Want LEO opinion on procedure

[cdi]

I just saw the video.
Looks like poor tactics on the part of the leo.
He closes with the subject while holding a pistol- a great way to have your gun taken away and used against you.

The leo appeared to have the advantage as the subject did not seem to notice him standing behind him. The leo could have drawn and challenged while keeping distance between him and the subject or gone hands on and dropped the subject with an impact weapon, hands, taser Etc.

Cops bring the means of their destruction to every call they go on by virtue of the fact that they are armed. The second an individual tries to disarm an officer it becomes a deadly force encounter and should be dealt with accordingly.

[legendarylorot]

Well, that's why I was looking for an LEO opinion. From what I know, I think a cop can get into some serious troble if he shoots an unarmed man. Look at those cop shows, I seen one where a perp had a gun and as the coprs approached, he put the gun to his own head. The cops DID/COULD not shoot when things turned this way. Later on they said that their state law said when it turned into a suicide situation - they could not shoot an ARMED man.

From what I know (having not fully completed the academy yet) displaying the firearm was not illegal. As has been said, displaying a firearm is a great tool in subduing a suspect, and in this case it was clear that the individual was robbing (he's grabbed the money already)

However, many firearms instructors wouldn't like the way this was done. First of all, the officer was very close to teh action. Thre's a risk of the suspect closing before the officer has time to react (as heppened). This can lead to the suspect getting control of the officer's firearm, which officers are trained to instinctively protect. Simply put, the people the officer has to worry about getting a gun should never be close enough to the gun to grab it. It's seriously Monday-Morning Quarterbacking, but the officer shouldn't' have drawn.

as far as drawing on an unarmed man, it's fine, given the circumstances. Shooting, however, is questionable. Department policy rules here, but legally it'd be fine given the criteria that GunLawyer says.

You'll often hear that you can't shoot a fleeing felon. This is true, because it doesn't meet any of those criteria. However, that should not be confused with not shooting an unarmed assailant. The general rule of thumb is that police can use one level higher on the continuum of force than they are reacting toward.

Of course, I'm VERY much a newbie, and Steve is the real authority on LEO stuffs.

[Novesh]

Does it say in the video if the call came over radio a "person with a gun" or "robbery in progress - point of gun" .... maybe the person who called said "he looked like he had a gun...." or some other combination of that which would lead officers to believe that there is indeed a "gun" in play or some other type of weapon.

I didn't see the video but if the suspect had his hands in his pocket - that would prompt for a gun draw. There are tons of reasons why an officer would need to draw their sidearm.

It also deescalates a situation pretty quickly many times - people don't like guns pointed at them and when faced with something like that they either comply or fight - either way if they have a gun or ill-intent it'll come out quickly at that point.

[Deleted]

Today I saw a video where a cop is at a drug store and the perp walks in. The cop draws his gun and the suspect dosen't listen. They start to scuffle and then he puts the gun away until he subdues suspect. My question is, if a cop cannot shoot an unarmed man, why pull your gun in this scenario? Was the officer taught to react in the way he did? I would be interested to know how you would have reacted.

Perhaps that's how they roll in Dayton, Oh. As I mentioned in other threads, once an officer is out of the academy and unless they are assigned to a special unit, they get verry little aditional training other than what s required by state law.

All I can speak for is my own department but what I saw (the contact of the gun to head) would be a MAJIOR no-no. The officer walked in on a robbery in progress without knowing it... he would have been a fool to even question if the subject had a gun. In my experience over 90% do.

[Defender]

From what I know (having not fully completed the academy yet) displaying the firearm was not illegal. As has been said, displaying a firearm is a great tool in subduing a suspect, and in this case it was clear that the individual was robbing (he's grabbed the money already)

However, many firearms instructors wouldn't like the way this was done. First of all, the officer was very close to teh action. Thre's a risk of the suspect closing before the officer has time to react (as heppened). This can lead to the suspect getting control of the officer's firearm, which officers are trained to instinctively protect. Simply put, the people the officer has to worry about getting a gun should never be close enough to the gun to grab it. It's seriously Monday-Morning Quarterbacking, but the officer shouldn't' have drawn.

as far as drawing on an unarmed man, it's fine, given the circumstances. Shooting, however, is questionable. Department policy rules here, but legally it'd be fine given the criteria that GunLawyer says.

You'll often hear that you can't shoot a fleeing felon. This is true, because it doesn't meet any of those criteria. However, that should not be confused with not shooting an unarmed assailant. The general rule of thumb is that police can use one level higher on the continuum of force than they are reacting toward.

Of course, I'm VERY much a newbie, and Steve is the real authority on LEO stuffs.

I thought also that the officer was too close to the perp. I think it would be a good idea to keep the individual somewhat away from you when pulling your firearm. If you were as close as the LEO was, he probably would have been better off to use BOTH his hands in subduing the suspect. He's lucky things turned out the way it did for him. Once I had a problem late at night at my rural home when an unidentified vehicle drove back to my house. I had my weapon drawn and took cover behind a tree, keeping distance between me and the vehicle, as I investigated who was back there at my place. When I found out the situation was not threatening, I pocketed my pistol and the person never knew I was armed.

[PhillyGunslinger]

What makes you think a cop can not shoot an unarmed man?
It can be very proper under some circumstances for the police to shoot unarmed folk.

Yep ! This is True !
Years back a cop could have shot you just for raising yyour hands to him/her ! Today it doesn't happen unless you have a weapon, usually.
That's not to say there aren't exceptions. Maybe the cop believed the perp to be armed ? He might have saw a bulge or something shiny?
{No Pun Intended !} I seen a cop getting slapped around by a bunch of libby protesters a few years ago and after about the 12th hit he finally decided to draw. If I was in that situation with 30+ people around me kicking, slapping, and sucker punching, I would have took my Night Stick and started breaking peoples faces in ! He didn't but when he drew his gun, they all ran ! Do I think he could have handled it different, yes start cracking heads ! He chose not to because cops can't protect themselves like before.
Years ago those dopey, dirty, liberal protesters would have got their heads beat in, today their lucky if they get 72 hours in jail. Not to mention that these protesters were also destroying property, disrupting a buisness and roadway, besides assualting police officers. If I was a cop I would have lost my job because I would have split someones head open in that situation !