Shooting in defense of property... potential problems - Page 3

Conn. Trooper · November 17, 2011, 11:16 PM

These Officers responded in an agressive military manner without knowing what the situation was.

Their rules of engagement were that of an Infantry squad assualting a position in a combat zone. This is appropriate for Irag or Afganistan. It is not appropriate for Fulton county GA.

Shooting had ceased prior to their arrival. They had time to assess the situation before they opened fire on an unknown individual in and unknown situation. The list of unknowns was far greater than what they knew. In fact they had two knowns 1) shots had been fired. 2) An individual had a weapon. Just off the top of my head I can think of 10 or 20 unknowns which should have been addressed before they opened fire.

Many times we have seen standoffs go on for hours while police determined what the situation was. These generally end in a positive manner. Here a bunch of hot shot bad asses did not think. They lacked effective command and control. I would lay odds that the officers violated volumns of departmental procedures and regulations.

Look at the Miami Dade response to the FBI shoot out. Shots were being exchanged. The local Law enforcement could not determin what the situation was so they held position and waited until they could determine who and what was going on. This is the response which should have occurred in this incident.

Exactly how do you know this? I am curious what you know that we don't.

Uncle Buck · November 18, 2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

These Officers responded in an agressive military manner without knowing what the situation was.

As in most situations, when the police respond, they do not know the entire incident. They do know that shots were fired. They do not know who fired them or why.

Stating why they did what they did is pure speculation. We have the newspapers side of the story. There are always things left out of the news stories.

Should the cops have walked to the front door and said "Hey, we heard shots over here and notice you have a rifle. Was that you?"

Don't forget where they were. (According to reports I have read, it is a very crime ridden area.)

youngunz4life · November 18, 2011, 05:17 PM

yes there are unknown, extenuating circumstances always but I still say misplaced testosterone and reality TV adrenaline had something to do with this in a negative manner.

Rusty35 · November 18, 2011, 05:29 PM

I think it would have been courteous to at least identify themselves before giving the command to shoot.

And maybe the order to drop the gun should have come before the order to shoot.

And of course the comments" did he see a gun" " I hope he had a gun" dont look to good.

Mesquito Whitey · December 4, 2011, 05:11 PM

As a retired Sheriffs Patrol Sgt., I absolutely agree with ltc444's post number 28. My wife and I discussed this at length the other night just based on what we see in our own little town. Worse in larger towns. I think police chiefs and sheriffs are buying into the paramilitary thing to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be serving. JMHO. YMMV.

ltc444 · December 4, 2011, 06:26 PM

Mesquito Whitey thank you for your comments.

As a retired LTC USAR with over 20 years of experience, I recognize Military Tactics.

As an Arkansas Deputy Sheriff, left as a LT and Training Officer, I had the oppurtunity to review and comment on the AR SWAT Training Manual.

The one point I emphasised and was adopted as policy, at that time, was as follows:

When facing an unknown situation with a potentially armed individual involved, The responding Officers will take cover and establish a permiter. They contain the armed individual until the situation can be evaluated and a determination made as to the threat.

This is not a direct quote but my recollection of my contributation to the Manual.

Given the time line, the Responding Officers did not use good judgement. They went in hard. I will not speculate on their intent. However, given the order of commands reported, the command to shoot was given prematurely.

The Prosecutor has agreed with this position as he dismissed all charges. This action has opened the County, Department and the individual Officers to a major civil law suit.

A review of the Canton Ohio incident, in particular the comments by Spats McGee, will support this view. Spats is a City Attorney and gives an excellent discussion of the position a Prosecutor is in when dismissing charges in a situation such as this.

Having observed the impact of PTSD close up, The Officers involved could/should be in fear for their lives. The authoriteis need to quickly insure that Davids sense of justice is restored. PTSD suffers and Marines in general have a strong sense of duty and justice.

secret_agent_man · December 4, 2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

As a retired Sheriffs Patrol Sgt....I think police chiefs and sheriffs are buying into the paramilitary thing to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be serving

When the Fed radically increased crime fighting appropriations in the 90's(?) to local law enforcement agencies around the nation to fight the crack cocaine epidemic and other ills, the makers of police and military equipment got on the stick and sold the locals on a bill of paramilitary goods. These agencies were suckered in by slick sales people, pure and simple. I'm not saying that some of this money didn't go to good causes, but when you see little rural jurisdictions like Glenwood Springs, CO with their own armored personnel carrier, you know somebody flew over the cuckoo's nest.

Bartholomew Roberts · December 5, 2011, 01:59 PM

I think there are two competing trends in LE work here. On the one hand, you have a strong pressure to prevent/limit active shooter incidents like Beslan or Columbine that has led police departments to respond much more aggressively if they perceive they are dealing with that type of situation.

On the other hand, you have the situations like this one. If you are the responding officer and all you know is you've got a guy with a semi-auto rifle who has fired four shots so far, you've got the problem that every second you wait to engage may mean more dead people on the other side of it; but by engaging quickly, you may not have all the information you need to best solve the problem.

I don't see a real easy answer to that; but it does look like a containment approach would have served the officers well in this particular incident.

November 18, 2011, 05:17 PM	#53
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	yes there are unknown, extenuating circumstances always but I still say misplaced testosterone and reality TV adrenaline had something to do with this in a negative manner. __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

November 17, 2011, 11:16 PM	#51
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	These Officers responded in an agressive military manner without knowing what the situation was. Their rules of engagement were that of an Infantry squad assualting a position in a combat zone. This is appropriate for Irag or Afganistan. It is not appropriate for Fulton county GA. Shooting had ceased prior to their arrival. They had time to assess the situation before they opened fire on an unknown individual in and unknown situation. The list of unknowns was far greater than what they knew. In fact they had two knowns 1) shots had been fired. 2) An individual had a weapon. Just off the top of my head I can think of 10 or 20 unknowns which should have been addressed before they opened fire. Many times we have seen standoffs go on for hours while police determined what the situation was. These generally end in a positive manner. Here a bunch of hot shot bad asses did not think. They lacked effective command and control. I would lay odds that the officers violated volumns of departmental procedures and regulations. Look at the Miami Dade response to the FBI shoot out. Shots were being exchanged. The local Law enforcement could not determin what the situation was so they held position and waited until they could determine who and what was going on. This is the response which should have occurred in this incident. Exactly how do you know this? I am curious what you know that we don't.

November 18, 2011, 05:29 PM	#54
Rusty35 Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2011 Posts: 140	I think it would have been courteous to at least identify themselves before giving the command to shoot. And maybe the order to drop the gun should have come before the order to shoot. And of course the comments" did he see a gun" " I hope he had a gun" dont look to good.

December 4, 2011, 05:11 PM	#55
Mesquito Whitey Member Join Date: January 21, 2009 Location: Nevada Desert Posts: 84	As a retired Sheriffs Patrol Sgt., I absolutely agree with ltc444's post number 28. My wife and I discussed this at length the other night just based on what we see in our own little town. Worse in larger towns. I think police chiefs and sheriffs are buying into the paramilitary thing to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be serving. JMHO. YMMV.

December 4, 2011, 06:26 PM	#56
ltc444 Senior Member Join Date: March 3, 2011 Location: Vernon AZ Posts: 1,195	Mesquito Whitey thank you for your comments. As a retired LTC USAR with over 20 years of experience, I recognize Military Tactics. As an Arkansas Deputy Sheriff, left as a LT and Training Officer, I had the oppurtunity to review and comment on the AR SWAT Training Manual. The one point I emphasised and was adopted as policy, at that time, was as follows: When facing an unknown situation with a potentially armed individual involved, The responding Officers will take cover and establish a permiter. They contain the armed individual until the situation can be evaluated and a determination made as to the threat. This is not a direct quote but my recollection of my contributation to the Manual. Given the time line, the Responding Officers did not use good judgement. They went in hard. I will not speculate on their intent. However, given the order of commands reported, the command to shoot was given prematurely. The Prosecutor has agreed with this position as he dismissed all charges. This action has opened the County, Department and the individual Officers to a major civil law suit. A review of the Canton Ohio incident, in particular the comments by Spats McGee, will support this view. Spats is a City Attorney and gives an excellent discussion of the position a Prosecutor is in when dismissing charges in a situation such as this. Having observed the impact of PTSD close up, The Officers involved could/should be in fear for their lives. The authoriteis need to quickly insure that Davids sense of justice is restored. PTSD suffers and Marines in general have a strong sense of duty and justice.

December 5, 2011, 01:59 PM	#58
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	I think there are two competing trends in LE work here. On the one hand, you have a strong pressure to prevent/limit active shooter incidents like Beslan or Columbine that has led police departments to respond much more aggressively if they perceive they are dealing with that type of situation. On the other hand, you have the situations like this one. If you are the responding officer and all you know is you've got a guy with a semi-auto rifle who has fired four shots so far, you've got the problem that every second you wait to engage may mean more dead people on the other side of it; but by engaging quickly, you may not have all the information you need to best solve the problem. I don't see a real easy answer to that; but it does look like a containment approach would have served the officers well in this particular incident.