Thread: Excessive Force, in relation to Police matters...

Officers are supposed to be authorized to use one level of force above the threat, no more. At least that's what I was taught in Junior Police Academy (a semester-long class offered at my old middleschool).

It's hard to judge the examples you gave without more description or videos.

I understand the rule. What I'm asking is whether or not it's right to use the shoot to kill parameter as the immediate successor to threat of use of force.

Let me give a hypothetical example, using the man with the knife:

You're a cop and you approach a scene where a man is threatening a woman with a knife. You are at too great a distance to simply run up and grab the man, and the man has the woman cornered, waving the knife around and threatening to stab her. You have him held at gunpoint, demanding that he lower the weapon. The belligerent man ignores your command and moves closer to the woman. It appears he plans on actually doing her harm.

What do you do? Do you shoot him in the head/heart, or do you aim for something less lethal (a leg or shoulder, perhaps)?

In my experiences (or in the stories/videos I have seen/heard), the officers' first action above threat of force is to shoot to kill. The rationale is that it eliminates the possibility that a non-lethal hit will not completely neutralize the threat - and, in all fairness, I can understand that. But what I'm asking is whether or not that sort of escalation is right, or should "neutralization" be taught to be more situation specific.

I'm pretty sure that police officers are trained to make "centre of mass" (chest) shots, both because the chest is the largest target and offers the most stopping power. That being said, the distance between a chest and an arm shot at distance on a moving target with a pistol is VERY small (cops are good shots, but they're not necessarily expert marksmen), and I think that if an officer is at the point where he will shoot the perp, he'd rather kill him than miss him entirely.

Well, when a clip can be emptied in less than ten seconds, don't you think that raises the chance that a cop can make a non-lethal shot?

Ok, let me give another example.

Everybody remembers the infamous Tank Rampage, in California, right? Well, when they chased the guy down and the guy got the tank hung up on the center divider on the highway, what happened? They climbed aboard the tank and pried the hatch open. The man inside was in basically in a box, at point blank range, with nowhere to go. They ordered him to surrender and he was belligerent. They shot him dead. Now, no one is going to argue that this man wasn't a threat to countless people on the other side of that divider, but the tank had been hung up for long enough for the cops to climb aboard and work out how to pry open the hatch. He wasn't going anywhere anytime soon. And at such close a range, was shooting the man dead really necessary?

It's situations like that, more specifically, that I'm talking about.

Hmm I remember that, and I was kind of surprised when they killed him in the end. I guess it's forgivable though, he was in the military so who knew if he had a weapon or even knew how to use the tank's weapons. The cops also couldn't know for sure if the tank was completely immobilized and probably didn't want to risk any officers being crushed. I definitely wouldn't have accused any of the cops of anything criminal.

I think that preserving the life of the perp is way lower on the list of priorities for a cop than you think though.

I suppose. But - like the guy in the tank - many of the people that do these things are mentally ill. I understand that it's a "preserve the innocent over the offender" paradigm, but still...

I guess I just have a problem with wanton use of maximum force, in the face of so many alternatives. Again, using the man in the tank as an example, the fact that "he's a perp" should not play a hand in whether the person lives or dies. I would say that would be better left to the actual lack of any alternative. My point is just that there are far too many situations where it's just not necessary to kill someone, and I believe that the "shoot to kill first, sort it all out later" approach leads to the loss of too many (even innocent) lives. And of course, I fully understand that things are probably so much different, while actually in the situations, so I'm not pretending to assume how I would react in such distress. I'm just saying that there are situations where it is clearly not necessary to take someone's life - especially given the high probability that the offender is simply mentally disturbed - and I think the police should be taught to better assess alternatives to just shooting to kill.

Police shoot dogs all the time, often when the dog is in its own backyard. Its ridiculous when police shoot animals that are in their own home. They should be trained to look into a persons yard before going into it. In fact, it doesn't even require any training. You have to be a completely idiot to end up in someone's yard and not know there is a big dog inside of it, until its to late and its impossible for you to escape.

I think police are far to quick to shoot people, and even to taser, or hit people. If a person has a weapon and trying to attack some one, then yes, they should defend them self and others. Though if there isn't an imminent danger, they shouldn't use force.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I understand the rule. What I'm asking is whether or not it's right to use the shoot to kill parameter as the immediate successor to threat of use of force.

Let me give a hypothetical example, using the man with the knife:

You're a cop and you approach a scene where a man is threatening a woman with a knife. You are at too great a distance to simply run up and grab the man, and the man has the woman cornered, waving the knife around and threatening to stab her. You have him held at gunpoint, demanding that he lower the weapon. The belligerent man ignores your command and moves closer to the woman. It appears he plans on actually doing her harm.

What do you do? Do you shoot him in the head/heart, or do you aim for something less lethal (a leg or shoulder, perhaps)?

In my experiences (or in the stories/videos I have seen/heard), the officers' first action above threat of force is to shoot to kill. The rationale is that it eliminates the possibility that a non-lethal hit will not completely neutralize the threat - and, in all fairness, I can understand that. But what I'm asking is whether or not that sort of escalation is right, or should "neutralization" be taught to be more situation specific.

When cops shoot at a person, they shoot to kill, always. They shoot to kill only when deadly force is being used. When you advance upon another person who has done nothing to you with a knife with the intent of doing that person harm, your life is forfeit.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Well, when a clip can be emptied in less than ten seconds, don't you think that raises the chance that a cop can make a non-lethal shot?

In the heat of the moment, it is not always easy to make accurate shots. If the person is wielding a deadly weapon and advancing, they need to be taken down immediately and with the smallest margin for error possible.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

When cops shoot at a person, they shoot to kill, always.

I know this, but it is this that I disagree with. I believe that there are certain situations which are avoidable. Many crimes of passion are not the actions of a person who 'doesn't deserve to live anymore.' I'm not pardoning these people, mind you. I'm merely stating that a bad (sometimes fluke) decision in the heat of the moment is not always reason enough to end a person's life.

Originally Posted by Black Eagle

In the heat of the moment, it is not always easy to make accurate shots. If the person is wielding a deadly weapon and advancing, they need to be taken down immediately and with the smallest margin for error possible.

In many situations, I would agree with you. However, there are also many situations where I would not (in that I still do not believe that any situations where "force" is necessary, "deadly force" is necessary.

Alric: That's exactly what happened with my friend's dog. Basically, they came to the house to check on the alarm. The wooden fence is clearly marked "Beware of dog", with a picture of a dobie that looked just like my friend's dog. The area was also clearly marked with signs for an invisible/shock fence. The cops went through the wooden fence and into the backyard. When they saw the dog, one of the cops took off running. The dog, naturally, chased after him. The fleeing cop's partner (not even the fleeing cop, himself) took out his gun and shot the dog twice, killing her. That dog had been a loving (harmless) family member for 9 years. Yes, she was a Doberman, but she hardly even had any size on her. I just find it hard to believe that two, full-grown police officers - armed with pepper spray and batons - could not have found some alternative to shooting some strangers dog, which they goaded into a chase.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I suppose. But - like the guy in the tank - many of the people that do these things are mentally ill. I understand that it's a "preserve the innocent over the offender" paradigm, but still...

I guess I just have a problem with wanton use of maximum force, in the face of so many alternatives. Again, using the man in the tank as an example, the fact that "he's a perp" should not play a hand in whether the person lives or dies. I would say that would be better left to the actual lack of any alternative. My point is just that there are far too many situations where it's just not necessary to kill someone, and I believe that the "shoot to kill first, sort it all out later" approach leads to the loss of too many (even innocent) lives. And of course, I fully understand that things are probably so much different, while actually in the situations, so I'm not pretending to assume how I would react in such distress. I'm just saying that there are situations where it is clearly not necessary to take someone's life - especially given the high probability that the offender is simply mentally disturbed - and I think the police should be taught to better assess alternatives to just shooting to kill.

Well what do you suggest? Policemen are already supposed to only use their guns in the most dire of circumstances. The kinds of circumstances where any hesitation on their part would be neglecting to fulfill their mandate to protect the innocent. I think that most police departments would rather kill any number of perps than have even a single innocent person die because they hesitated. That some of the perps are mentally ill is regrettable, but it doesn't make them any less dangerous.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So, there is a story that is back in the news, about a man who was shot by police officers, when "attempting to run them over with his (stolen) SUV." The officers fired over 130 rounds to "neutralize the threat", which is what they are trained to do. I understand that a situation such as this is harrowing, and unpredictable, and the objective of "neutralizing the threat" is a just one.

However, we have other instances (such as another, when a man who made a threatening - however slow and avoidable - advance on an officer with a knife was gunned down) when "neutralizing the threat" is conceivably less demanding than shooting to kill. Another example of this (not to make this too personal or anything) was when my best friends 9year old (and completely non-violent) doberman pinscher was shot dead by police officers, after they walked into his backyard to investigate the house alarm going off, and then ran from the dog upon seeing it, prompting the dog to chase after them.

So what exactly is "excessive force?" Are police justified by using maximum force to neutralize a threat, when it is perfectly clear that such exhausting measures aren't the only options left on the table? Is the knee-jerk reaction to shoot for the head or heart - at the first sign of danger - one that should be taught to our men and women in uniform, or should they be held to the standard of assessing the situation and reacting in a way that limits the loss of life; including the offender's?

Any opinions and/or related stories out there?

Police officers, like everyone else, have different ways of thinking, and as such, in different threatening scenarios they weren't trained for, they each might have different answers to what they consider the problem. Even in scenarios they were trained for, when danger is presented, their ethical judgment can get hindered from the stress involved. Also, the appropriate protocol for a given situation is often ignored because people aren't, in a vague sense, ethically perfect.

I know. I do see your point (intended to Spart, but I understand your point as well, malac). But I think there is also a responsibility to make our policemen/women more than just killing machines. Yes, I know they teach you not to hesitate. Yes, I know they teach you to only use deadly force "when necessary," but I think there is a danger behind those teachings, when it's shown that they so often bleed over into not-imminently-deadly situations. These are not robots. They are men and women in uniform. Believe me, I have a high level of respect for cops (which are starkly different from "pigs", which I fucking hate), but I do think that they should be better trained to assess a deadly situation. If that means they need to be better armed/armored, then so be it. But situations like "we killed him because it was impossible to know if he had a weapon on him or not" (such as the guy in the tank, once again), simply should not happen, and it happens all too often. (See the Amadou Diallo shooting, for one.)

Might just be a byproduct of how much action and violent crime police have seen in the US. They're probably harsher if they get shot at or lose buddies on a regular basis or something. There's also probably a ton of successful arrests for every police killing (when you consider how many times a cop probably has a perp at gunpoint each day in the US). Police killings are a VERY rare event in Canada so I don't think their training is an issue here.

As for the dog stuff... that's weird and I'd be hella pissed if it happened to me. I've never heard of stuff like that around here either.

I do think excessive force is used fairly often. However, with the exception of the dog example, all of those situations seem justifiable times to kill.

You mentioned the Breedlove case in Flordia. (The SUV one.) At first, 130 shots sound like a lot. But factor in the fact that there were 9 cops, each capable of firing off their whole clip in seconds, each one reacting with split second insticts. Then, you realize he had already done a mock surrender, (he is going to be a persistent threat,) AND he was in the middle of ramming a police officer's vehicle... It was a totally rational thing to do.

Tank rampage example... This man was more than just a typical nutjob. HE TRIED TO COLLAPSE A BRIDGE ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY. He tried running over parked cars with people in them. Had I been the officer in question, I hope I would have reacted exactly the same as the man who ended the tank rampage. I am the officer on the tank latch. These are the thoughts in my head. 'What if he has a gun if he shoots me first he may go on to kill dozens of people including me and if I threaten him to stop what if he locks the tank in driving mode to spite me before I kill him can he do that I don't know how to stop a tank or how one works what if he panics and decides to fire a shell what if he...' Basically, the officer was not only justified but obligated to serve his duty and shoot that man. Could he have put more effort into obtaining a surrender and still been doing his job ethically? Sure. Was it a risk worth taking? I don't think so.

The knife example. First, someone can reasonably traverse well over 30 yards in a matter of a few seconds. If lining up a non-lethal shot takes even one second and the suspect staggers for another second before falling forward, that sounds pretty ideal. So, even ideally, if this man intends to kill this woman and she is not 100 feet+ away from the man she is very likely DEAD. At the least she is stabbed which can very well kill her. Take someone to the finest hospital in the world and slap them on the operating table, then stab the person with a full staff of doctor's around. There are still quite a few stab wounds the person will still die from. The police officer should have shot to kill. Frankly, I would have used a shotgun was I a cop in this scenario and had one with me. Ice the .

Apply this to the officer being personally threatened. I wouldn't trust my accuracy to hiting a leg sized target at more than 30 yards. So if I wait for him to hit the 30 yard mark to unload, and he chooses to sprint at me once he reaches it, I have maybe 4 seconds to get that shot off. Plus, I have to hope he isn't on serious drugs. Someone raises a gun to me or comes at me with a knife and they have had a reasonalbe amount of time to desist, you better believe I am dropping them ASAP. If I have the opportunity to perform first aid, I will do so as soon as possible. But that doesn't mean I won't defend myself and shoot to kill. Yes, some accidents/preventable deaths will occur. But can you stay mad at this face?



As far as less police killings in countries like Canada and England, those countries have less dangerous criminals in general. It is not a training issue here as much as it is an issue of every gangster/carrer criminal having access to guns. You neve rknow what someone might be packing. Canada specifically has far less crime in general- and a lower population- so our police killings will naturally be far higher.

In all of the above examples, the perp knows that their situation is hopeless and has been given ample opportunity to surrender. They have not, and safety of the public becomes the primary concern.

Originally Posted by spockman

Yes, some accidents/preventable deaths will occur. But can you stay mad at this face?

.

Sure took the serious out of this thread...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

However, we have other instances (such as another, when a man who made a threatening - however slow and avoidable - advance on an officer with a knife was gunned down)

I think police officers should be required to have a blackbelt at minimum. It's not exactly hard to take a knife away from someone. Any of my students can do it quiet easily.

Whenever I hear about a police officer using too much force it reminds me why I consider most police officers to be a parasite on society.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I think police officers should be required to have a blackbelt at minimum. It's not exactly hard to take a knife away from someone. Any of my students can do it quiet easily.

Whenever I hear about a police officer using too much force it reminds me why I consider most police officers to be a parasite on society.

But that guy may very well be a good scrapper. When you get in mellee combat, the better trained person should win. but really it could go either way. You don't know what else that guy is packing or what kind of drugs he is on. It would be nice if our cops were better at hand to hand, but the risk involved and the expense of two-four years hand to hand training... Where I a cop and someone threatened me with a knife I would give him every chance to put the knife down. If he didn't, I would go for an arm or leg. If he rushed me, you better believe I am putting a shot through his lungs. I won't risk getting stabbed by trusting that I am a better fighter than him.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Sure took the serious out of this thread...

Oh, and you are welcome. (:

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I think police officers should be required to have a blackbelt at minimum. It's not exactly hard to take a knife away from someone. Any of my students can do it quiet easily.

Cops get their own brand of hand-to-hand combat training that better suits their needs (you'd be able to tell if you ever grappled one). A "blackbelt" doesn't really mean much when their are so many different disciplines and manners of teaching.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Cops get their own brand of hand-to-hand combat training that better suits their needs (you'd be able to tell if you ever grappled one). A "blackbelt" doesn't really mean much when their are so many different disciplines and manners of teaching.

I've fought a few cops in my MMA days. There brand of martial arts is a joke, including their grappling. It's worse than the US military's.

I've helped teach some classes to cops, they don't have a clue about things like leverage or balance, which you should get a good handle of before doing anything else.

IMO if the suspect is guilty, no force is excessive... outside of course of abuse, torture etc. But if a guy robs an old lady just shoot him. I like the Old West style of Justice. If someone was guilty of something they'd rough him up, shoot him, hang him or whatever depending on the crime. We're too easy on criminals, and that's why it's soo bad and getting worse. With this economy, and the way everything is going it's only gonna get worse. We need to make examples of people. If you turned on the news everyday and saw "Man robs bank, get beaten to pulp, then hanged." a lot less people would rob banks. If they're guilty, punish them.

When you violate the basic human rights of others, then you don't deserve yours.

The problem with going back to mob justice is that innocent people get hurt and some times even killed.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Whenever I hear about a police officer using too much force it reminds me why I consider most police officers to be a parasite on society.

That statement doesn't make sense to me. You would think the criminals would be the parasites.