Two different cops, two different stories...

doomsknight62

Alright, this is a question for the LEOs, and it actually does have something to do with guns this time. I am getting a college degree in the field of Criminal Justice. Since the police academy for this region in right here, most of my professors are also police officers.
Sooner or later, in every one of my classes, the question of lethal force has arisen. But there are two professors who gave two ENTIRELY different answers to the question. I know different departments have different policies, but these are like day and night.
Professor One: " We don't shoot to kill. We shoot to stop. We sort of follow the rules of engagement- we don't fire unless fired upon. Do we shoot to kill? Of course not. "
Professor Two: " If the situation is serious enough to warrant firing your weapon, then of course we shoot to kill. Yep. Two in the chest and one in the head, in case they're wearing a vest. "
I'm just not sure if that sounds like a difference in policy or not. Does someone want to comment? By the way, the first professor is a Major, and the second is a detective, Overland Park Police and Olathe Police, respectively.

" God is in His Heaven, All is Right in the World. "

Alpine

If the first goes to court he will be back in class to teach.

If the second goes and testifies they will have to hire a substitute to teach the rest of the course. He would be fired or in prision.

It's OK to think it, but do not let those words pass your lips.

"If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there."

Edited by - Alpine on 09/30/2002 09:44:26

steve45

The first version is politically correct. The second is the truth.

Smokeeater 38

I'm not a cop, I'm a Firefighter, but we have to deal with having Polices and Procedures manuals (SOP's or SOG's). We changed from calling ours SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures) to SOG's (Standard Operating Guidelines) because in court a Guideline is just that a guideline and a Procedure is something that must be followed. I agree with Alpine & Steve45 it's all about how others will react to an officer involved shooting. We have a saying on our department and I know others use it to "If it's not on paper it didn't happen". Life for Cops, Firefighter and EMT's is all about covering your butt if you have to go to court.

I rush in where others flee.

wipala

We use to carry Glaser Safety Slugs but we were told if we had to take anyone down. Stress the non ricochet and not going through walls aspect not the knockdown power. You use the force needed any more is excessive. Shoot to stop, the best way to stop is to stop permanently

"When I take action I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."--

President of the United States,

George W. Bush.

Nighthawk

State laws and (SOPs) are different but I think the same principal applys to all.I think your Instructors didnt make their selfs clear,neither one.If you are in a situation where you have no other choice but to Discharge your weapon at a suspect,you dont do it to shoot him in the Leg,or fire warning shots.Hollywood has employed a false pretense about shooting the gun out of someones hand Etc.If you have to shoot a criminal make sure its to save a life.I know when I first became a LEO 9 yrs ago their was a rookie Town Policeman in a different agency that fired his weapon in the air because a subject was running from him.That wasnt his story,but it just so happened their was a couple of witness's.Needless to say he was fired.Im a firearms instructor for our Dept. and we dont teach to shoot at the head.Maybe we should,but we dont.And most agency's dont teach that practice either.But in my opinion in school its a good practice,as they try to prepare you for any and all situations,because different Depts have different SOPs.

Best!!

Rugster


Toujours Pret

Edited by - Rugster on 09/30/2002 11:30:00

redcedars

SHOOT TO STOP. That means terminate the threat, not the assailant. (It may be true that center of mass aim point is likely to result in fatal injury, but it also, and more importantly, is the most likely way to STOP the assailant and terminate the threat.) Shooting to kill means you have decided to be judge, jury, and executioner yourself. As your frame of mind is a critical element of possible criminal charges, you may go from justified self-defense to accused murderer in one sentance.

If you must shoot, and put the threat down, call police/ambulance asap. Say as little as possible to anyone, including police. If you get any feeling whatsoever that law enforcement considers YOU a possible crime suspect, SHUT UP! (Motormouth is a common stress reaction, and you may say something that hurts you later, even if you are 100% justified.) DO NOT listen to LEO blather about failing to cooperate being evidence of guilt. There is no way to know if the LEO is trying to find the truth or trying to make a case regardless. Better to spend the night in jail and talk to your lawyer later than to give a statement you think is exculpatory; others may take a different view of it. It won't be fun, but you will minimize collateral damage (like a manslaughter conviction).

redcedars

DancesWithSheep

Neither professor is correct. The first fails to take into account when immediate, lethal force is required or otherwise justified (like when defending one's life); the second fails to take into account when immediate, lethal force is not required or is otherwise excessive. As stated, the first says you NEVER shoot to kill no matter what, and the second says you ALWAYS shoot to kill no matter what. Doesn't judgement re: nature of crime and/or threat level ever enter into this somewhere?

I'd transfer to another school.



Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.

redcedars

Dances:

Respectfully, I disagree. The employment of potentially lethal force does not require the intent to kill. And your intention, your frame of mind, can be the only difference between reasonable force in self-defense and manslaughter or murder.

I don't ever want to shoot or otherwise harm anyone. But if an assailant puts me in fear of my life, I will try to stop him before he hurts me. Unless circumstances dictate otherwise (like he has a vest on) I will aim for center of mass. If he dies, he dies. But I only want to stop him; once the threat is removed, I will try to save his life if he is still alive.

redcedars

DancesWithSheep

redcedars: I don't see where we disagree. The issue is not whether to use deadly force to fend off an armed assailant, but whether to use it to stop an unarmed joyrider in a stolen car from getting away on foot.

Often the mind believes it is thinking, when it is only passing from one metaphor to the next.

mkirkland

Use the minimum amount of force neccesary to diffuse the situation. If that means two squeezes of the trigger that is what it means. I agree with the above, you shoot to stop, but in any law enforcement classes they will teach you shoot center mass. Well if you shoot someone twice center mass they will most likely stop, if they don't and you use the failure drill you better make sure it is needed. Shooting someone in the face after you have already shot them twice isn't really going to look good, make sure that your life or someone elses is in immediate danger. You will have plenty of time in the accademy to go over this extensively. When I was trained we had to memorize a page of information that had the directives for lethal force.

redcedars

Dances, I guess I was focusing on the "both profs are wrong" comment, because I view the "always shoot to stop, never shoot to kill" view as correct. Upon re-reading the original post, I wonder if the "shoot to kill" guy really means that if the situation demands shooting, you shouldn't be trying to wing the perp. Shooting to stop, in my view, does not include the dangerous notion of trying to wing the assailant to discourage the attack.

redcedars