LEOs: How do you feel / approach this situation?

B

bclark1

New member
So this one is for the police officers and agents of domestic departments... it's not quite so relevant for military, and certainly not for civilians.

People muse on situations a lot here, but we've yet to conclude upon a standard to measure conduct.

As an officer, you're called to a shooting that is now over. A defense-minded citizen ended an armed robbery attempt with a single headshot to the BG. The details are not known to you - there is no verification on the degree of threat the deceased was posing at the time he was shot, and you do not know the entire chain of events yet besides that a gun was pulled on a cashier and a carrying civilian pulled and fired. All went "well," no other shots were fired, and if the bullet exited it did no damage beyond the cosmetic. The shooter was qualified to CC and has a clean criminal record prior to this, although you don't necessarily know that showing up to the scene.

How do you respond? Is the shooter treated as a criminal, a person who completed his duty to defend himself and other innocents, or completely neutrally? And in your experience, using a reasonable-man-standard, how would this person be treated down the line? Would he be shaken down, have his weapons confiscated and face serious issues in court besides the attempted-robber's posthumous civil case? Or, if witness accounts suggested he acted judiciously and in the best public interest at that moment, would he be exonerated of all guilt?

I realize this is a pretty open question, particularly considering the various laws only relevant in certain areas of the country, but it's one that could help decide a course of action for someone. It would help authoratatively answer the question "Should you cover the other patrons while they safely exit the premises or intervene with prejudice on behalf of the clerk being held up?"

Other people may amend this question as well if they feel I have posed it poorly, it just seems to be one that is hotly debated in all the situation threads but is rarely chimed in upon by the people who must actually judge the situation after action.
 
Well in Texas you are allowed to defend yourself and others with deadly force.
If the BG had a drawn firearm and the CHL holder defended himself and the Clerk and I was on the jury...... he would get a not guilty from me. I dont think that would even make it past the DA here. Not sure what the police would require in the investigation.

you would probaly at the least have to make a statement and submit a sample fired bullet?

A big part of that would depend upon the attitude of law Enforcement/DA Office in that area and state law I guess, and how it viewed handgun owners.
 
As you have stated the question, armed robber pulls a gun on a cashier in the presence of armed citizen who kills the robber with no innocents injured:

He would be interviewed, statement taken, weapon taken as evidence during the investigation (and returned later if cleared). If physical evidence, and witness/video are consistent with his version he would be in the clear quickly.
This is where the "Don't say a damn thing" crowd would screw up someone who has acted lawfully. In order to make a decision on the actions of a citizen the officer must have information to go on. Don't "juice up" the story and don't talk your head off. Just lay out the basics of the event.
That's pretty much how it is in my area, but different states may have different responses.
 
He would be interviewed, statement taken, weapon taken as evidence during the investigation (and returned later if cleared). If physical evidence, and witness/video are consistent with his version he would be in the clear quickly.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how it would go down here also. At the very beginning of the investigation, we would also Mirandize that person. That freaks some people out thinking that they're going to be charged, but that's not the case at all. That's just SOP. I might also add that had the shooter been a police officer, on duty or off, the same procedure applies with the addition of an administrative suspension (with pay), and mandatory counseling for critical incident stress. For a civilian, I have an obligation to remain detached and professional on the scene, but the first chance I get, I'm going to tell this guy (or gal) "good job, damned good job". I also disagree with the "keep your mouth shut" philosophy. However it looks on the surface, we're still investigating the death of a human being, and that investigation must be in depth. When you say "no comment" or something similar, you impede the investigation, along with the speed, and possibly the accuracy, of the outcome. When you embellish the facts, the evidence might not match the statements, with the same results.
 
Secure the scene/individual/weapon, (Others have not mentioned this, but I would do a "pat down" of the individual for officer safety purposes.. ;) Who knows he might have other weapons.) Contact Supervisor/Detectives...take good notes for report, turn over to Detectives when they arrive...Not a lot left to do after this, but be available if needed for further information/statements, etc... :cool:
 
take good notes for report, turn over to Detectives when they arrive...I'm done
Click to expand...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I LOVE IT!! And... it's the reason I elected to spend most of my career in Patrol Div. Lessee, initial patrol report reads "arrived on scene. Good guy shot bad guy. Scene turned over to detectives". End of report. Hey guys, we still got time for a coffee before end of shift. :rolleyes: ;) :D
Kinda gives new meaning to that old phrase "Homicide: Our day starts when yours ends.", doesn't it??? :D :D
 
LOL..Capt Charlie

Great minds think alike huh... :D ...Gotta let the detectives take over, so I can go take care of some of these "High Risk" warrants I got over here..hehe. ;) ..well that and there is a Krispy Kreme doughnut with my name on it..(lol, jk.. :rolleyes: Someone was gonna say it figured I would beat somebody to the "punch". )
 
We recently had an incident similar to this at my agency, only it was a home invasion not a store robbery. Upon entry we secured the homeowners weapon and put it in a patrol car as it was evidence. We did not need to pat down the homeowner because he was only wearing underwear at the time this happened. Supervisors and investigators were called to the scene, as was the Sheriff himself. I was responsible for the first responders report, and a quick investigation was done by the investigators, the whole thing was over in approximately 2 hours.
I believe the homeowners gun was returned to him within the week, and to give you an idea of our DA's "attitude," the DOA suspect's getaway driver (his wife) was charged with murder. In Alabama law, if anyone is killed during the commision of a crime, they can be charged with murder. She was an accessory to the robbery so she was charged with murder. She has not gone to trial at this time.
We commended the homeowner at the scene, he put 4 out of 5 rounds center mass on a moving threat with his own wife just two steps ahead of the suspect, I believe he was cleared of any wrongdoing within the week of the incident.
 
Most likely the guy would be ID'd and released at the scene pending further investigation, and eventually a warrant request would be submitted to the prosecutor's office so that they could make the call on charges.
 
As a civilian,I have a question for a couple of the above posters.I realize it's probably SOP,but I don't understand why that would be SOP.The armed Civilian shot and killed the BG,then waited for PD to arrive,situation is code 4.First,he's obviously not trying to hide anything or escape,which might indicate possible guilt in this or another matter,and is probably going to be a bit stressed out about the whole thing.Why then,would you feel a need to do a pat-down?Even if he is carrying a second gun,(say the evidence weapon is a Para Ordnance Parry Carry 45,and he also carries a Kel Tec 380 in his front pocket),why treat him as if he's a threat?Also,what if he is carrying a backup,what happens with it?It is not evidence,and he's in legal possession of it.Just curious more than anything else,I'm not trying to criticize anyones methods,just wondering what logic is being applied in using those methods.Thanks...

Oh,and Shooter John,I like your DA's attitude,our local DA has a similar point of view,and the local paper really plays the "good guy defends himself" angle,so our crime rate is really low...
 
kirkcdl
The main reason I would want to know if the shooter has additional weapons is because when we (the police) are on scene, we are in control. There is no need for the person we are dealing with to be armed at that time, because we are there to insure safety in the first place. As far as the shooter having a back-up, it would probaly be taken while officers were interviewing him, but returned to him when officers were done, assuming the incident was a "good shoot." Only the weapon used would be taken as evidence. And like I said, at least in Shelby County even it would be returned quickly after all of the necessary processes were done.
 
kirkcdl
Hopefully this will answer your question, at least partially. You cannot assume that just because the guy stayed there that he is not a threat. You don't know what the guy is thinking. (In the situation it states that the "details are not known to you"...ok, think about ths now.) What you do know upon pulling up is that you have a guy that shot someone else. If nothing else, and perhaps he is just a law abiding citizen, making sure the individual does or doesn't have another weapon will not only protect the officer, but potentially even the citizen. If he did, have a secondary weapon then you secure it, and after the investigation is over and everything checks out, which might be a while, said citizen gets weapon(s) back. I would feel much better doing this, than having to explain to my supervisor, much less an attorney, if the guy was not in his right mind, how he kept a weapon and potentially hurt other people. It's always better to err on the side of caution. It is called making the scene safe. I would explain this to him, in a way that would allow him to know the reason I am doing this. I wouldn't treat him like a criminal, but I would make sure myself, partners, civilians, and even the subject were in a safe environment. By the way doing a "pat down" is not the same as doing a complete search, there is a difference. To address the issue of why he might potentially stay: Dunno..maybe he stayed because he is "doped" up and is not thinking properly. Maybe he is "mentally challenged" and is not thinking properly..we don't know the whole story here. This is a matter of making the scence safe, if everything checks out ok, whenever that might be, he would be given the weapon(s) back. The problem here is that making assumptions can, at times, cost lives. I know too many that assumed and wound up getting themselves in deep trouble. Hope this helps, at least a little.
 
Thanks for the responses guys. That's pretty much what I was hoping to hear went on outside of Illinois, a state I hope to vacate at some point in the near future. We get some interesting stuff going on here. When I went to a familiarization course some time back that would allow me to shoot occasionally at a police training range, the officers leading the program ended the session with a small packet of history to show how careful we have to be with such crazy politicians and DAs. The "good story" was where a guy had caught a man breaking into his house at night and held him at gunpoint until police arrived. The "bad story," which some of you may have heard: Guy's house gets broken into on night 1 with him in it, robber steals a bunch of stuff and takes his keys while running away. Robber returns on night 2, the exact following night, to get some more stuff and the car. Homeowner shoots and kills the robber. However he was in a suburb that had a ban on handguns, and there was just a whole bunch of other BS surrounding it, so he was charged criminally. More recently he was finally let off the hook, and a new law placed to say that people may defend their private property with whatever's legal in the state no matter what a township law says. It's still just an absolute mess that such a common sense action as defending oneself or another innocent person must be muddled by a fear for one's freedom and livelihood brought about by an often over litigious and PC society. Thanks again for the input!

For the record too I'd take no offense to being patted down in the situation either, I would expect to be checked because as mentioned you can't know everything when arriving at a scene and it's better to be safe than sorry, especially in a situation like that where emotions are probably running high.
 
How about this: The cashier is selling dope out of the back of the store, the "defense minded citizen" is an enforcer for the dope man, a guy comes up to the store to argue about his dope debt, gets out of hand, and is blasted by the enforcer who calls you and tells you that as a defense minded citizen he just stopped a robbery?
 
Maybe I'm too sympathetic to LEO's...

...but if I were the shooter I'd automatically hand the LEO's my unloaded weapon (used in shooting) with the action open, and if I had one, my back-up, unloaded and action open.

I want these guys to be my friends. :D

They're in charge of a crime scene which, while I didn't create, I played a major role in the outcome.

I want them as comfortable as possible, I want them to trust me and know I'm cooperating. I'll probably be a little scared myself, and no doubt stressed, so the last thing I want around me is a bunch of LEO's who are also edgy and stressed because of something I am, or am not doing.

Oh yeah, my Dad is a retired LEO too. Guess I'm biased now ;)

Actually, I always thought in a scenerio described above, the LEO's would enter the premises with guns drawn, and order everyone to the ground, cuff, pat down, and then only until the situation was understood would they start treating the civilians as victims.

If I'm a cop, how do I know the dude holding the gun isn't the BG, and the guy with a bullet in his head isn't the law-abiding citizen who tried to save the day... but wasn't too lucky this time :(
 
...and..What If said citizen, who has his back-up .380 in front pocket as indicated, decides that the guilt from taking another's life, i.e. BG, is not something that he can live with, and pulls said .380 out of front pocket, and inserts in mouth, etc. etc. (Thus my comment on protecting "law abiding citizen" as well) See where I am going with this...there are just to many "issues"/possibilities that could occur as a result of not taking the right steps to secure the scene. Again hope this helps kirkcdl.
 
How many times have you arrived at a scene to have the "defense minded citizen" say while pointing; "He went thataway!" just before he himself takes off west between the houses.
 
SERT SGT: I LOVE your signiture line! It is wonderful to have a studied gentleman serving my safety! Thank You! :)
 
Last edited:
Good points all on the pat down. Also, NOBODY gets in my cruiser or enters the cop shop without being patted down. Departmental SOP. We've had several guns slip by on suspects because of sloppy police work. Thank God corrections officers found them before someone got shot. Officers involved should be thankful that all they got was a written reprimand and in one case suspension (2nd time), considering that they transported felony suspects in the back of their cruiser with a loaded gun for several miles. Now you're the good guy and thinking "Why me?" Because if you do it to one, you have to do it to all. You can't pick and choose. This is how lawsuits get filed, especially when one person frisked that just happens to belong to a minority group, and he finds out someone else of a different race, religion, creed, or whatever, wasn't. These are the most common types of racial bias lawsuits filed against law enforcement agencies; all due to inconsistent practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top