Police & Deadly Force

[jks9199]

In response to some dispruption in on another thread, I thought it would be worthwile to discuss the issue of police and deadly force. While I'm sure that there are a few cops out there -- just like there are a few soldiers who like to kill or surgeons who enjoy cutting on people -- most cops do not want to kill someone. They don't wake up each day, go to work saying "I hope I can shoot a kid today..."

The use of deadly force is the most serious thing a cop (please realize that I'm including sheriff's, special agents, and any other LEO in this) will ever do. Many cops leave the profession after a shooting; it effects them that powerfully. We are held to a high standard regarding the use of deadly force -- but not one that says that we must sacrifice our lives before using deadly force.

Generally, a police officer may use deadly force to protect themselves or another from imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death. Let's look at each part of that sentence. What is deadly force? Deadly force is that force which is likely to cause serious bodily harm (loss of limbs, major disfigurement, significant internal damage, etc.) or death. Who can the police protect? Either themselves, or another person. With a few exceptions, deadly force is only justifiable when a PERSON is in danger. What does "imminent threat" mean? It has to appear likely that someone has means, motive, and opportunity to cause serious bodily harm -- but they don't have to be causing the harm at that moment. (See Tennessee v Garner, among others.)

How is the use of force assessed? In the light of the officer's situation. It is a somewhat SUBJECTIVE assessment, recognizing that an officer in a use-of-force situation is in a complex, rapidly changing situation and must make decisions in that moment, rather than with the luxury of hindsight and calm deliberation. (See Graham v Connor) On top of the Supreme Court's guidance -- state laws and agency policies can be more restrictive.

In short, being a cop isn't a license to shoot anyone you want. And most cops don't ever want to shoot someone -- but they accept that responsibility to do so in order to protect others and in order to return safely home to their families. You might want to read Dave Grossman's piece On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs for insight into the mindset of many officers.

 

[MJS]

I tip my hat to all LEOs for the job they do, as its one that is defintately not for everybody. Every call they go on, no matter what it is, they are a potential target. And yes, I doubt they get up and think "Yeah, I hope I can blow someones head off today!" If they do, then IMO, they should not be on the street.

As far as thge deadly force issues go...well, I love these uneducated people that say, "Why didn't the cop use a taser, his OC, his empty hand skills, shoot the guy in the leg" Its those people that are uneducated, because they're talking out their ***, IMO. Sorry, when you're faced with a gun, a deadly force situation, you're not going to use OC and you're not going to hit their leg. Center mass. Maybe a taser is an option, but not in every deadly force situation.

The critics that complain, have probably never set foot in the life of a cop, so they should not offer up their .02, until they know what its like being on the other end of some nut with a gun, who wants to shoot them.

 

[FierySquidFace]

I could not find info on the shooting i talked about in the other thread, however i did find info on the other shooting mentioned therein:

Family files wrongful death suit in 2000 Levelland police shooting



The family of a man killed by Levelland police two years ago has filed a federal civil rights and wrongful death suit against the city, police and the Department of Public Safety.
David Rodriguez, 19, died April 17, 2000, one day after he was shot in the head during a police chase in Levelland.
The suit — filed on behalf of Rodriguez's parents, wife and his 3- and 4-year-old sons — accuses police of excessive force "committed maliciously, intentionally and sadistically for the very purpose of punishing and causing injury to David Rodriguez."
Named as defendants are the city of Levelland, the Levelland Police Department, Police Chief Ted Holder, former officers Rick Wooten and Fred Gonzales and the DPS.
According to police reports, the DPS started following Rodriguez's car at 12:05 a.m. April 16, when he sped through a stop sign at College Avenue in Levelland.
Rodriguez refused to stop, and the trooper yielded the chase to Wooten. Gonzales, a reserve officer, was a passenger in Wooten's car.
The chase lasted four minutes, according to police records, and Wooten and Gonzales fired 16 shots.
According to the Texas Rangers, who investigated the shooting for Levelland police, Gonzales fired the fatal shot unintentionally. Gonzales was shooting at Rodriguez's tires and pulled his arm inside the window as the two vehicles collided, causing his gun to fire.
A grand jury cleared the officers of any wrongdoing.
The lawsuit says the officers' actions were unreasonable under the circumstances and accused police of covering up law enforcement misconduct.
"In light of the fact that David Rodriguez was merely being detained for what is alleged to be a moving violation, it is initially absurd that defendants would deem deadly force was warranted and/or required," the suit says.
The suit seeks unspecified damages for Rodriguez's parents, Bernardo Lopez-Rodriguez and Maria Magdelana Rodriguez; his wife, Susie Resendez; his two sons, David Jr. and Don Leon Rodriguez; and his estate.
Christopher Gale, a San Antonio attorney representing Rodriguez's family, said their goals for the suit go beyond money.
"For the family, if they can accomplish anything ... they want to prevent this from ever happening again. That's their driving concern," Gale said.
"The guy ran a stop sign and was shot dead. That should raise the community's concerns. That should not be happening. I don't know why that happened, but we will find out."
City Manager Greg Ingham referred questions to George Thompson, a Lubbock attorney representing the city. Wooten is now an investigator for the Hockley County District Attorney's Office, and Gonzales is a South Plains College police officer.

 

[FierySquidFace]

A few other examples:

Cornelius Ware: A 20-year-old man who was shot and killed in a car during a traffic stop. The police claimed that the shooting was justified because Mr. Ware allegedly pointed a gun at them, but the eyewitnesses denied seeing a gun. There was a gun recovered in the car, but we proved at a jury trial in February 2007 that the gun was planted by the police. After the jury found against the police officers, the case was resolved for $5.25 million.

Michael Russell: Our client was shot and killed in Cabrini Green by a Chicago police officer who insisted that Mr. Russell was shooting at a rival gang member at the time. The jury credited the testimony of two admitted gang members over that of the Chicago police officers, and awarded Mr. Russell's family $1.5 million in damages.

Devon Nelson: Mr. Nelson was shot and killed in the back as he ran away from a Harvey police officer. Shortly after the shooting, a 13-year-old girl witnessed the police approach Mr. Nelson's body and drop a gun on the ground, falsely claiming that it had belonged to Mr. Nelson. The case settled favorably to Mr. Nelson for a confidential sum.

Archie Robinson: Shot in the buttocks by a Harvey police officer who then accused Mr. Robinson of pointing a gun at him. Two juries (at a trial and then a retrial) credited Mr. Robinson's testimony that the gun had actually been planted by the police, and he was awarded $300,000 in damages. The City of Harvey was also found independently liable on a Monell "policy and practice" claim for failing to investigate and punish prior police abuses, thereby encouraging the sort of evidence planting that happened here.

Michael Walker: Our client was shot and killed in Cabrini Green by a police officer who claimed that Mr. Walker was grabbing his gun. The forensic evidence was disputed, and a nearby witness denied certain parts of the police account. The case recently settled for $400,000.

Demetri Centura: We presently represent a young man who was shot and killed by an off-duty Chicago police officer. After getting into a bar fight with the driver of the vehicle in which Mr. Centura was driving, the officer pulled up alongside them in his Hummer and fired nine times, killing both civilians.

Michael Dunbar: was shot and killed by police officers without justification during a traffic stop. The police are falsely contending that Mr. Dunbar "dragged" a police officer. The case is pending before Judge Conlon.


William Samuels: Senior citizen mistakenly shot in the groin by a police officer who entered Samuels' apartment and fired a gun at Samuels' dog.

Lataya Edwards: Ms. Edwards was shot by the police several times from behind as the car in which she was an innocent passenger drove away from a group of Chicago police officers. The City has since changed its policy to prohibit its officers from firing at fleeing cars. The case was settled favorably to Ms. Edwards.

Dellace Holton: Mr. Holton was shot in the back and buttocks as he lay prone in an automobile. Although he is presently incarcerated on charges that he endangered the lives of police officers, the physical evidence and our expert witnesses will prove the police are lying about what happened. Our civil suit is presently pending in Rockford.
Contact us today to discuss your civil rights if you were unjustifiably shot by the police.

 

[Carol]

The officers were not shooting Rodriguez because he ran a stop sign. They saw the car driving erratically and not stopping, which put other drivers on the highway at risk.

The officers shot at the tires of the car to stop it, which resulted in the driver of the car unintentionally being shot.

The officers were cleared of any wrongdoing, as was the town.


http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/071803/reg_071803068.shtml

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/042500/loc_042500030.shtml

http://tx.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\C05\2004\20040603_0001418.C05.htm/qx

 

[Archangel M]

The article states that the officer accidentally shot during a vehicle collision and then says that it was an "intentional and malicious" execution intended as punishment.

Which is it?

We cannot fire at a moving vehicle here unless it is a DIRE emergency. I don't know what the accepted policies in Texas are.

Don't confuse the allegations in a civil suit with those of a criminal prosecution.

The "HE WAS SHOT FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN" is the typical erroneous misdirection used in these situations. This was NOT a case of "look he ran a stop sign lets shoot him" and everybody knows it. Was it a justified use of force (shooting at the tires followed by an accidental shot during a collision)?? Maybe...maybe not. If not then let the proper discipline be applied. People with an agenda always seem to want to portray these incidents as if the cops dragged a guy out of a car and executed him with a head-shot while cuffed...99% of these cases are not that cut and dry.

 

[Ceicei]

The chase lasted four minutes, according to police records, and Wooten and Gonzales fired 16 shots.
According to the Texas Rangers, who investigated the shooting for Levelland police, Gonzales fired the fatal shot unintentionally. Gonzales was shooting at Rodriguez's tires and pulled his arm inside the window as the two vehicles collided, causing his gun to fire.
A grand jury cleared the officers of any wrongdoing.

Well, it is not exactly safe to run a stop sign. Point saying, a person who is fleeing in a vehicle often take very little regard of the possibility of injuring others up the road (or wherever the car is going).

While I would hesitate to second guess the actions of police officers, they are often very cognizant of the fact there are other people possibly in the way of the fleeing vehicle. This is most likely the reason why the reserve officer tried shooting out the tires, not just to stop the vehicle, but also to avoid more harm up ahead.

As to your short excerpts of LEOs shooting their suspects, this only shows that it is part of the nature of their duties. It is not to say that they have to shoot, but often it is a result of their perception that they felt it was necessary. Your excerpts do not give enough information (the full stories) to say whether or not any of them are justified. What the list does show is that there are always some bad apples in every profession. Not all shootings mean that every LEO "wants" to shoot or is evil for the decision to shoot.

Care should be taken not to take a brush too broadly over every LEO's behavior. There are many more good ones out there than bad ones.

- Ceicei

 

[FierySquidFace]

Now please don't get me wrong. I fully aknowledge that most LEOs are honorable protectors, who risk their lives for us on a daily basis, and deserve all the respect that they have earned. However, there are the bad apples who kill innocents (intentionally or otherwise) who should not be in a position of authority.

In the previous thread, I was disrespectfull to some LEOs that I do not know, and basically got out of line. For that I appologized, as those LEOs did nothing (that I am aware of) to merit that disrespect.

I merely wished to point out that, while we all have the right to defend our lives and our famillies, those in a position of authority have the burden of responsibillity, and must excersise implicit judgement in the line of duty, and otherwise, to avoid taking life when it is not neccesary.

Once again, I appologize to all I offended.

 

[jks9199]

Contact us today to discuss your civil rights if you were unjustifiably shot by the police.

It's worth noting who provided the cases listed:
Loevy & Loevy, Civil Rights Law Firm.

They're based in Chicago, and clearly a lot of their business comes from suits against the Chicago PD. That just might taint some of what they say...

Cabrini-Green in Chicago is worthy of a topic all its own when discussing police and community relations. After all, how many other high rises have been fortified to attack responding police? Today, it's been largely torn down.

The simple fact is that any police use of force, and most especially a lethal force incident, is complex. A lot is happening in a very short time. I've never said everyone was handled perfectly. Or that there were no bad shootings. But the vast majority of them, despite public perception, are clean and justified -- no matter how ugly. For example, a deaf kid walking with a gun, refusing commands to stop. It's easy in hindsight to realize that he wasn't refusing to obey -- he wasn't hearing them. But in that moment? All the cops know is they've got a guy, who appears to be armed, who isn't doing what he's told... How long do they have to wait? Ask Kyle Dinkheller. That's how fast a situation can change.

Some people ask about shooting to wound or warning shots... I'll handle the warning shots first, because it's simplest. A cop is responsible for every round he fires; where is that bullet fired as a warning shot going to go? Shooting to wound or shooting the gun out their hands isn't much more complex. The simple reality is that under the pressure of a life or death situation, fine motor control goes down. So shooting to wound may well be physically impossible. Even if that weren't a factor -- cops shoot to stop an immediate threat. They don't shoot to kill; they shoot to end the threat. What wound will guarantee that a threat ends? The best odds to do this are shots that do significant injury... And, even if a cop shot to wound -- what's to say they won't inflict a fatal injury anyhow, as the guy bleeds out from a shot in the leg that hit the femoral artery, for example?

The case you provided the most information on involved shooting at a moving vehicle; in my area, you'd better have a really strong reason for doing this. We don't shoot the tires out of cars. (Personal opinion -- it's not likely to stop a chase anyway.) Even then -- why didn't the kid stop? How many people did he endanger by running from the cops? Wouldn't the situation have been completely avoided had he simply obeyed the law and stopped for the police?

 

[jks9199]

Now please don't get me wrong. I fully aknowledge that most LEOs are honorable protectors, who risk their lives for us on a daily basis, and deserve all the respect that they have earned. However, there are the bad apples who kill innocents (intentionally or otherwise) who should not be in a position of authority.

In the previous thread, I was disrespectfull to some LEOs that I do not know, and basically got out of line. For that I appologized, as those LEOs did nothing (that I am aware of) to merit that disrespect.

I merely wished to point out that, while we all have the right to defend our lives and our famillies, those in a position of authority have the burden of responsibillity, and must excersise implicit judgement in the line of duty, and otherwise, to avoid taking life when it is not neccesary.

Once again, I appologize to all I offended.

Let me make a suggestion to you. You list that you live in Houston, Texas. There is a Citizen's Police Academy available to you. Take advantage of it; many provide a chance to go through a firearms simulator and some scenarios during the program. Citizen's Academies are set up as a chance to learn about the police department and the cop's job; they're an effort to reduce the wall of mystery between the public and police, and to debunk some of the myths about law enforcement. Many agencies have them today -- even the FBI! Most meet one night a week for a couple of hours over several weeks.

 

[FierySquidFace]

why didn't the kid stop? How many people did he endanger by running from the cops? Wouldn't the situation have been completely avoided had he simply obeyed the law and stopped for the police?

-obviosly, he didn't want to get arrested.

-at 12:05 am in levelland, tx, the chances anyone was on the streets besides the victim and the pursuing officers is very small to nill.

-and yes, had he pulled over he wouldn't have been shot.
but why were they shooting in the first place? i'm pretty sure that's not SOP for traffic violations.

post script: i don't mean to be argumentative here. just trying to anwer these questions.

 

[Archangel M]

Was it SOP for terminating a car chase?

You are using the same "they shot him for running a stop sign" fallacy. SOP for a traffic violation is that I hit the lights and YOU stop. When you tear off and refuse to stop you have crossed the line into a whole other arena.

 

[MJS]

IMO, shooting at the tires, is no different than those people that suggest shooting the legs. Sorry...way too small of a target. Perhaps stop sticks would have been a better option.

 

[FierySquidFace]

Was it SOP for terminating a car chase?

You are using the same "they shot him for running a stop sign" fallacy. SOP for a traffic violation is that I hit the lights and YOU stop. When you tear off and refuse to stop you have crossed the line into a whole other arena.

I'm sorry. I still don't see the justification in shooting at the kid. How about a roadblock? or spike strips? or... i don't know... something that doesn't involve people getting shot in the head...

 

[MJS]

Why does the Chris Rock clip flash thru my head right about now. LOL! I agree with what Arch and the others are saying....pull the **** over! 99% of the time, these jerks bring the problems on themselves. Case in point...last week, a guy crashes with another car, but instead of stopping, he takes off. The cops got there pretty quick, as they were already in the area on a non related call. 1 cop stops at the crash, while another takes off after the other car. Car crashes, gets hung up on a curb on the highway. Tries to shake the car lose and hit the cops, but that fails. He locks the doors, which forces the cops to force their way in. K9 goes in the rear door, and latches onto the shoulder of the scumbag. He gets out, finally. Now, you'd think that he'd stop. Noooo...he continues to fight.

Why did he run? Well aside from the obvious, him being a 1st class piece of ****, he had drugs in the car. So, instead of a few charges, he gets a laundry list added on.

 

[FierySquidFace]

so by that logic, if i don't do what you say, when you say it, you are justified in killing me?

 

[jks9199]

I'm sorry. I still don't see the justification in shooting at the kid. How about a roadblock? or spike strips? or... i don't know... something that doesn't involve people getting shot in the head...

It was, apparently, a tactic within their general orders and within Texas law. Whether it meets an objective reasonableness test is a different question.

You're pushing the entirety of the blame onto the police while ignoring the root issue: HE WAS ACTIVELY DISOBEYING MULTIPLE LAWS and he was putting people (at least 3 cops from the article you posted, as well as himself, and anyone else who happened to be on the road) at serious risk.

With that said -- there is a reason that cops in my area are not permitted to shoot at vehicles except under dire circumstances. A couple of years ago, an officer working an off-duty gig at a restaurant attempted to detain several teens for skipping on their check. When they refused to stop, and (depending on whose account you buy) swerved towards him in their car, he fired on the car, killing an occupant. (http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/08399/ihop-wrongful-death.html)

Here's another example about how some of these cases can happen: In 2006, the Fairfax County PD went to arrest Salvadore Culosi for illegal gambling. As they went to conduct the stop, an officer's arm was jostled, causing him to reflexively fire, hitting Culosi in the chest, killing him on the spot. While civil suits are still proceeding as far as I know, the FCPD released a lengthy public report which details much of the case.

The bottom line is simple: police are not perfect. But most do their best to do the right thing, and to use only the force which is appropriate.

 

[Archangel M]

I'm sorry. I still don't see the justification in shooting at the kid. How about a roadblock? or spike strips? or... i don't know... something that doesn't involve people getting shot in the head...

Again...how do you come to the conclusion that they were "shooting at the kid"? The kid GETTING shot is not in question. HOW he got shot is. You seem to be following along with the "THEY SHOT HIM FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN" crowd. There were shots fired..the person was struck.. that is verifiable. HOW it happened and the intent of the person pulling the trigger are the issue here. None of us have any information to know that...but the local courts clearing the officer of criminal charges says something IMO.

By all accounts they were shooting at the tires. THAT is wide open for debate and something I would not be allowed to do nor would I have done in that circumstance. We do not know if it was against policy in the dept. we are discussing.

 

[FierySquidFace]

"Again...how do you come to the conclusion that they were "shooting at the kid"? The kid GETTING shot is not in question. HOW he got shot is. You seem to be following along with the "THEY SHOT HIM FOR RUNNING A STOP SIGN" crowd. There were shots fired..the person was struck.. that is verifiable. HOW it happened and the intent of the person pulling the trigger are the issue here. None of us have any information to know that...but the local courts clearing the officer of criminal charges says something IMO.

By all accounts they were shooting at the tires. THAT is wide open for debate and something I would not be allowed to do nor would I have done in that circumstance. We do not know if it was against policy in the dept. we are discussing"
__________________



again, i'm sorry, but if the police had not been shooting, no one would have been shot. bottom line.

 

[Carol]

Laws wouldn't have been broken, motorists wouldn't have been endangered, guns wouldn't have been drawn, and the perp would have a very different future today if he had simply pulled over for the officer. Bottom line.