Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: New study backs preemptive shooting by police against armed offender

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Exclamation New study backs preemptive shooting by police against armed offender

    www.forcescience.org

    Force Science News: Transmission #178

    I. Important new reaction-time study addresses what's "reasonable" in armed-suspect encounters

    You are confronting an armed suspect, no cover available. He faces you, with his gun at his side, pointed at the ground. Your gun is aimed at him and you're ready to shoot. He ignores your commands to drop his weapon.

    Are you justified in pulling the trigger before he makes any move to point his gun at you?

    According to conclusions reached by researchers in a unique new reaction-time study, your preemptively shooting under such circumstances may well be considered reasonable by the standards of Graham v. Connor. http://supreme.justia.com/us/490/386/ *

    If the offender suddenly points his gun in your direction, you are highly unlikely to get a shot off to defend yourself before he shoots, the researchers documented. Even under ideal circumstances, you probably can fire no faster than simultaneously with the attacker.

    These findings "serve to illustrate the extreme danger that armed suspects present to police officers," the researchers report. "Even when a police officer has his or her gun aimed at [an armed] suspect and the suspect is not aiming at the officer, the officer is still in extreme danger....

    "The reasonableness standard [set forth by Graham] is based on what a well-trained, prudent officer would do in a given situation.... Our results show that even well-trained officers...with their guns aimed at a suspect cannot reasonably be expected" to react faster than a suspect can raise his or her gun and fire.
    * Syllabus

    Petitioner Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend, Berry, to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people ahead of him, Graham hurried out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Respondent Connor, a city police officer, became suspicious after seeing Graham hastily enter and leave the store, followed Berry's car, and made an investigative stop, ordering the pair to wait while he found out what had happened in the store. Respondent backup police officers arrived on the scene, handcuffed Graham, and ignored or rebuffed attempts to explain and treat Graham's condition. During the encounter, Graham sustained multiple injuries. He was released when Conner learned that nothing had happened in the store. Graham filed suit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents, alleging that they had used excessive force in making the stop, in violation of "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983." The District Court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict at the close of Graham's evidence, applying a four-factor test for determining when excessive use of force gives rise to a § 1983 cause of action, which inquires, inter alia, whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028. The Court of Appeals affirmed, endorsing this test as generally applicable to all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials, rejecting Graham's argument that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and holding that a reasonable jury applying the Johnson v. Glick test to his evidence could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive.
    Not that we are likely to be confronted with an armed opponent who has their handgun drawn but pointed at the ground while we already have our handgun drawn and aimed on target -- but ....

    This study provides an answer to that "what-if" scenario question that seems to come up all the time - "When can I shoot the bad guy?" What's good for the goose vis-a-vis confronting armed individuals ought to be just as good for the gander. I'm NOT saying this study's results or the ruling in Graham v. Connor gives any legal immunity for a preemptive shooting. That is for a court and jury to decide. All I'm saying is to be aware of what the "experts" are telling the police.

    And remember - this training is about responses to an armed person with their handgun already drawn. As long as your handgun remains in your holster this should not impact any encounter you have with the police while OCing.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 05-21-2011 at 06:31 AM. Reason: fix spelling typo

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    It sounds like they are trying to find justification for murdering armed homeowners during a raid, probably with the conclusions aimed at the illegal raids.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It sounds like they did a lot of work to come to the same conclusion that common sense reveals with a little thought. We need to overcome the no-you-drop-it mindset that mindless actions shows have built into the collective psyche. If a person points a gun at you, you (whether you are police or civilian) should have one and only one reaction: shoot.

    Do not assume that the firearm is unloaded. Do not assume that the safety is on. Don't even take a moment to ascertain whether the weapon is cocked. Don't try to talk the potential shooter into lowering or dropping the weapon. Assume that you are a trigger-pull away from dead. Don't let him shoot first. No-you-shoot-first.

    If I ever find myself in the situation where another armed person and I are pointing guns at each other, I will pull the trigger. Period.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It sounds like they did a lot of work to come to the same conclusion that common sense reveals with a little thought. We need to overcome the no-you-drop-it mindset that mindless actions shows have built into the collective psyche. If a person points a gun at you, you (whether you are police or civilian) should have one and only one reaction: shoot.

    Do not assume that the firearm is unloaded. Do not assume that the safety is on. Don't even take a moment to ascertain whether the weapon is cocked. Don't try to talk the potential shooter into lowering or dropping the weapon. Assume that you are a trigger-pull away from dead. Don't let him shoot first. No-you-shoot-first.

    If I ever find myself in the situation where another armed person and I are pointing guns at each other, I will pull the trigger. Period.
    Hold on, they were not talking about the case where a suspect has a firearm pointed at anyone.

    You are confronting an armed suspect, no cover available. He faces you, with his gun at his side, pointed at the ground. Your gun is aimed at him and you're ready to shoot.
    If the report had been about firearms aimed at police then yes this article would be about much effort for what many know already, if a dangerous weapon is pointed at you, your life is being threatened with deadly force and self defense with a deadly weapon is justified.

    Clearly this is not the case, the report has stated in plane language a few times that the study was about someone simply holding a firearm in their hand and not threatening deadly force, merely having the capacity for near future threatening of deadly force.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It sounds like they did a lot of work to come to the same conclusion that common sense reveals with a little thought. We need to overcome the no-you-drop-it mindset that mindless actions shows have built into the collective psyche. If a person points a gun at you, you (whether you are police or civilian) should have one and only one reaction: shoot.

    Do not assume that the firearm is unloaded. Do not assume that the safety is on. Don't even take a moment to ascertain whether the weapon is cocked. Don't try to talk the potential shooter into lowering or dropping the weapon. Assume that you are a trigger-pull away from dead. Don't let him shoot first. No-you-shoot-first.

    If I ever find myself in the situation where another armed person and I are pointing guns at each other, I will pull the trigger. Period.
    And I would bet that a prosecutor would have a field day if you were to state "Your Honor, he had his gun at his side, pointed at the ground, and I shot him anyways because he 'could' have pointed it at me." Now how a citizen could end up in a situation like that I don't know, but it simply wouldn't fly.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It sounds like they did a lot of work to come to the same conclusion that common sense reveals with a little thought. We need to overcome the no-you-drop-it mindset that mindless actions shows have built into the collective psyche. If a person points a gun at you, you (whether you are police or civilian) should have one and only one reaction: shoot.
    Too bad he won't read this post unless someone quotes it. But Eye has hit home with me on a personal note with this statement. In my incident I almost did draw and shoot when an unidentified man was pointing a gun at me from behind his SUV door. My flight or fight instincts were about to kick in until I realized it was an officer. Lucky for all around it didn't go that far.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    And I would bet that a prosecutor would have a field day if you were to state "Your Honor, he had his gun at his side, pointed at the ground, and I shot him anyways because he 'could' have pointed it at me."
    Of course he would, because you're a civilian. That same prosecutor would likely decline to charge a LEO for doing the same thing. The purpose of the paper is to justify preemptive shooting by LEOs, not civilians, and we all know LEOs are held to a rather less strict standard when it comes to being prosecuted for shooting somebody.

  8. #8
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    OK, you have to understand a few things:

    1) Many training situations (run by the FBI, state, and local agencies [including mine]) have shown that when confronting a subject with a firearm in hand (whether at his side or pointed at his own head), if he decided to point the firearm at you, even if you are drawn down on him, the BEST you can hope for is a 'tie'.

    2) The 'Suicide by cop' or quasi-'Suicide by cop' type situations as well as the random armed shooter are more and more common nowadays.

    3) Cops are not realizing that in such situations, you are behind the power curve and are probably going to lose this encounter, should the subject decide to shoot at you.

    4) And yes, it is providing information to cops, as well as higher ups, to help articulate why you shot "that poor man who had a gun to his head" when he didn't listen to orders to drop it immediately. Because otherwise, it very well could be you. Giving information to keep you alive and help articulate it is never wrong. We do the same thing here on these forums.

    This is not an OC issue (unless you OC by walking around with your gun in your hand or pointed at your head, ignoring orders to drop it), it is giving facts and keeping cops alive (which is what most trainings are about).

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    The purpose of the paper is to justify preemptive shooting by LEOs, not civilians...
    We have a winnah.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    This is not an OC issue (unless you OC by walking around with your gun in your hand or pointed at your head, ignoring orders to drop it)...
    You mean like this?


  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If I ever find myself in the situation where another armed person and I are pointing guns at each other, I will pull the trigger. Period.
    +1. I will not wait around to appeal to their humanity.

    "Preemptive shooting" is a bit of a broad term. If someone is drawing down on you, there is nothing preemptive about your response, the situation is imminent, and is a risk to life, and limb.

    Which is probably one of the reasons why when there is an LEO v. perp standing in front of each other armed, and drawn, the LEO typically wins. The LEO just shoots. The perp is expecting, or hoping for a negotiation, it seems - why else would they not start shooting unless they are fishing for a "suicide by cop."
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    This is still an issue of allowing cops to shoot someone who isn't currently a threat because they "could become" a threat. It could also very easily be adapted to an OCer whose hand is beside his gun. It just helps open the door to the police further not being held accountable for their actions and giving them more power.

    I'm all for officer safety, but at the same time there has to be a line. Police got into this job knowing the threats. Just as how when the military deploys there's rules of engagement and often one can't engage an "enemy" until they have performed a hostile act; and simply holding a gun by itself isn't a hostile act (in most situations). And yes that means that we have to wait until fired upon before being able to fire even though we could see that the threat had a gun.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    This is still an issue of allowing cops to shoot someone who isn't currently a threat because they "could become" a threat. It could also very easily be adapted to an OCer whose hand is beside his gun. It just helps open the door to the police further not being held accountable for their actions and giving them more power.

    I'm all for officer safety, but at the same time there has to be a line. Police got into this job knowing the threats. Just as how when the military deploys there's rules of engagement and often one can't engage an "enemy" until they have performed a hostile act; and simply holding a gun by itself isn't a hostile act (in most situations). And yes that means that we have to wait until fired upon before being able to fire even though we could see that the threat had a gun.

    If the person depicted in the photo has anything to do with the OT, then police had not cause to shoot, IMO. Back shooters should be hanged.

    What I was referring to is a person drawing down on you face to face. Hand next to your side is one thing, having your sidearm drawn, and at 'ready' is another.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    If the person depicted in the photo has anything to do with the OT, then police had not cause to shoot, IMO. Back shooters should be hanged.

    What I was referring to is a person drawing down on you face to face. Hand next to your side is one thing, having your sidearm drawn, and at 'ready' is another.
    I was originally talking to AZKopper, but I didn't quote him because he was the last person to say something. Sadly I was posting from work, I got busy, and other people posted before I could finish up and hit post. His post seemed to agree with justifying shooting someone who has a gun out but isn't directly threatening anyone other than maybe himself with the gun.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Mas49.56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ponch View Post
    You mean like this?


    Classic

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Mas49.56 View Post

    Classic
    I wonder if the guy reloads his own rounds
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    The whole idea of "preemptive shooting" is simply an "administrative stepping stone" to LEOs being sanctioned to use "preemptive deadly force" against ANY person with a firearm--even if it's in a holster and the person poses no threat.

    Studies like this are NOT published for the edification of the public, or for the pure expansion of an academic body of work on the subject. They are published in the effort to build a body of knowledge used to push certain agendas.

    The folks at SAF understand this tactic VERY well, and have spent the last two decades funding pro-2A studies to bolster their avalance of pro-2A lawsuits they have started against States and municipalities like Chicago, Baltimore, and DC.

    However, I foresee that this study will be used by the LEAs like the Philly PD to justify their actions when they end up defending against a "wrongful death" suit after they shoot a lawful OCer in Philly. Not "if" but "when"...

    Mark my words.

    If you want to know what is REALLY behind this study, follow the money... Who funded it?
    Last edited by Dreamer; 05-27-2011 at 12:59 AM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Another article about another study from this site quoted by the OP is even more chilling.

    Apparently, this group determined that most cops can't shoot very well either, and most LEAs have shoddy training procedures and lax qualification requirements...

    http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/...cy-ois-probes/

    One particularly interesting finding is this:

    Officers on some agencies are able to pass requalification tests even though many of their shots miss the target entirely, and those who fail to qualify may be allowed to re-shoot until they squeak by, “sometimes without diagnostic and corrective intervention.”
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    +1. I will not wait around to appeal to their humanity.

    "Preemptive shooting" is a bit of a broad term. If someone is drawing down on you, there is nothing preemptive about your response, the situation is imminent, and is a risk to life, and limb.

    Which is probably one of the reasons why when there is an LEO v. perp standing in front of each other armed, and drawn, the LEO typically wins. The LEO just shoots. The perp is expecting, or hoping for a negotiation, it seems - why else would they not start shooting unless they are fishing for a "suicide by cop."
    I agree. The attached picture is from an armed robbery at one of my company's stores. This happened not more than two weeks ago. In the picture, the man is wearing a mask and holding a shotgun at his side. At least in Idaho I believe I would be justified in pulling my gun and shooting before he had a chance to do anything. Would it make a difference if he had no mask? Or if it was winter? I don't think so. I reasonably assume anyone carrying a gun (in their hands) into my store is an immediate threat to my safety.

    The result of the armed robbery? The clerk was unarmed. He tried to comply with the commands but clerks have no access to the safe he was ordered to open. He was shot 3 times and has completely lost a hand.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Jacksons_Robbery.standalone.prod_affiliate.36.jpg 
Views:	88 
Size:	29.8 KB 
ID:	5933  

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaBoy79 View Post
    I agree. The attached picture is from an armed robbery at one of my company's stores. This happened not more than two weeks ago. In the picture, the man is wearing a mask and holding a shotgun at his side. At least in Idaho I believe I would be justified in pulling my gun and shooting before he had a chance to do anything. Would it make a difference if he had no mask? Or if it was winter? I don't think so. I reasonably assume anyone carrying a gun (in their hands) into my store is an immediate threat to my safety.

    The result of the armed robbery? The clerk was unarmed. He tried to comply with the commands but clerks have no access to the safe he was ordered to open. He was shot 3 times and has completely lost a hand.
    But here's the difference. Man walks in with a gun in his hands. That alone would make a person believe he is there to cause or threaten death or grevious bodily harm to someone in the store and would justify him being shot by anyone in the store (cops included). Now let's look at the situation with cops showing up after-the-fact.

    Cops show up to a scene and have a person with a drawn gun but it is either pointed at their own head (indicating potential suicide) or down at the ground. While the cops might "believe" this man to be a bad guy 1) he isn't threatening anyone with the weapon (so no visible "intent" to cause death/grevious bodily harm currently) and 2) the cops don't know for sure if he is simply an armed citizen or a perp.

    Also cops need to be held to a higher standard as they regularly deal with armed individuals and as the public arms itself the cops will deal with even more armed but innocent people. The last thing that is needed is to allow cops to "preemptively" shoot people simply for having a gun in their hands with no external threat to use the gun (such as aiming the gun or saying that you will use the gun) as the next step on that ladder is preemptively shooting someone for having a "visible" gun because they "could" attempt to draw+fire and the most the cop could hope for is a tie. And I can see it now, "well he had a visible gun and he started to raise his voice which made me scared he might try to draw his weapon, so I shot him as I was scared for my life and per human reactions the most I could have hoped for was a tie if he decided to draw."

    I don't think anyone has problems with the cops (or anyone for that matter) shooting someone who is showing an active intent to harm others. The issue is in allowing cops to preemptively shoot someone who isn't currently showing intent to harm other simply because they "could" show that intent at a later time and the cop wouldn't be quick enough to react to the new threat.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Sigh......we really try hard not to bash LEO's but when they continue to put out this crap......

    How would they like it if citizens formed a study backing preemptive shooting of cops, seeing how many people they unduly kill every year? ( this line does not advocate this but is only used to make a point)

    My shirt in my avatar refers to Officer Ian Birk who murdered a deaf Wood Carver in Seattle.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 05-27-2011 at 10:34 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    But here's the difference. Man walks in with a gun in his hands. That alone would make a person believe he is there to cause or threaten death or grevious bodily harm to someone in the store and would justify him being shot by anyone in the store (cops included). Now let's look at the situation with cops showing up after-the-fact.

    Cops show up to a scene and have a person with a drawn gun but it is either pointed at their own head (indicating potential suicide) or down at the ground. While the cops might "believe" this man to be a bad guy 1) he isn't threatening anyone with the weapon (so no visible "intent" to cause death/grevious bodily harm currently) and 2) the cops don't know for sure if he is simply an armed citizen or a perp.

    Also cops need to be held to a higher standard as they regularly deal with armed individuals and as the public arms itself the cops will deal with even more armed but innocent people. The last thing that is needed is to allow cops to "preemptively" shoot people simply for having a gun in their hands with no external threat to use the gun (such as aiming the gun or saying that you will use the gun) as the next step on that ladder is preemptively shooting someone for having a "visible" gun because they "could" attempt to draw+fire and the most the cop could hope for is a tie. And I can see it now, "well he had a visible gun and he started to raise his voice which made me scared he might try to draw his weapon, so I shot him as I was scared for my life and per human reactions the most I could have hoped for was a tie if he decided to draw."

    I don't think anyone has problems with the cops (or anyone for that matter) shooting someone who is showing an active intent to harm others. The issue is in allowing cops to preemptively shoot someone who isn't currently showing intent to harm other simply because they "could" show that intent at a later time and the cop wouldn't be quick enough to react to the new threat.
    I guess I don't see the difference. Is the man in your situation not showing intent just as much as in my situation? By wielding the gun in his hand, even though it is still pointed at the ground, he has shown intent. Might his intent actually be something else? Sure, he could have been there to show his new purchase off to a friend. He might be coming in to see if we sell shotgun cleaning kits. "Intent" is never clear, because none of us can read minds. We determine "intent" by the totality of circumstances. In this situation, I would take into consideration the mask, the gun at his side, and even the place the action occurred.

    I think the study shows the same thing. It simply concludes that a person wielding a gun in their hands presents as much as a threat as someone pointing a gun at me. A cop, just like a citizen, always has to take the totality of circumstances into consideration. A man sitting on his front porch wielding a gun and a cleaning kit doesn't need shot. A man walking briskly into a gas station wielding a shotgun and a mask on does.

    "Preemptive" is the wrong word. The study simply helps clarify when someone can be considered dangerous. People around here got just as worked up when the cops shot someone wielding a shard of glass from 20 feet away. Yes, they gave him a chance to drop it, but some would argue "Why didn't they just shoot him in the legs? He was so far away, he wasn't a threat" More of the same liberal pansy crap. If people don't want shot, they won't present themselves as a threat.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaBoy79 View Post
    I guess I don't see the difference. Is the man in your situation not showing intent just as much as in my situation? By wielding the gun in his hand, even though it is still pointed at the ground, he has shown intent. Might his intent actually be something else? Sure, he could have been there to show his new purchase off to a friend. He might be coming in to see if we sell shotgun cleaning kits. "Intent" is never clear, because none of us can read minds. We determine "intent" by the totality of circumstances. In this situation, I would take into consideration the mask, the gun at his side, and even the place the action occurred.

    I think the study shows the same thing. It simply concludes that a person wielding a gun in their hands presents as much as a threat as someone pointing a gun at me. A cop, just like a citizen, always has to take the totality of circumstances into consideration. A man sitting on his front porch wielding a gun and a cleaning kit doesn't need shot. A man walking briskly into a gas station wielding a shotgun and a mask on does.

    "Preemptive" is the wrong word. The study simply helps clarify when someone can be considered dangerous. People around here got just as worked up when the cops shot someone wielding a shard of glass from 20 feet away. Yes, they gave him a chance to drop it, but some would argue "Why didn't they just shoot him in the legs? He was so far away, he wasn't a threat" More of the same liberal pansy crap. If people don't want shot, they won't present themselves as a threat.
    The difference is this. The cops don't know if that person is a bad guy or good guy or if he is going to comply with them. With preemptive shooting it basically allows them to show up on scene, shoot anyone with a gun (even if the person is a LAC who just defended theirself), and then claim that they shot him for "officer safety" because "if" the person turned on them they couldn't react in time. It basically allows them to be judge, jury, and executioner on the spot without due process. Also preemptive shooting doesn't give the person a chance to comply with any orders the cops might give them.

    You won't ever see me say "why didn't they shoot them in the legs" but saying they shouldn't present theirselves as a threat doesn't work when cops view ANY gun as a threat. Even guns that are openly carried in holsters are viewed as a threat. Now imagine someone lawfully using that gun. You say that they have to take the totality of the situation in, but yet they often don't. Instead they normally shoot first and ask questions later in regards to guns. Hell the NYPD killed one of their own not too long ago because he wasn't in uniform (plain clothes), had a M16/AR15 (not sure which) ON HIS SHOULDER, and was walking up to a crime scene. Someone yelled "gun" and another cop turned, saw the plain clothes cop, and shot him on the spot w/o him ever even pulling the gun off his shoulder. So giving cops more carte blanch power to shoot people is a HORRIBLE idea.

    Oh and here's another problem, it will make people more likely to shoot cops in time. Why? Because if cops were to start preemptively shooting anyone with a gun regardless of they are actively threatening people with it, then people will learn and become scared that if they have a gun (even lawfully) that they are likely going to get shot when the cops show up. Which means that bad guys will become more likely to shoot at cops because they will know that regardless of anything else, the cop is likely to shoot them first and ask questions later. I mean right now a lot of BGs simply try to flee the cops, but why try to flee when they have the ability to simply shoot you in the back "because he had a gun out." And while I'm sure the chances would be small, I could even see a nervous LAC shooting a cop because he knew about preemptive shooting, had his gun out lawfully, a cop attempted to draw on him, and he was scared he would be preemptively shot.

    It just reeks all around and sadly too many cops have shown that they already can't be trusted with the power they have. But hopefully preemptive shooting won't be a lawful defense and won't be used by cops. Then we won't have to worry about any of the myrid of issues that would stem from it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639
    I see your line of reasoning, but I still can't endorse it. Your taking the study out of context I think and making wild assumptions about how cops will integrate such knowledge into their training. The study does nothing but regurgitate something other studies have done time and time again...."action vs reaction". It's nothing new to military or police training. The fact is that someone with a gun drawn is a danger, regardless of where it's pointing. It doesn't give the police carte blanche permission to just shoot anyone with a gun. They still MUST take every other factor on the scene into consideration. If there are cases where cops are not doing this, then they need to be held accountable, but the vast majority of police involved shootings are legal and moral with the information they had available at the time they made the decision to shoot. The gun being at his side is just one factor among many in the decision to shoot. This study is not only good news for cops, it's good news for us too.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaBoy79 View Post
    I see your line of reasoning, but I still can't endorse it. Your taking the study out of context I think and making wild assumptions about how cops will integrate such knowledge into their training. The study does nothing but regurgitate something other studies have done time and time again...."action vs reaction". It's nothing new to military or police training. The fact is that someone with a gun drawn is a danger, regardless of where it's pointing. It doesn't give the police carte blanche permission to just shoot anyone with a gun. They still MUST take every other factor on the scene into consideration. If there are cases where cops are not doing this, then they need to be held accountable, but the vast majority of police involved shootings are legal and moral with the information they had available at the time they made the decision to shoot. The gun being at his side is just one factor among many in the decision to shoot. This study is not only good news for cops, it's good news for us too.
    I don't view this as good news, and by looking at this bit from that article "According to conclusions reached by researchers in a unique new reaction-time study, your preemptively shooting under such circumstances may well be considered reasonable by the standards of Graham v. Connor. http://supreme.justia.com/us/490/386/" that to me basically says that cops can potentially use this study to have carte blanch authority to preemptively shoot ANYONE with a gun. It was a LAC that was shot? Simply come up with a story about not knowing, and then point back to this study and claim that with what was known at the time it was reasonable.

    And I am a military member and I've had to learn various Rules of Engagements (RoE). They change based on the Area of Responsibilty (AoR), but it isn't uncommon for one of them to be that someone has to take an overt hostile act against you (such as actually shooting at you) before you can fire on them. I've also gone through various Security Forces (SF) training and they too have very specific rules for engaging someone (they used to teach the threat pyramid, but I've been told that they don't anymore. Even the SF can only react based on the current situation and not what the person could "potentially" do.

    So why is it that our military who has to engage actual enemies of the U.S. is held to a higher standard in regards to potential armed conflict than the police force who is supposed to interact with our actual citizen population? Currently our enemies get better treatment than we do in our own country.

    All of that said, I don't think the issue is with good cops. I see the issue with bad cops, but it is the bad cops who make the majority of bad stops/shootings and simply put they aren't being properly dealt with. Instead of removing the problem people, the system gives them "qualified immunity" and works really hard to defend them. Cops should be able to reasonably defend theirselves, but citizens shouldn't be scared of interacting with cops under the fear of being shot. And with preemptive shooting I know that I would flat out be nervous of interacting with any cop because 1) I don't know if they are a good or bad cop, and 2) being armed I would be nervous that a bad cop could take nearly anything as a sign of aggression and justifibly shoot me. And it's just a small step from preemptively shooting someone with a gun drawn to preemptively shooting someone with a holstered gun. And once you're dead it's easy for a cop to come up with any sort of "justifiable" reason for the preemptive shooting.

    If you couldn't tell, I'm more worried about what this means in regards to LAC interactions with cops and cops accidentally preemptively shooting an LAC than I am with them shooting a perp. If more perps were to be simply killed as opposed to "rehabilitated" it would help reduce crime (both in helping to lower/eliminate repeat offenders and in scaring away potential criminals in fear of being killed), but I don't think this is the right way to go about it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •