PDA

View Full Version : PR and Fatal Shootings - Why Didn't They Just...



Bob Steinkraus
8th June 2000, 19:07
I would like to describe a situation, and ask for feedback. This occurred last Saturday night at the house directly across the street from me. I was not present, so I got my understanding from the police report and the media. The wife in the situation disputes some of the assertions of the police, and has retained the services of a lawyer.

Police responded to a domestic violence call, in which the father was apparently physically abusive to two of his step children, ages 12 and 16. When they arrived, the father was pacing the lawn in front of his house. Police calmed him down and took him back into the kitchen of the house.

On the kitchen counter were two steak knives. The officer spotted the knives, and attempted to get between the father and the knives. The father saw this, and attempted to get between the officer and the knives. This led to a struggle, when the father then punched the officer, who then wrestled him down. As they were struggling on the ground, a backup unit arrived. Another officer entered, saw the situation, and pepper sprayed the father, which disabled the officer with whom he was struggling, but not the father.

The father was attempting to remove the officer's revolver from its holster. The second officer drew his weapon, warning the father to stop.

The father did not stop. He managed to get the pistol from the officer's holster. The second officer then shot the father once in the neck or upper torso, and he was pronounced dead at the scene by the paramedics, a few minutes later.

As you might expect, this has been subject to much discussion in our quiet little white-bread suburb, as it is the first time in our 32 year history that an officer has killed a civilian. The responses I have heard seem to focus on a couple of points.

1) The officers outnumbered the father two to one - why couldn't they overpower him?

2) If the second officer saw that the father was going after the first officer's gun, why didn't he use his nightstick to subdue the father instead of shooting him?

My background in martial arts seems to give me a totally different perspective on this.

I think it is very difficult to subdue someone without hurting them, even two to one. I think it is also very difficult to knock someone out fast enough to prevent them from shooting you if they have a gun. When I present this point of view, I seem to be met with blank stares of incomprehension. Nobody seems to believe that this is anything other than a gross overreaction from the police.

My question is, how would you try to explain this to civilian, non-martial artists? Everyone else seems to feel that since police in Woodbury, MN don't have a shooting every weekend, that they have no experience in dealing with violent situations and therefore panicked. What would you do to present a different perspective?

Regards,
Bob Steinkraus

Kit LeBlanc
8th June 2000, 19:41
Bob,

Thank you for looking at this reasonably and realistically. The general public has no idea what physical confrontation, for real, is all about. Perhaps your training has given you a perspective that other simply could not comprehend.

Explaining it is done in court, usually, and not in front of the general public. Of course, after various experts explain what really occurs in this kind of situation, and how police are trained to deal with it, and the jury comes back with an unpopular verdict, everything explodes again.

Kit LeBlanc

Neil Hawkins
9th June 2000, 01:25
Bob,

It's human nature to talk about these things, here in Aus we call them "Monday's experts", wether it be how they should have won the football saturday afternoon or how they would have led the coup in the Solomon Islands people will always discuss it. Usually with no regard for the facts, and no knowledge of the subject.

This happens everywhere and for every subject, even when you think people should know better. For every expert that the Police present in court saying their actions were valid, I bet her lawyers can find two that will say they weren't.

Unfortunate, but I don't think there is a solution.

Regards
Neil

------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

Joseph Svinth
9th June 2000, 10:13
Only one cop responded to the domestic violence call? (You say the second cop arrived in the middle of all this.) This sounds like a problem in departmental procedures, as in any DV situation there are guaranteed to be at least two potentially violent suspects, both of whom are operating in their own space. Therefore I would have thought that safety considerations would require at least three cops on the scene before anyone goes so far as to knock on the door.

As for why the officers didn't use sticks, I bet you'll find that they left their sticks in their cars. (Since few departments provide much training in stick, the folks use what they know, which is chemical weapons and firearms.)

Be that as it may, and assuming that both cops generally followed departmental procedures, then the people at fault are not the individual cops but the people who approved the departmental procedures and training. In most cases, this would be the mayor and the chief of police. So if the town is insistent on a witch hunt, how about charging the mayor and chief with supervisory negligence leading to loss of life and making them *personally* responsible for paying all court costs associated with this case? That would save the city a stack of bucks and probably lead to the city instituting better training and procedures in future.



------------------
Joe
http://ejmas.com

Kolschey
9th June 2000, 14:44
That makes sense, Joe. Hopefully, it would have the benefit of directing some of the public hostility away from the police officers. I wonder what can be done to better educate the public about the realities of police work, as it seems that many people have some unconcious assumptions on the subject. I do suspect that the media is somewhat responsible for the perception of LEOs as omnipotent, or at least larger than life. Your average American watches Walker, Texas Ranger disarm mutiple opponents with a series of throws and spinning kicks, or any number of other television heroes extricate themselves from ambiguous firearm related incedents involving civillians- " C'mon Janey, just put the gun down and we can talk about this..Killing him isn't the answer". They are then incredulous that their local police seem to have a less diverse array of nonlethal alternatives in violent encounters.

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

profsarj
9th June 2000, 19:25
Once a suspect attempts to attack an officer with a deadly weapon, the officer is in his authority to use deadly force. The parameters vary from state to state.

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

Joseph Svinth
9th June 2000, 22:08
Now, before going too far in justifying police homicide, let's put on our devil's advocate hat.

If Bill Gates had been the subject of the call and the Medina police showed up, do you think the cops would have shot him the instant he went in the kitchen, where a knife was on the table? If not, why not? (Just because Gates has more money than the State of Washington and got a cop fired for giving him a traffic ticket shouldn't cause anyone to treat him differently under the law, now should it?)

Furthermore, wouldn't a reasonable and prudent person expect to find knives in a kitchen? If so, is the officer's story regarding the circumstances of the case honest and true, or is it instead a convenient fiction created to justify the killing of an unwanted member of the community? (Maybe this will come as a shock to some people, but police homicide has a long history in America. For example, from 1880-1930, socialists were routinely shot on such excuses. Meanwhile minorities were taken out and lynched while the jailors watched. Hopefully things have changed, but one never knows.)

At any rate, investigation is ALWAYS required to determine the facts of a case, and procedures should be implemented in any department to reduce the risk and frequency of accidental killings (e.g., manslaughter)to a minimum.

------------------
Joe
http://ejmas.com

KenpoKev
15th June 2000, 20:16
I must agree with Joe on his points. The first place to examine is the department policy and procedures. It has been my observation that the majority of agencies spend very little time on physical restraint techniques, and a great deal of time on firearm training. (and they still have a horrid accuracy rate, mind you when rounds are coming your way, the natural reaction is to "spray 'n pray")

In two of the states I have instructed in, the basic academy training consisted of 40 hours of Defensive Tactics, largely focused on handcuffing and proper body search positions. Additionally, basic wristlocks are taught, again focused on placing cuffs. This varies from agency, but there is usually an 8 hour annual DT "refresher" to keep the officer "competant".

And the public (& mayor & council & chief) expect these LEO's to physically subdue combative individuals without escalating the force WAY UP? What also amazes me is the number of Workers Comp. claims that come out of the majority of physical altercations, and yet, the agencies refuse to put more time-$ into physical (DT) training.

I now reside in a rural community with an SO that has roughly 70 deputies. They are unusually progressive in their training (a real credit to the Sheriff) While they comply with the state requirement of 8 hours annual, they have begun incorporating the Controlled FORCE methodology in subduing combative subjects. (If you are an LEO, look into this system, it's quite effective and fairly easy to teach, a critical element!)

Hindsight is always 20-20, and it is sad that your neighbor paid the ultimate price for his actions (stupidity). I hope your community can come to terms with the incident and learn something. (the agency had better re-evaluate the response to DV calls...one unit??????)

For your consideration,
Respectfully,
Kevin Schaller

OLD_LIFEGUARD
25th June 2000, 15:38
I have been fortunate to have spent several years at a small department in Alabama before moving on to work in a Federal LEO. No one likes a "Monday morning quarterback" but from my experience mistakes were made.
-Never go to a domestic call alone, wait outside for backup.
-Once you get the suspect/subject outside keep 'em there(there are too many weapons in a house, car, garage ect..
-If you feel that violence has either happened or is about to, handcuff everyone involved and sit 'em down legs crossed. You can always unlock a pair of hand cuffs, its hard to unshoot someone.
-Practice, practice, practice your empty hand techniques and restraining options per your department training,
-Stay in shape, mentally as well as physically.
-If you use OC/tear gas type products, have someone spray you and see how you react. I have been sprayed several times on the job making arrest, by other LEO. Not to sound macho, but you have to block out the pain and get the job done. I think my background in Judo has helped me when I was partial blinded.
As always watch their hands. Stay safe

MarkF
26th June 2000, 11:57
. I think my background in Judo has helped me when I was partial blinded.
As always watch their hands. Stay safe

Well, it is nice when someone credits judo for soemthing nowadays, but more importantly, as I became accustomed to Brian's advice when I was studying presdidigtation, always watch the hands. Misdirection IS easy. Unshooting is not like rewinding.