Does Police protocol encourage police to kill anyone brandishing a "weapon?"

I had dinner with two friends last night and the conversation centered on current events (markets, etc) and the subject of police shootings came up and one of my friends said that a friend of his who is a policeman told him recently that police protocol is for police to shoot to kill anyone who moves forward with what could be construed as a weapon. He asked the cop if that included a "golf club" (in reference to a recent video making the rounds) and he said emphatically "yes! he might throw it at you and kill you!" I couldnt believe it.....but that is what I was told. Any LE officers out there that can clarify police policy on dealing with "weapons" brandished from a distance and the green light to shoot to kill?

Whoever is waving a gun about should be shot.

Sure it does. They're trained to escalate the situation to resolution which means they will shoot you for anything they want to.

The rationalization for it will come after the fact. In the moment just expect to be shot even if you're complying with their "orders."

Gotta laugh at that word. Clowns giving "orders" because some magic man somewhere decided they were all better than us and thereby had the right, no, the solemn duty, to keep the peons in line in a state of constant fear.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by holtdani

What about being shot for holding a golf club from 10 yards away (8x one's reach) after someone yelling "police!" (but not verified at the time) breaks into your house in the middle of the night??

SOP is shoot for center of mass to stop.
If you shoot to kill that can be used against you in a court of law.
And yes a golf club is a dangeroous weapon especially aftter they break your gun hand with it.
Not all gun shots stop people immediately, in fact alot don't.
Whether it be a non fatal shot or just adrenaline.
But IMO if you are using a weapon against a badge, you better be prepared to die, the badge is usually for the good.
Not always but sometimes.

I was trained to take down large adults with Down's syndrome "without" a weapon, or a taser, or pepper spray, etc. Most people in my old line of work were paid $9-$11/hr to be ready to take down someone 4X their size.... and it works, almost all of the time if you are well trained. These police are trained cowards IMO, what ever happened to training police to take out the legs or arms? Every shot is a kill shot, and mostly based on hypothetical scenarios that may or may not occur.

I am a part time LEO. I was trained using the “force pyramid” as a guide on what level of force was and was not acceptable. Basically, it states that an LEO can use one level of force higher than a suspect to get them to comply with a lawful order. The levels of force are verbal, physical, less than lethal, lethal. For example, I ask you to get out of your car and you say no, I can’t shoot you or even use OC spray because you are still at the verbal force level but I can grab you and use physical force to force you to comply. Another example, building on the first: I am now physically removing you from the vehicle and you grab onto your seat to prevent me from removing you … since you still haven’t used physical force on me, I cant break out the ASP, but if you put your hands on me or push me away I can.

The legal standard in my state is anyone with a weapon of any kind within 21’ is fair game.

To answer the question posed by the OP, yes, barring some extraneous circumstances, lethal force can be used on someone wielding a golf club within 21 feet.

Here’s why: www.youtube.com...

Typically shooting soemone is the last resort on the books, most cops dont follow the book and shoot first , in this day and age anyway

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
I was trained to take down large adults with Down's syndrome "without" a weapon, or a taser, or pepper spray, etc. Most people in my old line of work were paid $9-$11/hr to be ready to take down someone 4X their size.... and it works, almost all of the time if you are well trained. These police are trained cowards IMO, what ever happened to training police to take out the legs or arms? Every shot is a kill shot, and mostly based on hypothetical scenarios that may or may not occur.

If you are in a situation that warrants lethal force, you dont shoot to injure, you shoot to kill.

reply to post by FrancoUn-American


I would say that there is zero empirical evidence you could cite to back that up. An LEO, on average, will be involved in exactly ONE fatal incident every 8 years. While guns are often drawn, they are seldom used.

reply to post by SirMike


^so what if i said, "sir, there is no need for me to step out of my vehicle, i have no desire to cause trouble, but i feel you are handling the situation unfairly". would you start yanking me out of the vehicle than?
i dont care who you think you are, you come trying to pull me out of my Jeep, ill snatch that department issued glock .40 out of your holster so fast you wouldnt know wtf happened.

reply to post by SirMike


That's crazy. I'm just supposed to get our my car because you told me to?

Unless we've just been in a high speed chase or something the only reason a cop would ask me to get of my car is so they can sneak a search by stepping into the opened door or to coax me into a search of my person which is all bull#.

Tell you cop friends if they're asking somebody to get out of their car they better be under arrest because unless they are under arrest there is no reason whatsoever anyone should feel compelled to comply with that request.

Reach in and grab me? That's just setting up an "assault" situation so you can escalate the force and magically that simple traffic stop has become a serious charge. All because you made some assinine request nobody should ever feel obligated to comply with.

You created the criminal.

During a legitimate traffic stop, police may order the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle. This rule is intended to protect officers' safety, but it's often used for investigatory purposes. Police who order you out of the vehicle probably suspect you of criminal activity, so be prepared for a pat-down and maybe a search request.

This is what I dont get. For cops safety they can order you out of the car. But if I dont comply and the cop reaches in and grabs me who made that situation unsafe? I didnt do a damn thing. Just sat there.

So the cop is just trying to create a criminal so he can treat you like crap.

Apparently we're all criminals to them if this is how they operate.

reply to post by SirMike


Might as well give up on this board cop you wont win
PS
90% of people hate you

Have a nice day

i dont hate cops, i hate it when cops think they have supreme authority over citizens.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I appologize ahead of time for the lengthy response. I wanted to cover several bases on this topic.

As an officer I would agree with this sentiment, but most likely for different resons than people think. Anything can be used as a weapon, up to and including a deadly force weapon. A pen, pencil, handcuffs, hammer, screwdriver etc, can be used in such a manner that can result in death.

Hitting a persons temple, throat, chest, etc can result in penetrating the skin, striking a major organ, artery, brain etc. With that in mind, if someone has an object in their hands, and the situation is that of unknown circumstances, or known but fluid, the objects can be, and usually are perceived as a potentil weapon. This estimate goes up when verbal commands are given to drop those items, and the commands are refused.

The misconception that I see is cops shoot first and ask questions later, and to people who are not familiar with law enforcement I can certainly see that point of view, although I dont agree with it. Whether or not a person disagrees with verbal commands given by an officer are somewhat irrelevant. IF we are telling to you to show us your hands, to stop moving (advancing or backing away from us), or to drop an item, you comply. We are giving those commands for a reason, first and foremost is safety (from the officer, to the person we are dealing with, to innocent bystanders or other parties to the incident / not party to the incident).

We do not shoot to kill, we shoot to stop the threat. A person who is 21 to 26 feet away from an officer who has a knife can cover that distance before an officer can react and draw their duty weapon and shoot. In the few case where an officer can draw and get a round off, they almost always suffer stab wounds / injuries. The other misconception deals with our bullet resistant vests. They are just that, bullet resitance, not knife resistant. There are stab resistan vests that are designed for corrections officers (knives, shanks, etc). They are not cross compatible, meaning a bullet resistane vest is not designed to stop a knife, and a stab resistan vest is not designed to stop a bullet.

The reason for law enforcement involvement is almost always because a situation has devolved to a point where rational thought has left the scenario, laws have been violated, and possible injuries to others has occured.

Contrary to the thought process of some in these forums (and I dont mean that as disrespectful) when officers are dispatched to a call, we are required by law to investigate to satisy legal requirements that the situation is safe for all parties involved, that a law has in fact been violated, to determine if its a civil issue, etc. This is not something the parties get to dictate to the officers. Under law, Law Enforcement is the determining factor in conjunction with all evidence present, interviews with parties involved etc.

Even the most benign situation, where no law violation has taken place, does not mean an action taken by a party wont result in a criminal offense. If a person is defending themselves with a bseball bat from an assailant, and police show up and order the person to drop the baseball bat, they need to comply. Some people are thinking why not use a taser? Generally speaking, the requirement for use of less than lethal devices in situations like the ones being described, are not only innapropriate, but in violation of departmental policy.

Use of less than lethal almost always requires a covering officer who is lethal armed, meaning if the Taser fails or has no effect for various reasons, there must be a backup plan in place to take that into account, which means another officer / person who is capable of exercising deadly force.

People need to remeber that Police respond to these calls on 3rd party information, which is not always accurate or even honest. There are incidents documented where people have called 911 and lied in an effort to get police to respond so they can be ambushed and killed.

We respond to calls with the mindset of expecting the worst. We dont take the information provided to us as being 100% accurate. When we show up on seen, and dispatch tells us the victim is the one with the gun, does not take into account that the victim could very well have been disarmed after the 911 call and prior to our arrival. So on scene, its possible the person with the gun is in fact the assailant.

Law Enforcement is trained to take control of a scene for the safety of all involved. This way we can investigate the incident in a neutral setting to get all of the info as possible and go from there.

The reason cops use loud, clear, repetitive cerbal commands with people who ahve objects that could be used as weapons is because of the human fight or flight response. When the adrenaline dump hits, people suffer from visual as well as auditory exclusion. Meaning they tunnel vision on what they are looking at, and ignore verbal sounds except for the person they are fixiated on. The constant loud voice and repeating commands is to break that fixation to gain verbal compliance.

In the end, the Supreme Court ruling on Officrs use of deadly force is the following:

What did the officer perceive at the exact moment deadly force was used.

If a person has a baseball bat and is walking towards an officer, the question (and standard used) is what would a reasonable person (not a cop, but normal everyday person) believe is going to occur. We will draw our weapons and will give warnings up to the point where it would no longer be safe to do so. If the person who is armed is walking towards a person other than law enforcement, the same standard applies, as defense of a 3rd party is a valid use of deadly force.

The use of deadly force means something along the way failed. We are required by law to use the least amount of force neccisary, and to deescalate the situation as quickly and safely as possible. Again contrary to the view of some people in these forums, officers who use deadly force are faced with more than just legal issues, but psychologiucal as well. Its easy for a person to say they are mentally prepared to exercise force to the extent of ending another person life. Its something completely different when you are actually placed into that situation and must act.

We do not go looking for a deadly force encounter, and we like it even less when we must use deadly force. Its not as black and white as some people would like to believe.

With this being said, I encourage people to ask questions on this topic so we might be able to dispell some misconceptions / misunderstandings about this topic.

Thanks.

When the Castle doctrine was extended to vehicles and allowed everyone to carry a concealed weapon in their vehicle, some subtle statutory changes were made - I found out when I took my CCW renewal training that year. It's "legal" to use deadly force against police officers unlawfully engaging in assaults on citizens causing imminent bodily harm. It is of course up to the individual how to handle an interaction with the police, I usually call 911 each and every time I get pulled over just so there's a record of the encounter. Dash cams are great to document events, but many of them only record when the red&blue lights come on. So the last time I was pulled over by the known bully cop in our little town for a non-infraction of the traffic laws, I was unfortunately without my weapon and my cell phone had gone under the seat. This idiot proceeded to tell me that being a CCW holder I was a potential threat and he didn't know my state of mind, nor did he know me from Adam. I reminded him that I witnessed his hiring, congratulated him for joining the force, and was well known at city council meetings regardless of which officers attend. I also had to remind him that CCW holders are all vetted, certified as noncriminals, and sanctioned by the State to carry weapons just like a police officer, so he had best be more concerned about everybody running around with concealed guns that do NOT have CCW licenses. The Chief of Police agreed it was a bad stop and thanked me for not filing a formal complaint or suing the city and the officer for 4th ammendment violation. Now I make sure there's always a weapon in my car, plus usually one on my person - and a pistol grip 12ga with AP slugs (600 gr. .50 BMG sabots) whenever this cop is on duty - "for officer safety".

ganjoa

Originally posted by WJjeeper
reply to post by SirMike

 

^so what if i said, "sir, there is no need for me to step out of my vehicle, i have no desire to cause trouble, but i feel you are handling the situation unfairly". would you start yanking me out of the vehicle than?
i dont care who you think you are, you come trying to pull me out of my Jeep, ill snatch that department issued glock .40 out of your holster so fast you wouldnt know wtf happened.

You think you can get weapon free from a triple retention holster ... go for it chief.

Originally posted by ganjoa
When the Castle doctrine was extended to vehicles and allowed everyone to carry a concealed weapon in their vehicle, some subtle statutory changes were made - I found out when I took my CCW renewal training that year. It's "legal" to use deadly force against police officers unlawfully engaging in assaults on citizens causing imminent bodily harm.

I would highly encourage a person to check their States law on this area, and NOT take the posters words as being all inclusive of all states. Almost all states do not allow an affirmative defense whe using force against a police officer who is engaged in their duties, regardless if the actions of the LEO are legal or illegal.

The question a person must ask themsleves is this. How do you know the officer you are obseerving is using illegal force against an individual. If you were not present from begining to end of that encounter, then your assuming, which might not end well for you either.

While I dont doubt some statse possibly take this view, its extremely rare and I encourage, actually im pleading, for people to check their states law to make 100% sure this is allowed, and if it is, to exercise common sense. Walking in on the middle of a movie does not mean what you are observing is accurate because of the missing back story.

To the poster, can you please share what state you reside in and provide a link to the legal source please. In all of the years ive been doing this, I have never come across a law that allows this.

As for the rest of your post, all I ask is not to stereotype all police, nor treat all police in the manner you would treat that officer. We arent all bad, contrary to popular belief. As far as a citizen carrying a concealed weapon, or having one in their vehicle, you are correct as its not against the law. However, we still approach those situations the same as other encounters, expect the worst and hope for the best.

When you get stopped, almost always your mindset is, what does the cop want from me this time, what did I do, etc.

Our mindset is yes I stopped this person for rolling a stop sign, but did he roll it because he just got done killing a family of 4, because he has a trunk full of drugs, because he is just not paying attention, because he just stole the vehicle etc?

Approaching any situation with the mindset its normal and routine is the way we end up dead. Just because a person is legally allowed to posses a weapon, does not mean the person is in lawful possession of said gun at time of contact.

Its not out of the realm of possibility for us to stop an individual for rolling a stop sign, who has never had any type of criminal conduct, no speeding tickets, and be lawfully in possession of a legal weapon, when it turns out the guy just found out his wife of 10 years cheated on him, so he decided to get drunk and is now on his way to buy more alcohol. The dirver is not in the right mindset, not thinking rationally, and could very well snap and take it out on the officer.

As I said before, its a completely different view on this side of the fence, with different mindsets. I am not saying all cops are good, however not all of us are bad either.

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by WJjeeper
reply to post by SirMike

 

^so what if i said, "sir, there is no need for me to step out of my vehicle, i have no desire to cause trouble, but i feel you are handling the situation unfairly". would you start yanking me out of the vehicle than?
i dont care who you think you are, you come trying to pull me out of my Jeep, ill snatch that department issued glock .40 out of your holster so fast you wouldnt know wtf happened.

You think you can get weapon free from a triple retention holster ... go for it chief.

Not to mention you seem to be ignoring the fact you dont have freedom of movement. When the officer stopped you, he is seizing you under the 4th amendment, which curtails your activities. Officers are within their legal rights to ask a person to step out of a vehicle, and while you can decline, it does not mean you have that choice. I would not recomend going for the gun either, as you just committed afelony, in addition to escalating the encounter to a deadly force level.

Contrary to your views towards the officer and the stop, SCOTUS does not agree with your line of thought.

Lots of good posts but what bothers me is when someone (like the guy with the golf club from ~20 feet away) is instantly killed without given instruction or time to respond to instructions to drop the weapon. And in many cases this is not a weapon that will kill the officer from that distance. Yes a gun will (but remember you are aiming your weapon at him), a steak knife could if he could get close enough but is not a reliable throwing knife, a baseball bat or golf club requires someone closing to within striking distance. I used to think that police were trained in martial arts (hand to hand and night stick) to disarm and disable a person not armed with a firearm....but now I think that they wont ever use those means unless they are without their service weapon. Most wont use a taser unless the "threat" is unarmed. There was a distraught woman in our area last year and she wouldnt let relatives check on her and they thought that she was suicidal so they called the police who said that they would make a welfare check. The police came to her apt and she would not let them in so they went to the landlord and got a master key and entered. She confronted them from across the room with a steak knife and told them to leave and go away,,,,,long story short - they shot her (I guess she was "suicidal" afterall).