 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Shooting
People
People
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2008 - 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.