PDA

View Full Version : Rethinking use of force and interview with Dennis Tueller



Glenn E. Meyer
05-04-2015, 02:45 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/us/police-start-to-reconsider-longstanding-rules-on-using-force.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

A discussion of being too aggressive and/or the risks to officer safety from a re-evaluation.

voodoo_man
05-04-2015, 04:09 PM
The concept of being overly aggressive in terms of officer safety doesnt really make sense to me.

We have hundreds of officers that get killed every year, thousands getting injured, yet we need to be less aggressive in officer safety?

I think they have the concept of aggressive de-escalation techniques and officer safety mixed up.

Gadfly
05-04-2015, 04:14 PM
Many can be reasoned with. Many can't.

Add in the crowd of gawkers with their cell phones out. I think the crowd and the promise of notoriety rules resistance. I think we always had crazy/unreasonable/high, but now we have "look at me on TV...World Star! World Star!" I think the cameras cause more resistance...

Chuck Haggard
05-04-2015, 04:49 PM
It was a matter of time before the "no chase" policies got to the foot pursuit paradigm.

Don't chase the guy because you have his ID, and you presume you know where he lives. What if you go there and he runs again, than what? Wait and try again later?

This article is full of "Maniac is imminent, request advice", retardery, Chiefs spouting PC bullshit, and Dunning-Kruger Effect, except for Dennis, he's a good dude.

voodoo_man
05-04-2015, 04:55 PM
It was a matter of time before the "no chase" policies got to the foot pursuit paradigm.

Don't chase the guy because you have his ID, and you presume you know where he lives. What if you go there and he runs again, than what? Wait and try again later?

This article is full of "Maniac is imminent, request advice", retardery, Chiefs spouting PC bullshit, and Dunning-Kruger Effect, except for Dennis, he's a good dude.

We got a "foot pursuit policy" two or so years ago. You know what it did?

Nothing.

Nothing changed in the way we do business, nothing changed in the way we chase people, the only thing changed was the top brass and IA being able to deny responsibility if the officer was injured and blame the officer for anything that occurred as a result.

I chase people a lot, and no policy will change that as its a core function of police work. Furthermore, we have policies that tell us we should not shoot at a moving vehicle. Yet that happens, and will continue to happen, as do "head locks" and "choke holds" because no amount of policy will do anything in stopping real world dynamics.

Also, Chiefs/top brass are full, and I mean completely knee deep in the Dunning-Kruger effect. They don't know what they don't know and they think they do.

They are politicians with badges.

Hambo
05-04-2015, 05:21 PM
Contrary to the article a lot of people are not unhappy with how they are being policed, and they're going to need to stand up and say so.

hks95134
05-04-2015, 05:31 PM
If the cops see a weapon of any kind, and they give the command to drop it, and the suspect does not comply immediately, this is a really bad sign and a tell that the suspect is planning to lunge at one of them and kill him/her.

At that point there is no choice. They need to waste him/her.

Violating your safety zone -- 21 feet -- is the same way.

If the suspect does not stop when they tell him/her to stop, then they also need to waste them. No choice.

If the suspect is just standing there 21 feet away not armed and not moving, then I would not shoot him/her. That's when you send in the wrestling team or use spray or tasers.

In Ferguson MO the perp had fought with the cop and tried to get his pistol and in the process committed numerous felonies.

Cops are allowed to shoot at fleeing felons. You and me -- joe blow civilians -- are not allowed to -- we are only allowed to defend ourselves.

So the Ferguson cop had the right and duty to shoot at the perp while the perp was fleeing.

hks95134
05-04-2015, 05:35 PM
Contrary to the article a lot of people are not unhappy with how they are being policed, and they're going to need to stand up and say so.

Well I sure would not stand up and say so in the middle of an arrest.

hks95134
05-04-2015, 05:37 PM
We got a "foot pursuit policy" two or so years ago. You know what it did?

Nothing.

Nothing changed in the way we do business, nothing changed in the way we chase people, the only thing changed was the top brass and IA being able to deny responsibility if the officer was injured and blame the officer for anything that occurred as a result.

I chase people a lot, and no policy will change that as its a core function of police work. Furthermore, we have policies that tell us we should not shoot at a moving vehicle. Yet that happens, and will continue to happen, as do "head locks" and "choke holds" because no amount of policy will do anything in stopping real world dynamics.

Also, Chiefs/top brass are full, and I mean completely knee deep in the Dunning-Kruger effect. They don't know what they don't know and they think they do.

They are politicians with badges.

The only good thing about the Desert Eagle 357 pistol is that this round was actually designed from the 38 special to shoot at moving vehicles.

Shooting at moving vehicles is the only thing that a 9x19 is not very good for.

So unless I was carrying a 357 as a backup I sure would not shoot at a moving vehicle.

Better to just get out of the way and live to patrol another day.

BehindBlueI's
05-04-2015, 05:44 PM
I suggest we give everyone we arrest a set of handcuffs, their arrest slip, a property bag, and MapQuest directions to the jail. It's on the honor system for them to turn themselves in. If they don't want to, we'll wait until they do want to. Maybe we can offer free pizza to everyone who turns themselves in within a 24 hour period.

breakingtime91
05-04-2015, 05:50 PM
The only good thing about the Desert Eagle 357 pistol is that this round was actually designed from the 38 special to shoot at moving vehicles.

Shooting at moving vehicles is the only thing that a 9x19 is not very good for.

So unless I was carrying a 357 as a backup I sure would not shoot at a moving vehicle.

Better to just get out of the way and live to patrol another day.

?

voodoo_man
05-04-2015, 05:56 PM
The only good thing about the Desert Eagle 357 pistol is that this round was actually designed from the 38 special to shoot at moving vehicles.

Shooting at moving vehicles is the only thing that a 9x19 is not very good for.

So unless I was carrying a 357 as a backup I sure would not shoot at a moving vehicle.

Better to just get out of the way and live to patrol another day.

It's all about where you shoot. I've shot into windows and windshields, as long as you keep away from metal parts, you'll be fine.

Kukuforguns
05-04-2015, 06:17 PM
If the cops see a weapon of any kind, and they give the command to drop it, and the suspect does not comply immediately, this is a really bad sign and a tell that the suspect is planning to lunge at one of them and kill him/her.

At that point there is no choice. They need to waste him/her.

Violating your safety zone -- 21 feet -- is the same way.

If the suspect does not stop when they tell him/her to stop, then they also need to waste them. No choice.

If the suspect is just standing there 21 feet away not armed and not moving, then I would not shoot him/her. That's when you send in the wrestling team or use spray or tasers.

In Ferguson MO the perp had fought with the cop and tried to get his pistol and in the process committed numerous felonies.

Cops are allowed to shoot at fleeing felons. You and me -- joe blow civilians -- are not allowed to -- we are only allowed to defend ourselves.

So the Ferguson cop had the right and duty to shoot at the perp while the perp was fleeing.

Pretty much anything in the hands can be used as a weapon (okay, maybe not a banana). The decision of whether to use lethal force is not limited to whether a suspect is holding a weapon and refuses to drop it. The standard here is very similar to the standard for non-LEOs. A LEO may use lethal force to protect his/her life if the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. This is usually broken down into three elements: 1) intent; 2) means; and 3) opportunity. If the suspect has a weapon in his hand, pointed at a TV and is yelling, "F U President Roe"; there would be a question of whether the suspect had an intent to harm a person. If the suspect is a quadriplegic armed with a knife in her mouth, there would be a question of whether the suspect had the means to harm a person. If the suspect was alone behind a shock resistant window and armed with a knife , there would be a question of whether the suspect had an opportunity to harm another person.

I suggest you read Tennessee v. Garner to better understand when LEOs can use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon. Hint, LEOs cannot legally shoot a person just because the person is a fleeing felon.

When you say "you and me, joe blow civilians," remember that some of the posters on this blog are LEOs.

I don't think you're going to get any disagreement that Officer Wilson's use of lethal force was justified on this board. Michael Brown had attempted to take Officer Wilson's sidearm and had physically attacked Officer Wilson and was charging Officer Wilson when he was shot (this satisfies intent; Officer Wilson could reasonably conclude Brown was trying to cause him death or great bodily injury). Brown was physically much larger than Officer Wilson (this satisfies means; Officer Wilson could reasonably conclude Brown could overpower Officer Wilson). Brown was shot with a duty pistol while moving backwards and some of the casings were even and behind with Brown's body (this satisfies opportunity; Officer Wilson could reasonably conclude that Brown was very close enough to engage him physically).

Chuck Haggard
05-04-2015, 06:18 PM
The only good thing about the Desert Eagle 357 pistol is that this round was actually designed from the 38 special to shoot at moving vehicles.

Shooting at moving vehicles is the only thing that a 9x19 is not very good for.

So unless I was carrying a 357 as a backup I sure would not shoot at a moving vehicle.

Better to just get out of the way and live to patrol another day.

Lets keep the thread on track, and within the realm of reality.

hks95134
05-04-2015, 06:51 PM
Lets keep the thread on track, and within the realm of reality.

My point being -- WHY shoot at a moving vehicle when your duty 9x19 is NOT cut out for it ???

You're just risking collateral damage to innocent bystanders.

Hambo
05-04-2015, 07:28 PM
Well I sure would not stand up and say so in the middle of an arrest.

I don't know WTF you're talking about. My point is that many people are happy with the current state of policing in the US, and that they need to support LEOs. To wit, there was an armed robbery near my house today. Two departments searched for the suspect with dogs and the helo. Citizens who saw the suspect called in locations which aided the search, capture, and arrest. Obviously these good citizens weren't upset to see a robbery suspect take a bite from a German Shepherd. They're happy that said robber is locked up tonight and not at large. Got it?

hks95134
05-04-2015, 08:14 PM
I don't know WTF you're talking about. My point is that many people are happy with the current state of policing in the US, and that they need to support LEOs. To wit, there was an armed robbery near my house today. Two departments searched for the suspect with dogs and the helo. Citizens who saw the suspect called in locations which aided the search, capture, and arrest. Obviously these good citizens weren't upset to see a robbery suspect take a bite from a German Shepherd. They're happy that said robber is locked up tonight and not at large. Got it?

Oh sorry I did not catch your double-negative the first time I read it.

These double negatives are popular in the UK although in the USA we are taught as kids not to use them.

No worries then, as Johnny Depp would say in Pirates Of The Caribbean.

Chuck Haggard
05-05-2015, 04:15 AM
My point being -- WHY shoot at a moving vehicle when your duty 9x19 is NOT cut out for it ???

You're just risking collateral damage to innocent bystanders.

Among other things, you need a serious lesson on realistic terminal ballistics. The 9mm works as well as any other service pistol caliber when one is forced to shoot at suspects inside of/through cars. Locally, over the past couple of decades, we have had several very successful OISs against suspects using their vehicle as a weapon, by officers armed with 9mm pistols, the most recent just a couple of weeks ago.

Desert Eagle? Seriously?

And no, the .357mag was not designed to shoot at "moving" vehicles, it was designed to be able to shoot though vehicle metal and glass better, and for outdoorsmen who hunt or needed a defensive handgun for large animals, developed from the .38-44 Heavy Duty/Outdoorsman.


BTW, one does not "waste" people. Think about what you are saying, and how you are saying it.

Kyle Reese
05-05-2015, 05:38 AM
HKS95134 is banned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

KevinB
05-05-2015, 12:19 PM
HKS95134 is banned.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thank you

Luger
05-06-2015, 03:08 PM
Holy dogshit!

"That poor guy was mentally ill and only armed with a knife!"

Mentally ill people, armed with knifes, can be extremely dangerous. Last year a mentally ill man, who was only armed with a knife, murdered his five years old son in my hometown.

"Officers should deescalate a situation."

How can I deescalate a situation, when someone is allready trying to kill me?

"British cops get along without guns, verry well."

Off course they get along. They stand at the corner to the next street and wait for armed backup, while two maniacs run over and decapitate a soldier in London...

Is this really the way, the media wants police to do their work?

voodoo_man
05-06-2015, 03:15 PM
Off course they get along. They stand at the corner to the next street and wait for armed backup, while two maniacs run over and decapitate a soldier in London...

Is this really the way, the media wants police to do their work?

This...

Made me want to scream.

Glenn E. Meyer
05-06-2015, 03:43 PM
Here's a similar piece about what is the appropriate response:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/calling-someone-other-than-the-cops/392378/

There is a lot of blather. One thing that might have merit that is if you have a clear picture of license plate and some minor thing like a tail light that is out - might it be better to just mail the person a ticket as compared to a stop that might dangerous for all involved? TX has figured out how to charge you when you use the pay roads without having to go through the toll booth.

ford.304
05-06-2015, 05:54 PM
Serious question, from a position of ignorance - is there anything that can be changed about training for how these incidents are *initially* responded to, that might allow time, space, or tools for higher levels of de-escalation?

As example - the Ferguson video of the mentally ill dude with a knife who charged the officers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRUqgDBTt8

By the time the dude charges and ignores orders, I *completely* agree it's a good shoot. I don't expect the officers to do anything different. But it seems like in some ways the shoot happened because the officers got caught flat-footed. Is there earlier preparation that could be trained to prevent it from getting to that point? When they got out of the car, the guy hadn't threatened them yet -- but when he didn't comply they had no planned options other than to shoot.

Or with the Tamir Rice shooting in Cleveland where the guy had an airsoft gun in the park.

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/cleveland/2014/11/26/tamir-rice-shooting-video-released/19530745/

It seems like the cops charged in there hard, to a close distance where any even incidental furtive movement was going to need to be met with immediate lethal force. Are there better ways to initiate contact in that kind of a situation that could be taught more broadly?

BehindBlueI's
05-06-2015, 10:44 PM
Serious question, from a position of ignorance - is there anything that can be changed about training for how these incidents are *initially* responded to, that might allow time, space, or tools for higher levels of de-escalation?


With the understanding that no two situations are the same, perhaps:

http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPS/IMPD/Services/Pages/cit.aspx

I was (and technically still am) a CIT officer. The training has been revised and refined since I've been through it, and while it can't deescalate every situation it certainly can help in others. I had some very nice successes, and I've had some real dramatic failures. I've had some heartbreaking short term wins that didn't stick, such as the woman who was cutting herself to let the demons out to give up her blades (yes, plural) and get into an ambulance, only to hang herself a few days later. I think without the training, the ratio would be different, though.

Le Français
05-07-2015, 12:11 AM
One thing that might have merit that is if you have a clear picture of license plate and some minor thing like a tail light that is out - might it be better to just mail the person a ticket as compared to a stop that might dangerous for all involved?

I disagree. A big reason for traffic stops is to have the opportunity to interact with and identify the occupants of the vehicle, as well as to get a look at what else is in there. This is how intoxicated drivers are caught, to say nothing of wanted people, drugs, bail and protection order violators, etc.

Not to mention that fining someone for a light out, with no warning, seems a bit harsh.

Chuck Haggard
05-07-2015, 04:46 AM
Glenn, as one example, car stops are how we generally catch burglars, we almost never catch them in progress due to the nature of how this stuff works. Taking car stops away would cripple criminal enforcement so badly one might as well just stay home.


I once caught a guy wanted for felony warrants in seven states, in a stolen SUV, with over $100,000 in stolen stuff in the truck, because a tail light was out.

Hambo
05-07-2015, 07:13 AM
Here's a similar piece about what is the appropriate response:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/calling-someone-other-than-the-cops/392378/

There is a lot of blather. One thing that might have merit that is if you have a clear picture of license plate and some minor thing like a tail light that is out - might it be better to just mail the person a ticket as compared to a stop that might dangerous for all involved?

Let's get this straight, the only person who is in danger in the vast majority of traffic stops is the officer, and that is mostly from other drivers (hence the right side approach that has gained favor). Non-criminal citizens can make a stop dangerous for themselves. I've known three people who chose to get out of the car after being pulled over. One was looking down the barrel of a state trooper's pistol, one was about to see a cop's pistol, and one just got a firm talking to. Perhaps we should train motorists to: get their license, registration, and insurance card out before the officer exits the patrol car, turn on the dome light if at night, leave their seatbelt on and keep their hands on the wheel until the officer can see everything is cool.

voodoo_man
05-07-2015, 07:51 AM
Let's get this straight, the only person who is in danger in the vast majority of traffic stops is the officer, and that is mostly from other drivers (hence the right side approach that has gained favor). Non-criminal citizens can make a stop dangerous for themselves. I've known three people who chose to get out of the car after being pulled over. One was looking down the barrel of a state trooper's pistol, one was about to see a cop's pistol, and one just got a firm talking to. Perhaps we should train motorists to: get their license, registration, and insurance card out before the officer exits the patrol car, turn on the dome light if at night, leave their seatbelt on and keep their hands on the wheel until the officer can see everything is cool.

I had a guy get upset because I started yelling at him to get back in his vehicle. He told me that he was "a good person" and that he "doesnt understand why police treat good people that way." I told him I have no idea whose in the car and what their intentions are, that he had to look at it from the officers point of view. He understood quickly.

Hambo
05-07-2015, 09:47 AM
I had a guy get upset because I started yelling at him to get back in his vehicle. He told me that he was "a good person" and that he "doesnt understand why police treat good people that way." I told him I have no idea whose in the car and what their intentions are, that he had to look at it from the officers point of view. He understood quickly.

Exactly. The popular focus right now is on more training for officers, but people cause a lot of their own problems with police officers. Maybe Chris Rock's "How Not to Get Your Ass Kicked by the Police" should be a mandatory part of education.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

Luger
05-07-2015, 02:38 PM
Maybe Chris Rock's "How Not to Get Your Ass Kicked by the Police" should be a mandatory part of education.

That video is just awesome!