From: spf@hoqaa.att.com (Steven P Frysinger)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Law enforcement view (was Re: Bad tactical position)
Date: 16 Nov 92 01:09:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsl.1992Nov15.215602.11404
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

# OK,  Someone tell me.  I scream at the perp "ON THE FLOOR" 
# He says "fxxx you" ,  I yell "DO IT NOW!"  He calls me "you homo." 
# He does not attack me, but he doesn't obey.  Stalemate.  Do I shoot 
# him or not?  Any takers?
# 
# 	[MODERATOR: The merits of saying ahead of time, and in public,
# 	 that one would shoot a perp in the above hypothetical situation
# 	 should be considered.   But could we appeal to the officers here
# 	 on the net to comment?  Surely training must address exactly
# 	 this sort of scenario, where a bad guy is clearly covered but
# 	 neither secured nor cooperative.]

Okay, I'll give it a try, based on our SOP (which may differ from other
jurisdictions).

Assume we start with an armed assailant.
Lethal force is justified if she or he poses an immediate threat to my
life or the life of a third party.

If, upon my drawing my weapon and challenging ("POLICE - DON'T MOVE!"),
they follow my instructions and are no longer in possession of the weapon,
then they no longer pose the threat which justified lethal force.  If
they then fail to follow my positioning instructions (e.g. so I can easily
handcuff them), I must resort to non-lethal means to gain control of them
(e.g. pressure point control techniques or baton-wrist locks).  If they
were staying put and I was alone, I would probably not do this until backup
arrived; I would maintain my distance and keep my weapon drawn in case they
produced an additional weapon (a very likely possibility).  In general, we
try not to handcuff alone, since that necessarily puts them within your
reactionary gap.  If, upon disarming themselves per my instructions, they
stop following commands and start walking away, I CANNOT SHOOT unless I can
show that they still pose an immediate threat to me or a third party.  An
officer may not use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon (Garner vs Tenn).

One training scenario illustrates this.  We draw and challenge a suspect
armed with a baseball bat ( a lethal weapon, depending upon the suspect's
demeanor).  Upon seeing our gun, he throws the bat down and starts mouthing
off and threatening to beat the tar out of us.  Unless he's got a
significant advantage (e.g. he's 300# of muscle and I'm a 120# officer
alone), we must be able to reholster and lock in our weapon with one hand
while preparing for the use of a lower level of force (e.g. baton, chemical
spray).  Sometimes, having a gun in your hand can be a liability, since you
might not be "allowed" to use it, while it's easier for him to take it.

Of course, if they fail to disarm themselves per my instructions, virtually
any action on their part may be considered an act of agression, possibly
causing me to use lethal force to stop their action.

Remember that law enforcement officers are generally held to a higher
standard in such encounters, since the court will presume their training
offered them non-lethal alternatives which might not be available to the
civilian. Also, the 4th amendment is an issue for cops, since it restricts
the government's right to "take" from a citizen (and killing someone is
considered a "taking").  The 4th amendment does not similarly restrict
civilians.  But for all of us, "reasonableness" applies.  I would say, for
example, that if a thug threatened you with a knife, you threatened him with
a gun, and he threw the knife down and began backing away, "reasonableness"
would suggest that you NOT shoot him.  Appalling as it may seem, his escape
is not an immediate threat, so lethal force is not called for.

Again, your mileage may vary.  Different states have different SOPs for
law enforcement (as well as different legal bases for civilian use of
force).

Steve Frysinger