"Here Come the Cops ! NOW What Do I Do?'

[Sportdog]

After taking the time to read this thread I'm going to say that BillCA seems to make the most sense to me. My father, who retired from the county Sheriff Department, and my son-in-law, who currently is a Michigan State Police Officer have had numerous conversations with me about over zealous police officers. I am about as Pro-Law Enforcement as a person can be but find the attitude of some of the posters who claim to be law enforcement officers disturbing. I myself served as a "Reserve" officer for five years and am personal friends with one of the officers on that department who shot an individual who was a mental case on a shooting rampage. This guy shot almost full coffee can (yes, that's what he had the ammo in) of ammo before my friend finally shot him with a 12 Gauge shotgun because the guy turned to shoot at another officer who was coming up behind the individual. The thought that a police officer would shoot someone for not complying 100% of each and every demand made on him is in the wrong line of work in my opinion, and that of many police officers that I know. Just because someone would choose to ease a weapon to the ground instead of dropping it is no reason to shoot that individual. As long as the person is not posing a threat to the officers life by aggressive behavior, the police have no right to consider lethal means. I'm sure that this is the case for 99.9% of law enforcement officers who have a very difficult and highly responsible occupation and I applaud them for using good judgement.

[Erik]

SB,
Take my last post well. I read your posts as I believe them to be intended, in nearly complete agreement with "Dave, Erik, Glenn, et al." The only diffence of substance seemingly hinging on our poor job at attempting to communicate the complex arena of current law, policy, training, and the tactics which have evolved from them. The point is not that there are "tricks" and "secrets" which have been around a long time and are known to many; the point is that there IS specific training dealing them, that has not been around a long time and is not known by many. And not knowing can get you killed, as the saying goes.
Best,
Erik

---

"Gentlemen - I would love to discuss the difference between a LEO and civilian incident, if a reasonable one was put fourth. As a civilian no longer dogged by a Agency shooting policy/ yet no longer with the legal presumption and a shooting review board I find new meaning to the ideas of Reasonable force, Reasonable assumption, and the concept of self defense."

That would be a thread worth starting. I encourage you to give it some thought and to put it forth.

[Erik]

"Just because someone would choose to ease a weapon to the ground instead of dropping it is no reason to shoot that individual."

Sportdog,
Nobody is advocating shooting anyone "just" because of that.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sigh, no one understands me. I never dealt with the justification of such policies or moral correctness of their underlying philosophy - that's not my domain. I looked at the situation as an information processing, action decision with various factors that lead to various risks.

My point was that since I understand the variables that an officer may consider at speed with diminished cognitive and perceptual resources due to stress, I know that such factors may cause a shoot which would be detrimental to me. I want not to be a threat as soon as possible.

Thus, at the command to Drop the Gun - I would drop it. That's my personal point. I regard the risk of dropping my gun as negligilble.

Stress responses, selective attention, LeDoux's emotional response circuits, Collin's view of the forward panic response in law enforcement in a violent situation indicate that if you are perceived as a threat - you can be a Type I error, false alarm, incorrect detection, etc.

Not beat a dead horse on gun fighter tricks - but while you are giving repeated commands in increased intensity without compliance - that diverts your attention and makes it easier to shoot you. Seen it in the Insights training classes and some OPS.

I'm also left handed.

[Erik]

Doubled.

[Erik]

Timely. A cop on cop shooting. The details are obviously vague. Alcohol, a weapon, and if I had to bet, the incorrect assumption on the shotees part that the shooters would recognize him as a LEO, followed by failure to comply with commands and movement resulting in his being assessed as a threat, followed by his shooting.

---

3 probes launched into cop who shot cop case
Daily News Wire Services
Article Launched: 07/31/2008 10:02:23 AM PDT

LONG BEACH - Three investigations were under way today into the Long Beach police shooting of an off-duty LAPD officer wounded while allegedly brandishing a firearm and appearing to be drunk.

LAPD Officer Jason Fennick Geggie, 26, of Long Beach, faces two felonies: exhibiting a firearm in the presence of a police officer in a threatening manner, and exhibiting a firearm at any person in a threatening manner, according to Long Beach police.

Geggie was wounded in "the arm and torso area" about 12:30 a.m. Wednesday in the 200 block of Mira Mar Avenue and was hospitalized in stable condition, according to a Long Beach Police Department statement.

"When officers arrived, they located the armed suspect in the 200 block of Mira Mar Avenue, and when they contacted the suspect, an officer-involved shooting occurred," the statement said.

He had refused to drop the weapon, which was recovered from the scene, a police spokeswoman said. The firearm was a shotgun, pellet gun, or rifle, according to published reports.

Geggie was booked at 6:39 a.m. Wednesday and later released on $25,000 bail, according to Los Angeles County sheriff's officials.

Sources in the Long Beach Police Department told the Press-Telegram that officers were called to the area of Termino Avenue and Fourth Street after residents reported seeing a man with a gun who looked drunk and was stumbling down the street.

Police sources also said his friends told investigators he had been drinking heavily when he wandered off before the shooting, the Press-Telegram reported.

Investigations of the officer-involved shooting are being conducted by the Long Beach Police Department, LAPD Internal Affairs, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.

Geggie, a Belmont Heights resident, has been with the Los Angeles Police Department for 18 months and is assigned to the Central Traffic Division, according to LAPD Media Relations.

His father is a lieutenant in the LAPD's risk assessment department.

---

This release seems to be the best of the reports, one more vague than the next.

http://www.knbc.com/news/17037559/de...ss=la&psp=news

[David Armstrong]

In the unlikely event that I've commanded an armed intruder to drop his weapon in my house [in my bvd's in the dark] and he takes the action indicated above and I'm not comfortable with it, the simple solution is:
STOP!
DON'T MOVE!
Now that I have his attention and he is not moving in a way I don't want him to....

But that begs the point a bit, which is that the situation in question involves the subject not stopping and continues his movement. That appears to be the contention of some, that they should be allowed to ignore all the commands if they want to meet the end goal in a different manner, and the police should be able to read their minds and let them do it.

[David Armstrong]

The thought that a police officer would shoot someone for not complying 100% of each and every demand made on him is in the wrong line of work in my opinion, and that of many police officers that I know.

I think most would agree with that, however AFAIK nobody here has suggested that, or even anything very close to it. Again, failure to follow orders exactly is only one part of the decision-making process. It is an important part, but not the only part. Other factors help decide how the failure to comply fits into the overall situation.

[Sportdog]

This is a discussion that I guess that I should have stayed out of. But I didn't so here goes! At this point I am starting to question the mental state of some of our law enforcement community. It seems to me that the general feeling of the LE posters shows an alarming lack of what I would refer to as just plain old fashioned common sense. The case that is sighted of the LAPD is a perfect example of a guy that had no business putting on the uniform of a police officer. But I guess that I shouldn't put much stock in a story where they have a shooting and can't even figure out if the victim had a rifle, shotgun, or air rifle for crying out loud! If this guy is an example of LAPD's finest, Lord help us all. Maybe you police know more about the mental state of the officers in your area but I Thank God that here in my world our guys aren't so trigger happy that you need to study police shooting cases to feel that you can in fact protect yourself if attacked and have to follow some arbritrary set of rules that some John Wayne type has decided to enforce because he doesn't have enough God given sense to make a decision that would result in the proper outcome. The last time I checked, assassination of the public was not one of the duties of law enforcement. When I compare my conversations with my father and son-in-law about dealing with the public to the things that some are putting out here I can see that all is NOT well in your world.

[David Armstrong]

At this point I am starting to question the mental state of some of our law enforcement community. It seems to me that the general feeling of the LE posters shows an alarming lack of what I would refer to as just plain old fashioned common sense.

If thta ais what you have gotten from this thread I might suggest you go back and re-read the thread, with special attention to what was actually said by the LEOs instead of what others claim was said. Just like some of the problems in your earlier post revolved around issues that no LE here has supported or suggested, others have taken that same tack. If you have specific issues or problems you might try pointing them out instead of tossing around vague statements without any suppport.

The case that is sighted of the LAPD is a perfect example of a guy that had no business putting on the uniform of a police officer.

And perhaps you will share with us just how you did during the LAPD selection process?

The last time I checked, assassination of the public was not one of the duties of law enforcement.

Nice rhetoric. Of course, since nobody here has suggested anything close to that, it is fairly irrelevant to the discussion.

[Sportdog]

What part of common sense do you not understand? I stated that I felt a general FEELING of lack of common sense. If my take is wrong, I stand corrected, but not for the perception given. It is obvious by the actions of the LAPD officer that the selection process is not making it! Very obvious. Why do you feel the need to make a smart aleck comment about MY role in the LAPD process? Again, use some common sense. Do you think a guy like that has any business wearing the uniform of a police officer? He is the type of individual that gives law enforcement just another unwanted black eye. I'm surprised that you would defend a process that produces an officer like him! What does a guy from SW Louisiana know about the LAPD selection process that I don't. I'm just judging the results. I don't have to be a pro football player to know a touchdown do I? A police officers lack of clear thinking and not using good common sense could result in the assassination of an innocent person.

[Scattergun Bob]

Sportdog
I was trying to disengage from this thread. Your last few comments have brought me back into the scrap. Sometimes in for a penny in for a pound.


Scattergun Bob says, there is no such organism as a reasonable person and no such mental aptitude as "common sense".

I feel the need to personally address your comments about "lack of clear thinking" and the word "assassination" in regard to the administration of justice.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that;
at 3 to 10 feet from me, a man standing next to a obvious body in distress (maybe felony murder), with a gun in his hand,
Who despite my clear and simple challenge of POLICE, DON"T MOVE, proceeds to move and by HIS actions perhaps leads me to believe " in the 3/10ths of a second that I have to make THIS decision" that he is not simply a noncompliant subject but a aggressive predator mounting an attack to threaten my person.

He has the ABILITY, He has the OPPORTUNITY, an unless Frank Way is wrong He is manifesting the intent RIGHT NOW.

Your idea is that I still have to wait to prove that he is not simply a victim of his EGO! That in his own good time he will comply. How dare you, sir! You are proposing that the armor of some type "clear thinking or common sense" will slow or foul up this attack if it comes. Who's social justice are you concerned with, I don't think it is the peace officers.

Perhaps you did not read my first post (84) with do diligence; Just because this incident is mentally new ground (what do I do next) for you does not give you the right to endanger me. (JUST COMPLY, AND DO IT RIGHT NOW!)

The FBI law enforcement officers killed summaries, consistently list "once you confront a suspect who has a gun, the odds are better than 20 % that he will shoot at you . 35% of the time he will fire the first round."

An yet even after proper training, rigid compliance with departmental shooting policies, the soul searching necessary to have the courage to walk the street with a badge and a gun, if a mistake is made you expect the officers blood on the street or you would label him an "assassin". Do I have that about right?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In for a penny, in for a pound.

I've been fascinated by this thread as the more virulent attacks are on the character of the officers and the issue of justification as compared to the reality of the outcomes.

In a tactics discussion - we started with what in the current situation is likely to happen and not what should happen in some gun friendly utopia. It is clear that noncompliance is risky - that's the truth.

So why do supposedly thinking individuals continue to insist they won't comply and reasonably complain later? The AD from a drop is a red herring. The same stats showing how officers are shot don't come up with significant numbers being shot by a dropped gun by a good guy or suspect.

The issue is basically a dominance game and a sense of hurt by a selection of our shooters.

They feel empowered by having a firearm, it is like being a superhero in a sense. There is a fine analysis of this view from David Kenik (who I met at the NTI) in a piece in Handguns on defensive shooting and bystander intervention. When you put on the gun, some of you go Batman/Superman.

He argues that is not the most useful attitude and it fades for the trained.

So here you are empowered. Collins (Violence - Princeton University Press) discussed how it is difficult to actually engage in close up violence - but you did - you overcame your tension/fear and acted in an aggressive manner. You hold the instrument of your power in your hand.

Then, the police arrive - and they depower you. You have to come from a dominant position back to one of powerlessness in complete acquiessence to their power. And without acknowledgement of your righteous role and power. They just want everyone disarmed. You can't even keep your sword or interestingly put in down in a manner that acknowledges that you were powerful and righteous. You have to drop that expensive gun and scratch it. Putting it down slowly says : 'Yes, I'm powerful and righteous. You agree with that. I put it down in a manner that show I'm deciding to agree with you rather than you commanding me.' Your feelings are hurt.

You want the police to congratulate and accept you into the brotherhood/sisterhood of the powerful and tell you that you righteously and honorably protected society. But you can't even talk or that will be used against you in a court of law.

But as Tommy Lee Jones said to Harrison Ford in the Fugitive (when Harrison was babbling his righteous tale) - I don't care. The officer doesn't care in the moment you are armed. You have to be made safe.

Let me give a summary quote from Collin's book - superb book on the actual nature of violence. He discusses police actions in detail:

1. (p. 464). 'When encountering the police, be aware of their potential to go into a forward panic. It is your task to reduce their confrontational tension. If you find this a loss of personal dignity, remind yourself that you are taking charge of the situation emotionally by calming people down. Be especially aware of the problem as the numbers of police on the scene go up.'

There is similar advice for officers.

That's my take on some of the more out there commentary and stubborness. If you know X causes deadly Y and you still want to do X - spin the wheel of Karma and see where it lands.

[Scattergun Bob]

I have to admit that your last post is powerful and compelling, a tip of the hat.

I "think" the part about dropping the gun and having a AD, is focused on "sympathetic firing" by the police as in studies of firing line discipline when outside stresses are added by Bob Marsh, not accidentally shooting the police or themselves. I "think" this is a legitimate FEAR by the posters, though I doubt there are data to support the claim.

As I and others previously pointed out, at every scene someone needs to deescalate the force level, both parties are in the combat envelope, both have weapons, both need to work at allowing each to live. Both need to function on another level beside EGO.

[Sportdog]

The last posters have confirmed what I "felt" from my first reading of this thread. It's all about the power and control that you feel you need to command over a situation that you seem not to understand. Your only concern is to dominate every situation that you encounter. Since by definition, assassinate is to kill without personal regard this word in fact does apply. You do not seem to care (as stated by the Tommy Jones movie analogy). I am in no way suggesting that you wait for someone to shoot you before you respond. I am suggesting that the level of lethal force should not be dictated because some innocent person doesn't follow to the letter to your every command just because it hurts your ego. If the 3-10 foot distance causes you fear, stay back. That is common sense. I'm sure that your voice can carry beyond that range. That is common sense. You guys think that a person protecting himself is an EGO thing. That makes no sense at all. That just shows your contempt for someone who has done something to protect himself because the system of which you are a part of is not capable of providing that protection. Guess what guys. My life is just as important to me as yours is to you. I will close this discussion on my part because I know that you feel the need to get in the last word. I'm very pleased that my close family members in law enforcement do not share your superiority complex and have themselves grounded in the real job of law enforcement and don't feel the need to lord their positions of authority over the people that they serve. Whenever you guys complain about the lack of respect for law enforcement, guys with your attitude have fostered this opinion.

[gvf]

delete

[rscalzo]

level of lethal force should not be dictated because some innocent person doesn't follow to the letter to your every command just because it hurts your ego

My insight into this topic is simply this..The fact of guilt or innocence will not be decided until well after the fact. What might seem perfectly obvious to you in your mind will not be to those responding to the scene.

I can tell you from experiences responding to several shootings involving citizens, the last thing that can be said about them is that they are thinking clearly. Their BOP is spiking and their mind is racing. It will be assumed that they are not hearing the instructions. It may very well require a level of force to get them to disarm. Fortunately we never had any injuries during these events.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thanks, Sc. Bob.

[Erik]

Excellent posts, guys. From the shorter insights of some to the more involved works of others, hopefully most readers popping in for a look will adhere to courses of action in the "less likely to be shot" spectrum. And most will, because most understand at a gut level the don't go to stupid places, to do stupid things, with stupid people line of logic, willfully planning on disobeying orders given at gunpoint by LEOs, despite explanations of that can cause force to be used against you, and moving for ideologocal and emotional reasons falling into the doing stupid things category.

Other things not to do... well, there are other threads.

[BillCA]

I think I see some evidence of disconnects here...

Originally Posted by Scattergun Bob

at 3 to 10 feet from me, a man standing next to a obvious body in distress (maybe felony murder), with a gun in his hand, ...

Silly me... I was envisioning either an outdoor venue where police were in a "felony stop" position behind the "shooter" and officers are behind their car doors... or in an open public area like a mall where there is potential cover behind pilars, concrete fountains, etc. Or about 10-15 yards, not feet.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

1. (p. 464). 'When encountering the police, be aware of their potential to go into a forward panic. It is your task to reduce their confrontational tension. If you find this a loss of personal dignity, remind yourself that you are taking charge of the situation emotionally by calming people down. Be especially aware of the problem as the numbers of police on the scene go up.'

That's certainly thought-provoking, Glenn and there may be a grain of truth in some of it. Some people may not have their priorities in line and not want to drop a Colt Python, even if it's a well worn specimen. On the other hand, there are some who may be holding a 1911 or other cocked semiauto who fear it's discharge if dropped when the safety is off.

Originally Posted by Scattergun Bob

I "think" the part about dropping the gun and having a AD, is focused on "sympathetic firing" by the police as in studies of firing line discipline when outside stresses are added by Bob Marsh, not accidentally shooting the police or themselves. I "think" this is a legitimate FEAR by the posters, though I doubt there are data to support the claim.

Exactly. Though I thought this point was made clear much earlier. While there may not be data that says x% of dropped guns fire, those of us who have worked on guns know that an AD is possible when guns are dropped, especially with safeties disengaged.

And given video like the one below, the fear is not unwarranted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDfNV9bJoSg
And the above was a much lower threat level with no AD.

Please understand the message coming through from the LEO side. "We're under high stress, have to decide in 0.3 seconds if we should fire and any move you make that hasn't been ordered is 1/2 oz more pressure on the trigger and any time you don't comply immediately is another 1/2 oz on the trigger." Now...couple that with the sudden surprise of a loud gunshot noise and what do we get? A civilian body on the ground doing a good imitation of a sieve.

The last posters have confirmed what I "felt" from my first reading of this thread. It's all about the power and control that you feel you need to command over a situation that you seem not to understand. Your only concern is to dominate every situation that you encounter.

Sportdog - it is absolutely about power and control. That is their function in the situation. To exert lawful power and control the situation so no one else gets hurt. I don't begrudge the police this role or authority since we have, by proxy, asked them to do this job to protect our communities.

I don't think any of the LEO side is arguing that if they arrive on the scene and shout "Don't Move!", yet their gun-toting suspect raises his hands, that would justify shooting him.

Nor do I think they are trying to say that as they arrive, if they see their shooting suspect holding his hands out and away from his body and holding the gun by the muzzle or with two fingers on the end of the grip that it would be justified to shoot him if he did not move and didn't comply within 2 seconds to drop the gun.

I can tell you from experiences responding to several shootings involving citizens, the last thing that can be said about them is that they are thinking clearly. Their BOP is spiking and their mind is racing. It will be assumed that they are not hearing the instructions.

In a high stress situation the mind focuses on solving the problem that it may take repeated commands for the subject to identify what's being said. The Navy studied this problem for carrier pilots landing aboard ship who could not recover the aircraft. It was found that controllers needed to repeat the command to eject to get through to the over-stressed pilot. Consequently the phrase "Eject! Eject! Eject!" is now used by military personnel to help ensure the pilot hears it (most pilots recall hearing it only once during the incident because they are focused on saving their planes).

Many authors have written about stress-induced tunnel-vision and auditory exclusion. In a civilian shooting this stress-induced auditory exclusion may be prolonged simply because the citizen's training is not as robust or as well practiced as police. Until the citizen realizes the threat has stopped or diminished to a controllable point it may take repeated commands for him to acknowledge others around him.

And in the chaos of some incidents, police are their own worst enemies. It's not unusual when multiple cops are present to hear one officer shouting "Don't Move!" while another is shouting "Down on the ground!" and yet another shouts "Show me your hands!" Each officer is trying to establish control in his own way. The result is a confusing hash - Don't move Get on the Show me the ground your hands! I've seen it on a couple of occassions and fortunately none of the officers reacted with the mindset "Hey, he's doing something else than what I told him!"

[Scattergun Bob]

Glad to see you back Bill, I decided to use NYPD officer involved averages to try and make my point. I can not say what the contact distance would be in this nightmare because it is not listed. I don't know inside/outside, other than an bystander phoned in the call. Although frustrating, it is typical of the patch work of information received typically with a call for help!

I knew that if I mentioned the "dropped gun thing" that the worms would get out of the can again! I "believe" there may be a valid point to this and have experienced many cases of "sympathetic firing" during range stress drills. These drills are conducted to educate officers of the potential for discharging your firearm unintended. However I can not find any data about subjects being injured by sympathetic reaction to a shot being fired occurring in the field. Maybe you can. Until then I must side with Dave, Eric and Glen, the lesser of two evils is to obey the command. Could it lead to a tragic error, YES.

I have truly enjoyed our discussion, and as always I learn something new each thread. Your point of multiple disjointed commands did not go with out notice.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[BillCA]

SgBob,

I'm glad someone acknowledges my point about disjointed commands. Our local LEO trainers are pretty "ho-hum" about it.

I knew that if I mentioned the "dropped gun thing" that the worms would get out of the can again! I "believe" there may be a valid point to this and have experienced many cases of "sympathetic firing" during range stress drills. These drills are conducted to educate officers of the potential for discharging your firearm unintended. However I can not find any data about subjects being injured by sympathetic reaction to a shot being fired occurring in the field. Maybe you can.

I know there have been multiple instances of this, usually on car-stops. Wasn't there a fairly recent one in NYC where about 12 cops fired on the guy's car the day before he was to get married? It's usually a high-stress situation, frequently nighttime and one officer's judgement causes him to draw and fire. At that point, other officers presume that officer-1 saw something which is threatening to him and others, so they react and fire too. The others did not see the threat, but presumed it because one or more officers fired.

[BillCA]

I realized I hadn't responded to your post in 107.

Originally Posted by Dave Armstrong

(Post 107) But that begs the point a bit, which is that the situation in question involves the subject not stopping and continues his movement. That appears to be the contention of some, that they should be allowed to ignore all the commands if they want to meet the end goal in a different manner, and the police should be able to read their minds and let them do it.

If the unambigious commands "Stop!" and "Don't Move" are ignored, then certainly you face a higher threat level. However, that was not part of the discussion from the Erik, Glenn, Dave trio. The argument has been simply;

Originally Posted by Dave A(post31)

If I tell you to drop it and you make any move with it, prepare to be shot. I've told you exactly what to do, you choose not to do so at your own peril.

The only reason I've even challenged the LE posts is that such flat-earth statements need to be challenged for enlightenment of both sides.

Let us suppose for a moment that the shooter is not a completely clueless doofus and has, as the police arrived, gripped his gun by the barrel and is holding it muzzle down/grip up with both hands in the surrender position. You command him to drop the gun. Instead of letting go of the gun from 4-6 ft, he tilts his shoulders over and lowers the gun down to within only 1-2 ft before dropping it.

However, based on Dave's an Erik's statements, we must presume that the subject won't complete the maneuver because he is very likely to be shot, with the officers justifying it as a "failure to comply" with "threatening behavior". Then they'll just move on with their lives.

Is there some mental block against issuing a new command for him to "Stop!"? Or to yell "Don't Move"?

If not, it certainly has not been part of the discussion. I think the presumption has been that once he begins to move he will continue to do so regardless of other commands. This is not axiomatic.

Or is it the presumption that once you've issued a command that any deviation from exactly what you've said or expect is a threat?

Originally Posted by Dave A(Post 31)

Forget saying anything. Your actions will determine if you get shot at or not, not your words. And once your actions have been controlled your words no longer matter.

Since Dave has also precluded commuicating with the arriving officers to tell them anything, there is no point in claiming to be the victim or claiming the downed man is the attacker. Or even "I will disarm and put the gun down."

[Nnobby45]

As long as the person is not posing a threat to the officers life by aggressive behavior, the police have no right to consider lethal means. I'm sure that this is the case for 99.9% of law enforcement officers who have a very difficult and highly responsible occupation and I applaud them for using good judgement.

A friend heard a window crash while at home one evening and jumped up, ran right by his gun, headed for his 5 yr. old daughters' room and went flying in only to find a scared little girl with her arms around her Springer Spaniel that was just as scared.

A tree in a storm had fallen over and crashed through the window.

He later asked a good friend and firearms instructor/SWAT officer what had happened. What had caused him (an experienced shooter) to do everything wrong and run down the hall unarmed, thinking an intruder had just broken into his little girls' room.

He was told about the "law of threes". It takes a trained police officer about 3 violent incidents before he/she actually settles down and handles things in a professional manner with some degree of calm.

Before that, training goes out the window, adrenalin flows, and things turn to S%#@--not that they can't anyway.

Could be that the officer who points a gun at you or me is just doing lesson one or two--- combining high adrenalin with low experience levels.

[Erik]

"Silly me... I was envisioning..."

Advice against assuming begins in post 15. You advise against it in post 30. At least eight additional posts seemingly address assumptions, presumptions, variables, et cetera; necessary because seemingly must think within the box they are comfortable with. It like being in college again, with students knowing it all, and creating worlds within their heads where they are right and the older, experienced folks who have actually done what is being discussed are wrong.

Re sympathetic response: Can anyone provide documentation anyone being sympathetically shot by LEOs following a dropped firearm's discharge?

"I don't think any of the LEO side is arguing that if they arrive on the scene and shout "Don't Move!", yet their gun-toting suspect raises his hands, that would justify shooting him."

Nobody has said that. It has been necessary to state and restate this fact several times.

"Nor do I think they are trying to say that as they arrive, if they see their shooting suspect holding his hands out and away from his body and holding the gun by the muzzle or with two fingers on the end of the grip that it would be justified to shoot him if he did not move and didn't comply within 2 seconds to drop the gun."

You are envisioning again...

I agree with your comments on how people behave in high stress situations; of course, I see them as supporting our position, where that gun-pointees should do everything possible to ensure gun-pointers do not perceive them as threats.

"I'm glad someone acknowledges my point about disjointed commands. Our local LEO trainers are pretty "ho-hum" about it."

So we've reached a consensus about how to behave in simple scenarios ith one LEo issuing orders? Once we reach that, more complicated variables can certainly be addressed. We must learn to walk before running, after all. The default still boils down to immediat compliance and lack of directed movement, though.

"If the unambigious commands "Stop!" and "Don't Move" are ignored, then certainly you face a higher threat level. However, that was not part of the discussion from the Erik, Glenn, Dave trio." ."

Actually, that has been a significant part of the discussion. How'd you miss it?

"The argument has been simply... If I tell you to drop it and you make any move with it, prepare to be shot. I've told you exactly what to do, you choose not to do so at your own peril."

You didn't miss it, apparently. As evidenced not only by that quote but by one of yours:

""I don't think any of the LEO side is arguing that if they arrive on the scene and shout "Don't Move!", yet their gun-toting suspect raises his hands, that would justify shooting him."

Correct. Nobody has said that. It has been necessary to state and restate this fact several times. And again. Deja vu. Wow, I don't think I've ever had to re-restate something in the same post before...

Argh... more assumptions coming up! Never good things to run with before walking first, but I'll indulge:

"Let us suppose for a moment that the shooter is not a completely clueless doofus and has, as the police arrived, gripped his gun by the barrel and is holding it muzzle down/grip up with both hands in the surrender position. You command him to drop the gun. Instead of letting go of the gun from 4-6 ft, he tilts his shoulders over and lowers the gun down to within only 1-2 ft before dropping it."

However, based on Dave's an Erik's statements, we must presume that the subject won't complete the maneuver because he is very likely to be shot, with the officers justifying it as a "failure to comply" with "threatening behavior". Then they'll just move on with their lives."

You are envisioning again, by the way... Based upon more than just Dave and my statements in this thread, it should be clear that your hypothetical good guy has significantly increased the odds of his having force used against him; force likely being lethal given the context. And while "moving on with their lives" is a gross over-simplification of what shooters experience following shootings, yes, that is what will likely happen.

"Is there some mental block against issuing a new command for him to "Stop!"? Or to yell "Don't Move"?"

You are appently envisioning different time lines than we experience and train for.

"Or is it the presumption that once you've issued a command that any deviation from exactly what you've said or expect is a threat?"

Willfully ignoring commands is a threat indicator. You're already at two threat indicators the instant you begin movement. Are you a three strikes you're out kind of guy? If so, you're one away from force.

"Is there some mental block against issuing a new command for him to "Stop!"? Or to yell "Don't Move"?"

We're already two threat indicators into things, remember? Yes, further exposure to thrreat may be warranted, but it may not be.

Example:

Following weeks training 100 trainees are run through a scenario involving a role payer who bends to lay down an arm. Half of the students encounter a role payer ordered to surrender without incident. Half encounter a non-role player oredred to shoot; with 70% success.

45 trainees take the compliant role player into custody without incident.
5 trainees shoot the compliant role player.
45 trainees shoot the non-compliant role player as he begins to shoot.
5 trainees shoot the non-compliant role player immediately following the two threat indicators of non-comliance and movement.

The shooters have to fill out paperwork as if it were for real. Fudging can get you disciplined up to and including termination. Incorrect actions are addressed through furhter training.

Without the benefit of reading and interviewing the folks, who is most and least correct?

If you answered, the 5 and 5, what are the similarities at the time of the shooting as the trainees saw it? Answer, the circumstances were identical. So should the 5 and 5 have held their fire? Both sets of 5 and 5?

Discuss.