This is how Police Get Away with ... (Article)

[javanomad]

Article today is very illustrative of current public thinking on Police Shootings.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/andrew-brown-police/

Read it. It's very worth reading if you are in LE.

Summary - Andrew Brown had a Felony Drug Warrant for his arrest. Dear Andrew took exception to being Arrested that day and decided to get into his car and drive off road to make his escape (car was blocked by police cruisers). And the Police feeling that Andrew using his car to make his escape constituted a deadly threat, shot Andrew who died of his wounds.

The District Attorney (in NC btw)

Believes that the Car represented a deadly weapon that Andrew utilized, causing the Police to address his threat
DA will not press charges against the Cops over Dear Departed Andrew



The Author

Believes that a Car is NOT a deadly weapon, therefore Dear Andrew was "unarmed"
Believes that this incident exemplifies how police legally kill black people
Believes that the warrant does not justify the actions of the police shooting Andrew
Believes that the DIRECTION of Andrew's off road driving somehow important to the debate about reasonable force



I strongly urge any Law Enforcement types to READ and RE-READ the comments associated with this article.

If a LE type gets into a dicey situation, said LE SHOULD know the mindset of the likely Jury Pool. If you thought the Floyd trial jurors were an anomaly... I think looking at the comments to this article will be eye opening.


Comments about "catch ya' later" trope. That is the police should have let Dear Andrew get away so they could "catch ya' later". No word if any of the commenters realize how silly this comment is in a Rule of Law society... that is do we REALLY want the enforcement of Arrest Warrants to be predicated based on the EFFORT the Subject evades said Arrest? Do we as a society REALLY want that?
Comments that "Fentanyl and Heroin are not that bad" so no need to shoot to kill the subject of the Arrest Warrant.
Comments about the idea that Dear Andrew was indeed "unarmed" behind the wheel of his car driving in close proximity to police with guns drawn. REALLY! it seems that people do not understand that car can indeed kill people too.



Again I can't stress this enough. When a shooting occurs it appears 50 percent or so of average citizens would have PREFERRED to have the shot person get away rather than potentially kill them.

THINK LONG AND HARD about how this affects your personal LE situation. If you "think" a jury will understand a shooting as you understand shootings... you might want to reconsider.

[blues]

For perspective, javanomad , are you now or have you been an LEO? I apologize in advance if this has been covered elsewhere but I may have missed it. (Or perhaps in the judicial system?)

[Guerrero]

Unfortunately, members of my family are in agreement with the author of the article, that, since Brown was driving *away* from the officers, the car was not a "deadly weapon" and therefore the police had no cause to open fire (it was pointed out to me that police shot Brown in the back of the head).

I could not articulate why this view was incorrect, and still can't come up with a coherent answer.

[javanomad]

>>> For perspective, javanomad , are you now or have you been an LEO?

gee that sounds ominous

I remember a question like that stated differently back in the day - and the answer then was "No I am not nor ever been a member of the Communist Party"

My only background in this area is I enforced another country's laws after we er dismissed the local law enforcemetn while working on a certain US effort. That good enough to let me in the club house?
In any case then as now, public perception changed and it was important to note that change. But hey let me know if wish me to move along.

[blues]

>>> For perspective, javanomad , are you now or have you been an LEO?

gee that sounds ominous

I remember a question like that stated differently back in the day - and the answer then was "No I am not nor ever been a member of the Communist Party"

My only background in this area is I enforced another country's laws after we er dismissed the local law enforcemetn while working on a certain US effort. That good enough to let me in the club house?
In any case then as now, public perception changed and it was important to note that change. But hey let me know if wish me to move along.

You can answer or not, but there was no need to take umbrage. Generally, a simple, direct answer works best...but you do you.

I don't have the keys to the clubhouse, you've confused me with someone else.

[javanomad]

Unfortunately, members of my family are in agreement with the author of the article, that, since Brown was driving *away* from the officers, the car was not a "deadly weapon" and therefore the police had no cause to open fire (it was pointed out to me that police shot Brown in the back of the head).

I could not articulate why this view was incorrect, and still can't come up with a coherent answer.

These articles fall into two camps. One camp tries to give the facts then has the author advocate against LE. The other camp does not even try to provide neutral facts, spins the facts, ignores police positive facts, invents facts, paints perp as an angel ALL while being a full advocate against LE.

Given that this article was the first category, I wanted to post it. Frankly in the press LE is not getting any positive advocacy. The above article is one I could read disagree with and not be overwhelmed by the disinformation and anti-police propaganda.
Having some background in Information Operations. It appears to be a concerted effort to make US mainstream certain thinking.

Example - now the argument has moved to what is "armed" and what is considered a "deadly threat".

I frankly was shocked to notice in the comments that the accepted premise of a Suspect fleeing arrest is not to be met with deadly force if the situation warrants it (e.g. Suspect using a deadly weapon to affect his escape). Also the accepted premise that somehow the Crime/Reason for Police contact matters if the Police end up Shooting Suspect.

[javanomad]

You can answer or not, but there was no need to take umbrage. Generally, a simple, direct answer works best...but you do you.

I don't have the keys to the clubhouse, you've confused me with someone else.

Fair enough I appreciate the latitude in any case.

[BehindBlueI's]

If a guy is driving at my vehicle with me inside at that apparent speed, please don't shoot him with me down range. I'm more concerned with your bullets then I am his crashing into me, even if you ignore shooting the driver isn't really any sort of guarantee of stopping the vehicle. Even standing in front of the car and creating your own jeopardy so you shoot to avoid being run over is something that's still legal here, but will get you benched because it's specifically against training. Sometimes you get a fur ball and shit just happens, but when possible let's all try to be on the same plane and not a horse shoe or circle if bullets may start flying inbound or outbound.

What departments still have a policy allowing shooting into a moving vehicle? We don't. You can break policy if it's necessary for the preservation of life, such as a terrorist attack where someone is actively running people over with a UHaul sort of situation, but fleeing? Regardless of what the prosecutor says you're probably looking for a new line of work here.

[BehindBlueI's]

>>> For perspective, javanomad , are you now or have you been an LEO?

gee that sounds ominous


Pretty standard here, as part of the PF culture is how do you know what you know and what perspective you are coming from. You don't need to be an LEO to post here, but people will want to know some idea of your bonafides if you start talking on technical topics. It's one reason this forum remains relatively small, but it does keep the content value up.

[WobblyPossum]

The Author

Believes that a Car is NOT a deadly weapon, therefore Dear Andrew was "unarmed"
Believes that this incident exemplifies how police legally kill black people
Believes that the warrant does not justify the actions of the police shooting Andrew
Believes that the DIRECTION of Andrew's off road driving somehow important to the debate about reasonable force

.

I 100% believe the direction the car is being driven is important to the reasonableness of a force decision. Even if we all agree that the car can be a deadly weapon, what the subject does with the weapon is one of the things you have to base your force decision on. In Scott v. Harris, the Supreme Court determined that the officer (Scott) was reasonable in his use of deadly force to terminate the pursuit because the suspect (Harris) was driving in such a manner that he endangered the lives of the motoring public. What the suspect does with the vehicle, such as the direction the suspect drives in, is hugely important to the force decision. If the suspect is simply using the vehicle to drive away from the officers in order to escape, the officer using force better be able to articulate a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a serious threat to the safety of other officers or members of the public (see Tennessee v. Garner, which while it didn’t involve a vehicle, was THE “fleeing felon” case).

I don’t know many of the facts of this case since I haven’t followed it at all but if the actual sequence of events cited in this article is accurate, I don’t have the warm-and-fuzzies about this shooting.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Were any officers struck by the suspect/suspect's vehicle? If so, how many? While I have heard it, this article neglects to mention it.

I appreciate the OPs expressed concern about officers et al understanding the impact the media's coverage of these events has had on the public. But it isn't new. The media has been heavily shading and outright lying in its coverage for years.

[BehindBlueI's]

. But it isn't new. The media has been heavily shading and outright lying in its coverage for years.

This. When I applied I was hired by two departments nearly simultaneously. One of my big decision factors was seeing how the media and local 'activists' had dealt with police and police matters in one city vs the other. Recent events have really made me glad I made the decision I did.

[AMC]

But it isn't new. The media has been heavily shading and outright lying in its coverage for years.

This was really driven home to me during my first year on the job. Several times I would be at the scene of some major, newsworthy event, and would watch the news coverage about it later. I was astounded at how often the coverage had nothing to do with the reality of an incident. TV news deadlines and showtimes are a real thing. If they didn't have the facts in time, facts were invented.

That said, and to be fair, I've had several very positive interactions with local news folks over the years. Claudia Cowan, now a Fox field reporter, was local here for years....and knew very well how to work WITH the cops. Nice lady, and a good reporter.

[blues]

In South FL we were fortunate to have several reporters that were pro-law enforcement, (or at the very least, fair), and weren't looking to hang us out to dry. That was then. Not sure how it is now.

(I used to go to gun and knife shows with one who was pretty well known down there back when.)

Claudia Cowan has always come across as a straight shooter over the years I've seen her on FOX.

[paherne]

This was really driven home to me during my first year on the job. Several times I would be at the scene of some major, newsworthy event, and would watch the news coverage about it later. I was astounded at how often the coverage had nothing to do with the reality of an incident. TV news deadlines and showtimes are a real thing. If they didn't have the facts in time, facts were invented.

That said, and to be fair, I've had several very positive interactions with local news folks over the years. Claudia Cowan, now a Fox field reporter, was local here for years....and knew very well how to work WITH the cops. Nice lady, and a good reporter.

LOL, Claudia Cowan was such a flaming wiatch at a national news story involving a gas transmission line explosion to me when I was working overnight that I was able to suppress my puppy-like adoration of her to tell her to pound salt and move her camera behind the tape. I walked up as she was berating an officer, who gave me the "I need a stupidvisor," glance. I was preparing to tell her where she could get an exclusive shot and ask for a signed headshot, or pic with her because I had rolled back some of the perimeters during the night when she lit into me. Sorry, Fox no live shot for you. Oh well.

Maybe I'm just not as handsome as you, AMC?

The news media has been the opposite of fair dealers for as long as I've been in the business. Some of the mistakes are due to the 24 hour news cycle and honest error; the other 95%, well...

[paherne]

Back on topic: there are a number of cases, recently, where activists and news media are referring to suspects armed with knives, bats and other melee weapons as being "unarmed." There are too many of these to blame sheer stupidity, leading me to believe it is a coordinated campaign to move the Overton Window and acceptable police use of force, with the ultimate goal of having the police not shoot unless fired upon. Locally, there was an OIS in a city north of me, in the same county, where during a traffic stop, the suspect produced a very real-looking BB pistol and during a physical struggle managed to shoot one officer dead center of the forehead with a BB or pellet, causing the officer to shoot the suspect dead. There have been several protests where signs claim the suspect was "unarmed."

[KeeFus]

Were any officers struck by the suspect/suspect's vehicle? If so, how many? While I have heard it, this article neglects to mention it.

I appreciate the OPs expressed concern about officers et al understanding the impact the media's coverage of these events has had on the public. But it isn't new. The media has been heavily shading and outright lying in its coverage for years.

I’ve read that he hit two officers. I’d of shot his ass too...because YES VEHICLES CAN AND ARE USED AS DEADLY WEAPONS.

NCs deadly force statue is 15A-401(d)(2)...subsection b, which directly applies to this case, reads: To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay;

On 9/14/2011 a Lieutenant with my agency was run over by a heroin dealer. https://www.odmp.org/officer/15763-lieutenant-monica-carey It was a buy/bust operation that went to hell and the douche threw it in reverse and ran over her.

Fuck Andrew Brown and anyone that supports him. So glad I’m retired...need bourbon.

[Spartan1980]

I have a nephew that has bachelors in police science and a masters degree in criminal justice. He is a young cop just starting out (about 4 years in). Just left one small town department for a much better one and has been there for just a few months. Just applied for SWAT and got accepted. Also is a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Natl guard. He is seriously considering going back to school for nursing because of the utter bullshit LEOs have to endure from the public, their superiors and the press. Getting sent up for defending himself and others isn't what he had envisioned at all. 6 years worth of school likely to be thrown in the trash. Pretty damn sad situation if you ask me.

[LittleLebowski]

Moved to GD for the obvious reasons.

[Spartan1980]

Moved to GD for the obvious reasons.

Oops. My bad. I thought we were in GD. Delete my posts if it'll fix it.

[KeeFus]

Pretty lengthy but very good breakdown of this incident by the Pasquatank County DA.

https://www.wral.com/pasquotank-da-discusses-sbi-findings-in-andrew-brown-shooting/19684086/

[Joe in PNG]

In South FL we were fortunate to have several reporters that were pro-law enforcement, (or at the very least, fair), and weren't looking to hang us out to dry. That was then. Not sure how it is now.

(I used to go to gun and knife shows with one who was pretty well known down there back when.)


I'm curious if Edna Buchanan was one of them

[AMC]

[QUOTE=paherne;1223997

Maybe I'm just not as handsome as you, AMC?


Well, clearly our charm was superior. Perhaps it was the big city cop sophistication?

It was twenty years ago that my partner and I had dealings with Miss Cowan. Disappointing to say the least. Guess when she went national she went big time on the ego too. Sad. Like I said, she was always a normal person around my partner and me (she lived in our district).

[TGS]

What departments still have a policy allowing shooting into a moving vehicle? We don't. You can break policy if it's necessary for the preservation of life, such as a terrorist attack where someone is actively running people over with a UHaul sort of situation, but fleeing? Regardless of what the prosecutor says you're probably looking for a new line of work here.

Our deadly force policy prohibits us from shooting at a vehicle solely to disable it. There is no prohibition on shooting occupants inside a moving vehicle if you have a deadly force justification, and this is explicitly pointed out to us in training as an appropriate action.

During our various classes, instructors have noted that this is a fairly common policy.


I 100% believe the direction the car is being driven is important to the reasonableness of a force decision. Even if we all agree that the car can be a deadly weapon, what the subject does with the weapon is one of the things you have to base your force decision on. In Scott v. Harris, the Supreme Court determined that the officer (Scott) was reasonable in his use of deadly force to terminate the pursuit because the suspect (Harris) was driving in such a manner that he endangered the lives of the motoring public. What the suspect does with the vehicle, such as the direction the suspect drives in, is hugely important to the force decision. If the suspect is simply using the vehicle to drive away from the officers in order to escape, the officer using force better be able to articulate a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a serious threat to the safety of other officers or members of the public (see Tennessee v. Garner, which while it didn’t involve a vehicle, was THE “fleeing felon” case).

I don’t know many of the facts of this case since I haven’t followed it at all but if the actual sequence of events cited in this article is accurate, I don’t have the warm-and-fuzzies about this shooting.

I think there might be some inaccuracies with the article and what the OP presented here, as opposed to what actually happened.

I think what some commentators are trying to say is that if a person is simply trying to flee with a vehicle, then officers should not be able to use deadly force as they're "only" trying to flee, regardless of the fact the officers might get hit. I believe they're trying to distinguish the concept of his and other fleeing subjects actions as opposed to an incident such as the terrorist attack in Nice, France where a person purposely drove a vehicle into a crowd, and wasn't trying to flee. This is actually one of the guiding principles for PERF, as well. The article, on the other hand, is presenting the situation inaccurately using crafty wording....

...the article and OP reported this here as the suspect driving away from the officers, but in reality there were officers struck by the subject in his attempt to flee. Reporting that he was driving away from the officers is a technical inaccuracy and inconsistent with the facts of the case; a more accurate way the article could have stated this is that the subject was trying to flee and in doing so placed several officers in danger of being hit by the car. Obviously under our legal system, whether you're "only" attempting to flee doesn't negate the fact that you're trying to kill/maim us in doing so, and we're still justified in shooting. In the article, the DA is quoted that he doesn't care which direction the car is headed.....I believe the DAs comments are being presented out of context, as the car was headed for officers. So, I agree with the DA....I don't care what direction the car is headed, I care what's in that direction and whether you're placing someone's life in danger.

So, have no uneasy feelings, the shoot is legally justified. The article and OPs verbiage and writing is just confusing and inaccurate.

[Erick Gelhaus]

... That said, and to be fair, I've had several very positive interactions with local news folks over the years.

Ask about Wayne F from KGO sometime.

[LittleLebowski]

javanomad Since you’ve joined my forum, you’ve only ranted about LE. Are you here for more than rants about LE?

[DDTSGM]

-deleted-

[LittleLebowski]

Oops. My bad. I thought we were in GD. Delete my posts if it'll fix it.

You’re fine, no worries.

[TheRoland]

Regardless of the legality or how common the policy is, I suspect OP is correct that the prevailing public opinion is against treating cars as deadly weapons when the occupant is, in retrospect, likely trying to flee rather than kill. There have been a number of shootings discussed here where with 20/20 hindsight, the fleeing-suspect was not driving directly at anyone. It's a matter of time before more of them blow up nationally.

The facts of this one might not even line up, but you can see how it's playing already.

[WobblyPossum]

Thanks for the clarification of the actual facts of the case TGS.

[rob_s]

I appreciate the OPs expressed concern about officers et al understanding the impact the media's coverage of these events has had on the public. But it isn't new. The media has been heavily shading and outright lying in its coverage for years.

Talk about being (unfortunately) an SME about such things...

[rob_s]

This was really driven home to me during my first year on the job. Several times I would be at the scene of some major, newsworthy event, and would watch the news coverage about it later. I was astounded at how often the coverage had nothing to do with the reality of an incident. TV news deadlines and showtimes are a real thing. If they didn't have the facts in time, facts were invented.

Here's what I try and tell people of all political, socio-economic, and professional stripes...

Think about the one thing you know more about than anything else. Could be your profession, could be a hobby, could be the country you're from, could be your sexual orientation, could be the school system you attended as a kid, could be your favorite brand of shoes...

now, think about every time the "media" covered something about, relating to, or mentioning that subject.

How accurate, fair, intelligent, or un-biased were they in that coverage?

what makes you think they are giving any other subject any more attention, open-mindedness, or conscientiousness?

[blues]

I'm curious if Edna Buchanan was one of them

I remember her from my time down there, but I never had any contact with her. She was very popular as I recall.

[whomever]

"This was really driven home to me during my first year on the job. Several times I would be at the scene of some major, newsworthy event, and would watch the news coverage about it later. I was astounded at how often the coverage had nothing to do with the reality of an incident."

There is even a name for it: "Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. ... You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. ... In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/344530-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you

It's certainly true in my experience. In the half dozen of so times I have had insider knowledge of something that made the paper, there wasn't any political angle, and I don't think the inaccuracies were deliberate, but what was published was pretty far off the mark.

[vcdgrips]

Re the OP-
I am done feeding trolls who refuse to answer up with a quickness re their bona fides absent them being vouched for by an SME or similarly credentialed individual.
Life is short. We all have better and more productive things to do.




Spartan

He will be a better Nurse or other Medical Professional for the experiences he has had to date should he choose to leave his local dept.

I would note that given his education (BA/MA), progressive job experience (moving up in size re departments) and his Veteran Status, he would likely be a competitive candidate for federal law enforcement.

Blessings to you both.


Rob- S

Your posting below re media evaluation is pure platinum and may be the most helpful thing to me you have ever posted with the possible exception of the "List" way back in the day re ARs tiers when I really knew very little re ARs. Thank you.


"Here's what I try and tell people of all political, socio-economic, and professional stripes...

Think about the one thing you know more about than anything else. Could be your profession, could be a hobby, could be the country you're from, could be your sexual orientation, could be the school system you attended as a kid, could be your favorite brand of shoes...

now, think about every time the "media" covered something about, relating to, or mentioning that subject.

How accurate, fair, intelligent, or un-biased were they in that coverage?

what makes you think they are giving any other subject any more attention, open-mindedness, or conscientiousness?"



Be well all.

DB

[Greg]

“But, as I sit in the wake of another act of state-sponsored terrorism against Black people, the ubiquitous “vote them out” argument feels a bit small. “


I can’t take anything from “The Nation” seriously. Sorry ( not) .

[LittleLebowski]

Re the OP-
I am done feeding trolls who refuse to answer up with a quickness re their bona fides absent them being vouched for by an SME or similarly credentialed individual.
Life is short. We all have better and more productive things to do.


The OP is no longer able to post in the LE forum and I’m watching his posts from now on.

[blues]

The OP is no longer able to post in the LE forum and I’m watching his posts from now on.

And I was the bad guy for simply asking for his bona fides...if any.

Go figure.

[TC215]

Our deadly force policy prohibits us from shooting at a vehicle solely to disable it. There is no prohibition on shooting occupants inside a moving vehicle if you have a deadly force justification, and this is explicitly pointed out to us in training as an appropriate action.

During our various classes, instructors have noted that this is a fairly common policy.

Same for us. Our policy specifically says to shoot the driver, and not the vehicle in an attempt to disable it.

[Beat Trash]

I read the first page or two of this on my phone an got fired up a bit. Once I read it through the end, I calmed down a bit.

Recently I have read various media articles commenting about Police Intervention Shootings. They say that cars are not lethal weapons, that knives are not lethal weapons, that having a gun in hand and making a sudden, overt move towards an officer is not justification. I challenge any person spouting this nonsense to put themselves in the victim officer's position. Is that car barreling towards you going to leave a mark as it runs over your body? No one in the history of the world has ever been killed with an edged weapon, so why are you worried about the homicidal person coming at you suddenly with a knife, or the mentally unstable person having a psychotic episode coming at you swinging a, no shit-for real, sword? Guy has a gun in his hand and suddenly turns toward you and his arm raises? Well he hasn't actually fired at you so why are you concerned? These same authors spent their lives in their safe space world. If they were standing in the officer's shoes...? Until then I wish they would just STFU.

I've been in the game for 28+ years. To be honest, all this isn't new. But it is more frequent and it is more vocal.

My real concern is that all this crap being spewed might make an officer hesitate to use force when force is absolutely necessary to save that officer's life. In real life, hesitation will get an LEO hurt, or killed. For most of us who have been in the game for a while, we've seen it happen and we've had to live with the outcome.

[AMC]

Same for us. Our policy specifically says to shoot the driver, and not the vehicle in an attempt to disable it.

Interestingly, our policy explicitly prohibits shooting at the occupants of a moving vehicle UNLESS they are pointing a gun at or shooting at you. Use of the vehicle alone as a deadly weapon (running folks down) is specifically NOT justification to shoot. This in a city where years ago a disgruntled Afghan refugee nutjob when on a "Runnin' folks down" spree. When it is pointed out that this policy makes stopping such an individual more difficult, the response from policymakers is basically "Yes....that is a conundrum. Hope it works out!"

Recently the policy was changed to include Vehicle Deflections as a use of deadly force....so at least we have that now.

[LittleLebowski]

And I was the bad guy for simply asking for his bona fides...if any.

Go figure.

PF isn't his personal playground for venting about LE.

[Kyle Reese]

And I was the bad guy for simply asking for his bona fides...if any.

Go figure.

Don’t feel bad. If he had a modicum of legitimacy he’d have answered up with a quickness. People who stall, deflect or prevaricate are generally bullshit artists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

Don’t feel bad. If he had a modicum of legitimacy he’d have answered up with a quickness. People who stall, deflect or prevaricate are generally bullshit artists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks, K R. I don't. I haven't lost my sense of smell since retiring. ;)

[BehindBlueI's]

Our deadly force policy prohibits us from shooting at a vehicle solely to disable it. There is no prohibition on shooting occupants inside a moving vehicle if you have a deadly force justification, and this is explicitly pointed out to us in training as an appropriate action.

During our various classes, instructors have noted that this is a fairly common policy.


Maybe it's more common the fed side, and your primary mission is a bit different then "normal" policing, of course. I believe the prohibition shooting at/into moving vehicles unless it's actively being used as a deadly weapon is part of the "best practices" of various accreditation organizations. CALEA, PERF, and probably others.

Now I've not looked into this particular instance due to lack of interest. If he's running over folks, it's probably a good shoot. If he's running away from folks, it's probably not. If there's officers downrange, like I said sometimes a furball happens but that's got to be a decision point in firing shots as well. Are you increasing or decreasing the danger? Is there somebody trapped under the car? Devil in the details and all that sort of thing.

[DDTSGM]

Same for us. Our policy specifically says to shoot the driver, and not the vehicle in an attempt to disable it.

Under what circumstances are you able to shoot at the driver?

As I noted to TGS in a PM, absent very specific circumstances, what is the likely outcome of shooting the driver of a moving vehicle?

I generally would feel that shots fired from or at moving vehicles (and the occupants thereof) should be a last resort and only to prevent the immediate infliction of serious physical harm to someone who can not avoid the vehicle.

An officer should be cerebral enough to know when such a policy should be violated - as in Achmed The Dead Terrorist is driving off in the truck loaded with weaponized sarin, headed to the stadium.

[TC215]

Under what circumstances are you able to shoot at the driver?

As I noted to TGS in a PM, absent very specific circumstances, what is the likely outcome of shooting the driver of a moving vehicle?

1. Same as any other time— when deadly force is justified.

2. I know what you’re getting at, and it’s addressed in our policy.

[TGS]

Maybe it's more common the fed side, and your primary mission is a bit different then "normal" policing, of course. I believe the prohibition shooting at/into moving vehicles unless it's actively being used as a deadly weapon is part of the "best practices" of various accreditation organizations. CALEA, PERF, and probably others.

I believe PERFs guiding principles prevents shooting occupants of a vehicle even when they are using the vehicle as a weapon. I don't look to these policies to assess whether a particular police action is legally or morally justified, and neither do the majority of this country's LE agencies.

Thank God we haven't been afflicted with this rot. Requiring LEOs to violate their UOF policy in order to fulfill their duties is not good policy, no matter how many ifs, ands, or buts you guys throw out there.

Note that some of these officers in this agency were reinstated with retraining; the retraining had nothing to do with shooting into a vehicle which was endangering others' lives. It was because they failed to turn on their BWCs immediately.

In any case, I think it should give pause on informing an opinion the legitimacy of a given OIS simply because your given agency would prohibit it; that's not a universal standard, and doesn't accurately reflect what an officer should/should not do across the rest of the nation.

[UNM1136]

The problem is to appease the masses we more and more ignore policies. A decade or so ago I was told that an SOP was a guideline, and as a mature, experienced police officer I should be able to make better decisions, and know when to violate those policies. One of my favorite disciplinary letters resulted from the department ignoring its own policy to appease a complainer who was using a verified liar's word to file the complaint. The brass was aghast when I suggested that my discipline was to appease a complaintant rather than to teach me a better way to do things. I have been flat out told that policy X says this, and if I do that and there is a bad result then I should have known better and will face consequences. My current rookie is going nuts with what the SOP says and what is actually expected of him. He will learn. Just before he goes elsewhere.

A lot of smaller agency brass (mine included) thinks that if something goes sideways and they discipline the officer involved that their hands are clean. They are very, very wrong, but you can't tell them anything, because they would not be in the position they are in if they were not smarter than everyone else. My jacket is full of paper intended to shift liability from them to me.

I am the kind of idiot that follows stupid rules so that when I get asked why I did something I could point to the stupid rules.

My position on shooting at or from a vehicle is my own, based on my experiences.

pat

[TC215]

My jacket is full of paper intended to shift liability from them to me.

When I had a couple years on, I broke my hand hitting a guy during a domestic arrest. I got a letter in my file saying I needed to be more cognizant of worker’s comp claims when considering use of force options. :rolleyes: My captain then made me read a book on police liability while I was on light duty.

That captain is the chief now, and he’s still terrified of liability.

[UNM1136]

One of the reasons we no longer have a canine unit was the last handler was a pussy who was absolutely scared shitless of liability. He bitched about having to renew CPR certs because "agencies back east are getting sued for doing CPR and breaking peoples' ribs." I demanded court citations of such and he could not produce any. His dog never got used. We used to say that we could have saved a lot of money with a mp3 player that barked connected to a motion detector on the back doors of the unit.

pat

[Coyotesfan97]

One of the reasons we no longer have a canine unit was the last handler was a pussy who was absolutely scared shitless of liability. He bitched about having to renew CPR certs because "agencies back east are getting sued for doing CPR and breaking peoples' ribs." I demanded court citations of such and he could not produce any. His dog never got used. We used to say that we could have saved a lot of money with a mp3 player that barked connected to a motion detector on the back doors of the unit.

pat

Part of being in K9 is the knowledge that your dog is a huge liability for your department and city/county/state if you use him incorrectly. K9 and SWAT are the biggest liabilities for most departments. Hell even using him correctly. Anyone going or wanting to go to K9 has to understand that. But he has to be used.

You have to be able to think on your feet in low frequency high risk events and make good common sense decisions and you have to be able to document your decisions and justify them after the fact. That’s why K-9 units prefer seasoned Officers who are known to be proactive with good common sense as handlers. Most of the guys I worked with had 10+ years on before they got a dog. I had 17 years on when I got K9.

But your dog is a huge asset to the department too. If your scared to use him and he sits in a car you’re endangering Officers lives in high risk deployments. Your dog is trained to go out ahead of humans and if needed take a bullet for them. We always said when asked yes it’ll be sad if something happens to him and we’ll cry for him. But it beats going to an Officers funeral and I can go get a new dog. We can’t replace a Mom or Dad.

Paws before boots

[AMC]

TGS 's quote about "requiring officers to violate policy in order to fulfill their duty" is spot on, and where an increasing number of agencies are putting their officers in this "Woke" era. It is immoral and untenable as a public safety policy. We've been having a lot of these discussions lately due to our new, impending use of force policy, which was written entirely by our citizen oversight agency with zero input from anyone in the police department. It is an incoherent, unworkable mess, which literally requires officers to violate other policies to comply with it. I have loudly objected to the "We just have to make it work" arguments from others in the training division. No, we most certainly should not "Make it work".....because doing so involves the officer taking all liability onto themselves in order to actually do their job. Rather than make unworkable policies "Work", we should "Make it hurt" in my opinion. Give them EXACTLY what they asked for, rather than ask officers to "game" the system to come up with workarounds that will only end badly for the cop. If the policy is untenable, it must be shown to be untenable. "Making it work" by quietly "just doing your job the same way" until it comes to someone's attention and some poor sap gets sacrificed on the alter of "accountability" is DEEPLY immoral, in my opinion. It helps no one but the feckless, spineless wonders who wrote the ridiculous policy, and the command level cowards who agreed to it without comment. Pain is a good teacher. Let it teach.

End of rant.

[BehindBlueI's]

In any case, I think it should give pause on informing an opinion the legitimacy of a given OIS simply because your given agency would prohibit it; that's not a universal standard, and doesn't accurately reflect what an officer should/should not do across the rest of the nation.

Which is not what I did, if that's the implication. Our general orders contain the phrase "Any deviation from this prohibition shall be examined on a case by case basis. The involved officer must be able to clearly articulate the reasons for..." in regards to shooting at or from a moving vehicle, so we don't have a blanket policy. We have a "you better have a real good reason" policy. We've trained using Sims to "shoot" the driver of an actually moving vehicle. A truck with a big tire strapped to the bumper so it could ram into a "building" repeatedly without damaging the truck was the target. I remember it well because I shot much better then I expected to, particularly given the reality of sims accuracy at the distance involved. I don't really consider that "rot" given the reality of shooting the person in control of a moving vehicle and the reality of making such a shot for Random Officer in any given context. It's more in line with the policy you can't PIT someone unless you are PIT certified. If you need to *ram* someone, you can. You can't PIT, though. You just better have a good reason for ramming them. A blanket prohibition, yes, but honestly if you do shoot the terrorist using the truck to mow people down I doubt you get hammered even in today's environment, at least in most places.

And, like I said, I don't care enough about the specific incident to look up the specifics. My online time is pretty reduced right now due to other demands. I think I was pretty clear I was speaking in generalities and that the details will decide if it's justified or not, as well as some of the criteria I would consider/want considered before making the decision to shoot at a moving vehicle, particularly if other officers are in the line of fire.

[Rex G]

I have a nephew that has bachelors in police science and a masters degree in criminal justice. He is a young cop just starting out (about 4 years in). Just left one small town department for a much better one and has been there for just a few months. Just applied for SWAT and got accepted. Also is a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Natl guard. He is seriously considering going back to school for nursing because of the utter bullshit LEOs have to endure from the public, their superiors and the press. Getting sent up for defending himself and others isn't what he had envisioned at all. 6 years worth of school likely to be thrown in the trash. Pretty damn sad situation if you ask me.

Best to avoid getting degrees in such things as police science and criminal justice. For decades, I have been telling young-uns, who want to be police officers, and want to get promoted while working as police officers, to get degrees in such things as business, and law.

[TGS]

Best to avoid getting degrees in such things as police science and criminal justice. For decades, I have been telling young-uns, who want to be police officers, and want to get promoted while working as police officers, to get degrees in such things as business, and law.

I'm not sure about current days, but when I was growing up the NJSP tended to rank CJ-majors lower during recruitment. This is an agency that takes "ask, tell, make" very literally, has a very high washout rate during the academy, and literally still has "Always get your man" in their general orders. During high school, one trooper made it sound like you were basically in an "untouchable" class to the agency from a hiring standpoint, compared to all the other candidates that had other degrees.

The general idea is that they can teach you the CJ aspect better than some bullshit throwaway degree, and the 2nd part is exactly that; CJ is a bullshit throwaway degree compared to most other degrees. Only half of the people in my history program finished, whereas everyone who had poor grades in <insert XYZ major here> switched to CJ and ended up graduating with GPAs well over 3.0. So, it's not really fulfilling the whole reason they were looking for college educated individuals to begin with (you needed either a bachelors or an associates + stable work history).

[DDTSGM]

I went through college on the GI Bill and the LEAP(?) program - where you had to work in the LE field for one or two years after you finished the course they paid for. This was in 1977-1985 time frame.

I thought the first two years I did at a junior college had direct application to my job - many of the CJ course I took - photography, forensic investigations, psychology, criminal law - stood me well in my formative years, beyond that, meh.

When I started going to the universities I attended, I found I was so loaded up with CJ electives that I would outrun my GI Bill getting anything but a CJ degree. I minimized my CJ course to just those required, and took business courses with any electives I had left.

The problem I saw with an 18 year-old starting college and going through to a CJ degree was that you ended up with a 22 year-old kid, who had probably taken two semesters of agency administration, and as a result was likely to be disillusioned when they found the agency didn't work that way AND they had little to say about the way it worked. In other words, they had taken stuff that wouldn't do them any good until later in their career, and by then it would have been forgotten, or outdated.

If I had to do it again, I would have started in business, used electives to take about 4 CJ related courses, and went on to get an MBA. But, as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

[UNM1136]

Part of being in K9 is the knowledge that your dog is a huge liability for your department and city/county/state if you use him incorrectly. K9 and SWAT are the biggest liabilities for most departments. Hell even using him correctly. Anyone going or wanting to go to K9 has to understand that. But he has to be used.

You have to be able to think on your feet in low frequency high risk events and make good common sense decisions and you have to be able to document your decisions and justify them after the fact. That’s why K-9 units prefer seasoned Officers who are known to be proactive with good common sense as handlers. Most of the guys I worked with had 10+ years on before they got a dog. I had 17 years on when I got K9.

But your dog is a huge asset to the department too. If your scared to use him and he sits in a car you’re endangering Officers lives in high risk deployments. Your dog is trained to go out ahead of humans and if needed take a bullet for them. We always said when asked yes it’ll be sad if something happens to him and we’ll cry for him. But it beats going to an Officers funeral and I can go get a new dog. We can’t replace a Mom or Dad.

Paws before boots

Before I was even a cop I took a class with Vince O'Neil at the OHP Academy involving use of force. What he told me thirty years ago is still something I tell my rookies about once a week in FTO.

If you are afraid of getting sued go somewhere else and do something else for a living. In this line of work you more than likely to get sued at some point, and the better you do your job the more likely that becomes. You can do everything right, and get successfully sued. You can do everything right and have the USSC hold you up as an example of what to avoid in the future. Getting sued is not necessarily the kiss of death to a career. In many ways it is a check on cops who think and act like cops. It is part of the cost of doing business.

I have been sued a couple of times, the first time by a crusading SJW type attorney who wanted to desperately hang the department out to dry. And while scary, it was not the end of the world. She was ultimately threatened with jail as she stalled the dismissal process trying to get the judge to lift the gag order so she could send video of the incident to 60 Minutes. She had already sent a copy to the FBI Civil Rights Division, which to my understanding opened and closed a case, clearing me in a rediculously short amount of time. She hired the State SME and author of our defensive tactics program (which, I later found out was....er...based on Vince O'Niel's Oklahoma Custody and Control system.) as an expert witness to offer some of the most wild assed speculation on a short segment of the video that my attorney refuted in less than a minute.

I no longer fear lawsuits. I see them as a necessary evil to be allowed to do this job.

pat

[KeeFus]

Before I was even a cop I took a class with Vince O'Neil at the OHP Academy involving use of force. What he told me thirty years ago is still something I tell my rookies about once a week in FTO.

If you are afraid of getting sued go somewhere else and do something else for a living. In this line of work you more than likely to get sued at some point, and the better you do your job the more likely that becomes. You can do everything right, and get successfully sued. You can do everything right and have the USSC hold you up as an example of what to avoid in the future. Getting sued is not necessarily the kiss of death to a career. In many ways it is a check on cops who think and act like cops. It is part of the cost of doing business.

I have been sued a couple of times, the first time by a crusading SJW type attorney who wanted to desperately hang the department out to dry. And while scary, it was not the end of the world. She was ultimately threatened with jail as she stalled the dismissal process trying to get the judge to lift the gag order so she could send video of the incident to 60 Minutes. She had already sent a copy to the FBI Civil Rights Division, which to my understanding opened and closed a case, clearing me in a rediculously short amount of time. She hired the State SME and author of our defensive tactics program (which, I later found out was....er...based on Vince O'Niel's Oklahoma Custody and Control system.) as an expert witness to offer some of the most wild assed speculation on a short segment of the video that my attorney refuted in less than a minute.

I no longer fear lawsuits. I see them as a necessary evil to be allowed to do this job.

pat

^^^facts.

I had been a cop for about 2.5 years (1997 time frame) and had been sued twice. The first one I was just on the scene of a chase turned fatality when the suspect t-boned another car, killing the female driver, tossing a toddler from the car, and pinning an older sibling. The chase violated policy so the city settled. The second was an in-custody death (crack dealer swallowed enough cocaine to kill a mule to keep us from discovering it). We were sued for 20 million...thankfully we fought and won on summary judgement.

After those two, law suits were kinda meh to me. I was never sued for my OIS in 2008, it was threatened but never came to fruition.

[Coyotesfan97]

Before I was even a cop I took a class with Vince O'Neil at the OHP Academy involving use of force. What he told me thirty years ago is still something I tell my rookies about once a week in FTO.

If you are afraid of getting sued go somewhere else and do something else for a living. In this line of work you more than likely to get sued at some point, and the better you do your job the more likely that becomes. You can do everything right, and get successfully sued. You can do everything right and have the USSC hold you up as an example of what to avoid in the future. Getting sued is not necessarily the kiss of death to a career. In many ways it is a check on cops who think and act like cops. It is part of the cost of doing business.

I have been sued a couple of times, the first time by a crusading SJW type attorney who wanted to desperately hang the department out to dry. And while scary, it was not the end of the world. She was ultimately threatened with jail as she stalled the dismissal process trying to get the judge to lift the gag order so she could send video of the incident to 60 Minutes. She had already sent a copy to the FBI Civil Rights Division, which to my understanding opened and closed a case, clearing me in a rediculously short amount of time. She hired the State SME and author of our defensive tactics program (which, I later found out was....er...based on Vince O'Niel's Oklahoma Custody and Control system.) as an expert witness to offer some of the most wild assed speculation on a short segment of the video that my attorney refuted in less than a minute.

I no longer fear lawsuits. I see them as a necessary evil to be allowed to do this job.

pat

Sometimes new handlers get exposed to a liability class taught by an attorney who scares the shit out of them instead of teaching the liability is there and how to minimize it. I think I was sued three or four times. The times involving a dog bite never went past our legals response to it. There was a good stretch where we had City Attorneys who aggressively defended the city against them. If you were on K9 you were expected to write good reports explaining your actions. Our training staff used K9 reports a lot on how to document UoF in training.

A good report won’t always stop a lawsuit but it sure weeds out the chaff.

The funniest one involved a suspect who hand wrote the lawsuit. My dog was named as the second party in the lawsuit. I always said I guess the mope wanted some dog kibble ;)

[Screwball]

While I get the direction of the vehicle is important in whether or not you are justified in deadly force… it isn’t the only thing.

Our training (CBP), if you walk out in front of a car to attempt to stop them… them coming at you wouldn’t give you that justification. If you have the ability to protect yourself (booth, hard cover, etc), you are going to be looked as setting the situation up to shoot. I agree with most of that, but I also think people doing bad stuff make some pretty epically dumb decisions.

Have two examples of cars in a similar orientation… where deadly force would be justified.

Years ago (before I started), we had an officer that was conducting an inspection, and when the guy was being a jerk… she reached in to grab the keys. Guy grabbed her dominant arm, and took off… dragging her. Because she reached in with her right arm, that is what the guy had ahold of. If it were the left, she even says that she would have put one in his dome. Guy had drugs, BP or State Police did pick him up, but she remembered a coffee cup sitting in the center console. Wasn’t there when his car came back to the port, so they followed the route from the port to where he was picked up… and found the cup with the drugs. Now, I might not be a big fan of that officer, and I think she is still dealing with PTSD from it, but if it were me… I’d be ripping my gun out of the holster with my left hand. I do try getting my gun out with my left hand from time to time, which I’d hope some memory would kick in if I needed to.

This second one was me. Border has been closed for about a year… happened early this past winter. Watch a red pickup and snowmobile trailer spin a U-turn right before Canadian customs. When a car pulls up, I’ll usually stand at the door, and greet/look in to see who’s inside. This guy blew thru at about 40. Hit the alarm (at the car side door I was standing at), start yelling (one of the few instances where other officers have said I get pretty loud when pissed off). Stops with the trailer about a car length past the end of the lane. I run out to confront this guy, trailer starts coming back at me. I was angled enough away that he heard me yell, and saw my gun come out of the holster. If I didn’t see brake lights and hear it go into park, there were going to be 147 grain slugs poking through the rear window. Would I have been justified? Probably, especially considering he was blew through the port, and I was responding to it (or at least how it was explained during our last UOF training).

Guy starts trying to talk like he is calling the shots (“I figured it was just an EZPass”), I’m not having that… toss the keys out of the truck. Once he realized I wasn’t kidding, turned into a scolded child (found out he was charged with domestic against the wife sitting next to him, which I feel is how most POS like that act). Pull him out, says he has a gun in the glove box, so go through the checks and make sure it wasn’t an issue. Long/short of it, was heading up north to snowmobile, missed the exit, and thought nothing about blowing through the “toll.” He couldn’t be more apologetic, but told him to actually start reading signs instead of figuring something was a toll (missed the last exit before Canada, stop for inspection, and a half dozen stop signs that lines).

The Brown shooting, at least from what I saw (limited, as I pretty much have been saying screw the news for most of this year), looked justified. Could have definitely missed something, but didn’t seem I could have missed that much.

The one with the female officer shooting instead of drawing the taser… that one is all sorts of screwed up. From the limited views I saw, she might have been able to argue deadly force… until she yelled “taser, taser, taser.” We don’t allow taser use on drivers of a vehicle… and I don’t know their policy, but as a whole, I’ve hated the training with yelling that phrase (don’t think it deescalates anything, and other officers are going to hear the taser deploy/run it’s cycle… and we now see a huge issue with it).