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

[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. 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.