Tough decisions
My coworkers and I were having a discussion the other day about what kind of scenario would cause us to pull the trigger on another human being. One of the officers declare that he had made a personal decision he would never fire a weapon unless he actually saw the gun in a person's hand.
I agree that you want to be sure of the threat when you pull that trigger because there is no calling that bullet back. I've even written about two different situations I was in where it almost happened so I don't think I could be called trigger happy. However I disagree that you should always wait to see that barrel. I argued that if you have reliable information that the guy has a gun you can be justified in shooting first. For example, lets say you receive a 911 call of shots fired. You get on scene and see shell casings on the ground. Witnesses onscene point to a guy nearby and tell you he was shooting into the air. When you try to stop him, the guy runs. After a short chase you corner the guy and he starts digging into his waistband.
I say that you are completely justified in dropping the guy. My co-worker stated that he would still wait to see if the guy pulled a gun. He argued that the suspect may be just trying to ditch a bag or drugs or something. I can see his point but you have to ask yourself two questions in that situation:
1. Do you reasonably think he is reaching for a gun?
2. If so, are you scared for your life?
If the answer to those two questions are yes, then you are justified in firing. I guess everyone has to make their own judgement calls in those scenarios. We ended the conversation with me telling him that it was his ass he was risking so it's his call.
When it comes down to it, nobody really knows what they will do until it is time to drop the hammer. If you are too quick to shoot, you end up with a fiasco like the Diallo shooting. If you wait too long, you could end up dead.
I once read a book by David Klinger titled Into the Kill Zone. It tells a bunch of stories of police officers who were involved in shootings and of officers who could have shot but held back. Some of the stories were very interesting but some made me shake my head. Take this excerpt for example:
The bottom line was that I was looking at him, looking at what was coming out of his pants leg, identifying it as a gun, seeing where that muzzle was going to go when it came up. If his hand would've come out a little higher from his waistband, if the gun had just cleared his stomach area a little more, to where I would have seen that muzzle walk my way, it would've been over with. But the barrel never came up, and something in my mind just told me I didn't have to shoot yet.
Really? The guy pulled a gun after an officer had drew down on him and the officer was going to let the barrel come up a little higher? Why? Just to give the guy a fighting chance? There are other stories where the officers held off because the guy's finger wasn't on the trigger guard even though the suspect was turning towards him with the gun in his hands.
Buy the book if you get a chance. It shows some of the tough decisions we have to make out there and demonstrates the restraint officers show even if it means risking their lives more than they need to.
8 bits of radio chatter:
This hits on one of the things I've told every one of my recruits when we get to the use of force discussions in that first week...
Every good cop I know has more situations where he COULD have been justified in using deadly force than he actually has used it. Times when, for whatever reason, he didn't make that choice.
Now, like you, I've made my peace with things long ago - and I'm certainly not going to wait for that gun to clear the waistband before I fire, should it come to that.
But I'm talking those very gray areas where you're stuck on that fence & for whatever reason you are able to resolve things without deadly force.
And the important thing to learn is when to tell the difference.
Just my two cents.
I find it interesting how the post focused solely on offenders with a gun. What about if one was holding an axe or a knife, and looked ready to go for some flesh? What if it was someone driving a car toward you that looked to run you over? We all heard about the shooting where about 5 officers or so 'riddled the car with bullets' because, as the guy died after the first couple hits, his foot sunk on the peddle and one of the officers was trapped (if I remember right).
To me all of those scenarios seem like reasonable uses of force (made me sick to see how much the media focused on the number of shots in the car incidence, you fire until the threat is stopped).
Then again, what do I know, I'm just a guy that wants to be a cop and risk my life for others. That said, I do have a concealed carry permit now, so I have already made my peace with the decisions that I will make, and that is why I consider the above scenarios justifiable. How I pray that day never comes, however.
A whole new aspect to this is the plethora of "lookalikea" out there that can be misconstrued AS weapons.
We have paintball pistols, pellet guns, BB guns, lazer tag pistols,and all the airsoft clones of the real deals...many being used in the commission of crimes.
Had an instance back in Philly when Lazer Tag just came out (early 80s).
Call went out to a trespass on school property - officer arrives, kid is in shadows, not defined, and the officer sees what looked like a barrel coming up.
He fires, kills the boy and was never right after that. He left the force becasue he regretted his actions.
In another case, an officer was sitting in his cruiser downtown, a guy walks up and shoots the officer dead for NO reason and no suspicious actions prior to firing the gun.
I can go either way at ANY time, and get REAL ugly REAL fast.
And all the training in the world can never cover ALL the "bases" when making that kind of decision.
Excellent post, JL.
Stay Safe.
B.G.
I'm not a cop, but I know that I would pull my weapon quick, but be slow to shoot.
If a person has a gun drawn on them, they will probably be still, and do what the cop wants. But IF they have that gun on them, and they make a sudden movement (other than turning to run away), they are probably NOT pulling a gun that they intend to aim at the cop and produce a Hollywood stand off. They probably intend to SHOOT the cop. At that point, I think the cop's call should be completely based on his assessment of his own reaction time vs. the suspect.
The man with gun drawn and aimed USUALLY has the advantage over the person with a hidden gun. Unless one is really slow or really fast.
And in situations like that, two men with adrenaline going crazy and tons of movement, it is likely that several shots will be fired and not just one, AND that shots can miss at point blank.
And were do you pull the trigger when somebody is attacking you with some other type of deadly force?
JL, I read that book a few years ago. Great read.
Most cops just want to pop someone so they can tell war stories at the bar.
Most cops just want to pop someone so they can tell war stories at the bar.
7:56 AM
Thanks for your contribution. I'm so glad we can engage in intelligent debate with people who disagree with our actions.
"We ended the conversation with me telling him that it was his ass he was risking so it's his call."
Is it really? What if he's working with you?
I'm not a cop, but it seems like something you need to know about your partner before you work with them
Post a Comment