Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think at the very beginning of an encounter is when an officer should have the right to consider deadly force, namely ...not following officer's instructions. Generally, I trust the police to do right by me as long as I follow what he's telling me and trust that what he's telling me is for my safety as well as his.
So many people are angry, combative and defiant that they got caught doing something,they believe they are above following instructions and we must have those in place otherwise folks would just walk away from the cops and there would be no law.
I think at the very beginning of an encounter is when an officer should have the right to consider deadly force, namely ...not following officer's instructions.
First off I agree with TB completely and that shoot you to stop the threat, and my training thought me once my magazine is done I exchange for the next simultaneously so I can address the next threat...
Sgt buzzcut.... Usually the first pArt of the encounter is normal it's the decisions after. For instance I pull a guy over for warrants he's cool in the beginning. I run him come back and say get out, now he doesn't want to go to jail and pulls a gun... Etc etc
I think at the very beginning of an encounter is when an officer should have the right to consider deadly force, namely ...not following officer's instructions.
Are you saying that not following instructions should move an encounter to the verge of deadly force? A capable officer will always be aware of the possibility that deadly force might be necessary, even in the most seemingly mundane encounters. However, it's extreme to suggest that the law allow for the use of deadly force, or moving to within one step of deadly force, simply to enforce compliance with instructions. Simply being uncooperative with a cop is not a reason in itself that someone's life should be put in danger. It's also possible that a person might not comply with an officer's instructions because of some emotional or physical difficulty which makes it difficult for the person to comply at that moment.
All of which adds to the difficulty of doing the job of law enforcement for the many good cops who want to do the job right--needing to consider the various possible reasons that a person might not be quick to cooperate with an officer, and not to overreact to what seems like lack of cooperation, all the while being aware that even an apparently routine situation could suddenly turn into something that puts the officer's life in danger. Not an easy balance for the officer to strike, but every day, cops manage to strike this balance right. Hats off to them.
Your shooting everyone with a knife if they come-with in 20ft.
so your first shot may have killed them, your not trained to shoot one time and reevaluate nor to just keep shooting until you hear a click.
I question that you can even pass the MMPI.
You shoot to kill or you don't shot at all.
If you don't want to be threatened just back up or go away.
O.K. in your dreams this guy is big and dangerous with a huge pigsticker .
In mine he is a 97 pound guy with a buck knife who wants suicide by cop.
With me he will get the help he needs , with you he will be dead.
Your there to serve the guy with the knife also, use that charm you have with people
A threat can have a very good chance of deescalation if you use your words and not your weapon, why are you escalating the situation?
so you can kill someone?
bad want-a=be no, doughnut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBCasino
Again, you shoot to stop the threat,
Just out of curiosity, what academy did you attend?
I'll tell you but you have to tell first.
Should I tell you the year and my class placement and my post score while we are at it all just because you ask, gee how about my name too and while we are at my class photo.
I'll narrow it down for you it's north of MPLS MN.
Last edited by snofarmer; 10-18-2012 at 10:05 PM..
Are you saying that not following instructions should move an encounter to the verge of deadly force? A capable officer will always be aware of the possibility that deadly force might be necessary, even in the most seemingly mundane encounters. However, it's extreme to suggest that the law allow for the use of deadly force, or moving to within one step of deadly force, simply to enforce compliance with instructions. Simply being uncooperative with a cop is not a reason in itself that someone's life should be put in danger. It's also possible that a person might not comply with an officer's instructions because of some emotional or physical difficulty which makes it difficult for the person to comply at that moment.
All of which adds to the difficulty of doing the job of law enforcement for the many good cops who want to do the job right--needing to consider the various possible reasons that a person might not be quick to cooperate with an officer, and not to overreact to what seems like lack of cooperation, all the while being aware that even an apparently routine situation could suddenly turn into something that puts the officer's life in danger. Not an easy balance for the officer to strike, but every day, cops manage to strike this balance right. Hats off to them.
In my view it depends on the specific instruction. For instance, it's one thing to keep blasting the radio after you've been told to turn it off at a traffic stop, but an entirely different situation after a subject goes reaching in his pockets after being clearly told keep your hands out of your pockets and where I can see them. Instructions like "get down on the ground", "keep your hands where I can see them", "drop to your knees and get your hands behind your head", "walk backward towards me with your hands behind your head".........these statements are not preceded with "Would you please, or "Will you kindly". It's serious business, you're in custody, like it or not and armed or unarmed if you don't comply, I don't believe it's the officer's job to guess what your intentions are if he feels threatened.
Your shooting everyone with a knife if they come-with in 20ft.
so your first shot may have killed them, your not trained to shoot one time and reevaluate nor to just keep shooting until you hear a click.
I never said this, you can't understand shooting to stop the threat?
Quote:
I question that you can even pass the MMPI.
You shoot to kill or you don't shot at all.
You don't "shoot to kill", you shoot to stop the threat. If the suspect dies in the process, then that's the way it is.
Quote:
If you don't want to be threatened just back up or go away.
Maybe that works for you, in LE, that's not usually the first option.
Quote:
O.K. in your dreams this guy is big and dangerous with a huge pigsticker .
In mine he is a 97 pound guy with a buck knife who wants suicide by cop.
With me he will get the help he needs , with you he will be dead.
You do realize that some people who attempt suicide by cop are willing to kill cops in order to get the police to kill them? I'm not sure how you, as a supposed "Police Officer" doesn't know this?
If someone is coming at me with a knife, I'm not backing away and let the suspect chase me around while I try to talk him down. 21 ft. rule anybody?
Quote:
A threat can have a very good chance of deescalation if you use your words and not your weapon, why are you escalating the situation?
so you can kill someone?
Sometimes you have to use your weapon, that's why we carry them. the person with the knife has already escalated the situation to deadly force, you'd be foolish to not be prepared to respond otherwise.
Quote:
bad want-a=be no, doughnut.
Now I'm a wannabe, hehehe, that's a laugh. I noticed I'm not the only LEO here that disagreed with you re: the 21ft rule, I guess that guy's a faker too?
Quote:
I'll tell you but you have to tell first.
Should I tell you the year and my class placement and my post score while we are at it all just because you ask, gee how about my name too and while we are at my class photo.
I'll narrow it down for you it's north of MPLS MN.
Instructions like "get down on the ground", "keep your hands where I can see them", "drop to your knees and get your hands behind your head", "walk backward towards me with your hands behind your head".........these statements are not preceded with "Would you please, or "Will you kindly". It's serious business, you're in custody, like it or not and armed or unarmed if you don't comply, I don't believe it's the officer's job to guess what your intentions are if he feels threatened.
So I guess by your standard it is open season on the deaf!?!
No dude, reaching for your pocket is not sufficient cause to use deadly force.
Not keeping your hands on your head is not sufficient cause to use deadly force.
Not walking backwards is not sufficient cause to use deadly force.
Yes, a stop and seizure is serious business but simply not obeying the commands of a police officer is NOT serious enough in the eyes of the law or the courts to use deadly force.
Generally, I trust the police to do right by me as long as I follow what he's telling me and trust that what he's telling me is for my safety as well as his..
Surely you jest! If a police officer has you at gun point, yeah do what he says. But don't believe it's all for your personal safety and well being. I understand the context in the issue we are discussing...but blind trust like this will get you unjustly arrested and convicted, or your rights trampled on.
In my view it depends on the specific instruction. For instance, it's one thing to keep blasting the radio after you've been told to turn it off at a traffic stop, but an entirely different situation after a subject goes reaching in his pockets after being clearly told keep your hands out of your pockets and where I can see them. Instructions like "get down on the ground", "keep your hands where I can see them", "drop to your knees and get your hands behind your head", "walk backward towards me with your hands behind your head".........these statements are not preceded with "Would you please, or "Will you kindly". It's serious business, you're in custody, like it or not and armed or unarmed if you don't comply, I don't believe it's the officer's job to guess what your intentions are if he feels threatened.
This idea seems to make a bit more sense when you specify instructions like these, but I still feel that there are too many possible explanations for failure to follow these instructions to ramp things up to the level of deadly force, or right on the verge of deadly force, for this. As I said in my earlier post, a capable cop will approach any situation prepared for the possibility of danger, but this needs to be balanced against the reality that, just as seemingly mundane circumstances can suddenly turn threatening, not every situation that appears sketchy turns out actually to be dangerous.
Here's a good example of a reason that you can't automatically assume that failure to follow instructions means a suspect is putting an officer in immediate danger:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
So I guess by your standard it is open season on the deaf!?!
.
It can get very tricky. That's why in my earlier post I had praise for those good cops out there who know how to strike the right balance between protecting themselves and avoiding over-reaction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
