 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Shooting
People
People
| Copyright © 2006 - 2010 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Try to picture yourself in this time and situation: You're young and
you're a new police officer in the 1950's. You're riding shotgun in a two-
man car with a senior officer when you become involved in a high speed
chase of a stolen car. The senior officer tells you to attempt to shot out
the tires of the fleeing vehicle. You lean out your side window, take aim
with your revolver, and you begin squeezing off rounds. After firing all six
shots, you slide back onto your seat to reload. The stolen car keeps on
going with all tires still intact. Before you can finish reloading and take
another try, the stolen car spins out. After a short foot chase, you
apprehend the 15 year boy who was driving the car. Since you didn't hit
the tires, you inspect the stolen car to see if you hit it at all. You find only
one bullet hole in the driver's side door post. It suddenly dawns on you
how close that round came to hitting the driver in the head.
The young officer in this story would eventually become a sergeant, and
some twenty years later, he would relate this story to another young police
officer – me – and he'd describe what a profound effect that incident had
on him. He vowed to himself, then and there, that he'd never again fire
that revolver except to protect his life or the life of another. As the
sergeant told me the story, I could see, that even so many years after the
event, the stress he'd experienced from that incident was still with him.
However, it was a good kind of stress that had provided a valuable lesson
without anyone being hurt or killed.
Fast forward into the 21st Century. This time, you're a young police
officer responding to a call for an armed person. The suspect has been
identified, and you know the suspect well enough to recognize him on
sight. The 17 year old suspect has an extensive criminal record, known to
carry a handgun, and he's currently a suspect in two shootings. As you're
walking across an open area of a housing complex, you see the suspect
ahead of you. You draw your pistol, and you order the suspect to stop.
The suspect turns, and he looks at you for a few seconds; before, he draws
his handgun from his waistband. You're in uniform, so the suspect can
have no doubt as to who you are – not that it would make any difference at
this point. You fire one shot from your pistol, and the suspect falls dead
on the grass.
Would you call this a stressful situation? You've just killed another
human being, so it's obviously stressful. But, let's look at the attending
circumstances to this true incident which are extraordinarily in support of
the officer's actions. The suspect is well known, disliked and feared by the
area's residents. Witness statements taken by investigators are
consistent and unembellished in supporting the officer's use of deadly
force. There is no racial bias component since both the officer and the
suspect are of the same race. The forensic aspect of the investigation
supports all the established facts. Finally, a member of the suspect's own
family allegedly makes the statement, "He needed killing."
While this young police officer had what can only be described as
unbelievable support from every quarter, it simply wasn't enough to ease
the psychological stress he would suffer over the following months. In the
end, all the doctors agreed, this young man would never again be able to
perform the duties of a police officer. He would end his police career with
a medical retirement for a psychological disability.
During my time as a patrol officer, I worked in the same district as an
officer who shot and killed three suspects, in three separate incidents,
over a seven year period of time. All of his shootings were justified, and
they were classic deadly force situations where he confronted armed
suspects. However, following the third incident, he was removed from
street duty. The reassignment was a mutual decision between the officer
and the police department. These incidents were not the result of any
aggressive or pro-active enforcement by the officer; all were simply 911
calls for service. This officer showed no obvious signs of stress over the
shootings; although, no one could assume that some level of stress was not
attendant. The officer's projected attitude was one of "talk about some
rotten luck."
Unlike the 1950's, you'll be starting your police career in a time where
your use of deadly force will have strict guidelines. But... it's really very
simple. You don't shoot a person; unless, that person is an imminent
treat to your life or the life of another. Of course, you're going to be the
judge of what constitutes imminent. I should say that you're going to be
the first judge. Except in the very rare instance, like the example I
described earlier, there will be plenty of second guessing about your use of
deadly force.
We all have stress in our lives. You'll encounter plenty of people and
circumstances, over which you'll have no control, which will cause you
stress. However, never forget that a lot of stress one suffers is often a
direct result of one's own actions. When it comes to shooting people, you
must never forget that the only finger on that trigger belongs to you.
When you make the decision to pull that trigger, you must be prepared to
handle the personal emotional stress that will result if you kill a person.
You must also be prepared to handle an avalanche of criticism which may
well follow from any number of sources.
There are many people, including politicians in leadership positions of
government, who believe that police officers should be trained to "shoot to
wound." This is a good example to show that being a politician requires no
capacity for logical thought. Remember, if you decide to shoot a person,
that person must pose an imminent threat to your life or the life of
another. The simple minded "shoot to wound" crowd believe that the only
alternative is "shoot to kill." If you ever have the unfortunate experience
to have to shoot a person, you must realize that the only control you have
over a bullet is your ability to hit the person... somewhere on the person.
A Baltimore police officer confronted a man armed with a knife. The man
posed an imminent threat to the officer's life merely because of the short
distance separating them. However, this incident turned into a prolonged
standoff. It lasted long enough for a large crowd to gather and the
expected poor quality video tape to be produced. There came a point when
the officer fired one round from his pistol. The bullet hit the suspect in
the shoulder, and the suspect fell to the pavement. The officer's
perception was that the suspect was about to attack him. The "shoot to
wound" bunch would have probably supported this officer if the suspect
was only wounded; after all, the bullet hit him in the shoulder. That's
where the bullet hit, but that's not where it stayed. The bullet hit bone,
changed direction, and ended up piercing the suspect's heart. Yes, the
suspect was dead... probably before he hit the pavement.
It should have been obvious to most people that this officer was not eager
to apply deadly force, but that obvious fact was conveniently overlooked in
the days, weeks, and months ahead. Here's the real irony. Among all the
self styled experts that would emerge from the onlookers and those who
would view the video tape afterward, many accused – yes, I said accused –
the officer of shooting to wound the suspect. The politicians and activists
did their part by prolonging the investigation and some calling for the
officer's indictment on criminal charges; until, the media began to lose
interest in an exhausted debate over the suspect's movement and
intentions.
Here's what you have to remember. While most people wouldn't, or
couldn't, do your job for any number of reasons, all will consider
themselves expert when it comes to the issue of police using deadly force.
While justification for your use of deadly force should and must always be
present, that justification will not always protect you from the unbelievable
stress that could follow from your use of deadly force. Along with the ever
present know nothing experts, there will always be the occasional
politicians and prosecutors who will make your life a living hell purely for
their own political welfare.
It was a quiet, cold winter night in East Baltimore when I received a call
for a burglary in progress at the rear of a dwelling on Harford Avenue. I
approached the rear alley from a side street and stopped my car about
thirty feet from the alley. The house in question was just a few doors
down from the alley entrance, and I intended to approach the rear of the
house on foot. I had one foot on the pavement when I saw a young man
walking backward from the alley. He'd barely come into my view when he
raised his right arm and fired a shot down the alley from the revolver he
held in his right hand. Using the door post of my car for cover, I drew my
revolver and took aim on the man – now suspect. In a loud and
commanding tone, I yelled, "Police... drop the gun!"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... things rarely are as they first
appear to be. When I shouted my command, the suspect immediately
turned toward me. As he turned, his outstretched arm turned with him.
The suspect's gun was now pointed toward me.
If you'd say that I would have been justified in shooting this suspect, you'd
be correct. However, you'll come to realize how much information your
mind can process in seconds and fractions of seconds – even under the
most stressful circumstances. Here's some of the observations I processed:
1. When I first observed the suspect, it was clear that he'd not yet seen
me. The suspect was directly under a street light affording me excellent
observation.
2. When the suspect turned, it was not surprising that his arm remained
in the same position.
3. When the suspect observed me, he froze. By the expression on his
face, it was clear that I'd startled him when I shouted my command.
4. I had cover. While not ideal, it afforded me some protection.
5. The distance was my biggest advantage. While I had the suspect in my
sight picture, he didn't have me in his.
6. Most importantly, his arm never moved as he stood in his statuesque
pose. Had he moved his arm or wrist in any manner to bring his gun to
bear on me, I'd already made my decision to shoot.
I shouted my second command, "Drop the gun... now!" You're going to
find out very quickly that people act stupidly, even innocent people.
Instead of dropping the gun, the suspect turned back to his right and
pointed down the alley with the gun hand while keeping his face toward me
and began talking, "Officer, officer, he ran down the..." I interrupted the
suspect with my third command, "I said, drop the gun...now!" The look on
his face said it all. It was as if this was the first time he'd heard me. It
was certainly the first time he'd comprehended anything I said or, rather,
shouted. This time, he couldn't drop that gun fast enough, and he didn't
point it back in my direction either.
Now... here's the back story. The suspect, which I'll now refer to as the
victim, stopped by the house which was a vacant rental property he owned.
As he unlocked the front door and stepped inside, he heard movement
inside the house. He silently stepped back out and locked the front door.
He ran to a pay phone at the end of the block and called 911. He told the
911 operator that he'd wait for police at the entrance to the alley – this was
information I'd not been given.
Just before my arrival, he saw the burglar emerge from the rear of the
dwelling, and the victim moved down the alley where he confronted the
burglar. He intended to hold the thief at gunpoint until police arrived.
The burglar, for whatever reason, believed the victim would not shoot, so
the burglar began advancing on the victim. Hence, the victim's backward
movement out of the alley. The second best thing that had happened that
evening, after me not shooting the victim, was the victim's shot missing
the burglar. I would find no body or blood trail in the alley, and no one
would show up in an emergency room with the victim's bullet in him.
It gets better. While many people in the victim's position would have been
carrying a handgun without a permit, this man had a valid concealed carry
permit. While the restrictions on his permit didn't exactly meet the time,
place and activity circumstances, I decided it was close enough. Once I
concluded that the bullet he fired didn't result in any property damage or
land in anyone's bedroom, I finished the burglary report and sent the
victim home.
It turned out that the victim was a really nice guy, and he couldn't thank
me enough for not shooting him. Can you imagine the emotional stress I
would have experienced if I'd shot and killed this man? As far as the
stress from the subsequent police involved shooting investigation would
have been... who knows? Ironically, it would have probably been more if
the man were a gold standard criminal. I'm certain that the gun control
advocates would have found more value in such a tragedy, had it occurred,
in blaming laws that allow any private citizen to own and carry a handgun
over the value in blaming me.
As my favorite TV detective, Adrian Monk, likes to say... "Here's the
thing" – Before you become a police officer, you have to make an honest
and serious self-evaluation of your ability to handle the stress of shooting
another person. Thankfully, most of you will not have to shoot anyone;
some of you will have time to gain police work experience, before you have
to use deadly force, and – some of you will have to pull that trigger while
you're still new and know next to nothing.
you're a new police officer in the 1950's. You're riding shotgun in a two-
man car with a senior officer when you become involved in a high speed
chase of a stolen car. The senior officer tells you to attempt to shot out
the tires of the fleeing vehicle. You lean out your side window, take aim
with your revolver, and you begin squeezing off rounds. After firing all six
shots, you slide back onto your seat to reload. The stolen car keeps on
going with all tires still intact. Before you can finish reloading and take
another try, the stolen car spins out. After a short foot chase, you
apprehend the 15 year boy who was driving the car. Since you didn't hit
the tires, you inspect the stolen car to see if you hit it at all. You find only
one bullet hole in the driver's side door post. It suddenly dawns on you
how close that round came to hitting the driver in the head.
The young officer in this story would eventually become a sergeant, and
some twenty years later, he would relate this story to another young police
officer – me – and he'd describe what a profound effect that incident had
on him. He vowed to himself, then and there, that he'd never again fire
that revolver except to protect his life or the life of another. As the
sergeant told me the story, I could see, that even so many years after the
event, the stress he'd experienced from that incident was still with him.
However, it was a good kind of stress that had provided a valuable lesson
without anyone being hurt or killed.
Fast forward into the 21st Century. This time, you're a young police
officer responding to a call for an armed person. The suspect has been
identified, and you know the suspect well enough to recognize him on
sight. The 17 year old suspect has an extensive criminal record, known to
carry a handgun, and he's currently a suspect in two shootings. As you're
walking across an open area of a housing complex, you see the suspect
ahead of you. You draw your pistol, and you order the suspect to stop.
The suspect turns, and he looks at you for a few seconds; before, he draws
his handgun from his waistband. You're in uniform, so the suspect can
have no doubt as to who you are – not that it would make any difference at
this point. You fire one shot from your pistol, and the suspect falls dead
on the grass.
Would you call this a stressful situation? You've just killed another
human being, so it's obviously stressful. But, let's look at the attending
circumstances to this true incident which are extraordinarily in support of
the officer's actions. The suspect is well known, disliked and feared by the
area's residents. Witness statements taken by investigators are
consistent and unembellished in supporting the officer's use of deadly
force. There is no racial bias component since both the officer and the
suspect are of the same race. The forensic aspect of the investigation
supports all the established facts. Finally, a member of the suspect's own
family allegedly makes the statement, "He needed killing."
While this young police officer had what can only be described as
unbelievable support from every quarter, it simply wasn't enough to ease
the psychological stress he would suffer over the following months. In the
end, all the doctors agreed, this young man would never again be able to
perform the duties of a police officer. He would end his police career with
a medical retirement for a psychological disability.
During my time as a patrol officer, I worked in the same district as an
officer who shot and killed three suspects, in three separate incidents,
over a seven year period of time. All of his shootings were justified, and
they were classic deadly force situations where he confronted armed
suspects. However, following the third incident, he was removed from
street duty. The reassignment was a mutual decision between the officer
and the police department. These incidents were not the result of any
aggressive or pro-active enforcement by the officer; all were simply 911
calls for service. This officer showed no obvious signs of stress over the
shootings; although, no one could assume that some level of stress was not
attendant. The officer's projected attitude was one of "talk about some
rotten luck."
Unlike the 1950's, you'll be starting your police career in a time where
your use of deadly force will have strict guidelines. But... it's really very
simple. You don't shoot a person; unless, that person is an imminent
treat to your life or the life of another. Of course, you're going to be the
judge of what constitutes imminent. I should say that you're going to be
the first judge. Except in the very rare instance, like the example I
described earlier, there will be plenty of second guessing about your use of
deadly force.
We all have stress in our lives. You'll encounter plenty of people and
circumstances, over which you'll have no control, which will cause you
stress. However, never forget that a lot of stress one suffers is often a
direct result of one's own actions. When it comes to shooting people, you
must never forget that the only finger on that trigger belongs to you.
When you make the decision to pull that trigger, you must be prepared to
handle the personal emotional stress that will result if you kill a person.
You must also be prepared to handle an avalanche of criticism which may
well follow from any number of sources.
There are many people, including politicians in leadership positions of
government, who believe that police officers should be trained to "shoot to
wound." This is a good example to show that being a politician requires no
capacity for logical thought. Remember, if you decide to shoot a person,
that person must pose an imminent threat to your life or the life of
another. The simple minded "shoot to wound" crowd believe that the only
alternative is "shoot to kill." If you ever have the unfortunate experience
to have to shoot a person, you must realize that the only control you have
over a bullet is your ability to hit the person... somewhere on the person.
A Baltimore police officer confronted a man armed with a knife. The man
posed an imminent threat to the officer's life merely because of the short
distance separating them. However, this incident turned into a prolonged
standoff. It lasted long enough for a large crowd to gather and the
expected poor quality video tape to be produced. There came a point when
the officer fired one round from his pistol. The bullet hit the suspect in
the shoulder, and the suspect fell to the pavement. The officer's
perception was that the suspect was about to attack him. The "shoot to
wound" bunch would have probably supported this officer if the suspect
was only wounded; after all, the bullet hit him in the shoulder. That's
where the bullet hit, but that's not where it stayed. The bullet hit bone,
changed direction, and ended up piercing the suspect's heart. Yes, the
suspect was dead... probably before he hit the pavement.
It should have been obvious to most people that this officer was not eager
to apply deadly force, but that obvious fact was conveniently overlooked in
the days, weeks, and months ahead. Here's the real irony. Among all the
self styled experts that would emerge from the onlookers and those who
would view the video tape afterward, many accused – yes, I said accused –
the officer of shooting to wound the suspect. The politicians and activists
did their part by prolonging the investigation and some calling for the
officer's indictment on criminal charges; until, the media began to lose
interest in an exhausted debate over the suspect's movement and
intentions.
Here's what you have to remember. While most people wouldn't, or
couldn't, do your job for any number of reasons, all will consider
themselves expert when it comes to the issue of police using deadly force.
While justification for your use of deadly force should and must always be
present, that justification will not always protect you from the unbelievable
stress that could follow from your use of deadly force. Along with the ever
present know nothing experts, there will always be the occasional
politicians and prosecutors who will make your life a living hell purely for
their own political welfare.
It was a quiet, cold winter night in East Baltimore when I received a call
for a burglary in progress at the rear of a dwelling on Harford Avenue. I
approached the rear alley from a side street and stopped my car about
thirty feet from the alley. The house in question was just a few doors
down from the alley entrance, and I intended to approach the rear of the
house on foot. I had one foot on the pavement when I saw a young man
walking backward from the alley. He'd barely come into my view when he
raised his right arm and fired a shot down the alley from the revolver he
held in his right hand. Using the door post of my car for cover, I drew my
revolver and took aim on the man – now suspect. In a loud and
commanding tone, I yelled, "Police... drop the gun!"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... things rarely are as they first
appear to be. When I shouted my command, the suspect immediately
turned toward me. As he turned, his outstretched arm turned with him.
The suspect's gun was now pointed toward me.
If you'd say that I would have been justified in shooting this suspect, you'd
be correct. However, you'll come to realize how much information your
mind can process in seconds and fractions of seconds – even under the
most stressful circumstances. Here's some of the observations I processed:
1. When I first observed the suspect, it was clear that he'd not yet seen
me. The suspect was directly under a street light affording me excellent
observation.
2. When the suspect turned, it was not surprising that his arm remained
in the same position.
3. When the suspect observed me, he froze. By the expression on his
face, it was clear that I'd startled him when I shouted my command.
4. I had cover. While not ideal, it afforded me some protection.
5. The distance was my biggest advantage. While I had the suspect in my
sight picture, he didn't have me in his.
6. Most importantly, his arm never moved as he stood in his statuesque
pose. Had he moved his arm or wrist in any manner to bring his gun to
bear on me, I'd already made my decision to shoot.
I shouted my second command, "Drop the gun... now!" You're going to
find out very quickly that people act stupidly, even innocent people.
Instead of dropping the gun, the suspect turned back to his right and
pointed down the alley with the gun hand while keeping his face toward me
and began talking, "Officer, officer, he ran down the..." I interrupted the
suspect with my third command, "I said, drop the gun...now!" The look on
his face said it all. It was as if this was the first time he'd heard me. It
was certainly the first time he'd comprehended anything I said or, rather,
shouted. This time, he couldn't drop that gun fast enough, and he didn't
point it back in my direction either.
Now... here's the back story. The suspect, which I'll now refer to as the
victim, stopped by the house which was a vacant rental property he owned.
As he unlocked the front door and stepped inside, he heard movement
inside the house. He silently stepped back out and locked the front door.
He ran to a pay phone at the end of the block and called 911. He told the
911 operator that he'd wait for police at the entrance to the alley – this was
information I'd not been given.
Just before my arrival, he saw the burglar emerge from the rear of the
dwelling, and the victim moved down the alley where he confronted the
burglar. He intended to hold the thief at gunpoint until police arrived.
The burglar, for whatever reason, believed the victim would not shoot, so
the burglar began advancing on the victim. Hence, the victim's backward
movement out of the alley. The second best thing that had happened that
evening, after me not shooting the victim, was the victim's shot missing
the burglar. I would find no body or blood trail in the alley, and no one
would show up in an emergency room with the victim's bullet in him.
It gets better. While many people in the victim's position would have been
carrying a handgun without a permit, this man had a valid concealed carry
permit. While the restrictions on his permit didn't exactly meet the time,
place and activity circumstances, I decided it was close enough. Once I
concluded that the bullet he fired didn't result in any property damage or
land in anyone's bedroom, I finished the burglary report and sent the
victim home.
It turned out that the victim was a really nice guy, and he couldn't thank
me enough for not shooting him. Can you imagine the emotional stress I
would have experienced if I'd shot and killed this man? As far as the
stress from the subsequent police involved shooting investigation would
have been... who knows? Ironically, it would have probably been more if
the man were a gold standard criminal. I'm certain that the gun control
advocates would have found more value in such a tragedy, had it occurred,
in blaming laws that allow any private citizen to own and carry a handgun
over the value in blaming me.
As my favorite TV detective, Adrian Monk, likes to say... "Here's the
thing" – Before you become a police officer, you have to make an honest
and serious self-evaluation of your ability to handle the stress of shooting
another person. Thankfully, most of you will not have to shoot anyone;
some of you will have time to gain police work experience, before you have
to use deadly force, and – some of you will have to pull that trigger while
you're still new and know next to nothing.
"Nebraska Attorney
General John Bruning
saw it differently, saying
he fully expected the
officer to be exonerated.
Clearly, Britton has been
shot after pointing a gun
directly at a law
enforcement officer’s
head and being ordered
to drop his weapon. But
the Grand Jury claimed
— with the guidance of
the prosecutor’s office —
that Chief Thompson had
time to cut and run, not
fire his weapon. Did
Prosecutor Rhodes ever
walk in the shoes of a
cop confronted with a
bullet?"
General John Bruning
saw it differently, saying
he fully expected the
officer to be exonerated.
Clearly, Britton has been
shot after pointing a gun
directly at a law
enforcement officer’s
head and being ordered
to drop his weapon. But
the Grand Jury claimed
— with the guidance of
the prosecutor’s office —
that Chief Thompson had
time to cut and run, not
fire his weapon. Did
Prosecutor Rhodes ever
walk in the shoes of a
cop confronted with a
bullet?"
Marshall Frank's site, from
which the above article excerpt
is linked, is a must stop for
anyone contemplating a police
career. You can read more
about Marshall Frank on this
site in the Police Authors
Section.
which the above article excerpt
is linked, is a must stop for
anyone contemplating a police
career. You can read more
about Marshall Frank on this
site in the Police Authors
Section.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Back-up your files... |
| Help protect your identity... |