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

[Scattergun Bob]

BillCA

Glad to see you back Bill, I decided to use NYPD officer involved averages to try and make my point. I can not say what the contact distance would be in this nightmare because it is not listed. I don't know inside/outside, other than an bystander phoned in the call. Although frustrating, it is typical of the patch work of information received typically with a call for help!

I knew that if I mentioned the "dropped gun thing" that the worms would get out of the can again! I "believe" there may be a valid point to this and have experienced many cases of "sympathetic firing" during range stress drills. These drills are conducted to educate officers of the potential for discharging your firearm unintended. However I can not find any data about subjects being injured by sympathetic reaction to a shot being fired occurring in the field. Maybe you can. Until then I must side with Dave, Eric and Glen, the lesser of two evils is to obey the command. Could it lead to a tragic error, YES.

I have truly enjoyed our discussion, and as always I learn something new each thread. Your point of multiple disjointed commands did not go with out notice.

Good Luck & Be Safe

 

[BillCA]

SgBob,

I'm glad someone acknowledges my point about disjointed commands. Our local LEO trainers are pretty "ho-hum" about it.

I knew that if I mentioned the "dropped gun thing" that the worms would get out of the can again! I "believe" there may be a valid point to this and have experienced many cases of "sympathetic firing" during range stress drills. These drills are conducted to educate officers of the potential for discharging your firearm unintended. However I can not find any data about subjects being injured by sympathetic reaction to a shot being fired occurring in the field. Maybe you can.

I know there have been multiple instances of this, usually on car-stops. Wasn't there a fairly recent one in NYC where about 12 cops fired on the guy's car the day before he was to get married? It's usually a high-stress situation, frequently nighttime and one officer's judgement causes him to draw and fire. At that point, other officers presume that officer-1 saw something which is threatening to him and others, so they react and fire too. The others did not see the threat, but presumed it because one or more officers fired.

 

[BillCA]

I realized I hadn't responded to your post in 107.

(Post 107) But that begs the point a bit, which is that the situation in question involves the subject not stopping and continues his movement. That appears to be the contention of some, that they should be allowed to ignore all the commands if they want to meet the end goal in a different manner, and the police should be able to read their minds and let them do it.

If the unambigious commands "Stop!" and "Don't Move" are ignored, then certainly you face a higher threat level. However, that was not part of the discussion from the Erik, Glenn, Dave trio. The argument has been simply;

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.

The only reason I've even challenged the LE posts is that such flat-earth statements need to be challenged for enlightenment of both sides.

Let us suppose for a moment that the shooter is not a completely clueless doofus and has, as the police arrived, gripped his gun by the barrel and is holding it muzzle down/grip up with both hands in the surrender position. You command him to drop the gun. Instead of letting go of the gun from 4-6 ft, he tilts his shoulders over and lowers the gun down to within only 1-2 ft before dropping it.

However, based on Dave's an Erik's statements, we must presume that the subject won't complete the maneuver because he is very likely to be shot, with the officers justifying it as a "failure to comply" with "threatening behavior". Then they'll just move on with their lives.

Is there some mental block against issuing a new command for him to "Stop!"? Or to yell "Don't Move"?

If not, it certainly has not been part of the discussion. I think the presumption has been that once he begins to move he will continue to do so regardless of other commands. This is not axiomatic.

Or is it the presumption that once you've issued a command that any deviation from exactly what you've said or expect is a threat?

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.

Since Dave has also precluded commuicating with the arriving officers to tell them anything, there is no point in claiming to be the victim or claiming the downed man is the attacker. Or even "I will disarm and put the gun down."

 

[Nnobby45]

As long as the person is not posing a threat to the officers life by aggressive behavior, the police have no right to consider lethal means. I'm sure that this is the case for 99.9% of law enforcement officers who have a very difficult and highly responsible occupation and I applaud them for using good judgement.

A friend heard a window crash while at home one evening and jumped up, ran right by his gun, headed for his 5 yr. old daughters' room and went flying in only to find a scared little girl with her arms around her Springer Spaniel that was just as scared.

A tree in a storm had fallen over and crashed through the window.

He later asked a good friend and firearms instructor/SWAT officer what had happened. What had caused him (an experienced shooter) to do everything wrong and run down the hall unarmed, thinking an intruder had just broken into his little girls' room.

He was told about the "law of threes". It takes a trained police officer about 3 violent incidents before he/she actually settles down and handles things in a professional manner with some degree of calm.

Before that, training goes out the window, adrenalin flows, and things turn to S%#@--not that they can't anyway.

Could be that the officer who points a gun at you or me is just doing lesson one or two--- combining high adrenalin with low experience levels.

 

[Erik]

"Silly me... I was envisioning..."

Advice against assuming begins in post 15. You advise against it in post 30. At least eight additional posts seemingly address assumptions, presumptions, variables, et cetera; necessary because seemingly must think within the box they are comfortable with. It like being in college again, with students knowing it all, and creating worlds within their heads where they are right and the older, experienced folks who have actually done what is being discussed are wrong.

Re sympathetic response: Can anyone provide documentation anyone being sympathetically shot by LEOs following a dropped firearm's discharge?

"I don't think any of the LEO side is arguing that if they arrive on the scene and shout "Don't Move!", yet their gun-toting suspect raises his hands, that would justify shooting him."

Nobody has said that. It has been necessary to state and restate this fact several times.

"Nor do I think they are trying to say that as they arrive, if they see their shooting suspect holding his hands out and away from his body and holding the gun by the muzzle or with two fingers on the end of the grip that it would be justified to shoot him if he did not move and didn't comply within 2 seconds to drop the gun."

You are envisioning again...

I agree with your comments on how people behave in high stress situations; of course, I see them as supporting our position, where that gun-pointees should do everything possible to ensure gun-pointers do not perceive them as threats.

"I'm glad someone acknowledges my point about disjointed commands. Our local LEO trainers are pretty "ho-hum" about it."

So we've reached a consensus about how to behave in simple scenarios ith one LEo issuing orders? Once we reach that, more complicated variables can certainly be addressed. We must learn to walk before running, after all. The default still boils down to immediat compliance and lack of directed movement, though.

"If the unambigious commands "Stop!" and "Don't Move" are ignored, then certainly you face a higher threat level. However, that was not part of the discussion from the Erik, Glenn, Dave trio." ."

Actually, that has been a significant part of the discussion. How'd you miss it?

"The argument has been simply... 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."

You didn't miss it, apparently. As evidenced not only by that quote but by one of yours:

""I don't think any of the LEO side is arguing that if they arrive on the scene and shout "Don't Move!", yet their gun-toting suspect raises his hands, that would justify shooting him."

Correct. Nobody has said that. It has been necessary to state and restate this fact several times. And again. Deja vu. Wow, I don't think I've ever had to re-restate something in the same post before...

Argh... more assumptions coming up! Never good things to run with before walking first, but I'll indulge:

"Let us suppose for a moment that the shooter is not a completely clueless doofus and has, as the police arrived, gripped his gun by the barrel and is holding it muzzle down/grip up with both hands in the surrender position. You command him to drop the gun. Instead of letting go of the gun from 4-6 ft, he tilts his shoulders over and lowers the gun down to within only 1-2 ft before dropping it."

However, based on Dave's an Erik's statements, we must presume that the subject won't complete the maneuver because he is very likely to be shot, with the officers justifying it as a "failure to comply" with "threatening behavior". Then they'll just move on with their lives."

You are envisioning again, by the way... Based upon more than just Dave and my statements in this thread, it should be clear that your hypothetical good guy has significantly increased the odds of his having force used against him; force likely being lethal given the context. And while "moving on with their lives" is a gross over-simplification of what shooters experience following shootings, yes, that is what will likely happen.

"Is there some mental block against issuing a new command for him to "Stop!"? Or to yell "Don't Move"?"

You are appently envisioning different time lines than we experience and train for.

"Or is it the presumption that once you've issued a command that any deviation from exactly what you've said or expect is a threat?"

Willfully ignoring commands is a threat indicator. You're already at two threat indicators the instant you begin movement. Are you a three strikes you're out kind of guy? If so, you're one away from force.

"Is there some mental block against issuing a new command for him to "Stop!"? Or to yell "Don't Move"?"

We're already two threat indicators into things, remember? Yes, further exposure to thrreat may be warranted, but it may not be.

Example:

Following weeks training 100 trainees are run through a scenario involving a role payer who bends to lay down an arm. Half of the students encounter a role payer ordered to surrender without incident. Half encounter a non-role player oredred to shoot; with 70% success.

45 trainees take the compliant role player into custody without incident.
5 trainees shoot the compliant role player.
45 trainees shoot the non-compliant role player as he begins to shoot.
5 trainees shoot the non-compliant role player immediately following the two threat indicators of non-comliance and movement.

The shooters have to fill out paperwork as if it were for real. Fudging can get you disciplined up to and including termination. Incorrect actions are addressed through furhter training.

Without the benefit of reading and interviewing the folks, who is most and least correct?

If you answered, the 5 and 5, what are the similarities at the time of the shooting as the trainees saw it? Answer, the circumstances were identical. So should the 5 and 5 have held their fire? Both sets of 5 and 5?

Discuss.

 

[Erik]

BillCA,
Going back to your comment about keeping at it from in the context of discussion for the sake of furthering the understanding pool, all wrapped in good intentions... that's where I'm coming from too. I apologize if it (I) do not always come across that way. I find myself limited by the medium, as opposed to say, interpersonal conversation. Or just pepper spraying... Its a joke, people. Relax. Then there's having to deal with the seemingly ever present cop bashing, character assassinations, and general complete misconstruction of what LEOs do and for what reasons. Combine it all and at times I understand that my point/counter-points may leave incorrect impressions.
Best,
Erik

 

[BillCA]

Not to worry, Erik. Sometimes this medium is awkward and clumsy when these kinds of discussions break out. It frustrates many of us at times.

So, let's begin with, essentially, the first "questionable" statement.

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."

"any move with it"... any.

In short, I must drop a gun and nothing else, regardless of it being in an "unsafe" condition (i.e. a cocked weapon - such as a SA revolver). Or even to extend an arm (not towards the cops!) to drop it away from myself and/or the attacker. Is that what you are advocating?

In the event the PD arrival is something of a surprise (speed, stealth, whatever) and the gun is at waist or chest level, the implication is that raising one's hands instead of dropping the weapon may result in being shot.

You are envisioning again...

Nope. I'm thinking of the admonition that any move whilst holding the gun is an invitation to be shot.

"If the unambigious commands "Stop!" and "Don't Move" are ignored, then certainly you face a higher threat level. However, that was not part of the discussion from the Erik, Glenn, Dave trio."

Actually, that has been a significant part of the discussion. How'd you miss it?

Non-sequitur here. I don't dispute what one's response to "Stop!" or "Don't move" should be. However, my point was with regards to the command to drop the gun. Should the subject begin an unexpected move, is there a reason you would NOT yell "STOP! DON'T MOVE!" again? Enlightenment is desired. Do you believe it's unnecessary? Or perhaps you think events will happen too quickly to react?

"I don't think any of the LEO side is arguing that if they arrive on the scene and shout "Don't Move!", yet their gun-toting suspect raises his hands, that would justify shooting him."

Correct. Nobody has said that. It has been necessary to state and restate this fact several times. And again. Deja vu. Wow, I don't think I've ever had to re-restate something in the same post before...

Nor have I had to refer back to the definitive statement so many times. So here we go again.

If I tell you to drop it and you make any move with it, prepare to be shot.

Being someone who takes a literal view of the statement, the way this reads, to me, is if told to drop the gun and the subject makes any other move with the gun, then they should prepare/expect to be shot. This includes raising the hands to a surrender position, making the weapon safe (safety lever, decocker, etc.), first separating the two-hand hold, etc.

I agree with your comments on how people behave in high stress situations; of course, I see them as supporting our position, where that gun-pointees should do everything possible to ensure gun-pointers do not perceive them as threats.

"I'm glad someone acknowledges my point about disjointed commands. Our local LEO trainers are pretty "ho-hum" about it."

So we've reached a consensus about how to behave in simple scenarios with one LEo issuing orders?

Now I am really confused. You agree with some comments I made about how people react in high-stress situations. But after review, I must surmise you agree with my comments about sympathetic firing but not about stress-induced auditory exclusion and/or the confusing hash of multiple officers yelling commands.

You are appently envisioning different time lines than we experience and train for.

And what might those time lines or time-frames be?

Willfully ignoring commands is a threat indicator. You're already at two threat indicators the instant you begin movement. Are you a three strikes you're out kind of guy? If so, you're one away from force.

So if the person moves in any way at all before dropping the gun this constitutes 2-threats ... failure to obey the command immediately and movement? Is that right?

Just for simplicity, in the above, moving any way at all means the arms or upper body only. I'm not talking about someone turning to face officers who are behind.

 

[David Armstrong]

What part of common sense do you not understand?

I think I undersatnd all parts of it fairly well. I also understand that common sense in not common, nor does it always make sense.

It is obvious by the actions of the LAPD officer that the selection process is not making it!

Nonsense. That an officer gets drunk and acts crazy after 18 months on the job has nothing to do with the selection process.

Why do you feel the need to make a smart aleck comment about MY role in the LAPD process? Again, use some common sense.

Yes, let's use some common sense. If you are going to claim that the selection process is not making it, it seems common sense would be that you know somethign about the selection process. At this point I must assume that you have no idea what you were talking about.

Do you think a guy like that has any business wearing the uniform of a police officer?

Not now, but that has nothing to do with the selection process for LAPD, which is rather rigorous, BTW.

What does a guy from SW Louisiana know about the LAPD selection process that I don't.

Apparently quite a bit!

I don't have to be a pro football player to know a touchdown do I?

No, you don't. However, knowing what a touchdown is has nothing to do with knowing anything about how the players are selected, does it?

I am suggesting that the level of lethal force should not be dictated because some innocent person doesn't follow to the letter to your every command just because it hurts your ego.

You keep missing this for some reason--the level of force is NOT dictated based on not following orders. Not following orders is one part of the overall situation, a part that tends to increase the likelihood of force and the level of force.

 

[David Armstrong]

The only reason I've even challenged the LE posts is that such flat-earth statements need to be challenged for enlightenment of both sides.

But it is not a flat earth statement. It is a taken out of context statement that myself and several others have pointed out needs to be ocnsaidered in the context as originally presented. And it should go without saying that "prepare to be shot" does not automatically mean "I will shoot you". If you choose a path of action thta increases the peril rather than decreases it, one cannot blame the officer. He has told you exactlyhow to do something to reduce the danger to you and everyone else. Should you choose not to do so, the fault lies with you (generic you,not specific you).

Is there some mental block against issuing a new command for him to "Stop!"? Or to yell "Don't Move"?

And what if he doesn't obey those commands? Some of y'all seem to think this is a Chinese restaurant, where you get to pick and choose. "I will obey 2 commands from Column B, but no commands from column A please". As Glenn has mentioned, we find that giving additional commands tends to put you at a disadvantage.

Since Dave has also precluded commuicating with the arriving officers to tell them anything, there is no point in claiming to be the victim or claiming the downed man is the attacker. Or even "I will disarm and put the gun down."

You can communicate all you want to with the arriving officers---AFTER you have ceased being a threat to them and others. Until that time, there is no need for much conversation.

 

[pax]

In short, I must drop a gun and nothing else, regardless of it being in an "unsafe" condition (i.e. a cocked weapon - such as a SA revolver). Or even to extend an arm (not towards the cops!) to drop it away from myself and/or the attacker. Is that what you are advocating?

I'm not Erik, but have to say that if a police officer tells me to drop a weapon that's in an unsafe condition, I would freeze as still as a statue and say loudly, slowly, and clearly: "Officer, I intend to comply. This weapon may discharge if dropped. How would you like me to proceed?"

Then I would do whatever the heck he said, including to drop the weapon, regardless of my feelings on the matter. Because, you know, the risk to me from a dropped gun discharging in a random direction is considerably less than the risk to me from the officer shooting me deliberately and repeatedly.

But I sure wouldn't make any other move with the weapon in hand. Not even in super slow motion.

pax

 

[Sportdog]

Well I'm Back In Here Thanks To David Armstrong

Rather than rehash the entire thread I'll just address the comments made by David Armstrong with a little sidebar. #1 Common Sense is as old as time and you sir seem to have none. I'm sure that 99% of those viewing this thread have a complete understanding of common sense and I am here to point out that you are in that 1%. That is very bad for those in SW Louisiana who come into contact with you. #2 A LAPD officer that exhibits this type of behavior is proof positive that the selection process failed when they selected him. Are you going to tell me that this is the type of individual in such an important position is there to serve and protect the public? I think not! If that is true than the selection process you went through is also flawed! I expect a much higher standard of behavior from the police than from the general public. All of us should. #3 Apparently the rigorous selection process of the LAPD weeded you out as you profess to be an expert on it! Not good news if you didn't make it and the other clown did! #4 If you don't like the touchdown/pro football analogy how about this. I don't have to be a Pro Football General Manager to know what a poor performance on the football field is. That better. Use common sense. Oh, I forgot, you don't believe in that or posess it #5 If you lack common sense, you may be "inclined" to function poorly in these types of situations. All you have to do is watch the "Cops" program and you see all kinds of different orders being shouted at suspects. Which do they obey? Use common sense! If the guy is not showing any signs of a threat to you why put some guy who you have NO KNOWLEDGE has done anything wrong in the hospital or grave yard. If you harbor so much fear of the public you should not be on the street with a gun. Sure doesn't say much for the "brave" officers does it. Trigger happy, fearful individuals should not be on any department. Please explain how officers with your attitude are keeping the public safe? You can't. You are only killing an innocent person based on your unwarranted fear. Not good for the public is it? I am now starting to believe that some "cop bashing" may have some basis. Thank you guys for enlightening me and I pray that I'm never in your juristiction. As I stated in my first post. I am about as pro-law enforcement as someone can get and some of you guys are an ugly stain on an honorable profession. (I'll bet that I won't have to mention what guys I'm talking about. You know.) I now stand ready to take on all the bad cops and cop "worshippers". (not to be confused with those that hold law enforement in high esteme of which I am one) Bring it on.

 

[Scattergun Bob]

Sportdog

I thought you had withdrawn. or was that another flight of fantasy?

You have said twice; "I am about as pro-law enforcement as someone can get" I don't believe it for a second. There is no reason for deception here, It is O.K. to have a grudge toward LE, whether from an unfulfilled fantasy or from a BAD interaction.

Your fixation with peace officers involved in assassination of an innocent person tells me that you have had a trauma either a fantasy or real concerning unwarranted force and the police, I feel sorry for you.

Since you have failed to respond to my last post directed at you, I will exercise my God given right and press the ignore button on YOU, "be gone DAMM spot".

 

[Sportdog]

Scatterbum Bob

I didn't engage with each one of your and others statements always in a direct manner as there are only so many hours in a day and so much of that time to engage with people that are so self conceited and so addicted to power and control that it becomes an excercise in futility. You judge me to not be a fan of law enforcement because I dare to call BS to men who discredit the uniform that they wear? I have judged them and you on the words you use. You are judging me on your preconceived notion based on no facts whatsoever!:barf: The more you defend police that are less than honorable (A nice way to say bad cops) the more foolish you look. Keep your pity for me. I have a very nice life. A life not tormented with fear and free from thinking that I am better that others. You don't believe that my father is a retired police officer and my son-in-law is currently serving as a Trooper for the Michigan State Police. Don't believe it. This is cyber space and doubter cyber space authors abound. You are not special. Just one of many. Just like me. If I can irritate you, I am pleased as punch. Anything that I can do to enlighten you? Just let me know. I stand ready to serve.

 

[BillCA]

I'm not Erik, but have to say that if a police officer tells me to drop a weapon that's in an unsafe condition, I would freeze as still as a statue and say loudly, slowly, and clearly: "Officer, I intend to comply. This weapon may discharge if dropped. How would you like me to proceed?"

Oh, but Pax, your communication is worthless. You might as well drop the weapon and assume all the risks of being turned into a sieve by those adrenaline-pumped, sleep-deprived officers who've had a bad day. Note Mr. Armstrong's comment in the post previous to yours;

You can communicate all you want to with the arriving officers---AFTER you have ceased being a threat to them and others. Until that time, there is no need for much conversation.

Besides, Glenn has told us that most guns are drop-safe so go right ahead. You can always buy another gun if you survive.

But it is not a flat earth statement. It is a taken out of context statement that myself and several others have pointed out needs to be ocnsaidered in the context as originally presented. And it should go without saying that "prepare to be shot" does not automatically mean "I will shoot you".

Out of context? How so? It comes from your second post (31), in response to someone saying they'd lay their gun down.

The real concern here, I guess, is what really constitutes the term "any move". Does rotating the gun to fall on it's side meet the qualification of "any move"?

And what if he doesn't obey those commands? Some of y'all seem to think this is a Chinese restaurant, where you get to pick and choose. "I will obey 2 commands from Column B, but no commands from column A please". As Glenn has mentioned, we find that giving additional commands tends to put you at a disadvantage.

Sooo... I take it there is no room in your procedure that allows for the subject, in the midst "the chaos of a homicide crime scene" to equate "drop the gun" with putting the gun down. Or to raise their hands first instead of dropping the gun.

The way I read your statement above, once the subject fails to comply in the expected manner, futher commands are useless. He only gets one chance. [Somewhat of an exaggeration to be sure, but it is to illustrate the point.]

And Erik accused me of wanting to "what-if" the topic to death to support my disagreement, now you're doing the same thing. We can "what-if" it silly here.

If you choose a path of action thta increases the peril rather than decreases it, one cannot blame the officer.

Agreed to some extent. As long as the officer uses some kind of reasonable evaluation as to what constitutes a true threat. That is, just because training film FCS-82 shows a 22 year old male bending down flip the gun over and fire while executing a somersault does not mean the same motion is a threat when done by a grandmother or a 63 year old who resembles Wilford Brimley.

Actor Wilford Brimley

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We still here. Amusing.

A couple of things.

1. If you are not an expert psychometrician, you might want to be a little more judicious on how screening processes can absolutely predict that someone won't crack up later. The idea that any testing battery can stop future bad behavior is hysterically funny and shows the poster knows nothing about that area. I do.

2. About drop free guns - given that we know what guns are drop free now and that non drop free guns are risky in a variety of contexts (including our beloved Drop the Gun one), unless constrained by pure financial circumstance, aren't you kind of stupd not to have one as the primary self-defense gun?

3. Again, folks are talking in absolutes. The whole idea of this thread is not that you will get shot based on noncompliance. It is that it is a risk factor that adds into the equation that predicts a shoot. So do you want that in the equation? When there is no reason to for most folks?

The purpose of this exercise is for the lurkers and readers to consider what is a reasonable action plan. I propose that a reasonable action plan when faced with the law and holding a gun is to:

1. If one can, try to put the gun in a nonthreatening position.
2. Recall that stress makes the arriving officers a risk to you (bitch about it all you want, it's true).
3. Follow all commands without jawing about it except in extraordinary need. Auditory exclusion can predict that you are not even heard in some circumstances.
4. Drop the gun if told so. If it is not drop safe - well, that's your fault.
5. Have no ego involvement because you are not recognized as heroic, the good guy, the champion of truth, justice and the American way.

This is not rocket science for an action plan - we see more ego involvement here. It is similar to the ongoing 'never carry a mouse gun debate' or the 'why the hell should I tell the officer I have a gun in my car' debate. All ego and little consideration of risk reduction.

 

[meathunter]

Staying armed until

the cops show up. Then and only then will I disarm.

I will let them tell me what to do and will comply completely, but they needn't handle me roughly. Hope springs eternal. :barf:

 

[Capt. Charlie]

Well, this thread's certainly been interesting, but it's getting (getting? ) repetitive and tempers are flaring.

I think it's safe to say this one's run its course.

Closed.