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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Complaining about attitude and training does not negate the discussion of what might happen to you.

Diallo should not have been shot because he was an innocent and responded in a way appropriate to his country. However, his reaction led him to be shot as it was inappropriate to our police policies and some unfortunate perceptual/cognitive processes.

The officers were tried (later acquited as they were given a change of venue). There was a civil settlement.

But you know what, he was still dead after the trial and the suit. That's the point.

 

[treo]

Can I assume that moonwalking around the body while singing "Another One Bites The Dust" wouldn't be an appropriate response?

 

[BillCA]

^^^^^^ .... ah... no.

Glenn,

2. As long as a gun is in your hand for a long, slow, safe put down - you can quickly switch to a firing position. That's in some LEO training films. That's why they might just shoot you if you don't comply.

So because a training film [anyone have a title?] describes a method of "faking" putting a gun down, if a subject's response to the officer's order even appears to be similar to the 'fake' tactic, that justifies the officer shooting him before any aggressive moves? (As opposed to saying "STOP! DON'T MOVE" again?)

The bigger question is within what context was the training film made? Because a technique exists, does not mean it applies to every subject you meet. What gang members in L.A. have been filmed doing does not necessariliy apply to everyone. An officer suggesting it was part of his "training" when he fired on a 63 year old Asian man who was slowly putting down his gun should be required to justify, in detail, how he concluded a real threat existed.

Please understand MY point here. It is not to say that police should take unnecssary risks. It is a criticism of both the "one size fits all" training AND the mindset exhibited by several posters that failure to do exactly what they tell you to do justifies their premature use of lethal force.

That's so much bovine scatology.

Using their arguments, they would be "justified" in shooting someone because;

• The subject is deaf (even temporairly) and did not see the officers approach from behind [for whatever reason].
• The subject failed to raise both hands.
• The person who, when told "Show me your hands!", displays his hands and then drops them again (perhaps out of sight). [aka the stupid subject]
• When told to get on the ground, lies on his back due to illness or injury.
• When told to kneel on the ground, begins kicking & scraping at the ground with one or both feet before kneeling.
• When told to move in any direction, subject balks with inaudible verbal response.

What I'm getting at is that the mindset of some officers that failure to comply exactly is somehow tantamout to a grave threat is pure, unadulterated crap. Officers are not automations and should be capable of adapting their procedures and tactics.

Every one of the above situations listed has a valid reason for occurring. According to at least two of the posters here, the deaf man = dead man for failing to comply with spoken orders...which he is unable to receive. Likewise, the man who can't raise both arms because one is disabled by a wound is on the ragged edge of dying because he can't comply with the cops.

In a situation where someone attempts to comply, but perhaps in an unexpected way, I expect officers to be alert or to verbally force the person to stop. Hiding behind the allegation "he failed to properly comply", in my view, is the moral equivilant of "I was just following orders".

 

[treo]

One Of The Best Solutions I've Heard

If anyone's listened to the 911 of the guy from Kentucky who shot the kid at his back door, he may have done everything else wrong but here's what he did right.

He stayed on the phone W/ 911, he told them he still had the gun in hand & why. If I remember right he asked the operator to tell him when the cops were on scene. Either way, as soon as she told him the police were there he put his gun on the table & told the operator to ask the cops what they wanted him to do, and did it.
That seems like a wise response to me

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Using their arguments, they would be "justified" in shooting someone because; ...

Justification doesn't enter into my discussion in the sense of right and wrong morally. I explain why they might shoot you.

The information is so one can make an informed decision as to whether one drops the gun or continues to manipulate it and increase the risk of getting shot.

Criticizing the training is irrelevant in this discussion of actually what to do. Criticizing the training so the training changes may cause that to happen.

There's been a lot of research on cops' decision to shoot. I , for one, am not giving them an extra reason based on the expense of a gun or the odds of a dropped gun going off (as I don't carry non drop safe handguns).

There are two discussions here - training and rules vs. actuality at the moment.

BTW, some can hold the gun just by the trigger guard with a finger and flip it into action really quickly.

 

[Erik]

"So because a training film [anyone have a title?] describes a method of "faking" putting a gun down, if a subject's response to the officer's order even appears to be similar to the 'fake' tactic, that justifies the officer shooting him before any aggressive moves? (As opposed to saying "STOP! DON'T MOVE" again?)"

There isn't a single video for public consumption, per se. It is a training point which has been integrated into various levels of training across the country dating back at least to the late 1990s. The typical "packaging" of the which consists of lecture, text, videos, and practical demonstrations.

And the legal standard to justify the use of deadly force is not "witnessing aggressive moves."

"The bigger question is within what context was the training film made?"

Industry trainers and shooting evaluators noticed the trend. They went to lawyers and administrators. After time and peer review, the training began to role out. It is modified as necesary, as with other training, as legal opinions and policy interpretations change the landscape.)

Look, you've missed the point, and the fault may be ours.

The training, policies, and law do not REQUIRE that a LEO must shoot someone following your stated course of action; but they ALLOW for it, so long as the shooting LEO(s) believe and can articulate that there is a viable threat of serious bodily injury or death. (This language may/will change slightly depending on the legal and policy standards.)

And how are they going to come about that belief? Well, they'll register that a gun in hand provides the means, opportunity and ability (see language caveat above) to pose a threat, immediately afterward they'll register your disregard for their commands, and immediately after that they'll register the initiation of movement they understand to be threatening; all wrapped in the context of a high risk, shots fired situation.

And if all of that happens, and they believe there is a threat: Yes, they may shoot.

And when the shooting is reviewed, the standard of review will be the reasonable officer standard, as in would a reasonable officer, under similar circumstances, find the decision to shoot a reasonable one. Not THE reasonable one. Not the ONLY reasonable one. But A reasonable one.

Which is why we are adamantly attempting to convey how bad an idea it is to deviate from the advised course of action.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

And when the shooting is reviewed, the standard of review will be the reasonable officer standard, as in would a reasonable officer, under similar circumstances, find the decision to shoot a reasonable one. Not THE reasonable one. Not the ONLY reasonable one. But A reasonable one.

Which is why we are adamantly attempting to convey how bad an idea it is to deviate from the advised course of action.

Which is why I would make every effort to stick with my original plan...

If I see that officer pull up, or more likely hear them close by, I am on the ground spread eagle gun slid away from me before he gets out of the car.

Then listening and complying immediately.

Quote:
(believe it or not the police are not your friend)
No, he's not. He's not being paid to be my friend. He's being paid to make me and you safe. However, he is (95% of them are) on my side once he knows what went down. Being my friend or being on my side is not, however, reason to talk any more than is necessary, he has a job to do and recording/remembering what you say is part of it.

 

[David Armstrong]

So... you're saying an officer is justified in shooting when ever he sees someone move in some manner that HE thinks constitutes preparation for an attack?

Nope. I'm not saying that and I didn't say that.

Even if that move constitutes part of "obeying" the officer's orders? That's bogus.

What's bogus is your argument. The movement does not constitute obeying an order, it is in direct conflict with an order.

I'm much more worried about those officers opening fire on my fuzzy-behind if that gun goes off when it hits the pavement.

We've already addressed how to handle that if it is a worry for you.

If said SWAT type is "Highly Trained" and will shoot someone for attempting to carefully put down the gun while holding it by the muzzle or the end of the triggerguard then I suggest we have a serious problem in this country... or we need a new definition of "highly trained".

Again, you miss the point. You will not be shot for for that. You will be shot for disobeying orders by acting in a manner that puts the officers in danger. Now, you might not like that idea, you might not agree with it, but that is it. Even off-duty officers get shot every year in situations like this because of errors.

So, based on the above statement, when you say "Drop the gun" and the subject holds their arm out, gun by the muzzle and begins to bend down to put it on the ground, you get nervous because he didn't comply exactly with your instructions?

That is certainly going to be part of it.

Then please tell me what I should do when an officer says:
"Freeze!" - should I chatter my teeth and shiver?
"Don't Move! Show me your hands!" - Well, which one?

Freeze of course has the general vernacular consideration of stopping your movement. In case of conflicting commands (which we try to prevent, BTW) don't move is usually the best alternative. After you have reached that stage (not moving) then the officer will likely repeat other commands. The important thing, again, is that you show you are willing to follow commands.

If you tell me to put my arms "all the way up", I still can't get the right hand any higher than my head. Does that give you legal cause to shoot me? I think not.

I realize that you are really trying to stretch for the most absurd issues to ttry to prove your point, but please stop being silly. Again, if you are trying to comply with the commands there is not much problem. It is when you disregard and/or go counter to the commands that conflict will develop.

Based on your statements, how about we codify it in law?

Actually most of these issues are already a matter of law. Police get charged, tried and convicted or acquited regularly. They go through civil cases regularly. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with how not to get shot, though.

 

[David Armstrong]

Using their arguments, they would be "justified" in shooting someone because;

You're leaving out something very important in these "justifications"--few of them in and of themselves are deadly force situations. That is the difference. some may not b e use of force situations at all.

It is a criticism of both the "one size fits all" training AND the mindset exhibited by several posters that failure to do exactly what they tell you to do justifies their premature use of lethal force.

You make two unwarranted assumptions. First, there is no "one size fits all" trainng in LE any more. Officers are taught to look for and absorb multiple variables and factors in situations. Second, nobody has said that "failure to do exactly what they tell you to do" is justifies any particular level of force, much less lethal force. Failure to follow commands can lead to many different responses based on the situation and the people involved. It is only one factor in the mix. It might contribute to lethal force being chosen as the correct response, it might lead to pepper spray as the correct response, it might lead to loud vocal commands as the correct response.

 

[gvf]

I Started The Thread And...

As was just said,

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with how not to get shot, though

.

Yes, the point of the thread is to try to avoid getting shot in one of the most highly charged situations imaginable - by their nature, these events are not going to produce calm and considered actions on anyone's part. Fear of death, imminent death, will likely be there in the arriving officers, and may still be in you. Whatever, how to limit the possibilities of mistakes, false impressions, erroneous assumptions while having guns zeroed on target - and you the target - is the issue. And there have been many good suggestions.

But idealization, what you think SHOULD be, will likely contribute to you getting shot.

For you won't be in a court or on a gun forum, but in The Street, with just you and the moment to work with - no one will be there to save you or offer suggestions.

"ONE FALSE MOVE AND YOU'RE...."

 

[gunney 67]

all of the above is good advice and is to be heeded. However, considering that an individual who has just been through the trauma of. a shooting event like described above and will probably be suffering from massive adreniline and norepinepherine dump into the bloodstream, and may still be suffering from tachypsyche and auditory exclusion of surrounding events, this could be problematic. Bad things can and probably do happen to good people under these circumstances. The aftermath of a shooting is fraught with danger for the individual, not only at the scene, but in the criminal and civil litigation that may ensue. May none of us ever have to endure it. I guess the bottom line here is that it is almost impossible to predict how someone will respond to an emotional psychophysiological traumatic event like this, particularly if it has only been moments ago that it happened.

 

[Rufkarma]

Lots of sage advice in this thread, but the tough part is remembering any of this when the poop is dispersed horizontally.

I think you really only need to remember a couple of things.

1. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation. After that, Semper Gumby! (USMC Rules For a Gunfight # 22)
2. Protect yourself until others arrive who can take over that job.
3. Do what you're told, how you're told, when you're told by competent authority (Cops or guy with bigger gun and better tactical situation)

Train, practice and stay alive . . . but don't forget to enjoy your life

Former HMCS(FMF)

 

[BillCA]

You make two unwarranted assumptions. First, there is no "one size fits all" trainng in LE any more. Officers are taught to look for and absorb multiple variables and factors in situations. Second, nobody has said that "failure to do exactly what they tell you to do" is justifies any particular level of force, much less lethal force. Failure to follow commands can lead to many different responses based on the situation and the people involved. It is only one factor in the mix. It might contribute to lethal force being chosen as the correct response, it might lead to pepper spray as the correct response, it might lead to loud vocal commands as the correct response.

Okay, so I'm thinking this response is a CYA Bovine dropping response. (I'm not criticizing your ethics, morals, cleanliness or ability to be a rational person - I'm criticizing the articulation of a point).

On one hand, we're told if we don't do exactly as we're told - dropping a firearm immediately - we are very likely to be shot. On the other hand is the above quote that says "Oh we take into account a wide variety of factors and make a logical decision". Which directly contradicts earlier statements that if one does not comply exactly as the officer commands (with the results the officer expects) one's person is likely to become perforated.

You're leaving out something very important in these "justifications"--few of them in and of themselves are deadly force situations. That is the difference. some may not b e use of force situations at all.

Not necessarily. All of these situations would be with a felony suspect

• The subject is deaf (even temporairly) and did not see the officers approach from behind [for whatever reason].
• The subject failed to raise both hands.
• The person who, when told "Show me your hands!", displays his hands and then drops them again (perhaps out of sight). [aka the stupid subject]
• When told to get on the ground, lies on his back due to illness or injury.
• When told to kneel on the ground, begins kicking & scraping at the ground with one or both feet before kneeling.
• When told to move in any direction, subject balks with inaudible verbal response.

But it is suffcient to discuss the first item - a deaf subject. You have your gun toting subject with gun in hand, still pointed at the "man down" in broad daylight, but he does not respond to any of your commands.
[This was based on an event in the early 70's Philly where police arrived to a shooting. The subject used twin hearing aids, but when he fired his 2.5" .357 Magnum both devices failed, leaving him deaf as a rock. Take a guess at what happened when he failed to obey police commands.]

I'm late for an appointment... but this may do for now.

 

[Erik]

The factors are taken in and decided on very quickly. You seem to be imagining time lines much longer than the situation allows for and an intellectual process not even close to the snap judgement call being made.

But I'll let DA comment specifically beyond that about what he wrote.

---

"But it is suffcient to discuss the first item - a deaf subject. You have your gun toting subject with gun in hand, still pointed at the "man down" in broad daylight, but he does not respond to any of your commands.
[This was based on an event in the early 70's Philly where police arrived to a shooting. The subject used twin hearing aids, but when he fired his 2.5" .357 Magnum both devices failed, leaving him deaf as a rock. Take a guess at what happened when he failed to obey police commands.]"

Off the top of my head I'm not familiar with the particular shooting you are referring to. Are you citing an example where the good guy failed to comply with commands, moved, and was shot, or was not shot?

If he was shot, what is your point?

If he was not shot, what is your point?

But better questions than those would be:

How did his failing to follow orders and moving contribute to his being shot? Assuming he was.

How did his failing to follow orders and moving contribute to his noy being shot? Assuming he was not.

Oh, and WHY people commit action, at the level of analysis we're talking about, given the context, with the benefit of hind sight, is irrelevant. Deaf and shot? Unfortunate. Caught up in the moment, adrenalin flowing, with your game face on as you turn and reflexively bring your gun up and shot? Unfortunate. Plain clothes or off-duty LEO who assumes he's recognized, or that his badge is seen, or that it is other wise obvious what he is and what he is doing and shot? Unfortunate, unfortunate, unfortunate. Stubborn, having read some of these posts and committed yourself to doing what you know is right despite advise to the contrary and shot? Unfortunate.

But ultimately justified for reasons already explained.

And when they are not shot... Good. But those decisions ride on facts registered in split seconds. A glance the other way, hard focus on a front sight, screams, sensory over load, bad lighting, sleep deprivation, a whole host of and/or combination reasons... and those facts can be missed.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

1. The subject is deaf (even temporairly) and did not see the officers approach from behind [for whatever reason].
2. The subject failed to raise both hands.

Both of which are too near and dear to me. LEOs in this thread can say all they want about these being all but implausible as often as they happen, and I'm sure they would be right. But Bill's layed out 2 classic examples that fit into my family. My now deceased father was completely deaf for the latter 35 years of his life. And my wife's severe RA would not allow her to put up one hand let alone both. This again, would probably not present a problem as, 1, my father is now no longer with us, and 2, my wife is seldom alone and is mostly with me, no matter where we are. But, during a possible case of mistaken identity, (which happens everywhere) if you approach us, she will NOT, repeat not, put her hands up, nor will she drop to her artificial knees, or do anything else mentioned here. And my wife's affliction is not readily apparent within 50 feet if she is standing still. Think really, really hard before you proceed with what you think is justification at this point. Hopefully this is one of those times that dictate other types of actions or maybe bring up another training point that hasn't been mentioned.

 

[BillCA]

I'm sensing a dichotomy here in the way actions are justified/condoned when actions are taken by police vs. citizens.

I think I may stop commenting on this thread after this post. I fear I may articulate something that the LEOs, kind as they are to share their insights with us, may take great offense to and we'd devolve into a war of "We're on the street so we know The Truth™" vs. Ethical policies of law enforcment.

Oh, and WHY people commit action, at the level of analysis we're talking about, given the context, with the benefit of hind sight, is irrelevant.

Irrelevant from what perspective? I'll easily agree that someone turning towards you with a gun in their hand constitutes a high degree of threat. I don't agree that when you say "drop the gun" and the subject raises their hands instead, that there is any justification for shooting (because he didn't follow your exact instructions).

Nor do I agree that the command "Drop the gun" negates the option of putting the gun down on an adjacent car trunk or hood.

The point is, you want the person disarmed. A person responding with a slow & deliberate movement to put the gun down is complying with your order to disarm.

But those decisions ride on facts registered in split seconds. A glance the other way, hard focus on a front sight, screams, sensory over load, bad lighting, sleep deprivation, a whole host of and/or combination reasons... and those facts can be missed.

So the jist of the above statement tells me that it's excuseable if a tired officer is experiencing "sensory overload" makes a bad decision. But it is no excuse if the sleep deprived, adrenaline pumped, minimally trained citizen interprets the officer's "drop the gun command" as "put the gun down".

I'll refrain from expressing my opinion of that attitude as this is a family oriented forum.

When I made reference to the "one size fits all training", besides referencing procedures used for high-risk felony type situations, I was thinking of other procedures as well. The absurd examples I can think of, where officers exhibit (and attempt to justify) the actions of mindless automatons involve "custody" procedures. Like during a search warrant for drugs, officers handcuffed all occupants and placed them face down on the floor -- including an 88 year old woman they had to remove from an oxygen tent in her bedroom. Or officers handcuffing a man for "terroristic threats" and despite knowing he'd had shoulder surgery 4 days earlier, taking his arm out of a sling and cuffing his hands behind his back -- thereby dislocating his shoulder and snapping his arm off at the new socket joint (plus refusing to modify this procedure until EMS arrived 10 minutes later). And the appalling attempts to justify it because they were "adhering to standard procedures" - a.k.a. they were just following orders.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's focus for a bit.

If I'm ever in a position where an officer says "Drop the gun". I will drop it.

Steve and Bill - do whatever you want to do. It is your body.

Whether you agree or disagree - you know there is a predictable risk that Internet discussions of what should be will not remove.

The risk will not be reduced in the forseeable future.

Unfortunately, people of reduced hearing, mental capacity or posturing stubbornness may get shot. The officer may get charged. The person still is shot.

The debate about justification does not change these risks.

So Bill or Steve - if you (not some relative) have an officer tell you to drop the gun - will you?

Again, I have seen and know the techniques such that even with one finger in a trigger guard, in a slow movement to the ground - in a short time, I can shoot you.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Everyone seems to be assuming that the arrival of the LEO is quiet and sneaky and they catch you off guard.
What is the rationalization for this? Someone stated above that the officer may turn off their siren to make a stealthy approach. What department teaches this tactic? Every officer I talked with about this said that would NOT be standard procedure and, secondarily, haven't any of you seen shows like COPS? I can not recall a single instance of "sneaking up" on a deadly force situation. Even if the officer turned off their siren 5 blocks away you would already know they were coming.
....and so, I stick with my previous statements...

If I see that officer pull up, or more likely hear them close by, I am on the ground spread eagle gun slid away from me before he gets out of the car.

Then listening and complying immediately.

 

[Keltyke]

If I'm ever in a position where an officer says "Drop the gun". I will drop it.

And if I'm ever in that situation and you're the responding LEO, I'll just bend over and kiss my butt goodbye, cause you already got your mind made up as to what constitutes a threat and you're gonna shoot me regardless.

Unfortunately, people of reduced hearing, mental capacity or posturing stubbornness may get shot.

Yes, that IS unfortunate - an innocent person killed by a trigger-happy cop. Too bad. Your compassion is overwhelming.

Again, I have seen and know the techniques such that even with one finger in a trigger guard, in a slow movement to the ground - in a short time, I can shoot you.

You watch too many cowboy and gangsta movies.

Police tactics like you recommend were practiced in Germany recently. If you're a cop, you're sick and need help. Need to lose your badge, too.

I'm outta here and your rantings are now ignored.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The techniques in question are taught in higher level tactical courses.

Ranting folks continue to miss my point. It is not what should be in the abstract. It is that this is what may occur to you. It is based on both my firearms training and my reading of the professional legal/law enforcement, psychological and sociological/criminological research base. One may be surprised to know that such a professional literature exists.

You know nothing about my compassionate nature or lack thereof.

Since you are out of here, you can join the other members of my anti-fan club that choose to ignore my sage advice.