Tactical Decision Exercise

[Jeff Cook]

Neil, you really are better at coming up with these, but I'll give it a shot!

This actually happened in Florida recently. Let's hear how you would handle it.

An off-duty officer is at a department store. A female suspect shoplifts, runs out the door with store security in pursuit. The off-duty officer apprehends her in the parking lot. As he is trying to get control of her, the female's boyfriend pulls up in a vehicle, grabs her through the vehicle window, and tries to wrestle her away from the officer and pull her into the vehicle. A bystander assists the officer in trying to maintain control of the female as the boyfriend is trying to pull her through the window of the vehicle.

The vehicle starts to roll away as they are still wrestling over the female. The bystander at this point lets go of the female, as the car is pulling away. The off-duty officer continues to try to pull her back out of the vehicle, as the vehicle picks up speed.

He pulls his sidearm, identifying himself as an off-duty officer, and commanding that the driver stop the vehicle and release the female. The driver does not stop.

At this time, the officer fires his weapon, striking the male driver in the head (grazing wound) and in the arm. The driver pulls over, both are arrested.

The officer fired because he felt his life was in danger due to the moving vehicle.

What would you have done?

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu


[This message has been edited by Jeff Cook (edited 06-07-2000).]

[Kit LeBlanc]

Let go.

Kit LeBlanc

[Jeff Cook]

Me too, Kit.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Neil Hawkins]

It's unanimous!

I may decide to shoot at the tyre as I'm close enough and the vehicle is moving slowly but that would depend on bystanders, possible co-lateral damage, whatever, plus if he lost control in the parking lot with her hanging out the window, people could get hurt. Best bet is let them go then unleash the dogs.

The main thing is get the license plate, get descriptions, get help.

I'll post one later this week, I've had one waiting for E-Budo to come back, but hadn't got around to it yet! I'm glad you think they're useful.

Regards
Neil

PS. Jeff, did you get my e-mail about Hojojutsu, I never got a response.

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

[Jeff Cook]

Neil,

I'm an idiot, and I apologize. I went back and checked, and yes, I did get your email. For some idiotic reason I neglected to answer due to forgetfulness. I will respond from work tomorrow.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[kagebushi]

http://216.10.1.92/ubb/redface.gif Neil & Jeff, your hojojutsu/bondage affairs belong in the japanese XXX section ( http://216.10.1.92/ubb/biggrin.gif just kidding guys).

Neil,

NEVERshoot at a driving vehicle. It is liability suicide, and you never get away with it. Bad,bad idea...

PS: http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif Jeff don`t be to hard on yourself, after all you were busy putting out sparks in other forums...( http://216.10.1.92/ubb/biggrin.gif sorry there is no guilty look smiley)

------------------
Mark Brecht

[This message has been edited by kagebushi (edited 06-08-2000).]

[kagebushi]

Jeff,

one question, was the "off duty officer", there as a customer, or was he performing a security service. It has nothing to do, with the point of the story, but rather with another topic i would like to debate in the future.



------------------
Mark Brecht

[Daniel Pokorny]

I cannot believe this officer would actually fire his weapon in this situation. This is totally ludicrous. Is the possibility of actually killing someone warranted over a shoplifting charge? Not to mention this officer putting himself, and the civi trying to assist, in harms way.

Let her go, call it in .... they can run but they can't hide, for long anyway!

Daniel Pokorny

[Kit LeBlanc]

Neil,

Gotta agree with Mark on shooting the tires. Do that and the driver will have LESS control of his vehicle making it more dangerous for you (the officer). And it is liability suicide. .

Kit LeBlanc

[M Clarke]

Hi. Hope you don't mind if I jump in on this for my very first post? How was the guy holding her? Was it one arm with the other driving the vehicle? If so, when it is apparent that you aren't going to immediatley get her out of his grasp, I'd release the girl, presumably the bystander will keep her busy enough that she won't immediately stick you in the guts, then go for the driver before the car picks up momentum. Stick your thumb in under his ear. Takes a second for him to reflex, release the girl, you release him, he grabs the steering wheel again. Maybe it would work may be it wouldn't. I think that is a better option than trying to shoot him.

------------------
Mike Clarke
Kufudokan

[Neil Hawkins]

Welcome Mike, nice option but to me one second close to a moving vehicle is too much! http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif

And, guys I did say that shooting was an option not my preference, and I listed all the things you brought up as considerations. If the carpark was empty and he was still going slowly I might do it, but option number 1 is still let them go, get desciptions, get help!

Neil

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

[PYRO]

Too much risk, let them go.
Do not shoot the tires. A ricochet could kill an innocent bystander. Even if you hit the tire the bullet can ricochet after penetrating the tire. Dead bystanders are a bad thing .

[Rhomyn Escalante]

I think it is a question of geography. If you are in a city that starts with the word 'New' (i.e. New York, New Orleans) go ahead and shoot the guy. Any city that starts with 'Los' (i.e. Los Angeles) shoot the nearest non-minority representative male. Any other city in the U.S. shoot the woman. Any city in the world shoot the vehicle and or any public transportation vehicle in the surrounding area, or a building. Except France, there shoot any waiter.

[Cady Goldfield]

Ah, so this is what you're doing during your week of self-banishment from Bugeiswordforum.com? Sheesh.

[Bridger Dyson-Smith]

A little off subject, but here in Wichita we recently had a situation similar to the original post, only no initial gunfire. Several squad cars were called in, and a high speed chase through busy streets insued. Ultimately, the shoplifter killed a couple. Guess who drew the heat...the police. Might have save some time if an officer could have shot out a tire or some such. Although after thinking about it, I guess that might be pretty hard, eh?

Bridger Dyson-Smith

[R. Scherzinger]

Jeff,
I often find it interesting that we in general tend to increase the threat level in this sort of conflict. The police officer apparently didn't understand the reduction of threat concept. This is a misdomenor (in most cases) withdrawing his weapon only serves to increase the threat level of the instance. He and the public would have been better served if he had pull out a pad and pencil and then called dispatch.

This officer is lucky to be alive. Off duty no vest, unknown driver (major unknown), assailent in survival mode, we all know that when people are in a threatening situation and in fear for their life all bets are off. If he didn't initially identify himself as an officer he was just some vigilanty trying to stop her.

If I had to guess I would say that this officer was realitivly new to the occupation or just lacked experience in the field (ego?).

Bridger,
Your post provides me the oportunity to explore this question. What did the pursuing officers do to escalate the conflict to the point where a shotlifer would kill? If he was a killer he would not wait until the end of the conflict. The SL was looking for options and the officers removed so many options that the hostages lost their lives. This is obviously a hard area of this profession, but all good tacticians know that you never corner you enemy. One must provide a controlled escape and be patiant. Everyone makes mistakes, just wait for it.
Again a bad call somewhere in the tactical officers orders.

Jeff,
Just got back. When are you going to be in the LA basin or did I miss you?

Rem Scherzinger

[Bridger Dyson-Smith]

Rem and everyone else,
(there should be a blushing smilie...jeez, i'm such a clutz) The incident I mentioned didn't involve actual hostages. It did involve a police force with a high percentage of younger officers and a shop lifter who really didn't want to get caught. As far as I can remember, shortly after the SL (shop lifter, right?) left the scene at least 2 squad cars tried to intercept the SL. Unfortunately, a couple from out of town got in the way and their car was hit by the shop lifter's vehicle. Tactically speaking, the general consensus was that the officers should have handled things differently. There have been several occasions here were officers opted to engage in high speed pursuit of suspects, and several have resulted in fatalities, usually for the suspect or a bystander, but in at least one case, the officer involved. The problem lies in having a younger police force, without lots of experience, who are willing to take bigger risks to catch the bad guys. I guess sometimes mistakes are made.
Everyone, sorry, this really isn't my area. As soon as my foot gets out of my mouth...
Thanks
Bridger Dyson-Smith

[Jeff Cook]

Rem,

You guessed right. The picture of the police officer leads me to believe that he is in his twenty's. I am guessing that inexperience and overzealousness may have played a role.

I would be interested to know if he was chastised or rewarded for his actions.


Rem, you haven't missed me - I haven't been back out to L.A. yet. I will be in Tahoe the 23-28th of this month teaching some seminars. Is that too far away for you? I will be out to L.A. hopefully around February.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Kuma]

Jeff -

Haven't spoken with you for quite a while. The officer in question should be relieved of duty and probably charged with reckless endangerment. To pull (much less fire) a weapon over a shoplifting violation is the stupidest malfeasance of duty I've ever heard of.

Release the hold on the woman, make a notation of the license number and follow up from there. IMHO (and damn near ever procedure manual in the United States).

Respectfully submitted,
Kuma
Robert Sterling

[JD Porter]

Liability Suicide? Huh???

[Jeff Cook]

Robert,

Great to hear from you! Where the heck have you been?

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[John Brado]

Let go and get the car tag number. Why shoot someone over shoplifting?

[budoboy]

I saw a pretty good video on getting involved in off-duty situations while in the police academy. Basically don't! You don't have the uniform (recognized authority), equipment, backup, or communication with other officers/other resources.

Petty theft is just that. The suspect probably won't see even two hours in jail. Besides he could have gotten the license plate and contacted the suspect later at his convenience. No point in escalating something like this into a lethal force situation.

Jeff Sherwin

[MarkF]

And if he had no license plate? I've seen lots of shoplifters out here and every one of them who have escaped to vehicles, has removed it (no front plates in NM).

I have this picture in my mind of a shoplifter with about nine or ten cartons of cigarettes running out of the local 24 hour, and looking for a pencil to jot it down, with a clerk in pursuit. NO PLATE Loyal clerk. Stupid clerk. Dead clerk.

Mark

[R. Scherzinger]

Mark,
Your situation is very premeditated and sounds a little south valley to me. The APD (Albuquerque Police ....) are slow, but I am sure they can tag a vehicle description.

The points here are that the officer in question entered an uncontrolled situation and discharged his firearm without apparent forethought over a shoplifting misdemeanor.

I remember a story from a few years back. A NM State Highway Patrol officer down near Alamogordo was in “low speed pursuit” on the 25, he was unable to get the vehicle to pull over so he brought the cruiser up along the passenger side of the car. He then shot out the passenger side windows of with his shotgun. The car maintained course and speed so he rammed the car into the center median. When they finally got the 84 year old, totally deaf women out of the car and ambulanced her to Las Cruses the officer was suspended.

The unnecessary escalation of any situation gets people killed on both sides of the event. How about the 30 something year old actor who yesterday was shot and killed by and LAPD officer. The dude made a big mistake pointing a fake gun at an officer who was responding to a disturbance call. I guess what I am trying to say is that poor judgement kills in these types of situations. When we train law enforcement the key ingredient must be to teach them to think and not react. I can teach anyone to shot, but when to shot is another matter.

The fact that no one was killed in the SL incident is really a blessing for the officer in question, all he’ll have to answer for is discharging his firearm.
Thanks,
Rem

[jerkyguy]

the off duty officer put himself in danger over a shoplifter.
DUMB,DUMB,DUMB!

there was no immediate danger to his life if he was able to draw his weapon and still keep pace with the car. As an off duty officer he has the right, like any other human, to self defence; even if this escalates to the use of deadly force.However, the car was not driven towards him, and there is no mention of anyone trying to assault the police officer. This is a case of "adrenaline judgement" and he could very well face criminal charges or a law suit. I would have let go and taken info on the car, driver and woman involved. Just think who could have been hit by a stray round in a mall parking lot.

[Kevin73]

My thoughts, in that situation, are to be the "best witness" get accurate descriptions of driver/suspect and vehicle along with plate numbers.

I don't know about other states, but in Michigan, you can't shoot like that unless 1) someone else's life is in danger (ie: someone holding a knife ready to stab the person and won't drop it. 2) your life is immediate danger which has two parts a) they have the means to do so and, b) you believe they will do so. In Michigan you CAN NOT shoot a fleeing felon just because he/she is running away.

Unless you is VERY good at articulating through his departmental "Use of Force Policy" and the criteria it sets forth for using deadly force. This guy will probably be in deep do-do.

[Sean Mulligan]

I'll have to agree with the majority on this one.

If the vehicle is driving away from the officer, it is not an immediate threat to him. The woman possibly, him, no.

If he were to shoot at the tires there is a chance for a ricochet, however and more importantly, this would most likely cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle. Since i'm assuming that this occured in a retail store parking lot, i'd be safe to assume that there are other civilians present who may be injured as a result of either action.

I.D. the female, driver, and vehicle and hope that someone finally catches up with them to lay the appropriate charges.

We have a maxim at BTS which states that the level of force must parallel the threat. If you can realistically prove this, then you are justified. If not...

One final thought, did she get away with anything and if so, what was the value? Was it worth the risk? Unfortunately, we often let our Ego's get in the way of doing the appropriate thing. I believe that this is the case.

Just my 2 cents.

Sean