And another one...

[RCummings]

If/when an officer is at fault, for what ever reason, there is accountability.

How about personal responsibility, for example when an officer gets sued he/she pays not the taxpayer, this would seem like some semblance of "accountability".

To address the boilerplate responses such as, Bad Apples, can't get rid of them because of X.

I would propose that for 5 days of every month LE should forgo taking anything but their citation book and pen, leave the utility belt and all weapons at the station. Go out and protect and serve, do it with honor and integrity. I believe in a couple of months there would be a drastic improvement in mental acuity and the "bad apples" would no longer be a problem. Nature operating in all it's glory.

Bob
__________________

[cbtengr]

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc

In incidences like this, one must wonder whose life's sanctity is placed first by current law enforcement policy and whether said policy need be revisited.

That is a GREAT point.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc

In incidences like this, one must wonder whose life's sanctity is placed first by current law enforcement policy and whether said policy need be revisited.

The evidence of your answer these days is sadly pretty clear & supported by the court system or DA's at the outset. A police K-9 holds a higher hand it seems than many.

[Streck-Fu]

Another man "reached" into his jacket while sitting on a sidewalk. Cop shoots him in the head. 2nd shooting by officer in 10 months.

LINK

Plowden, who had been stopped minutes earlier because he was driving a car police have said was sought in connection with a homicide investigation, allegedly reached his hand into his jacket pocket before Ruch shot him in the head, the account said. Since the shooting, police have said Plowden was not a suspect in the homicide.

It is the second time in 10 months Ruch has been involved in the shooting of a suspect.

[Basenshukai]

Originally Posted by TacOfficer

According to current law enforcement policy, the sanctity of life is First.

For example, stolen vehicle racing through a densely populated area. The mission is to apprehend the felon. Does one adhere to the military creed and risk the lives of the criminal, officer and bystanders to accomplish the mission? Obviously not. Every call police take, has a uniques set of balances. Where I work, we have a no chase policy. You want to steal a car and race away, be my guest. The department has decided it isn't worth the risk of life or injury to all parties directly and indirectly involved.

I think it is clear by this statement that we have a bit of mutual misunderstanding based on where each of us stands, perspective-wise. First of all, within that context you gave us above, from a military point of view, apprehending that felon is not a "mission", but a tactical task. The mission, especially for you guys in LEO, should be something larger in scope. If you focus on tactical tasks as missions, you run the risk of focusing on accomplishing them with little regard to the big picture (which is what I think is happening with LEO).

I don't know if you have prior military experience, or how deep such experience may go. However, for us in the military, the mission statement does not exist on its own without the commander's intent, as well as the endstate (how the command wants things to go when said mission is accomplished) and - of course - the rules of engagement (the law).

Using the example you have given us here, this is how we would likely see it:

------------------

Mission: Task Force "Protect and Serve" will conduct police operations in the vicinity of Anytown USA from 1 January 2018 to 1 February 2018 in order to ensure public safety, root out low-to-mid-level criminal elements, and increase local population participation in the local economy.

Commander's Intent: Expanded Purpose - Facilitate local economic growth and employment by eliminating threats to local populace. Key Tasks - a) Foot patrol through high-crime areas during hours of limited visibility; b) Engage local population to gain atmospherics and intel; c) Conduct vehicular patrol of high crime areas and conduct lawful stops when warranted.

Endstate: a) Local population gains freedom of movement in their neighborhoods; b) Law Enforcement gains local popular support and increased cooperation; c) Task Force "Protect and Serve" gains expanded access into area of operations, setting conditions for future operations; d) Local businesses can operate normally

ROE (Rules of Engagement): All police actions in the apprehension of suspected criminals, or those violating the law, must adhere to the local, state, and Federal laws and guidelines and ensure the protection of US Constitutional Rights.

Police Necessity: The employment of force, lethal and less-than-lethal, justifies its employment when it is used to obtain the submission of the suspect or to ensure the safety of a civilian(s). However, these actions must NOT violate the law, nor the US Constitution.
Proportionality: The use of force should be in proportion to the threat at hand. Use as much force as needed, but in proportion to the threat.
Avoid Unnecessary Suffering: Ensure that the use of force avoids unnecessary suffering as much as possible. Be aware of collateral damage and the post-action damage to the mission, intent, and overall endstate relative to the population.


-----------------

The above essentially gives you an idea of how we are prepared for our missions and what the guidelines are. What is not spelled-out is left up to personal judgement and accountability. The Special Forces soldier will essentially commit this to memory, ask for clarification if needed. But, he will go into the area of operations having a principled understanding of why he is there. This then guides his actions.

In light of the above, if there is a felon speeding through the populated area, would it harm the mission, intent, and endstate if I risk slamming into a civilian's car while chasing him? Yes? Then, let it go. That's how we would see it.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by TacOfficer

I absolutely agree, in the military the mission comes first. Does a military commander consider the risks to his soldiers...

We always consider the risks...and go through elaborate steps to mitigate them as much as possible. But the "risk" inherent with the mission rarely is the deciding factor on whether or not to proceed.

[Basenshukai]

Originally Posted by 1stindoor

We always consider the risks...and go through elaborate steps to mitigate them as much as possible. But the "risk" inherent with the mission rarely is the deciding factor on whether or not to proceed.

This.

And, it is coming from someone (1stindoor) who has seen risk in multiple highly violent scenarios with deadly consequences. Much respect, brother.

[1stindoor]

hah!...Flattery will get you nowhere. Glad to see you doing well.

Seriously, though, it's an interesting and important discussion and I truly appreciate the LE POV from local to federal.

[bblhead672]

A different perspective from a former military man:

No One Cares If You Go Home Safe At The End Of Your Shift

[Joker]

Trying to compare cops/SWAT to military on a SF forum is just silly. I, me alone, shot more bullets in a day than some departments did in a year, hell maybe even decades for some. At my peak I shot 10K 9mm, 10K 5.56mm, and 100s 12 Ga. That does not take in consideration the 7.62mm sniper, 7.62mm M60, 5.56mm SAW, or the 50 cal on the Barrett.

I know others here also have similar numbers.

The cop was scared shitless, someone should have checked his pants, freaked out and needlessly killed an innocent man. He should pay for his crime, just like the asshat who called it in, and the department pay dearly.

[RCummings]

bblhead672,

Great read! Unfortunately we have to go to town sometimes. Other than that zero contact and "support" is fine with me. I do not call 911 and have zero desire to find out if the LE are good or bad, they are armed and simply make any situation worse. I do understand that there may be good LE departments out there, I am not inclined to find out if I am dealing with one or just an idiot with a firearm. I'll take my chances alone or with a person firing in the same direction as I am. Call 911, don't hold your breath.

Bob

[TrapperFrank]

I have had to depend on the police four separate times in my life and have sorely disappointed each and every time. By their very nature, police are reactive versus proactive. So, now a days, I handle my own business and limit any and all contact with the police.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Makes you a "mind reader" if the subjects hands are empty....... there is no one on this planet that could draw and fire before I pulled the trigger on a rifle that I've already drawn a bead with, no one.

And THIS is the thought in my mind when I started this thread... We are talking about killing Americans... not in some ambush or a meeting engagement... but in their homes... when they are at least partially compliant, when the police are in a position of advantage (e.g. weapons out). Even the military recognizes this. This is the reason why tactics are different for HR scenarios. If not, then why don't we use AT4's to breach rooms and then throw frags when american hostages may be present? (well maybe some do that, but they shouldn't).....simple. Because the lives of the hostages, (or whatever is important that we're trying to grab... person friendly or enemy, stuff...) are worth the risk of a life.

Is it really too much to ask for LE in situations like this, to take a pause, positively check for a weapon in hand, before pulling the trigger on a fellow American in a private residence?

[Old Dog New Trick]

I think as a private citizen paying the salary of a police officer and the department mess ups we should get to choose what they are armed with.

Wonder how many other citizens would get shot and killed if the coppers had six shot revolvers in 38-Special round nose. Barney Fife never killed anyone.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

The problem is not the weapons . It has a couple issues.

1. Selection of candidates. They get young aggressive people. I am not saying there is not a time for aggression, but they pick hyper aggressive people.

2. Training. It is much better then it used to be but they do not train officer to talk to people just talk at them. See number one for the reason this happens.

I believe LE should be well armed due to the terror and gang threats of today. I do not see a need for full auto but a rifle shotgun and pistol is reasonable. The problem is I put more rounds done range in a single year as a citizen than most LE officers do.

I kid. Could have posted that in pink. But seriously with the firepower the average street cop has available to him, one would surmise they have a certain level of invincibility built into their thinking but they don’t. Weapons training and familiarization is way down on a Department’s budget.

All Hollywood jokes aside (Eric Bana - “this is my safety” [index finger] - Blackhawk Down) we trained in the Army to be masters of that selector/safety switch on the side of an M4. It takes a fraction of a second to thumb the safety down and move your finger from the lower receiver to the trigger. It takes even less time to unintentionally discharge that weapon because the trigger got pulled “accidentally!”

I wonder sometimes how many of these shootings are just ‘reflexive’ actions at a point way beyond ready to fire? To just “shit - bang!” (“Oh Shit!!!”)