Use of Force/Weapon Discharge

[almost5-0]

There's a question that's been bugging me for some time and I thought it best to address it on this forum. I've watched countless videos of officer involved shootings and one recently stuck out to me. An officer walks in on a store robbery and upon realizing what was taking place he draws his weapon and jams it into the head of the robber. A scuffle ensues and eventually the officer, with the help of a store clerk, gets control of the guy. My question is this:

What are the appropriate times for the drawing and use of your firearm? I understand that in the case of a suspect with a gun it is warranted. However, suppose you walk up on 2 or more gentlemen and are alone. Do you draw your weapon just to equalize the odds or do you just use verbal commands? If one or both attack you, will using force (i.e., firing your weapon) be appropriate even if they don't have weapons or should you risk getting into a scuffle and possibly losing your weapon to one of the bad guys (recalling the Constable who was shot with his own gun)?

As seasoned LEOs what are your thoughts?

[jeeves44]

I've seen the video you are talking about. I was surprised the officer didn't "accidently" discharge his firearm when he threw the suspect to the ground. It was obvious the officers handgun was in the way while he was trying to gain control. At fire the Officer had no way of knowing if the robber was armed, so pulling the gun was good, but when the scuffle started the gun needs to be holstered, unless of course the officer thought the suspect had a weapon. (I'm not second guessing the officer, in the same situation I may have done the same thing) You don't want to get that close with your firearm. Officers are trained on how to take control of guns that are that close, you damn well know that prisionors spend 10x the time us officers do in disarming.

If two guys are attacking one officer .. and said officer was in fear of his life, he would be justified in using deadly force. Wasn't there a case where a female officer (alone) shot an unarmed man. it was justified, as the man was some type of a professoinal fighter or wrestler....

Sorry for any typos..............

[almost5-0]

My Disclaimer:

Just want to ensure that I don't offend any LEOs with this post. I mean no disrespect to any fallen officers nor am I in any way asking any to 'arm-chare quaterback' any decisions made by your fellow officers. I am just curious as since I've begun the process of becoming an LEO (looking to the Lord) I have begun taking a closer look at the dangers you guys face. I like to know the score before I throw my hat in and am looking for some real thoughts on something that has been bugging me.

Jeeves... Thanks for your reply! Much appreciated!

[GeekswithGuns]

What are the appropriate times for the drawing and use of your firearm?

This is entirely based on a combination of officer discretion, training and department policy. There really are very few "inappropriate" times to draw a weapon... if I might need it, it's coming out. There are different use of force models that departments use and when you do get on and different procedures regarding documentation.

As far as actual use of deadly force... you or someone else must be facing what you believe to be an imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury. Pretty standard as far as policy goes around the country.

[vincelli]

When using Deadly Force, you must be able to articulate why you were in reasonable fear of death or serious physical injury. This is pretty much the standard nationwide.

Similarly, when drawing your weapon, you must be able to articulate why it was reasonably necessary. This is based on a ton of factors, many of which are similar to the factors involved in the actual use of Deadly Force: sex, weight, strength, physical condition, fighting ability, locale and environment, etc. of both the Officer and the suspect.

When drawing the weapon, the most important factor is the fact that action always beats reaction. Should you find yourself involved in an incident in which you reasonably may face death or serious physical injury, you are justified in drawing your weapon, even if that threat is not immediately apparent. By not doing so, you are placing yourself at a serious disadvantage due to the physics involved in action/reaction.

To put it simply, we are already behind the eightball. Should that robber turn around and have a weapon in his hand, he will have the advantage even if your weapon is out because he is acting, and you are reacting. It takes time for the brain to process what is occurring and decide on a response.

Split seconds count more in our profession than most.

-V

[creolecop]

If it's o'dark thirty and I make a traffic stop with a car occupied more than once chances are depending on the "hair on the back of the neck" monitor my gun will be drawn upon approach of the car. I will just keep it out of sight (straight down my leg, kinda behind the thigh). Sometimes I stop half way and have them exit the car, sometimes I approach and speak to them while my gun is still out, sometimes I put it up after they get out and I see their hands are fine in a casual conversation.
If I go to a domestic or "noise outside my house" complaint, burglar alarms, and a host of other types of calls I will likely approach with my firearm drawn in the same manner already out of the holster. Pretty much if I anticipate that it may need to come out "just in case" then it's out. No written report necessary or any of that nonsense, it's officers descretion when the firearm comes out.

Deadly force is pretty much if the officer believes there is an immediate threat to anyone other than the threatening person. Said person does not need to act on their threat before deadly force is used just that it appears immenent (could happen).

The cop in the video could have shot the guy had he one saw a guy robbing the place which is fact, and when he turned around if the officer saw an object he believed to be a weapon (could have been a candy bar) and shot the guy the officer would have been found justified because any reasonable person (which is the test) would conclude that it was "likely" that the robber would have had a weapon in that situation. The officer didn't have to wait for him to fully turn around on him and squeeze off a shot or stabb him. The officer was already our danger zone (6ft). Lots of factors, but basically the officer just needs to believe there was an imminent danger. The fact is the what if scenarios that you could do with this is endless.

[Sleuth]

Use of Force will be taught in your academy, and darn near beaten to death. I used to teach it at our academy, and the 'what iffing" can go on forever. Plus, my reaction on day (feeling good) may differ the next (got a cold, feel weak, not 'on my game).

The UOF criteria remain the same, but if I have just been in a long foot chase, am not feeling well, etc., then my ability to defend myself with less lethal means may be reduced - I just don't want to get in a fight. Thus, in addition to relative size and numbers, the officers abilities are also part of the equation.

(Find the book "Signal Zero" by Markham for a fine explanation of 'perspective' in UOF issues. A lawyer or college professor who has never been there does not have the perspective of the members here - some of us have 'seen the elephant'. I have been close enough to smell the peanuts on his breath.)

[MNCop2b]

There's a question that's been bugging me for some time and I thought it best to address it on this forum. I've watched countless videos of officer involved shootings and one recently stuck out to me. An officer walks in on a store robbery and upon realizing what was taking place he draws his weapon and jams it into the head of the robber. A scuffle ensues and eventually the officer, with the help of a store clerk, gets control of the guy. My question is this:

What are the appropriate times for the drawing and use of your firearm? I understand that in the case of a suspect with a gun it is warranted. However, suppose you walk up on 2 or more gentlemen and are alone. Do you draw your weapon just to equalize the odds or do you just use verbal commands? If one or both attack you, will using force (i.e., firing your weapon) be appropriate even if they don't have weapons or should you risk getting into a scuffle and possibly losing your weapon to one of the bad guys (recalling the Constable who was shot with his own gun)?

As seasoned LEOs what are your thoughts?

You have more than one question and every answer is going to be different depending on the officer and his level of experience. I draw my weapon whenever I think I'm going to need it. I use my weapon whenever I am defending my life or another person's life.

Drawing your weapon just to equalize a situation is completely stupid IMHO. If you don't plan on using it, don't whip it out. Understanding your departments use of force comtinuum and understanding how to operate within it is the key. Verbal commands are not always an appropriate place to start out on the contimuum. If one or both attack me you have officer/subject factors that can come into play and yes, shooting one of them may be an appropriate action. There are no black and white decisions when it comes to the use of force. I, and most officers/agents I know, use an appropriate level of force that will get suspects under control and get me home at the end of my shift.

[ryker]

Spend some time on the range with a shot clock timer. You'll see that trained officer can draw and fire nearly as quick as an officer with a gun behind the leg.

[t150vsuptpr]

I haven't see the videos you speak of, but I will say that there are most certainly circumstances under which the drawing of the weapon and even the firing of the weapon upon an unarmed individual with intent to kill are justified.

You are not "Superman". When you, as a LEO get into a struggle or fight, usually one of you fighting has brought a weapon into the fight. A punch up side the head in the right spot can kill. I went through some boxing in basic. The purpose wasn't to teach me how to box, it was to teach me how easy it is to get hurt.

When ever I covered one or more at gunpoint ...
... it was not intended as an invitation to advance upon my person.

I told my wife that I'ld be safe.