Police point weapons at VA Tech students.

[Blackwater OPS]

When I was working as LE, drawing down on someone, presentation of deadly force, was a rather extreme use of force second only to deadly force itself. That said, it was routine in many circumstances such as felony traffic stops and clearing buildings under certain circumstances.

My point though, is that whenever we used force greater than "verbal persuasion", we HAD to file a use of force report detailing the force we used and WHY. IF there was no good reason for the level of force used, we could expect an arse chewing at best and formal charges if the violation was serious. This seemed to prevent the sort of problems people here are talking about.

Oh, and the cop that "did not attempt to shoot the gun and would not have been able to fire because the clip fell out"! He should get fired in any case.

 

[Roberta X]

I dunno -- I've got some problems with this, not the least of which is that it's very easy to draw and have one's weapon at ready without having it pointed at someone.

The whole notion of an LEO holding an AR-15 (etc.) on some college girl who has not presented a threat strikes me as far past even the "disproportionate force" allowed police; that's supposed to cover thngs like shooting (at) a fleeing felony suspect, not cases of poor muzzle discipline and near-paranoic over-equipping.

...I'm also trying to work out just exactly how sensible it is to be using a a longarm to detain and control individuals in searching for a known killer. There's a time and place for handguns and for long guns. Up close and personal, a rifle or shotgun is iffy -- it's too easy for a determined bad guy to step in past the muzzle and do bad, bad things to the officer. Possibly even an hysterical sorority girl could do the same. And a high-powered rifle on a crowded campus carries other risks, as well; what's behind that dangerous preppie? A fellow officer? Nuns and crippled kids? Oh, drat.

Last but not least, looking to the "shot by stumbling SWAT officer" incident (and wondering if the same happened in the "pointing rifles at students" situation), WOULD IT BE TOO DARNED MUCH TO ASK POLICE TO KEEP THEIR DIGITS OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL READY TO SHOOT? C'mon, the moving of index finger from next to trigger to on the trigger and firing is a trainable reflex; and it is understood that detaining a baddie at gunpoint is a "ready to shoot" situation. But Officers Of The Law are no more immune to clumsiness, stumbling, and the adrenaline response than any other person and one might think that professionalism alone would behoove them to guide their actions accordingly.

A firearm is not a magic wand. A nice shiny badge and an oath is not a license to act like a cowboy in a B-movie Western. And, gee, officers, us see-vill-yans are, in fact, mostly not felons-at-large; it'd be nice if y'all tried to be a little more aware of that.

Okay, time to accuse me of cop-bashing. Just remember that camera phones are everywhere. Behaving responsibly and professionally will look a whole lot better when the sorority girl's pals snap some pix of the excitement and e-mail them to all their friends.

 

[Camp David]

If you have a problem with how LEO's do their job, take it up with their supervisors. Instead, you come here and posture about how 'upset' you would be if a cop pointed his gun at you. Maybe you should get "Certified Good Guy" tattooed to your forehead so police will know they never have to point their guns at you.

Series of honest questions Spaceman...
-Do you seriously believe that law enforcement officers should be pointing weapons at non-hostile targets?
-Did you ever take a NRA safety class?
-What was Rule #1 as you remember it with a weapon in the NRA instruction?
-What is gained by LEOs pointing weapons at non-hostile targets?
-In your opinion, is "doing their job" inclusive of aiming weapons at civilian non-hostile targets?
-Does it matter if their finger is on the trigger while their guns are aimed at non-hostile targets?

Camp David

 

[v8fbird]

Police in New Orleans after Katrina walked around aiming their weapons at people, and they weren't looking for a murderer. Then the national guard got off their trucks and started walking around looking down the sights of their M16s. I remember a colonel or general getting out of his humvee and just about tackling the first soldier he saw pointing his weapon at people. He then started walking down the street yelling at individual soldiers AND police, telling them they weren't there to fight, they were there to protect. He had them sling their weapons onto their backs and start handing out water. It was probably a publicity stunt, but it sets precedent that you should not have a weapon pointed at you just because you might have been one of three out of a million people who shot at a rescue helicopter.

Weapons drawn and at the ready? Maybe. Weapons aimed? No way. You just have to figure that if some guy can jump out from behind a building and cover the 30 yards between you and him before you or any of the other 12 officers with you can point and fire, then you just go down.

Same as I’m not going to shoot anything that walks through my bedroom door in the middle of the night, even though I consider anything that comes through a locked door a threat. If a burglar get across my room in the 1.5 seconds it takes me to turn on the lamp or flashlight...oh well. What’s the alternative, just start blasting at shadows?

If the job of police is just to find the murderer, then sure, they should be pointing weapons at everybody. But that’s not their job. Their job is to “protect and serve.” They were supposed to protect the students and the citizens of Blacksburg. Catching the criminal was a distant second.

At some point you have to say “nuts” – that some small measure of greater safety for me is not worth the danger I create when I point a loaded weapon at somebody’s face.



P.S. Gee, the "cop-bashers" are REALLY coming out of the woodwork now, aren't they spaceman?

 

[Ausserordeutlich]

V8fbird: Maybe the general wasn't pulling a publicity stunt. Maybe he just had a little more sense than those at the very bottom rung of his command and a LOT more sense than the l.e.o.'s.

The "4 rules of gun safety" are great to follow, but they aren't laws. Violating one of the four rules doesn't necessarily mean that a law has been broken.

In situations where the police are surveying a group of people where one or more suspected murderers or other felons might be part of the group, the police are likely to have their weapons pointed in a direction that would do the most good, should the offender(s) be spotted.

 

[Musketeer]

Firearms safety rules aside...

Why not hold the weapon pointed at low ready. Line it up on the vertical with the "suspect" but do not level it horizontally? IF required you must only raise and fire.

If you hold the weapon on the targets Center of Mass you will most likely obsruct your view of their lower torso and most importantly their hands. Hands kill, not being able to see them is a serious danger. Holding the weapon at the low ready, requiring only a vertical movement to be on target, will allow rapid target engagement while at the same time allowing the officer a full view of the suspect.

As an added benifit it also ensures that any NDs go into the ground, not the suspect.

 

[Musketeer]

If the job of police is just to find the murderer, then sure, they should be pointing weapons at everybody. But that’s not their job. Their job is to “protect and serve.” They were supposed to protect the students and the citizens of Blacksburg. Catching the criminal was a distant second.

Perhaps in the hearts of many of the officers that was their job but the SCOTUS has upheld time and again that is NOT their job. The job of the police is to invesitgate and apprehend, not to "protect and serve" no matter what the side of the black and white reads.

 

[buzz_knox]

Why not hold the weapon pointed at low ready. Line it up on the vertical with the "suspect" but do not level it horizontally? IF required you must only raise and fire.

Honest answer? Lack of training in that area leads to a belief that aiming in on the target is the fastest of responding to verbal/visual cues that deadly force is necessary. When a person is holding a weapon, that's true. When a person isn't, then keeping the weapon at the ready but not aimed in is about as fast as anything and a lot safer.

 

[spacemanspiff]

I hope you are not in the US and have never read the Constitution!

And what does that have to do with the discussion at hand here?

-Do you seriously believe that law enforcement officers should be pointing weapons at non-hostile targets?

I believe there are situations where such a response is justifiable. Again, are these 'non-hostile' targets easily identifable as such? More importantly, once its determined they are NOT a threat, does the LEO move on to another potential threat?

-Did you ever take a NRA safety class?
-What was Rule #1 as you remember it with a weapon in the NRA instruction?

No, I am self-taught.

-What is gained by LEOs pointing weapons at non-hostile targets?

When they are searching for a dangerous suspect, they gain a lot. Heck, ask any whiny liberal, I'm sure they will approve of police using their weapons as such.

-In your opinion, is "doing their job" inclusive of aiming weapons at civilian non-hostile targets?

Again, in the search for a dangerous suspect, yes, that is part of their job. A near exact example of this happened here in Anchorage on Tuesday. In the search for the suspects witnessed entering a shopping mall after having a shootout on the street, responding officers approached the mall with shotguns and pistols trained on the doors and the people exiting.

My turn for a question: Are we talking about the same issue? I am defending a LEO's action of being ready to use deadly force by having their weapon trained on people as they search for a suspect.
I'm getting the impression that some of you are assuming the LEO is keeping the weapon trained on the 'non-hostile target' after its established the target is 'non-hostile'.

 

[buzz_knox]

I'm getting the impression that some of you are assuming the LEO is keeping the weapon trained on the 'non-hostile target' after its established the target is 'non-hostile'.

Well, if you watch most any arrest where multiple officers are involved, and you're likely to see the suspect on the ground and being cuffed . . . and the weapons of others are still drawn and pointed in. Often, they end up being point at the officers putting the cuffs on. I've seen that more than a few times. Are the officers "hostiles" or is the officer with the weapon just reacting poorly to the situation?

Once again, it's bad training to lock onto individuals with a weapon unless use of (or the threat of immediate force) is necessary at that moment. When searching a crowd, swinging the weapon from person to person wastes time and energy, and sets the stage for nasty accidents of the type that have occurred before.

 

[Camp David]

I believe there are situations where such a response is justifiable.

Okay...fair answer but I strongly disagree. For starters, it opens up a whole dangerous element. There is no speed advantage here by LEOs aiming at a non-threatening target and indeed the aspect of a accident is greatly heightened. Secondly, targets are acquired as they become threatening, not before. I suggest that rookie police might make the mistake of interpreting a non-threating civilians actions as hostile and ending his life through accident. Lesson learned: don't target non-threatening civilians (they're the ones paying the LEOs salary by the way)!

Again, are these 'non-hostile' targets easily identifable as such?

Light bulb shines: THEY LACKED WEAPONS!

No, I am self-taught.

I am not being critical here but merely academically suggestive... and I strongly suggest you enroll in a NRA-certified gun handling course. If you advocate, for police or anyone else, the aiming of weapons at non-threatening targets, you might find yourself suffering from penetration illness brought on by folks not happy about your advocacy.

In the search for the suspects witnessed entering a shopping mall after having a shootout on the street, responding officers approached the mall with shotguns and pistols trained on the doors and the people exiting.

Stupid is as stupid does. We have no shortage of rookie law enforcement acting out ATF tactics and recklessly threatening innocent civilians. Ruby Ridge was a class A example. Suggest you read about it.

I am defending a LEO's action of being ready to use deadly force by having their weapon trained on people as they search for a suspect. I'm getting the impression that some of you are assuming the LEO is keeping the weapon trained on the 'non-hostile target' after its established the target is 'non-hostile'.

You observe with your eyes, not the barrel of a weapon. When a threat materializes then you address it with your weapon. This has not changed in 2,000 years of human development.

 

[Edward429451]

As citizens, we're required to identify a definite threat before we draw our weapons. Why not the police also? Oh yeah, they're searching for a dangerous suspect. So whats wrong with low ready? Or backup. Or both?

 

[azurefly]

I think we have seriously sunk SpacemanSpiff's position attempting to justify pointing firearms at unarmed, non-suspect bystanders during the search for one dangerous suspect. I have read his points, and consider them to be not-valid, period. I will continue to strongly object to the idea that live weapons should be pointed at all the people who are being checked out during the search, as though any one of them might suddenly explode into a fireball of cop-killing fury at any moment.

There is just no defending that position.

Just remember that camera phones are everywhere. Behaving responsibly and professionally will look a whole lot better when the sorority girl's pals snap some pix of the excitement and e-mail them to all their friends.

Yeah, but those girls will be thrown to the ground, cuffed, and have their property taken away not to be returned, because they photographed police performing their jobs in a public place without obtaining consent from those police. :barf:

Didn't you know it's criminal now to take photos of people in public now as long as they are police officers?


-azurefly

 

[spacemanspiff]

THEY LACKED WEAPONS

How do you ascertain an individual is unarmed? Is there no chance one of them is carrying concealed?
We don't have all the facts of the situation in question here. Perhaps there wasn't a clear description given of the suspect? Perhaps the suspect has accomplice(s)?

 

[spacemanspiff]

I will continue to strongly object to the idea that live weapons should be pointed at all the people who are being checked out during the search, as though any one of them might suddenly explode into a fireball of cop-killing fury at any moment

I have provided valid scenarios for why an armed response by LEO's is justifiable, and yet asinine exaggerations are thrown back in response.

 

[Wildalaska]

There is just no defending that position.

O yes there is.

The context here is safety. In a sceanrio where there are armed dangerous suspects mixing in a crowd, some degree of tactical advantage must go to the officers.

Id rather have a cop point a gun at me vis a vis some BG gets the drop on him and shoots me too

WildbutheyyouwontconvincemeiwontconvinceyouAlaska

 

[v8fbird]

"How do you ascertain an individual is unarmed?"

You look at them.

"Is there no chance one of them is carrying concealed?"

Once again, you can't make any decent argument for why cops shouldn't point their pistols at our heads when they make a traffic stop because we might be carrying concealed then. Someone with a weapon who is NOT the perpetrator is no more of a threat with a murderer on the loose than they are any other day. In fact, they could be an asset. The police should have been ENCOURAGING people to carry their weapons that day, not pointing weapons AT them.

"Perhaps there wasn't a clear description given of the suspect? Perhaps the suspect has accomplice(s)?"

His face was all over the news. EVERY SINGLE COP knew exactly whom he was looking for. There was no mistaking a white kid with curly hair with girls and males of different races.

"I have provided valid scenarios for why an armed response by LEO's is justifiable, and yet asinine exaggerations are thrown back in response."

Give me a scenario, with SPECIFIC DETAILS, in which it is OK for a cop to point a weapon at a person that he KNOWS is not who he is looking for. You haven't done that yet.

 

[v8fbird]

"Id rather have a cop point a gun at me vis a vis some BG gets the drop on him and shoots me too"

I'd say he should just shoot you so that you wouldn't get in the way of him seeing the bad guy. Wouldn't that make sense? Then you'd be the only one that got shot, and the cop would be fine!

 

[azurefly]

I wrote:

I will continue to strongly object to the idea that live weapons should be pointed at all the people who are being checked out during the search, as though any one of them might suddenly explode into a fireball of cop-killing fury at any moment

And Spiff wrote back:

I have provided valid scenarios for why an armed response by LEO's is justifiable, and yet asinine exaggerations are thrown back in response.

Can anyone explain why, other than weakness in his argument, Spiff disingenuously switched from discussing whether "live weapons should be pointed at all the people who are being checked out during the search" to defending "armed response by LEO's"??

Spiff, free clue: NO ONE criticised "armed response by LEO's," no matter how hard you try to distort. Your tactics here are really maddening. You won't stay with anything. You shift around every time your wrongness is pinned down.


-azurefly

 

[spacemanspiff]

Once again, you can't make any decent argument for why cops shouldn't point their pistols at our heads when they make a traffic stop because we might be carrying concealed then

Is that at all what I am arguing about? Again, an asinine exaggeration.

His face was all over the news. EVERY SINGLE COP knew exactly whom he was looking for. There was no mistaking a white kid with curly hair with girls and males of different races

What? A person won't try to alter their appearance? Last weekend one of the doormen at the bar refused a drunk guy at the door, told him to come back another night when he wasnt drunk. Guy goes home, shaves his head and tries to come back. Fortunately the doorman was looking at names on the photo ID as well.
The suspect might put on a hat to conceal the curly hair? Maybe he was one of those pretty boys that could pass for an ugly girl?