Understanding Why Police Decide To Shoot

I've been a police officer almost 17 years and I don't think a day goes by in the media where a family is outraged over a police shooting, or an officer is accused of excessive force because he or she shot a suspect or even shot "too many times." In this article I'd like to talk to the public (and officers) about police shootings and explain why police officers feel they had to shoot in certain situations, and why warning shots, or just shooting in the leg for example doesn't work.

What's on the line?

The first thing to understand about police shootings are that officers involved already understand that his or her life is on the line. In other words, if we lose the fight or shootout, we don't come home to our families. Think about that for a second. If you're the police officer and someone points a gun at you, and you lose or he gets even one round off at you, you could die regardless of how many rounds you may have gotten off at him. I repeat, you could die, be paralyzed or seriously injured even if that person gets one round off.

This officers didn't have to fire so many shots

This seems to be one of the latest arguments by families and critics, "Why did they shoot so many rounds?" There are a couple of reasons for this. The first is the last point I've already made. If the suspect gets even one round off at you (or anyone), you can die regardless of how many rounds you get off. Does it matter if you kill the other guy if you die too? The idea is we don't want any rounds coming at us at all. One bullet is all it takes to end a life. Secondly, police don't have time in a typical shooting to line up their target and slowly pull the triggers to their weapons to get a perfect shot. Most shootings occur within seconds of the officer realizing something is wrong and rounds are exchanged rapidly while also running and moving for cover positions.

He didn't shoot at the police, why did the police shoot at him?

If a person poses any threat, serious injury or death to an officer or any other person, an officer has the right to eliminate that threat first. Waiting to "see" if the person is going to shoot at the police first is a death sentence for the officer, or whom ever is being threatened. The police officer doesn't know what's going on in the suspect's head and simply cannot give them the benefit of the doubt as they are gambling with their own lives and others.

He only had a knife

Why didn't the police officer just disarm him? I've actually heard this several times, "It was only a knife; he didn't have to shoot, he could have disarmed him or knocked it out of his hands." Again, these statements imply that police officers should gamble with their lives when it comes to life threatening situations. Police officers are people too. They're not all black belts and they have families and lives just like everyone else. But back to the point, the reason police officers cannot simply "disarm" the person is they risk "losing" if the tactic doesn't work. In other words if I use my baton and try to knock out the knife of someone that's coming at me and it doesn't work, the suspect is now that much closer to me and my gun option may no longer be an option (i.e. the person is right on top of me and I'm forced to wrestle with them). Or I could be stabbed.

Why didn't the police just taser him or pepper spray him? When someone is a threat and has a knife, it's a difficult decision. Can an officer use these options? Certainly. But depending on the situation, an officer may only have seconds to choose his or her weapon of choice. If pepper or the taser is chosen, they better hope it did the job. Of course if a person is in an isolated area and not threatening anyone immediately, then pepper or the taser may be excellent options. However, I'm referring to a one on one situation where the firearm is the necessary.

He didn't have a gun and the police shot in cold blood

First of all, contrary to what media and the critics want you to believe, no officer ever wants to shoot, period. But it's never a good thing when an officer shoots someone and it's later determined the person never had a gun or weapon. The police officer is immediately called out in the media by the critics as a murderer no matter what the circumstances. When an officer shoots, something made that officer feel threatened (unless it was an accident or intentional). But when an officer reasonably believes the person posed a threat (i.e. reaching in their pocket after told not to, charging the officer with something in their hand and the officer cannot determine what it is in a few seconds, pointing a toy gun at an officer, etc.). There are several situations where a police officer is gambling with his life by giving the suspect the benefit of the doubt. There are also thousands of scenarios that could occur that make an officer feel threatened and decide to shoot. These cases have to be looked over on an individual basis. The point to remember is something happened to make the officer shoot.

Time reaction and how it applies to life threatening situations with police

One fact that I learned in the academy and re-learned with more advanced police training classes, is there are time reaction facts that you have to remember. I won't go into specifics but I will give you this test scenario. Have a friend point his finger straight at you as if he or she is holding a gun. Tell that person to say bang when they feel you are a threat. You, standing directly in front of them are acting like you are holding a gun as well, and have it pointed toward the ground. While standing there, lift your fake gun hand up and say "bang" while the person still has their fake gun pointed directly at you. Guess who can get the first "bang" off? You. While the other person was in a completely ready position, you will still get the first round off, and at best, you will both exchange fire. Again, the problem with this last scenario is I don't want to exchange fire with you because we both die. If you don't drop the gun immediately and continue to point it to the ground or anywhere, I will still shoot you because I understand this time-reaction threat.

Conclusion

We as the police officers cannot take chances, roll the dice or give anyone the benefit of the doubt when our lives are on the line. If we are wrong, then we and/or others die, it's that simple. We as the police are sent to these calls all the time for the duration of our careers, so our exposure to these types of risks are immensely higher. You may see one story from the comfort of your own home in a nice comfortable chair wondering why the police did what they did. But you must remember everything I just said, but you must also question the source. Of course families never want to see their loved ones killed and out of desperation and anger want to blame the police. The media will do their part as well to make it their top story with headlines like "White officer shoots black man," or "Police shoot elderly woman in her own home." Yes, these headlines always grab attention; that's what they're suppose to do. But try to remember it from a police officer's standpoint: we want to go home safely every night.