"Here Come the Cops ! NOW What Do I Do?'

Status
Not open for further replies.
or drop it

Like hell I'll drop my Steyr on asphalt! I'll SLOWLY bend and lay it down.

Expect to be man-handled a bit.

Ah, I don't think so, scooter. I'll have a cop on report. If I'm offering no resistance, there is NO excuse for my being "man-handled".

Should You Face Cops or Have Back to Them With Hands Up?

Stand still wherever you are. No matter what direction the cops come from, THEY will tell you what direction they want you to face. DO NOT move unless they direct you.
 
Guys,

You're acting like this is a old black and white movie with no speech. Take cover, keep your gun out until the cops get there. When they announce themselves identify yourself, tell them where you are, and ask them how they want you to proceed. Follow all directions. Just ask that they cover the BG you have already shot.

Most of this is mall ninja garbage guys. The cops are just as scared as you are, most likely they want to be the one with the upper hand so give it to them. On a silver platter. Don't lose your head, do what they say.
 
Take cover, keep your gun out until the cops get there.

Oh, that's good. I'm in cover, holding a gun. Yea, the cops will really believe I'm the good guy now. "Hey guys. I'm over here behind these garbage cans and I'm holding a gun. I just shot somebody." That'll put some pressure on those triggers. A holstered gun is not nearly as much of a threat as a gun in hand.

BTW, if you continue to display your gun after the incident is over, you may be considered "brandishing". You may also be challenged by a similarly-armed newcomer to the scene.
 
Keep in mind that if a cop shoots you right between the eyes, the only thing he'll get is a 3-day paid vacation, so approach the situation knowing that.

Personally, the very second I was done shooting, I'd call 911 on my cell. I wouldn't say anything except this:

"I need an ambulance right now at [x] location between [y] and [z] streets. A man's been shot." It's critical to use the passive voice (e.g., "been shot") instead of the active voice (e.g., "I shot") because of your 5th Amendment rights.

Only if pressed by the dispatcher should you admit to being the shooter, and then only by saying something like, "He attacked me with a knife. I tried to run away, but he wouldn't stop chasing me. I begged him not to make me shoot him, but he kept coming at me with the knife. I was scared I was going to die." Again, don't ever say "I shot him."

While you're on the phone with 911, empty your handgun, open and clear the action, and set it down several feet away from you with you seated on the ground. With you on the cell phone and seated on the ground, it may take several moments for the police to even see the gun.

I think this way, you're less likely to be shot by a cop.

But only marginally.
 
Well it didn't take too long for someone to state they wouldn't follow the directions, which is a key contributer to folks getting shot. Not getting shot, bearing in mind, being the goal of the thread.

Think about it: "STOP POLICE! DON'T MOVE! DROP THE GUN!" Delivered at gun point. This is not the time to deviate from the following two well intended bits of advise: (1) Comply. Immediately. Period. (2) Don't move.

---

As for the man-handling part, it probably comes down to definitions. I recognize that many folks define the realities of being physically controlled, cuffed or not, as being man-handled, no matter how relatively gentle or appropriate, and use the term with that understanding. Thus defined, is a very real, high probability, aspect of responding to high-risk, shots fired calls. Be prepared for it, that is all, so you can curb the reaction to resist, which would predictable lead to poor results, possibly to include the shooting the thread is trying to avoid.
 
Last edited:
On "canned responses" :

Take a page from decades of court evaluation of LEO statements: Avoid the canned responses. Instead, be aware of how to say things, a variety of things, in such a manner that you aught be able to (a) convey the facts and (b) protect yourself. They are not mutually exclusive.

"I was afraid" tells about as much as "I did it for officer safety," which is not much. And people in the business know that, and how to exploit it.
 
Keltyke said:
Briefly, and as clearly as possible, tell the officers FACTUALLY what happened, then ask to speak with a lawyer before you say anything else.

IANAL, but I would caution against that advice. There is no conceivable way that NOT exercising your right to remain silent will help you. Your account can be given in a deposition, on a tape recorder, with your attorney present.
 
IANAL, but I would caution against that advice. There is no conceivable way that NOT exercising your right to remain silent will help you. Your account can be given in a deposition, on a tape recorder, with your attorney present

I'm not recommending you jeopardize yourself legally. But whatever the legal aspects, they won't come in to play if you're dead from a police bullet. So, it's the immediate situation of being in an adrenaline rush with others who are in an adrenaline rush, all who have loaded guns, likely out and perhaps pointed at you, and all of whom are seeing you standing near an inert body and possibly with a gun. So, whatever you say or do has to solve that crucial predicament first. The legally apt statements and what they are are another thread I believe - though a very necessary topic. But how not to die comes first and my concern about that prompted me to start the thread.
 
But whatever the legal aspects, they won't come in to play if you're dead from a police bullet. So, it's the immediate situation of being in an adrenaline rush with others who are in an adrenaline rush, all who have loaded guns, likely out and perhaps pointed at you, and all of whom are seeing you standing near an inert body and possibly with a gun.

Why the hell are you standing near an inert body? Why have you not moved to a position of safety?

So, whatever you say or do has to solve that crucial predicament first.

Like the Police will just believe the guy with a gun standing over an inert body? I don't think so. People lie to them all the time. They are going to have to assume you are the bad guy until it is otherwise established that you are not - since you do appear to be the shooter. Your best bet, if you are so slow as to be standing over the inert body with your gun in your hand, is to simply comply 100% with whatever the officers order you to do.

Actions speak louder than words.
 
First of all, most of these posts presume a somewhat "pristine" environment will exist in a post-shooting situation.

Murphy's law of Combat #6: No plan survives contact with the enemy.

All of the advice above goes out the window when you're forced to shoot Danny Dirtbag in the 7-11 parking lot because he came at you with a knife. People pulling into the parking lot; people driving off; pedestrians coming & going, etc. Not to mention you might draw something of a crowd before LE arrives.

Some of the advice also turns to vapor if the subject is still alive with an incapacitating wound. He may be issuing threats to you, complaining of his pain or whatever.

And it's different again if the perp has a gunpoint ephiany about bringing his knife to a gunfight and surrenders. (Now your choice is hold 'em or cut him loose.)

There are techniques to control a gathering crowd. The more you appear to be "in charge" the better. Keeping the crowd back so your perp's weapon doesn't disappear and/or keeping "Good Sam" back away from a potentially still-armed subject are only two worries.

I'm of the opinion that I'd prefer to holster my weapon before police arrive but only if it's safe to do so. This way I can wave two empty hands in the air. Regardless of holding the gun or not, I want them to see me as "flagging them down" or waving to them.

Once they arrive, they command. I'll do what they say... although I'm inclined to lay down my gun instead of dropping it.

Remember, police are taught to "secure the scene" of a crime. That means putting into handcuffs anyone suspected of violent acts and securing all weapons.
 
Like hell I'll drop my Steyr on asphalt! I'll SLOWLY bend and lay it down.
When your gun becomes more important than your life, there is a problem. If I tell you to drop it and you make any move with it, prepare to be shot. I've told you exactly what to do, you choose not to do so at your own peril.
Ah, I don't think so, scooter. I'll have a cop on report. If I'm offering no resistance, there is NO excuse for my being "man-handled".
And yet it happens every day. You've been in a shooting, you've shot somebody, don't expect much leeway. Look at all those "non-resisting" folks on the Dateline "To Catch A Predator" tapes. Besides, you've already shown that you are going to cause trouble because you did not drop your gun.

Briefly, and as clearly as possible, tell the officers FACTUALLY what happened, then ask to speak with a lawyer before you say anything else.
There is a reason Miranda starts with a warning. Do not tell the officers anything other than "he attacked me and I defended myself" or something along those lines until you get a lawyer present. What seem like very innocent words at the scene can be terribly damaging in court.

So, whatever you say or do has to solve that crucial predicament first.
Forget saying anything. Your actions will determine if you get shot at or not, not your words. And once your actions have been controlled your words no longer matter.
 
When your gun becomes more important than your life, there is a problem. If I tell you to drop it and you make any move with it, prepare to be shot. I've told you exactly what to do, you choose not to do so at your own peril.

Sorry Barney... I'm very likely going to lay it on the ground gently. The last thing I want to do is drop a gun that may be cocked and unlocked around a bunch of nervous cops pointing guns in my direction. Dropping some guns can potentially discharge the weapon if it lands on a hard surface.

Futher, if you're so twitchy that you will shoot someone moving in a slow deliberate manner to comply with your order to disarm, you need some serious vacation time or a different occupation.
 
Why the hell are you standing near an inert body?
I doubt I will be if it ever happens to me. Anybody that calls will likely tell the dispatcher, "The guy crouching next to the street pizza is the good guy."
 
Futher, if you're so twitchy that you will shoot someone moving in a slow deliberate manner to comply with your order to disarm, you need some serious vacation time or a different occupation.

Thanks, Bill. I was going to stay off this, but I'm glad you chimed in with some support. Any cop who would shoot in this situation deserves to lose their badge, if not their liberty. That's "trigger-happy".

As for my remark about dropping my Steyr, some people in here are too tightly wrapped to know something is said tongue-in-cheek. I'll repeat, unless the cops roll up seconds after I've fired the last shot, my gun will be on safety and in the holster. If I'm holding the BG at gunpoint, that's a completely different scenario.
 
But the question really is, the whole thread in fact, is about what to do should you find yourself gun-in-hand and in a position where you need to avoid being shot by the cops. The gun-in-hand scenario IS the scenario. It's the one where people get shot. By preparing for it, you are preparing for the significantly less immediately concerning situations where there is time to call, holster, walk away, sit, render aid, whatever...

So to rephrase the question: What should gun-in-handers do to maximize their chances of getting shot by the cops?

Answer: Don't obey commands and move.

So, if a certain segment of people are inclined to not obey and move, fine, just understand that a certain segment of LEOs will be inclined to react using force up to and including shooting, and that given the context that will also be judged fine, albeit unfortunate.

And... Again... We're trying to advise a course of action so as NOT to get shot.
 
Last edited:
It is a good idea to inform the 911 dispatcher of your description and your clothing. Stay on the line with them if possible and DO NOT have the gun in your hand when the police arrive! Be careful what you say on the phone to the operator relative to the shooting what ever you say is on tape. ;)
 
I guess usual advice if ever in shooting to avoid the cops shooting you in error, is to call 911, let them know this was SD, who you are (good guy) and describe yourself, clothes etc. Fine, but I can see times when that wouldn't work. An example:

You just described what we should do after a shooting, then gave us an imaginary incident where the citizen didn't do it? :confused:

How could you say it wouldn't work when the citizen in your scenario didn't follow the standard proceedures you described? Not to mention having a gun in his hand when the cops rolled up code 3.

I'm in total agreement, though, with your contention that if you didn't ID yourself to the dispatcher, and you have a gun in your hand when the cops arrive, you'll likely have a fast moving, exciting experience that you can tell your friends about--if you survive. :D
 
Just Say NOTHING

Just Say NOTHING

by Dave Kopel

copyright, 1998 by Dillon Precision Products, Inc.
(reproduced with permission)

Provided by: Perroni’s Tactical Training Academy

What if you've just been arrested for something which shouldn't be a crime? For instance, if a burglar breaks into your home, attacks your children and you shoot him. Should you talk to the police? In a word, "No." Shut up, call the best lawyer you can find, and then continue to shut up. If you talk to the police, you will only make things worse for yourself.

Sociologist Richard Leo has written several articles which detail the deliberately deceptive techniques which police use to extract a confession.
First of all, since 1966 the Unites States Supreme Court has required that all persons under arrest be given the Miranda warnings, so that they will know that they have a right to remain silent, and the right to a lawyer. So how do police convince a suspect to talk, even after the Miranda warning?

Professor Leo explains that "police routinely deliver Miranda warnings in a perfunctory tone of voice and ritualistic behavioral manner, effectively conveying that these warnings are little more than a bureaucratic triviality." Of course, the Miranda warnings are not trivial; your liberty may hinge on heeding those warnings.

No matter how strong the other evidence against you, a confession will make things much worse. A confession often makes the major difference in the district attorney's willingness to prosecute the case, and his willingness to accept a plea bargain. If your confession gets before a jury, your prospects of acquittal are virtually nil.

If you are foolish enough to reject the Miranda warnings, simply put, the police interrogators will attempt to deceive you into confessing. As a result of increased judicial supervision of the police, deception, rather than coercion ("the third degree") has become the norm for interrogation.

First of all, you will be kept in a physical environment designed to make you want to waive your rights and talk. You will most likely be kept in isolation, in a small, soundproof area. By isolating you, the interrogator attempts to instill feelings of anxiety, restlessness and self-doubt on your part. Left alone for long periods, you may think you are being ignored, and will therefore be happy to see the interrogator return.

Ideally, from the interrogator's viewpoint, you will begin to develop the "Stockholm syndrome," in which persons held captive under total control begin to identify and empathize with their captors. This can occur after as few as ten minutes of isolation in captivity.

While increasing your dependence, the interrogator works to build your trust by pretending that he cares about you, that he wants to hear your story, and that he understands how difficult it may be for you to talk. The interrogator works to become your only source of social reinforcement.
There is no law against outright lies or other deceptions on the part of police during an interrogation. Almost certainly, you will be told that the prosecutor and the judge will be more lenient if you confess. This is a complete lie. The district attorney will be more lenient if you don't confess and he can't make a strong case against you, and therefore has to settle for a plea bargain. Nothing the police promise in the interrogation room is binding on the police, much less on the district attorney.

There are five "techniques of neutralization" which the interrogator may use in order to make you feel that the crime really wasn't so bad, and that it is therefore all right for you to confess. Of course the interrogator's pretense that he doesn't think the crime was serious will last only as long as necessary to obtain the confession.

The first technique is called "denial of responsibility," allowing the subject to blame someone else for the offense. For example, "it was really the burglar's fault for breaking in; he's the one to blame for getting shot." (That's true, but it's you, after all, that the police are interrogating.)

Another technique is "denial of injury." For example, "The burglar wasn't really hurt; he walked out of the hospital two hours ago." Maybe true, maybe not. In truth, the burglar could be in intensive care and the interrogator could be laying the groundwork for a murder case against you.

In the "denial of the victim" technique, the interrogator will suggest that the victim deserved what he got.

"Condemnation of the condemners" is always popular. For instance, "the real problem is all those anti-gun nuts who let criminals run loose, but don't want guys like you to defend themselves." True enough, but when the policeman saying this is holding you prisoner, take his sincere expression with a large grain of salt.

Finally, there's the "appeal to higher loyalties" such as "What you did is a common sense thing. Regardless of some legal technicality, the most important thing is for you to protect your family. Your family comes first, right?" True again, but the man saying this wants you to confess to violating the legal technicality, so you can be prosecuted for it.

A close cousin to the denial strategies are the "normalizing" techniques, in which the interrogator claims to understand that the crime was not typical behavior for the subject; "I can see that you're not a violent person. You're not a criminal. You're a tax-paying, home-owning, regular kind of guy. What happened tonight was really unusual for you, wasn't it?"

You have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by talking. You are not going to outsmart the interrogator. Even if you don't end up producing a full confession, you may reveal details which will help build a case against you.
Most violent criminals are too stupid to read, and too lazy to pursue a time-consuming, high-precision hobby like handloading. So I'm not worried that a violent criminal will read this column, and avoid confessing to a serious crime.

Too often in America, good citizens are arrested for victimless "crimes," including unjustifiable (and unconstitutional) gun regulations. The routine use of deception in order to trick good citizens into confessions is something that deserves more scrutiny than it has thus far received.

In the long run, routine deception by the police tears at our social fabric, and undermines the law enforcement system. The more police lie, the more skeptical juries are going to be, even when police are telling the truth.
Moreover, there are about 6,000 false confessions for felonies every year in the United States. (Huff et al., "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," Crime & Delinquency, vol. 32, pages 518-44, 1986). False confessions are one of the major reasons for the conviction of innocent persons.

Sources: Richard Leo, "Police Interrogation and Social Control," Social and Legal Studies, vol. 3, pages 93-120 (1994); "From Coercion to Deception: The Changing Nature of Police Interrogation in America," Law and Social Change, vol. 18, pages 35-39 (1992); Jerome Skolnick and Richard Leo, "The Ethics of Deceptive Interrogation," Criminal Justice Ethics, vol. 11, pages 3-12 (1992).
Dave Kopel is Research Director at Independence Institute, http://i2i.org. His most recent book is "No More Wacos: What's Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement and How to Fix It."
 
How could you say it wouldn't work when the citizen in your scenario didn't follow the standard proceedures you described? Not to mention having a gun in his hand when the cops rolled up code 3.

I didn't describe precise procedures in the original post, (except the usual advice to call 911) - I asked what the best would be , because situations do go wrong, and I gave an example in which the citizen did call 911 - but things did go wrong (although partly due to his subsequent error of not staying on the line).

However, I also indicated, you can call 911 and stay on the line etc, do that all correctly - and still be faced with a dire situation. Here's a couple:

1) Before you can call 911 or do anything - one or more screaming cop cars race up, or on-foot cops run up: they had just arrived around the block (or down the block) for a minor call, hear gun shots and race up to you.
There you are... their guns are pointing right at you because they can see you just shot someone.

2) You call 911 and stay on the line. Fine. But after the info about the address and the shots-fired is transmitted, -- the crucial part about you, SD, your description etc. is garbled by static, neither you nor 911 even know that, and cops are there flying out of cars. nor can you tell the on-line 911 operator anything and have her tell the cops, -- no time.
Time just ended.

One can imagine other such situations as well. So the question was what procedures can one follow in addition to calling 911 to avoid getting shot in error.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top