• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New study backs preemptive shooting by police against armed offender

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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:

IndianaBoy79

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
639
Location
Eagle, Idaho, USA
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

IndianaBoy79

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
639
Location
Eagle, Idaho, USA
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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).

Who is going to keep me alive against cops?

I was already starting to think somewhat along Dreamer's lines before I got down to his post. Something is up. Why would a study be done at all? The action/reaction curve is long known?

Since when can "a study" re-write AOJ? That's right. Self-defense law has long included Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy/Intent. Gun hanging at side is Ability. Within shooting distance is Opportunity. But, there is no Jeopardy/Intent.

This is police "science" trying to re-write their way around Tennessee vs Garner.

The SWAT home-invasion angle makes sense to me.

And, we've already read where police in their own minds consider not following their commands belligerent, disorderly, dangerous. They already think that refusing their command equates to dangerousness because an innocent sheep normally just rolls over and obeys their wolf snarls.

If this study idea becomes accepted, its only one step until the detainee who refuses to remove his hand from his pocket gets shot because "he could have a gun in there and could shoot the cop before the cop could react."

To police: Sorry, fellas. Policing has some dangerous points to it. Y'all say so yourselves. You harp on it. You want people to believe it. You need people to believe it. You relish the hero-ship and the benefits (the public's careful avoidance to inquire into the Blue Wall of Silence among those.) The rest of us don't owe it to you to get shot or allow AOJ/I to be re-written just so you can have a little more peace of mind. Especially since you refuse to get rid of the bad cops yourselves.
 

IndianaBoy79

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
639
Location
Eagle, Idaho, USA
Did you guys read the whole article?

“As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.
The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing."


No one is trying is trying to rewrite any rules. Why is this study so much more threatening to you than the dozens of studies written in the past on the very same subject?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Did you guys read the whole article?

“As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.
The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing."

No one is trying is trying to rewrite any rules. Why is this study so much more threatening to you than the dozens of studies written in the past on the very same subject?

Just because they say this and that does not at all mean their motives are pure. There is no reason at all to take their declarations at face value.

In fact, there is a statement that is so disconnected from reality as to practically guarantee somebody is up to something:

Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing."

Its been shown over and over and over again that police--even in their own pro-cop literature--don't think and evaluate in the presence of a gun. As their own literature says, they will default to their training in stressful situations.

In short, cops are not going to "choose a fitting response". The individual officer is for ****** sure not going to spend time "considering the totality of circumstances."

For Christ's sake! Force Science's homepage says, "Studying the science and human dynamics behind deadly force encounters." There is no effing way they don't know their little blurbs about "choose a fitting response" and "consider the totality of circumstances" isn't utter BS.

Also, police are already the beneficiaries of a double-standard when it comes to their actions. It is already very hard to get police to discipline their own or prosecutors to go after cops, unless it is politically expedient for the prosecutor. If this study and its ideas become accepted, who really doubts it will become even harder.
 
Last edited:

IndianaBoy79

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
639
Location
Eagle, Idaho, USA
In answer to your question: preconceived notions.

While I don't always see "eye to eye" with you, I think you got my vote for the best response.

Sorry guys, I can't debate feelings of insecurity or deep seated mistrust of police in general. The article, taken at face vale, doesn't even hint to some of the things you describe. You can talk about "what if?" scenarios till you're blue in the face, but I live in the real world. I try to take a sincere and honest approach when judging anything, without letting my bias get in the way of fact that is staring me in the face. I've had terrible run ins with officers...thankfully I'm still rational enough to see that it was an isolated problem with an individual and not a policy of citizen warfare.

As far as trusting their conclusions, we'll have to wait and see when the finished report is published. These are professional scientists who received their doctorates in several different fields. Their work is peer reviewed. While they did receive some government funding to conduct their studies, they have a commitment to presenting the facts. Their reputations in their respective fields demand that much, or they wouldn't have jobs for long.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
While I don't always see "eye to eye" with you, I think you got my vote for the best response.

Sorry guys, I can't debate feelings of insecurity or deep seated mistrust of police in general. The article, taken at face vale, doesn't even hint to some of the things you describe. You can talk about "what if?" scenarios till you're blue in the face, but I live in the real world. I try to take a sincere and honest approach when judging anything, without letting my bias get in the way of fact that is staring me in the face. I've had terrible run ins with officers...thankfully I'm still rational enough to see that it was an isolated problem with an individual and not a policy of citizen warfare.

As far as trusting their conclusions, we'll have to wait and see when the finished report is published. These are professional scientists who received their doctorates in several different fields. Their work is peer reviewed. While they did receive some government funding to conduct their studies, they have a commitment to presenting the facts. Their reputations in their respective fields demand that much, or they wouldn't have jobs for long.

You want to talk about the "real world?" How about the shooting of an NYPD officer by another officer? Or about the Marine who was recently shot during a SWAT raid? Or the Birk incident that was mentioned in this thread? Or the shooting of a man in Costco? Or Waco? Or Ruby Ridge? Or any of the other various cop shootings of innocents? I'm sure other people can name PLENTY more incidents of police not taking in the "totality" of the situation and shooting people who otherwise weren't threatening the cops; and none of this takes into account any other misconduct besides the shooting of innocents. So when you take in the "totality" of cops actions across the board, people should be concerned about the potential ramifications this could have on LACs.

Also you talk about being "peer reviewed" as if that can't have any issues or be manipulated. Just look at the issues with the "peer reviewed" climate change work. While I'm not commenting on whether or not I believe in the whole global warming doomsday prophecies, it's easy to see how "peer reviewed" research doesn't mean that can't have any issues or be manipulated by silencing any peers who are critical of your conclusion. And when you put out "research" that helps further the cops agenda you can easily have a job for quite a while. Kind of like all of the "expert witnesses" who aren't really experts and just say what the person wants them to.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I've had terrible run ins with officers...thankfully I'm still rational enough to see that it was an isolated problem with an individual and not a policy of citizen warfare.
How would things be different if they did have such a policy? If said individuals were unceremoniously kicked off the force I'd agree that it was an isolated problem. As can be seen by anybody who isn't willfully blind, such individuals rarely lose even a day of pay, let alone get fired. Heck, I've seen cases where both the officers involved and their superiors got promotions shortly afterwards. So long as that is so, the distinction between "isolated individual" and "deliberate policy" is meaningless. All officers can see that what is not punished is condoned, and those within the force who might have mustered the willpower to curb their own excesses will, feeling shielded by the thin blue line, see no need to do so.

A policy of warfare against the citizenry need not be written, or even articulated as such. A combination of us-vs-them cop culture, cops covering up for each other, "cops can do no wrong" attitudes among district attorneys and judges, rubber stamp review boards, and the lack of meaningful discipline meted out to officers, destroys accountability, engenders corruption, and encourages the wrong sort of person to want to be a cop.

There are more subtle ways in which cops are not held to account. Felony murder rule, anybody? If a cop shoots at you and hits somebody else, you go to jail. What cop will bother exercising fire control if he knows somebody else will go to jail for it? Let the bullets fly, and as we can see in too many cases that's exactly what happens. We are getting people killed in our zeal to to be solicitous of cops.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Sorry guys, I can't debate feelings of insecurity or deep seated mistrust of police in general. The article, taken at face vale, doesn't even hint to some of the things you describe. You can talk about "what if?" scenarios till you're blue in the face, but I live in the real world. I try to take a sincere and honest approach when judging anything, without letting my bias get in the way of fact that is staring me in the face. I've had terrible run ins with officers...thankfully I'm still rational enough to see that it was an isolated problem with an individual and not a policy of citizen warfare.

Excuse me? Feelings of insecurity?

Here's a quote is from a speech to Parliament just under one month before Lexington and Concord:

Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study....This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defence, full of resources. In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze. (emphasis added by Citizen) Edmund Burke 22Mar1175

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s2.html

Mistrusting government is patriotic. Literally. Even a parliamentarian said so.

Back to your earlier comment about not re-writing anything. Rubbish. They certainly are trying to re-write. They said so themselves. They think pre-emptively shooting a suspect with his gun hanging at his side is reasonable. This was their point. They are advancing it as a new point. This is a direct contradiction of of the Jeopardy/Intent prong of AOJ.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

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.

Ill quote this for you, but he still might not see it, I think Im on ignore too!!

I dont think a cop should be able to shoot me if my gun is in hand, pointed down at the ground..
If the cop has his gun drawn and aimed at me, he will have ample time to shoot me accurately,
if I flinch or show some other threatening behavior.
No need to create a "preemptive defense murder defense" for the cops.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Ill quote this for you, but he still might not see it, I think Im on ignore too!!

I dont think a cop should be able to shoot me if my gun is in hand, pointed down at the ground..
If the cop has his gun drawn and aimed at me, he will have ample time to shoot me accurately,
if I flinch or show some other threatening behavior.
No need to create a "preemptive defense murder defense" for the cops.

And if they can't take the heat they need to stay out of the kitchen. :lol:

Don't be a cop if you can't handle the fact you may be placed in uncomfortable situations where you will be required to show restraint.
 
Top