/comments?

Well, the first problem is that the continuum of force wasn't followed;  if the taser doesn't work, you go up the force level with the gun, not back down.  By wrestling with him, putting yourself in a position to have exactly what happened: a gun taken away, which is the cardinal sin of Cop No-Nos.

The second problem is that the officer is female.  Chicks make shitty cops.  Fin.

[CountDeMoney]

I fucked up the story, now that I read over my OP.

She shot him BEFORE he wrestled her gun away.  First, she tazed him, and when he didn't respond to that, she drew her gun and shot him.  THEN he grabbed her gun.

Chicks make shitty cops.

[alfred russel]

Berkut, whether or not she had the opportunity to run away, even if she could should she have done so? She wasn't called there to keep herself safe, but presumably to protect others from a person the neighbor felt was a threat. What would your take on this story be if the timeline was: "armed cop runs from approaching wildman, wildman goes in window and beats wife to death with a pan."

[MadImmortalMan]

She shot him BEFORE he wrestled her gun away.  First, she tazed him, and when he didn't respond to that, she drew her gun and shot him.  THEN he grabbed her gun.

I'm guessing...heroin? Gotta be something like that.

[Caliga]

I'm guessing...heroin? Gotta be something like that.

From the sounds of his behavior, I would think something more along the lines of PCP.

He was clearly in a very violent mood, wearing no clothing (so possibly very delusional/delerious), and at one point grabbed on to the door of her patrol car and started growling like a rabid dog or something.

But I mentioned earlier they *did* find a very large stash of cannabis in the house.