Dallas restricting deadly force

[HCountyGuy]

Apologies if this is old news or was brought up before recently, but it recently came to my attention

Attachment 56069

[BehindBlueI's]

Too small for me to read.

[GyroF-16]

Apologies if this is old news or was brought up before recently, but it recently came to my attention

Attachment 56069

So- in summary: no deadly force unless the suspect has a firearm AND you have other officers on scene.

And if they resist arrest with a knife or other potentially lethal means... ...let them go?

[andre3k]

That's not current DPD policy. Apparently it's a proposal coming from a judge in that area.

Here's a link to the PDF
https://www.dallascounty.org/Assets/...-June-2020.pdf

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[HCountyGuy]

Too small for me to read.

Apologies.

The city of Dallas and Dallas Police Department will adopt specific policies restricting the use of deadly force. Officers shall not shoot their firearms 1) if a suspect is unarmed; 2) if a suspect is running away or attempting to withdraw; 3) if a suspect is driving away or sitting in a parked car; 4) if a suspect is not armed with a firearm - for example, when a suspect is holding a knife, screwdriver, or blunt object; and 5) if the officer is alone - for example, after a solo foot chase.

In the event that deadly force is used, officers shall not shoot multiple times at a suspect without re-evaluating the necessity of additional deadly force.

[TGS]

covered.

[blues]

Dallas...time to secede from Texas.

[BehindBlueI's]

Apologies.

The city of Dallas and Dallas Police Department will adopt specific policies restricting the use of deadly force. Officers shall not shoot their firearms

1) if a suspect is unarmed;
That's retarded. Fighting over the officer's weapon, disparity of force issues, etc. make this a stupid blanket policy catering to those who don't know anything about anything.

2) if a suspect is running away or attempting to withdraw;

That's *generally* a good rule, but you need to have exceptions and case law specifically recognizes that sometimes you need to use deadly force to affect an arrest because the danger to the public is too great if the suspect escapes. The armed active shooter fleeing deeper into a school, even if no children are directly threatened at that very instant, being an easy to understand example

3) if a suspect is driving away or sitting in a parked car;

Driving away is probably going to be one of the hardest to justify and most departments already prohibit shooting into a moving vehicle unless there's some really unusual circumstances. I don't get the sitting in a parked car bit. I mean, yeah, you don't shoot somebody for *just* sitting in a car.

4) if a suspect is not armed with a firearm - for example, when a suspect is holding a knife, screwdriver, or blunt object; and

Also retarded. Sometimes you can use distance and cover and be able to resolve the issue without shooting anybody, but sometimes that's just not a realistic option. See the NYPD officers ambushed with a hatchet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Q...hatchet_attack I recently had an incident were a mentally ill suspect armed with a large knife was trying to open the door of a liqour store that an older reserve cop was holding closed. If he'd gotten the door open I'd have dropped him. Luckily less lethal worked before it came to that.

5) if the officer is alone - for example, after a solo foot chase.

I don't even have words for how retarded that is.

[TGS]

I don't even have words for how retarded that is.

/thread

[rd62]

The city of Dallas and Dallas Police Department will adopt specific policies restricting the use of deadly force. Officers shall not shoot their firearms

1) if a suspect is unarmed;
That's retarded. Fighting over the officer's weapon, disparity of force issues, etc. make this a stupid blanket policy catering to those who don't know anything about anything.

2) if a suspect is running away or attempting to withdraw;

That's *generally* a good rule, but you need to have exceptions and case law specifically recognizes that sometimes you need to use deadly force to affect an arrest because the danger to the public is too great if the suspect escapes. The armed active shooter fleeing deeper into a school, even if no children are directly threatened at that very instant, being an easy to understand example

3) if a suspect is driving away or sitting in a parked car;

Driving away is probably going to be one of the hardest to justify and most departments already prohibit shooting into a moving vehicle unless there's some really unusual circumstances. I don't get the sitting in a parked car bit. I mean, yeah, you don't shoot somebody for *just* sitting in a car.

4) if a suspect is not armed with a firearm - for example, when a suspect is holding a knife, screwdriver, or blunt object; and

Also retarded. Sometimes you can use distance and cover and be able to resolve the issue without shooting anybody, but sometimes that's just not a realistic option. See the NYPD officers ambushed with a hatchet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Q...hatchet_attack I recently had an incident were a mentally ill suspect armed with a large knife was trying to open the door of a liqour store that an older reserve cop was holding closed. If he'd gotten the door open I'd have dropped him. Luckily less lethal worked before it came to that.

5) if the officer is alone - for example, after a solo foot chase.

I don't even have words for how retarded that is.

100% agree on every point. I would welcome input on policing policy from outside parties but only AFTER they have worked in the field. How do you propose policy whe you have ZERO experience in the activity? Put some judges, DA's, mayors, county/city council members, community activists, etc in uniform and have them work the road as reserve officers for a year and then lets sit down to discuss some meaningful and well thought out reforms. Until then they can STFU.