USAF Airman Killed in Wrong Address Police Incident

[ECS686]

We will probably just have to agree to disagree.

So guy laying on the ground injured badly, raises the gun. What do you think he is going to do(or at least try) ? Not rhetorical.

Just respectfully talking and adding a thought. In that same situation let’s say hypothetically the LEO 100% acted illegally no warrants no PC or reasonable suspicion and was at a wrong address and used force illegally in Indiana the citizens are allowed to use force back. And while it obviously probably wouldn’t end well for anyone wouldn’t the person on the floor be legal? Not that it’s gonna matter as he will probably be near death and it’s a response anyway but see how there’s a lot of angles this could go depending on jurisdiction!

 

[Cameramonkey]

Just respectfully talking and adding a thought. In that same situation let’s say hypothetically the LEO 100% acted illegally no warrants no PC or reasonable suspicion and was at a wrong address and used force illegally in Indiana the citizens are allowed to use force back. And while it obviously probably wouldn’t end well for anyone wouldn’t the person on the floor be legal? Not that it’s gonna matter as he will probably be near death and it’s a response anyway but see how there’s a lot of angles this could go depending on jurisdiction!

You mentioned you didnt read the whole thread. Just making sure you saw my clarification that this is not about the OP but post 123. If you havent watched that video, my comment makes a bit more sense.

 

[Denny347]

Danger is Danger, it either is or it isn't a Danger.

I don't want to overinflate the risk in LE, sometimes is certainly is. However, the danger from a car crash is NOT the same danger as a person armed with a handgun. Tripping and falling on a construction job IS the same as tripping and falling in a foot chase. But active human aggression is something that very FEW professions are required to handle and the risks are just not the same. Neither is the training nor the mindset required to mitigate those risks properly. Your oversimplification is just as disingenuous as any exaggeration. Neither further this discussion in a constructive manner.

A whole lot of LE tend to die at their own hands and making poor decisions.
Its an easy statistic to cut in half with a few changes.

Please give us this "easy" solution.

Maybe OSHA should write some of the protocols that will save LEO's lives?

Such as?

 

[ECS686]

You mentioned you didnt read the whole thread. Just making sure you saw my clarification that this is not about the OP but post 123. If you havent watched that video, my comment makes a bit more sense.

I have seen that video. Totally different scenerio. While what you mentioned mentioned about being deaf could be an issue they didn’t surprise him in the long beach video and this is a case where he didn’t comply.

And yea one could argue the last shot was an execution was it that or was it sympathetic squeezing ? It happens

The case with the SRA was it was a surprise and there really wasn’t much time given for the SRA to react to visual. I’d since the verbal was a little late (we can argue if it was on purpose or was the Deputy maxed out on his performance with stress we will never know that)

 

[Denny347]

I believe that's part of the problem in situation's like this, to many officers screaming different instructions with each of them telling him we are going to shoot you if you don't comply.
I don't believe he was "Drawing the pistol" The pistol was pointed down when he pulled it out of his pocket and stayed pointed down.
I didn't see a threat here.

A gun down at you side still COULD be a threat, depending on fact and circumstances known to the officers at the time of the force used.
ALL UoF reasonableness is determined by the SCOTUS Graham v Connor decision and the test it set forth.
THIS is the golden standard for police UoF. Here is a quick breakdown:

The Court stated that, “The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” The objective test requires the court to envision a reasonable officer and ask this question: Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, could such an officer believe that the force was reasonable? Since the objective test judges the officer through the lens of a reasonable officer, the subjective beliefs of the actual officer – whether they are good, or bad – are not relevant. Officer Connor, for example, may have honestly believed that Graham was a shoplifter; however, Connor’s personal beliefs are not relevant. The relevant question is whether a reasonable officer could believe that Graham was a shoplifter, based on the facts. Facts make force reasonable. The objective reasonableness test requires officers to rely on their senses – or what they saw, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched – and then articulate a factual basis for the seizure. Was the seizure reasonable meaning reasonable at its inception, in the degree of force used, and in its duration?
The Supreme Court stated that, “The test for reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” Allowance must be made for the fact that “…police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

 

[ECS686]

A gun down at you side still COULD be a threat, depending on fact and circumstances known to the officers at the time of the force used.
ALL UoF reasonableness is determined by the SCOTUS Graham v Connor decision and the test it set forth.
THIS is the golden standard for police UoF. Here is a quick breakdown:

The Court stated that, “The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” The objective test requires the court to envision a reasonable officer and ask this question: Based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, could such an officer believe that the force was reasonable? Since the objective test judges the officer through the lens of a reasonable officer, the subjective beliefs of the actual officer – whether they are good, or bad – are not relevant. Officer Connor, for example, may have honestly believed that Graham was a shoplifter; however, Connor’s personal beliefs are not relevant. The relevant question is whether a reasonable officer could believe that Graham was a shoplifter, based on the facts. Facts make force reasonable. The objective reasonableness test requires officers to rely on their senses – or what they saw, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched – and then articulate a factual basis for the seizure. Was the seizure reasonable meaning reasonable at its inception, in the degree of force used, and in its duration?
The Supreme Court stated that, “The test for reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” Allowance must be made for the fact that “…police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

Denny most of us get Graham vs Conner. I can only speak for myself (but I have been mirandized by OIG agents during investigations a couple of times so I sort of get it) I believe the issue is the minimum mandatory training has set LEOs up for failure in circumstances like this. And not enough agencies seek anything outside what the state academy’s have to erase some of these bad habits or mentalities


The Deputy might be a squared away guy maybe he has a resume if better training than us here just sort of weird this same agency has had 2 epic bad optic events with firing guns at people one fatally.

Here is a great episode from about 18 months ago where Chuck Haggard lays it out and everything he mentions would prevent these types of cases

(Shameless plug if anyone is interested I am hosting Chuck Haggard in October for a couple classes check the training thread)

 

[Denny347]

Denny most of us get Graham vs Conner. I can only speak for myself (but I have been mirandized by OIG agents during investigations a couple of times so I sort of get it) I believe the issue is the minimum mandatory training has set LEOs up for failure in circumstances like this. And not enough agencies seek anything outside what the state academy’s have to erase some of these bad habits or mentalities

I cannot speak to the type of training FL LEO get, but from what I get from friends who left here to get jobs down there, it's a WORLD different, and not for the better. Many have then decided to quit and move back here, getting their old jobs back. Most of LE training is box checking, this coming from a LE trainer... All administrators care about it "certified" and not "qualified". Indiana requires 16 week academy for Tier 1 (City/Municipality police) and 7 weeks for Tier 2 (Hospital police, school police, and Town Marshalls). Indy is 28 weeks and training is mostly checking the box. The entire focus is to get recruits to pass minimum State tests, driving, shooting, law, etc. Do what is required to get them to pass. That is it. If you REALLY wanted highly trained police officers, we can look towards Germany or similar. They have a 2 year degree to become certified. If you want to be promoted, it's 2 more years. Can you imagine what could be taught in a college style setting. Writing, ground fighting, problem solving, ethics, etc. Indiana only requires 5 days for Emergency Driving. In Britain, if you want to drive an ARV, you get a 3 week driving school. If you want to be pursuit rated, it's 6 weeks with a 30% failure rate. This is AWESOME. We HAVE to reimage LE training if we want to get away from checking boxes. Problem is, you go through all this only to work for a small department making $40k in rural Alabama? Higher level of training will require MUCH better pay and some national training standard. Difficult problem to solve.

 

[jsharmon7]

I cannot speak to the type of training FL LEO get, but from what I get from friends who left here to get jobs down there, it's a WORLD different, and not for the better. Many have then decided to quit and move back here, getting their old jobs back. Most of LE training is box checking, this coming from a LE trainer... All administrators care about it "certified" and not "qualified". Indiana requires 16 week academy for Tier 1 (City/Municipality police) and 7 weeks for Tier 2 (Hospital police, school police, and Town Marshalls). Indy is 28 weeks and training is mostly checking the box. The entire focus is to get recruits to pass minimum State tests, driving, shooting, law, etc. Do what is required to get them to pass. That is it. If you REALLY wanted highly trained police officers, we can look towards Germany or similar. They have a 2 year degree to become certified. If you want to be promoted, it's 2 more years. Can you imagine what could be taught in a college style setting. Writing, ground fighting, problem solving, ethics, etc. Indiana only requires 5 days for Emergency Driving. In Britain, if you want to drive an ARV, you get a 3 week driving school. If you want to be pursuit rated, it's 6 weeks with a 30% failure rate. This is AWESOME. We HAVE to reimage LE training if we want to get away from checking boxes. Problem is, you go through all this only to work for a small department making $40k in rural Alabama? Higher level of training will require MUCH better pay and some national training standard. Difficult problem to solve.

ILEA has some excellent instructors, but when I went through I felt it was outdated. Aside from the breakout weeks, a lot of it was not helpful at all. I blame the curriculum rather than the instructors for that.

I agree with everything you said in this post. Either we have to do better at training officers, or officers have to take it upon themselves to train outside the minimum, check the box training. I think the first option is the better choice.

 

[Cameramonkey]

And yea one could argue the last shot was an execution was it that or was it sympathetic squeezing ? It happens

I saw a man down desperately trying to do what he didnt have the guts to try while he was still vertical take the shot. If I was on the jury, not guilty on that count specifically because he was clearly trying one last time to shoot the officers. I can think of no other reason for that man to raise that gun. And even if you think he wasnt able to shoot the officers because he couldnt aim any more. You gonna take the chance and let that bullet go God only knows where?

Dude had over a minute to just take his hands out of his pockets, comply, and walk away from the encounter.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[ECS686]

I saw a man down desperately trying to do what he didnt have the guts to try while he was still vertical take the shot. If I was on the jury, not guilty on that count specifically because he was clearly trying one last time to shoot the officers. I can think of no other reason for that man to raise that gun. And even if you think he wasnt able to shoot the officers because he couldnt aim any more. You gonna take the chance and let that bullet go God only knows where?

Dude had over a minute to just take his hands out of his pockets, comply, and walk away from the encounter.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don’t disagree with what you are saying I am just adding what could or couldn’t have been why the shot was a moment later. Like I mentioned the perp had time to comply and this mindset that folks can fight all the time also needs addressed.

But you have to admit there is not enough Cognative training for LEOs unless they seek it on their own

 

[Creedmoor]

I don't want to overinflate the risk in LE, sometimes is certainly is. However, the danger from a car crash is NOT the same danger as a person armed with a handgun. Tripping and falling on a construction job IS the same as tripping and falling in a foot chase. But active human aggression is something that very FEW professions are required to handle and the risks are just not the same. Neither is the training nor the mindset required to mitigate those risks properly. Your oversimplification is just as disingenuous as any exaggeration. Neither further this discussion in a constructive manner.

Please give us this "easy" solution.

Such as?

For starters, slow the cruisers down. To many officers are injured or killed on the way to a call, not after the call. I personally don't care what the call is theirs zero reason to drive the speeds that most LEO drive at times.
More mental health checks and be vigorous with screening for drug and alcohol abuse. And when an issue comes to the forefront, take care of the situation, don't hide it, don't cover it up.
Do a better job with screening new hires for personality traits that aren't wanted.

 

[DadSmith]

What I've gathered if LE are engaged with you keep your hands away from pockets, and where they are seen at all times. If you have a weapon let them remove it.

 

[Cameramonkey]

What I've gathered if LE are engaged with you keep your hands away from pockets, and where they are seen at all times. If you have a weapon let them remove it.

And argue about it later. The side of the road (or in a park) is not the place for it.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

I don't believe I said it should be an eye for an eye or even suggested it. I also stated I believe it was non-intentional.

Yet again I'm reminded as to why I hate talking through text. I admit I could have phrased my post better, but that was not directed at you. I was using your point as a segue to respond to some of the other responses on here. There are some suggesting the officer should be charged with murder. I disagree with that as intentions make a difference, however to some the fact that a life was lost negates this point.

Now this, I cannot disagree more. I have never been in a situation even close to this; that said, I know not to do that. Again, never been there or done that. Training is valuable in any profession. Doctors, lawyers, police, firefighters, teachers; however, one can never predict application results and all we can hope for is positive outcomes. The teacher/trainer in this case is not at fault. IMHO, this was an individual procedural outcome. People make mistakes and are held accountable for them.

Trying to pin something like this on the trainer is nothing more than a lack of individual responsibility, which is like cancer to the human body. "Not my fault, I was never trained enough"......don't even try to go there or support that ridiculous thought.

This is a double edged sword. People should be held accountable to their actions, however they can also be taught and influenced by questionable tactics and policies. There's a myriad of different things that influence how someone reacts. Some can be pointed out and rectified while most cannot.

In the examples you gave, there is the possibility that the training is just wrong. If you got self-defense training from that Urban Self-Defense guy and got shot trying to grab the slide of an attacker's gun, should we put all the blame on you or should we also say that maybe that guy is a quack teaching bad tactics? On another note, training and tactics evolve based on pointing out bad practices that ended in bad situations.

Admittedly neither you nor I have proper knowledge of how their training is in this department so we can only speculate for sake of argument. However rhetorically speaking if they're training to shoot first at any loud noise or the vague shape of a gun in someone's hand, then yeah maybe something should be revised now that we have two separate incidents in the same department.

And don't even try to say I was suggesting the ridiculous notion that the officer is faultless and that it's only the trainer's fault. Let's say a manager at a brewery has two forklift operators that sometimes partake of the product sometimes and he looks the other way because they do a good job. Then one day one kills the other one after impaling with a forklift while drinking. In this case the operator should be charged with reckless homicide and not the manager, but that doesn't mean they should get off scott free.

 

[Nazgul]

Sheriff's Press Conference

Has the body cam footage.

I have seen the footage before. He did open the door with a handgun in his hand. I did not see him point it at the officer though.

I understand the dynamics that he could have raised and fired at the officer quickly so I can make no judgement about the incident. It seems tragic but it seems there was definitely a reason for the police to be there.

Not easy for anyone involved.

Don

 

[Ziggidy]

And don't even try to say I was suggesting the ridiculous notion that the officer is faultless and that it's only the trainer's fault. Let's say a manager at a brewery has two forklift operators that sometimes partake of the product sometimes and he looks the other way because they do a good job. Then one day one kills the other one after impaling with a forklift while drinking. In this case the operator should be charged with reckless homicide and not the manager, but that doesn't mean they should get off scott free.

Apples and oranges

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

Apples and oranges

Are fruits, and I tire of talking about them, so I'm done with this thread. Peace.

 

[Creedmoor]

Are fruits, and I tire of talking about them, so I'm done with this thread. Peace.

I struggle with getting killed in the LE world is somehow different than one having a violent death with an industrial accident or getting ripped apart in a PTO shaft is not the same as being killed while in LE.
Danger is Danger, Dead is Dead.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I still want to see what FDLE concludes but this looks like a Karen Call where a woman will use the police offensively to harm others because she does not like THE OTHERS in her neighborhood. (Disclaimer: I JUST had a MTS on this issue where a Karen called 911 on 3 African-Americans yutes were looking at cars and then rode off, so still wound up).

However, my own biases aside, this Florida shooting is bad, real ugly.

 

[Denny347]

For starters, slow the cruisers down. To many officers are injured or killed on the way to a call, not after the call. I personally don't care what the call is theirs zero reason to drive the speeds that most LEO drive at times.

We harp on our guys/gals regarding speeds. My shift is almost all rookies and they can be a bit heavy footed. However, as much as we beat it into their heads, THEY control the throttle. We find that things tend to slow down the longer they are on the job for. I cannot MAKE them slow down. I can only try to pass along my wisdom.

More mental health checks and be vigorous with screening for drug and alcohol abuse. And when an issue comes to the forefront, take care of the situation, don't hide it, don't cover it up.
Do a better job with screening new hires for personality traits that aren't wanted.

Mental health is only recently getting attention (nationwide as well as for LE) and many departments are slow to respond.

However, I will say, our Wellness Unit does a fantastic job connecting officers AND their families to mental health, financial, relationship, marriage, or addiction, services. If you come in on your own, it's confidential and not held against you at all. For so many years, officers were told to "suck it up" and carry on, only to find the damage began to manifest itself in various unhealthy/dangerous ways. I've lost too many friends to suicide here at work or they lost their jobs, their freedom, for unaddressed mental issues the job CAUSED. Dave Bisard was a coworker of mine I liked working with. NEVER showed signs of alcohol abuse. Was stunned at his BAC after his crash. He was one of the first responders at the Hamilton St murders (7 killed including several young children). Then not long after that, he responded to a Bank robbery and got into a shootout in the woods with the suspect armed with an AK. The department never cared if those things affected officers, they were expected to go right back to work. He became an alcoholic after these. He is still responsible for his actions but the department created that monster. Only recently, do we look after officers after these types of incidents. They are currently working on yearly phycologist check-ups, paid for by the department, just like our physical checkups are. I'm all for that.

Applicants get a mental screening currently, the MMPI and a session with a phycologist. It is HARD to really know what is going on in someone's head without many, many sessions.