Man Shot instead of Tased and a Quistion for LEOs

[garryc]

Now...imcompetence...that is something that I totally agree with!!

I can agree with that, of course incompitance can also be criminal if it results in the direct injury of another. I know that's a slippery slope.
Still, she should be fired, and the department should not support her in any civil action that might come. I wonder if she is one of those cases that should have been probationally removed but wasn't because she is female. I also wonder if she was a man would the department have released her name.

[Rainbow Six]

Someone mentioned muscle memory. My guess is that some of the earlier posts hit the nail on the head. She has practiced drawing her firearm but hasn't practiced much with the Taser. Her brain said shoot him with the Taser... her muscle memory heard shoot and went for the firearm that she has probably practiced drawing for longer, and for more repititions.

And I'm with those who say that the Taser is NOT really a good option for getting someone out of a tree. I'd think you'd simply "wait and negotiate" unless there were other crazy circumstances. I'm personally not going to deploy the Taser on anyone who stands to take a fall from higher than a standing position unless there is a weapon involved and the fall is the lesser of all evils.

Lastly, it's easy for a lot of you non-cops to sit at your keyboard and second guess her actions. Until you've been there and done that, your opinion really doesn't hold any weight. On top of that, you're judging something based on a news article on it. I can tell you from experience that only a small percentage of the information printed in news articles on cases I've had personal knowledge of has been correct. It's usually grossly biased if not almost totally inaccurate.

[Harley Quinn]

The taser is not the best for the situation either. He/she got the guy out of the tree and should be fired for it. Simple.

HQ

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Should the officer be fired?

Here are some others:

1. A famous film clip of a female officer running up to a guy and ND into the ground

2. Another well known tv clip with a slew of officers chasing a knife holder and swaring him. A male officer runs up with an SMG and NDs. The department says the guy was struggling so Officer ND was just trying to scare him.

3. A recent one I posted - Mister Screwdriver resists the taser and with no fire discipline, an officer shoots him and another officer.

4. In Dallas, the SWAT team did a raid and 4 officers were shot - mostly by each other.

Were all these guys fired? Should they be?

[garryc]

Should the officer be fired?

Here are some others:

1. A famous film clip of a female officer running up to a guy and ND into the ground

2. Another well known tv clip with a slew of officers chasing a knife holder and swaring him. A male officer runs up with an SMG and NDs. The department says the guy was struggling so Officer ND was just trying to scare him.

3. A recent one I posted - Mister Screwdriver resists the taser and with no fire discipline, an officer shoots him and another officer.

4. In Dallas, the SWAT team did a raid and 4 officers were shot - mostly by each other.

Were all these guys fired? Should they be?

All the situations you point to were high stress threat. Not the one in question. Tell me, how would anyone be under stress over a guy in a tree that will not come down?
This reminds me of when we have an inmate who won't come out of his cell. We use force if negotiation fails but we don't shoot him. And its no stress, just do it by the numbers.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm just thinking out loud. I've seen a nationally known instructor under no stress, brain fart and draw on a high level handgun class.

If you know the accident literature, it is amazing how people do stupid things under no stress. The officer in question was under some stress.

I'm not arguing for not firing her but just pointing out that such incidents can happen to anyone.

I was also wondering if the ones I mentioned got fired. They probably should if they can't function under stress. That's when we need them to.

[Capt. Charlie]

Someone mentioned muscle memory. My guess is that some of the earlier posts hit the nail on the head. She has practiced drawing her firearm but hasn't practiced much with the Taser. Her brain said shoot him with the Taser... her muscle memory heard shoot and went for the firearm that she has probably practiced drawing for longer, and for more repititions.

Here's the problem: Law Enforcement today is a thinking man's job. It requires someone with good common sense, good judgment, and the ability to remain calm under stress. Serious mistakes in this job don't include a typo in a newspaper, or a mistake on an assembly line. The consequences of serious mistakes here are likely to include serious injury or death. Along with integrity, this is the crux of the reason that officers are held to a higher standard, and it's the reason that LE management can NOT afford to be timid in weeding out those who can't cut it.

Muscle memory, or instinctive response, is a valuable "tool" for a person, but except for the most dire of circumstances, the brain needs to be in control, not the muscle. Every situation is different, and every person has a different point at which muscle memory kicks in, but we simply can't afford to have those who employ muscle memory at the wrong time, whether consciously or not.

Should the officer be fired?

Good question, Glenn. This is usually the toughest question facing any supervisor; most understand the gravity of ending someone's career. Anyone who simply does a Donald Trump "You're fired", without conscience, is a poor supervisor.

I can only tell you how I do it. The very first thing I consider, is whether or not there was intent. An officer who intentionally violates law or policy is easy to deal with, and I believe in progressive discipline when I can.

Unintentional mistakes though, are more difficult to deal with. There, I look at that officer's history. Is (s)he a constant screw-up? Will counseling or remedial training resolve the problem? Transfer to another assignment? If none of the above are successful, it's time to take harsh steps. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

I doubt there was intent in this deputy's actions, but the seriousness of her mistake warrants serious supervisory action. She apparently is a 5-year veteran, so she doesn't rate the tolerance I'd give to a rookie, but as to whether or not she should be fired, I can't make that judgment and recommedation without access to her history. If numerous screw-ups are on record, and remedial training failed to correct the problem, then so be it. On the other hand, if I look at her record and see commendations, numerous good arrests, few uses of force, etc., then I'm prone to recommend that we attempt to salvage her.

One thing's for sure: If a LE supervisor errs, it must be in favor of the public's safety, no matter how tough the decision is.

[Sarge]

Charlie, your post remided me of a succint explanation of that thinking that I received in the academy, 30-odd years ago (it's those odd years that'll get ya ). Went something like this-

"Mistakes of the mind can be forgiven, often corrected. Mistakes of the mind happen to all of us. Mistakes of the heart- now that's a different story. Those are based in poor ethics, and they'll cost you your career, your family- and maybe even your freedom."

The lesson was easy to remember.

[Rainbow Six]

Here's the problem: Law Enforcement today is a thinking man's job. It requires someone with good common sense, good judgment, and the ability to remain calm under stress. Serious mistakes in this job don't include a typo in a newspaper, or a mistake on an assembly line. The consequences of serious mistakes here are likely to include serious injury or death. Along with integrity, this is the crux of the reason that officers are held to a higher standard, and it's the reason that LE management can NOT afford to be timid in weeding out those who can't cut it.

Absolutely! I couldn't agree more. In fact I counselled an employee just last night on the difference between screwing up on her job and getting someone's order wrong at McDonalds. Her attitude was that her mistakes were "little ones" and that a big deal was being made of nothing. And that's what we're working with...

As for screening and weeding, the sad fact is that to fill positions/zones a lot of us front line shift level supervisors are force fed the ones that should have been rejects. We are tasked with trying to keep them in line and turn them into the best officers we can. In fact in a lot of cases some of us have warned admin pre-hire on certain applicants based on working side by side with them while they worked with smaller agencies within our jurisdiciton...

Some still get hired with stipulations and we're told to make their probation intensive to ensure the problems from elsewhere do not follow them here. Some come clean with proper supervision and training... Some suck. Not all of the ones that suck get cut. And that's where things can get ugly for all involved...

[Capt. Charlie]

As for screening and weeding, the sad fact is that to fill positions/zones a lot of us front line shift level supervisors are force fed the ones that should have been rejects. We are tasked with trying to keep them in line and turn them into the best officers we can.

And this is a real problem at far too many agencies. It puts mid-level supervisors between the proverbial rock-and-a-hard-place. We know they shouldn't be out there, have strongly recommended that they not be out there, and still, if they screw up, our own future is in question through vicarious liability.

The only answer, sadly, has been said time and again: Document, document, document!! Meticulous records of actions taken and recommendations concerning problem officers is the only thing that can save your bacon in a civil suit and shift the blame to where it should have been in the first place.

[okiejack]

That lady shouldn't be carrying a firearm.

I knew a Deputy that shot the lead guitarist in the hand by accident. A few years later that same Deputy shot himself in the hand, accidentally. Some people just don't have the skills necessary to be law enforcement agents.

[Rainbow Six]

And this is a real problem at far too many agencies. It puts mid-level supervisors between the proverbial rock-and-a-hard-place. We know they shouldn't be out there, have strongly recommended that they not be out there, and still, if they screw up, our own future is in question through vicarious liability.

The only answer, sadly, has been said time and again: Document, document, document!! Meticulous records of actions taken and recommendations concerning problem officers is the only thing that can save your bacon in a civil suit and shift the blame to where it should have been in the first place.

And document I do... CYA!!!

[FMUStewart]

Until you've been there and done that, your opinion really doesn't hold any weight

Listen here, "Deputy Sheriff" - Non-LEO's opinions DO hold weight, and may be the determining factor should this case ever make it to court. If you were to ever to become the REAL Sheriff, all of the little non-LEO opinions would also hold a lot of weight.

I'm not weighing in either way on the topic (its a new article...a blip in the bigger picture), but you're blatently condescending attitude towards those people that you serve is nonsense and is shameful to your community....

...God's sheep...

Stew

[razorburn]

Lots of us have been there. We have ccw's and practice with them. People have kids who climb trees and playground equipment and then not want to leave. Amazingly, we somehow manage to not shoot them. Does that count?

[Harley Quinn]

Now you have this to ponder:

Both weapons were very inapropriate. Why would you tase someone in a tree?
Why would you shoot him if there is not a threat to you or others (beside tree person).

Conversation was something like, come on down. No. Boom.

Sometimes people have to be protected for their own good.

Fire Dept should have been called. Ladder up to the guy and get him down.
Negotiation or hey leave him alone. Now you have me wondering about the SGT on the scene, if any.

Fire um both.

Rules of engagement always know your back ground. What if she missed and the bullet took out some one down the street a mile away?

To me this is a no brainer, counseling for preperation to lose job and let her go.

HQ

[Rainbow Six]

Listen here, "Deputy Sheriff" - Non-LEO's opinions DO hold weight, and may be the determining factor should this case ever make it to court. If you were to ever to become the REAL Sheriff, all of the little non-LEO opinions would also hold a lot of weight.

I'm not weighing in either way on the topic (its a new article...a blip in the bigger picture), but you're blatently condescending attitude towards those people that you serve is nonsense and is shameful to your community....

I can see how my post could have come across wrong but I never meant to be condescending and imply that I don't care what non-LE thinks. That's not the case at all. In fact I am one of the seemingly few these days that do care how I treat people and how they feel about their experience with me as a LEO. I conduct my business with the public like I would want to be treated and like I would want my family treated if they needed an officer for something. I have nothing to defend on that front and nothing to prove. Just making a point in reply to your comment.

My actual point was, and is that until you've been under the same stress an officer was under in a given situation you don't know exactly how you yourself would have reacted. Even if you've done something many times you're not guaranteed to do it right, or even the same way next time it happens. I've seen seasoned officers have brain freeze on scenes and drop the ball (luckily so far nobody was hurt as a result) on things that they had handled many times before. It's called being human and making mistakes.

I never meant that public opinion of LE actions isn't warranted or justified. I believe it absolutely is. I'm definitely not a "Police State" type. I like my freedom and the checks and balances just as much as most other citizens. What I meant was that people who haven't walked a mile in the officer's shoes and operated under the stress they operate under in some situations have no right to blow off at the mouth and Monday morning quarterback an officer's actions as if they know they could/would have handled it better. Having the opinion that the officer *REALLY* flubbed up and should be fired is one's own prerogative. I have no beef with that. What I have a beef with is the folks who blast off at the mouth saying that there's no way it could be an accident. They have no idea what can happen under the stress we are under sometimes.

They also have no idea what the true, exact circumstances were when the incident took place. They make these rash judgements based on the face value of this article of unknown accuracy and the almost guaranteed sketchy details at best. And that, sir, holds no weight with those of us who have walked that mile. That was my point. It would be the same if I were reading an article about someone making a mistake on their job in the heat of the moment and blasting off my judgement of them without having been under the same conditions and also without the totality of the circumstances.

I'm sorry if my original comment was worded poorly and you took it as condescending. I never intended it to come across that way. I was simply stating that some here have made comments as if they know what they are talking about but unless they've "been there and done that" they have no clue. I hope that makes better sense.

[Rainbow Six]

Lots of us have been there. We have ccw's and practice with them. People have kids who climb trees and playground equipment and then not want to leave. Amazingly, we somehow manage to not shoot them. Does that count?

I don't have kids but I think maybe you have a point! LOL!

[FirstFreedom]

1. Tasers should not have such a gun-like profile/appearance - they should have a different grip angle (none - like a remote control), OR they should not be worn in a belt holster, but somewhere altogether different, such as just in the squad car, or say, crossdraw on left thigh for example, so that there is no confusion.

2. Of course, "Only the police should have guns", right, Brady Bunch?

[Rainbow Six]

Gotta disagree with leaving it in the car. In most of my deploys the need for it arose rather quickly. Ya can't call time out and run to the car for it when you need it. An LE tool that is left in the car is worthless...