|
Why Did The
Police Have To Shoot?
Copyright © 2009 ShootDontShoot
|
This article
attempts to explain the time-reaction when it comes to
police officer shootings, and why officers are forced to
shoot in several speculative situations. |
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
|
Police Forums
Check out the ShootDontShoot police
forums. Ask
questions, post replies, etc.
Police Interview
Learn the techniques needed to pass
the police
interview. Know what they know.
Police Oral
Board
Understanding the police oral board is
the key to
your success. Failure to prepare
is critical.
Police Videos
Check out the latest police videos
from police
chases, training videos and more. |
(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.
What's your opinion?
Other
related articles from ShootDontShoot:
Becoming a Police Officer |
Police Oral Boards |
Police Interview: Tough Questions |
Police Pursuits |
Police
Video Training Course
Notice: No part of this
article may be reproduced in any way with the explicit
permission of ShootDontShoot.com. |
|
