New study backs preemptive shooting by police against armed offender

skidmark · May 21, 2011

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.

Daylen · May 21, 2011

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.

eye95 · May 21, 2011

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.

Daylen · May 21, 2011

eye95 said:
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.

Aknazer · May 22, 2011

eye95 said:
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.

sudden valley gunner · May 22, 2011

eye95 said:
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.

randian · May 23, 2011

Aknazer said:
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.

AZkopper · May 25, 2011

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).

Ponch · May 25, 2011

randian said:
The purpose of the paper is to justify preemptive shooting by LEOs, not civilians...

We have a winnah.

Ponch · May 25, 2011

AZkopper said:
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?

Beretta92FSLady · May 25, 2011

eye95 said:
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."

Aknazer · May 25, 2011

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.

Beretta92FSLady · May 25, 2011

Aknazer said:
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.

Aknazer · May 25, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
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.

Mas49.56 · May 25, 2011

Ponch said:
You mean like this?

:dude:
Classic

Beretta92FSLady · May 25, 2011

Mas49.56 said:
:dude:
Classic

I wonder if the guy reloads his own rounds

Dreamer · May 27, 2011

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?

Dreamer · May 27, 2011

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...prevent-conflicts-in-multi-agency-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.”

IndianaBoy79 · May 27, 2011

Beretta92FSLady said:
+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.

Aknazer · May 27, 2011

IndianaBoy79 said:
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.

New study backs preemptive shooting by police against armed offender

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Attachments

Regular Member