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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If Mas is reading this one - I recall him showing in LFI-1 a film of a man with a pistol grip shotgun with his back turned to the officer. He was ordered to put it down but instead started to turn to the officer and started to slowly put it down. Question was what to do. I opined that the turn, noncompliance and slow movement was enough for the shoot. As the film continued, the point was made about how easy it was when the gun was almost grounded to shoot the officer before he could respond.

Since I've also seen folks like Greg Hamilton draw and shoot even when covered by a reasonably trained person, the gun that is your hand is a threat. That's why a reasonable person should understand the need to drop it.

Let's turn the tables. You come across a BG with his back turned to you but carrying a gun in your house. (Of course, you just shoot him in the back, repeatedly - it's the internet!). However, you say - Drop the gun! The person says, 'I will slowly put it down' and very slowly starts to do that. Think they can shoot you, while you have your thumb up your butt. In fact, when you start to bellow more commands - that's the time to shoot you as the diversion of your attention to your verbalims diverts your attentional resources and slows you down.

[izzkidioto]

Identify the bad guy!! Also, as was stated before, identify your person (clothes, etc.) to the 911 dispacher.

[Stevie-Ray]

Also, let's think about the comparative odds of getting killed when your 25 ACP Raven goes off on the ground as to when an officer fires several 40 SW rounds at you.

They don't compare. Problem arises when the gun is dropped, goes off, and hits nothing. But, all those .40s that were pointed at you speak in unison, and you die for doing what you are told. "Drop-safe" will never be the hot feature for the guy with a family making 20 grand a year. Inexpensive will be the key feature, and everybody's kidding themselves here if they think different. The comment about getting shot for not dropping a non drop-safe gun and "scoring one for evolution" would be considered elitist in most major metropolitan areas. In the inner-cities, it would be considered downright racist. (Though I doubt that was your intention)
Let's face it, most of the times anybody is in this situation, there is no reason he can't reholster or even repocket before the cops get there. And, there are too many variables to cover all of them here. But, in that one in a million chance, what's wrong with holding the gun away from the body with a single finger through the trigger guard and laying it down? Shoot somebody who is obviously doing that, and you need to be prosecuted, period.

[Erik]

But it is not obvious.

Look... LEOs get shot in similar circumstances doing, among other things, what you are advocating. LEOs who should know better, but get distracted by the moment and assume, sometimes fatally, that they are recognized for what they are and what the are doing. LEOs, whom the shooting LEOs, trust me, deeply regret shooting after the fact. Cause LEOs aren't in the business of shooting good guys, let alone peers. And despite the deep regret, shared institutionally, nobody will hold them accountable the mistake for once the facts involving disobeying commands and movement are brought to light. Because... the mistake is on the shotee's part. It is the shootee's fault given the circumstances, disobeying and moving as an unknown during a high risk situation, not the shooter's. There will be no prosecution; take that to the bank.

Do. Not. Do it.

[doc2rn]

Reholster
911~stay on the line until told to hang up
Stay on scene
Hand them your lawyers response card and dont say anything (believe it or not the police are not your friend)
Go down town (let lawyer speak for you!)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Shoot somebody who is obviously doing that, and you need to be prosecuted, period.


And your bullet riddled body will be a prosecution exhibit. Like Diallo's. It is conceivable that an officer might be charged. However, let's not forget, if they do get charged - it is because YOU HAVE HOLES IN YOU!

My comment on evolution was aimed at the Internet gene pool. Not responding to a direct command by an officer was a selection factor that works against you.

[Brian Pfleuger]

If I see that officer pull up, or more likely hear them close by, I am on the ground spread eagle gun slid away from me before he gets out of the car.

Then listening and complying immediately.

(believe it or not the police are not your friend)

No, he's not. He's not being paid to be my friend. He's being paid to make me and you safe. However, he is (95% of them are) on my side once he knows what went down. Being my friend or being on my side is not, however, reason to talk any more than is necessary, he has a job to do and recording/remembering what you say is part of it.

[BillCA]

It's not the Barney you have to worry about, Bill, it is the highly trained and keyed up SWAT-type that has seen way to many movements "in a slow deliberate manner" turn into attacks to allow them, particularly when you still have a weapon in your hand. You are already demonstrating that you will not comply with the officer's lawful orders (drop the gun), don't expect it to get any better when you make it worse (do not move).

So... you're saying an officer is justified in shooting when ever he sees someone move in some manner that HE thinks constitutes preparation for an attack? Even if that move constitutes part of "obeying" the officer's orders? That's bogus.

I'm much more worried about those officers opening fire on my fuzzy-behind if that gun goes off when it hits the pavement. "Carry a drop safe gun"? Most of them are pretty good, however any part can fail when subjected to sharp impact stress. This is NOT when I want to test how good the the manufacturer's QC department is.

it is the highly trained and keyed up SWAT-type

If said SWAT type is "Highly Trained" and will shoot someone for attempting to carefully put down the gun while holding it by the muzzle or the end of the triggerguard then I suggest we have a serious problem in this country... or we need a new definition of "highly trained".

Or maybe we should be striving for "highly brained" instead of highly trained. I expect SWAT types to have better discipline and better tactics than that.

There is the problem. I'm not ordinarily twitchy, but you are not complying with my order to disarm. In fact, you are acting directly contrary to my requests and placing me in further danger of my life. That might make me sort of twitchy.

So, based on the above statement, when you say "Drop the gun" and the subject holds their arm out, gun by the muzzle and begins to bend down to put it on the ground, you get nervous because he didn't comply exactly with your instructions? Then please tell me what I should do when an officer says:
"Freeze!" - should I chatter my teeth and shiver?
"Don't Move! Show me your hands!" - Well, which one?

Since I dislocated my shoulder last March, I've been unable to raise my right arm above my head. If you tell me to put my arms "all the way up", I still can't get the right hand any higher than my head. Does that give you legal cause to shoot me? I think not.

Based on your statements, how about we codify it in law? If a subject drops the gun after police tell him to do so and it discharges, any officer who fires on the subject will be charged with homicide or attempted homicide, as appropriate. Officers who shoot the subject and their agencies will be severably liable for the injuries sustained.

That seems fair. After all, I'm only doing what you told me to do.

And before I'm accused of cop-bashing here, I'm a big supporter of LE, though I am also a critic of some of the policies and some of the thinking in LE circles as well.

[Stevie-Ray]

Forget it, Bill. Sounds like a lot of the arguments I gave. If this is indicative of the attitude of most cops, we're in worse shape than even I thought.

[Erik]

It isn't an attitude. It is an understanding, based on law, policy, training, and common practice of how not to be shot by the police in the kinds of instances we're talking about. An understanding we are trying to relay to you. We get that you disagree. We get that you want to "what if" the subject to death in support of your disagreement. We get that you'll assign negative attributes to us when we don't concede your points. And despite that, we're still trying to relay our understanding to you; cause we don't want good guys getting shot.

The "how to not get advice" is the same for LEOs as non-LEOs, by the way and in case you were wondering, except for stressing the communication of LEO status visually with a badge and verbally as soon and as loadly as possible. Don't disobey commands and move trying to flash that tin, though.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Complaining about attitude and training does not negate the discussion of what might happen to you.

Diallo should not have been shot because he was an innocent and responded in a way appropriate to his country. However, his reaction led him to be shot as it was inappropriate to our police policies and some unfortunate perceptual/cognitive processes.

The officers were tried (later acquited as they were given a change of venue). There was a civil settlement.

But you know what, he was still dead after the trial and the suit. That's the point.

[treo]

Can I assume that moonwalking around the body while singing "Another One Bites The Dust" wouldn't be an appropriate response?

[BillCA]

^^^^^^ .... ah... no.

Glenn,

2. As long as a gun is in your hand for a long, slow, safe put down - you can quickly switch to a firing position. That's in some LEO training films. That's why they might just shoot you if you don't comply.

So because a training film [anyone have a title?] describes a method of "faking" putting a gun down, if a subject's response to the officer's order even appears to be similar to the 'fake' tactic, that justifies the officer shooting him before any aggressive moves? (As opposed to saying "STOP! DON'T MOVE" again?)

The bigger question is within what context was the training film made? Because a technique exists, does not mean it applies to every subject you meet. What gang members in L.A. have been filmed doing does not necessariliy apply to everyone. An officer suggesting it was part of his "training" when he fired on a 63 year old Asian man who was slowly putting down his gun should be required to justify, in detail, how he concluded a real threat existed.

Please understand MY point here. It is not to say that police should take unnecssary risks. It is a criticism of both the "one size fits all" training AND the mindset exhibited by several posters that failure to do exactly what they tell you to do justifies their premature use of lethal force.

That's so much bovine scatology.

Using their arguments, they would be "justified" in shooting someone because;

1. The subject is deaf (even temporairly) and did not see the officers approach from behind [for whatever reason].
2. The subject failed to raise both hands.
3. The person who, when told "Show me your hands!", displays his hands and then drops them again (perhaps out of sight). [aka the stupid subject]
4. When told to get on the ground, lies on his back due to illness or injury.
5. When told to kneel on the ground, begins kicking & scraping at the ground with one or both feet before kneeling.
6. When told to move in any direction, subject balks with inaudible verbal response.

What I'm getting at is that the mindset of some officers that failure to comply exactly is somehow tantamout to a grave threat is pure, unadulterated crap. Officers are not automations and should be capable of adapting their procedures and tactics.

Every one of the above situations listed has a valid reason for occurring. According to at least two of the posters here, the deaf man = dead man for failing to comply with spoken orders...which he is unable to receive. Likewise, the man who can't raise both arms because one is disabled by a wound is on the ragged edge of dying because he can't comply with the cops.

In a situation where someone attempts to comply, but perhaps in an unexpected way, I expect officers to be alert or to verbally force the person to stop. Hiding behind the allegation "he failed to properly comply", in my view, is the moral equivilant of "I was just following orders".

[treo]

If anyone's listened to the 911 of the guy from Kentucky who shot the kid at his back door, he may have done everything else wrong but here's what he did right.

He stayed on the phone W/ 911, he told them he still had the gun in hand & why. If I remember right he asked the operator to tell him when the cops were on scene. Either way, as soon as she told him the police were there he put his gun on the table & told the operator to ask the cops what they wanted him to do, and did it.
That seems like a wise response to me

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Using their arguments, they would be "justified" in shooting someone because; ...

Justification doesn't enter into my discussion in the sense of right and wrong morally. I explain why they might shoot you.

The information is so one can make an informed decision as to whether one drops the gun or continues to manipulate it and increase the risk of getting shot.

Criticizing the training is irrelevant in this discussion of actually what to do. Criticizing the training so the training changes may cause that to happen.

There's been a lot of research on cops' decision to shoot. I , for one, am not giving them an extra reason based on the expense of a gun or the odds of a dropped gun going off (as I don't carry non drop safe handguns).

There are two discussions here - training and rules vs. actuality at the moment.

BTW, some can hold the gun just by the trigger guard with a finger and flip it into action really quickly.

[Erik]

"So because a training film [anyone have a title?] describes a method of "faking" putting a gun down, if a subject's response to the officer's order even appears to be similar to the 'fake' tactic, that justifies the officer shooting him before any aggressive moves? (As opposed to saying "STOP! DON'T MOVE" again?)"

There isn't a single video for public consumption, per se. It is a training point which has been integrated into various levels of training across the country dating back at least to the late 1990s. The typical "packaging" of the which consists of lecture, text, videos, and practical demonstrations.

And the legal standard to justify the use of deadly force is not "witnessing aggressive moves."

"The bigger question is within what context was the training film made?"

Industry trainers and shooting evaluators noticed the trend. They went to lawyers and administrators. After time and peer review, the training began to role out. It is modified as necesary, as with other training, as legal opinions and policy interpretations change the landscape.)

Look, you've missed the point, and the fault may be ours.

The training, policies, and law do not REQUIRE that a LEO must shoot someone following your stated course of action; but they ALLOW for it, so long as the shooting LEO(s) believe and can articulate that there is a viable threat of serious bodily injury or death. (This language may/will change slightly depending on the legal and policy standards.)

And how are they going to come about that belief? Well, they'll register that a gun in hand provides the means, opportunity and ability (see language caveat above) to pose a threat, immediately afterward they'll register your disregard for their commands, and immediately after that they'll register the initiation of movement they understand to be threatening; all wrapped in the context of a high risk, shots fired situation.

And if all of that happens, and they believe there is a threat: Yes, they may shoot.

And when the shooting is reviewed, the standard of review will be the reasonable officer standard, as in would a reasonable officer, under similar circumstances, find the decision to shoot a reasonable one. Not THE reasonable one. Not the ONLY reasonable one. But A reasonable one.

Which is why we are adamantly attempting to convey how bad an idea it is to deviate from the advised course of action.

[Brian Pfleuger]

And when the shooting is reviewed, the standard of review will be the reasonable officer standard, as in would a reasonable officer, under similar circumstances, find the decision to shoot a reasonable one. Not THE reasonable one. Not the ONLY reasonable one. But A reasonable one.

Which is why we are adamantly attempting to convey how bad an idea it is to deviate from the advised course of action.

Which is why I would make every effort to stick with my original plan...

If I see that officer pull up, or more likely hear them close by, I am on the ground spread eagle gun slid away from me before he gets out of the car.

Then listening and complying immediately.

Quote:
(believe it or not the police are not your friend)
No, he's not. He's not being paid to be my friend. He's being paid to make me and you safe. However, he is (95% of them are) on my side once he knows what went down. Being my friend or being on my side is not, however, reason to talk any more than is necessary, he has a job to do and recording/remembering what you say is part of it.

[David Armstrong]

So... you're saying an officer is justified in shooting when ever he sees someone move in some manner that HE thinks constitutes preparation for an attack?

Nope. I'm not saying that and I didn't say that.

Even if that move constitutes part of "obeying" the officer's orders? That's bogus.

What's bogus is your argument. The movement does not constitute obeying an order, it is in direct conflict with an order.

I'm much more worried about those officers opening fire on my fuzzy-behind if that gun goes off when it hits the pavement.

We've already addressed how to handle that if it is a worry for you.

If said SWAT type is "Highly Trained" and will shoot someone for attempting to carefully put down the gun while holding it by the muzzle or the end of the triggerguard then I suggest we have a serious problem in this country... or we need a new definition of "highly trained".

Again, you miss the point. You will not be shot for for that. You will be shot for disobeying orders by acting in a manner that puts the officers in danger. Now, you might not like that idea, you might not agree with it, but that is it. Even off-duty officers get shot every year in situations like this because of errors.

So, based on the above statement, when you say "Drop the gun" and the subject holds their arm out, gun by the muzzle and begins to bend down to put it on the ground, you get nervous because he didn't comply exactly with your instructions?

That is certainly going to be part of it.

Then please tell me what I should do when an officer says:
"Freeze!" - should I chatter my teeth and shiver?
"Don't Move! Show me your hands!" - Well, which one?

Freeze of course has the general vernacular consideration of stopping your movement. In case of conflicting commands (which we try to prevent, BTW) don't move is usually the best alternative. After you have reached that stage (not moving) then the officer will likely repeat other commands. The important thing, again, is that you show you are willing to follow commands.

If you tell me to put my arms "all the way up", I still can't get the right hand any higher than my head. Does that give you legal cause to shoot me? I think not.

I realize that you are really trying to stretch for the most absurd issues to ttry to prove your point, but please stop being silly. Again, if you are trying to comply with the commands there is not much problem. It is when you disregard and/or go counter to the commands that conflict will develop.

Based on your statements, how about we codify it in law?

Actually most of these issues are already a matter of law. Police get charged, tried and convicted or acquited regularly. They go through civil cases regularly. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with how not to get shot, though.

[David Armstrong]

Using their arguments, they would be "justified" in shooting someone because;

You're leaving out something very important in these "justifications"--few of them in and of themselves are deadly force situations. That is the difference. some may not b e use of force situations at all.

It is a criticism of both the "one size fits all" training AND the mindset exhibited by several posters that failure to do exactly what they tell you to do justifies their premature use of lethal force.

You make two unwarranted assumptions. First, there is no "one size fits all" trainng in LE any more. Officers are taught to look for and absorb multiple variables and factors in situations. Second, nobody has said that "failure to do exactly what they tell you to do" is justifies any particular level of force, much less lethal force. Failure to follow commands can lead to many different responses based on the situation and the people involved. It is only one factor in the mix. It might contribute to lethal force being chosen as the correct response, it might lead to pepper spray as the correct response, it might lead to loud vocal commands as the correct response.

[gvf]

As was just said,

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with how not to get shot, though

.

Yes, the point of the thread is to try to avoid getting shot in one of the most highly charged situations imaginable - by their nature, these events are not going to produce calm and considered actions on anyone's part. Fear of death, imminent death, will likely be there in the arriving officers, and may still be in you. Whatever, how to limit the possibilities of mistakes, false impressions, erroneous assumptions while having guns zeroed on target - and you the target - is the issue. And there have been many good suggestions.

But idealization, what you think SHOULD be, will likely contribute to you getting shot.

For you won't be in a court or on a gun forum, but in The Street, with just you and the moment to work with - no one will be there to save you or offer suggestions.

"ONE FALSE MOVE AND YOU'RE...."

[gunney 67]

all of the above is good advice and is to be heeded. However, considering that an individual who has just been through the trauma of. a shooting event like described above and will probably be suffering from massive adreniline and norepinepherine dump into the bloodstream, and may still be suffering from tachypsyche and auditory exclusion of surrounding events, this could be problematic. Bad things can and probably do happen to good people under these circumstances. The aftermath of a shooting is fraught with danger for the individual, not only at the scene, but in the criminal and civil litigation that may ensue. May none of us ever have to endure it. I guess the bottom line here is that it is almost impossible to predict how someone will respond to an emotional psychophysiological traumatic event like this, particularly if it has only been moments ago that it happened.

[Rufkarma]

Lots of sage advice in this thread, but the tough part is remembering any of this when the poop is dispersed horizontally.

I think you really only need to remember a couple of things.

1. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation. After that, Semper Gumby! (USMC Rules For a Gunfight # 22)
2. Protect yourself until others arrive who can take over that job.
3. Do what you're told, how you're told, when you're told by competent authority (Cops or guy with bigger gun and better tactical situation)

Train, practice and stay alive . . . but don't forget to enjoy your life

Former HMCS(FMF)

[BillCA]

You make two unwarranted assumptions. First, there is no "one size fits all" trainng in LE any more. Officers are taught to look for and absorb multiple variables and factors in situations. Second, nobody has said that "failure to do exactly what they tell you to do" is justifies any particular level of force, much less lethal force. Failure to follow commands can lead to many different responses based on the situation and the people involved. It is only one factor in the mix. It might contribute to lethal force being chosen as the correct response, it might lead to pepper spray as the correct response, it might lead to loud vocal commands as the correct response.

Okay, so I'm thinking this response is a CYA Bovine dropping response. (I'm not criticizing your ethics, morals, cleanliness or ability to be a rational person - I'm criticizing the articulation of a point).

On one hand, we're told if we don't do exactly as we're told - dropping a firearm immediately - we are very likely to be shot. On the other hand is the above quote that says "Oh we take into account a wide variety of factors and make a logical decision". Which directly contradicts earlier statements that if one does not comply exactly as the officer commands (with the results the officer expects) one's person is likely to become perforated.

You're leaving out something very important in these "justifications"--few of them in and of themselves are deadly force situations. That is the difference. some may not b e use of force situations at all.

Not necessarily. All of these situations would be with a felony suspect

1. The subject is deaf (even temporairly) and did not see the officers approach from behind [for whatever reason].
2. The subject failed to raise both hands.
3. The person who, when told "Show me your hands!", displays his hands and then drops them again (perhaps out of sight). [aka the stupid subject]
4. When told to get on the ground, lies on his back due to illness or injury.
5. When told to kneel on the ground, begins kicking & scraping at the ground with one or both feet before kneeling.
6. When told to move in any direction, subject balks with inaudible verbal response.

But it is suffcient to discuss the first item - a deaf subject. You have your gun toting subject with gun in hand, still pointed at the "man down" in broad daylight, but he does not respond to any of your commands.
[This was based on an event in the early 70's Philly where police arrived to a shooting. The subject used twin hearing aids, but when he fired his 2.5" .357 Magnum both devices failed, leaving him deaf as a rock. Take a guess at what happened when he failed to obey police commands.]

I'm late for an appointment... but this may do for now.

[Erik]

The factors are taken in and decided on very quickly. You seem to be imagining time lines much longer than the situation allows for and an intellectual process not even close to the snap judgement call being made.

But I'll let DA comment specifically beyond that about what he wrote.

---

"But it is suffcient to discuss the first item - a deaf subject. You have your gun toting subject with gun in hand, still pointed at the "man down" in broad daylight, but he does not respond to any of your commands.
[This was based on an event in the early 70's Philly where police arrived to a shooting. The subject used twin hearing aids, but when he fired his 2.5" .357 Magnum both devices failed, leaving him deaf as a rock. Take a guess at what happened when he failed to obey police commands.]"

Off the top of my head I'm not familiar with the particular shooting you are referring to. Are you citing an example where the good guy failed to comply with commands, moved, and was shot, or was not shot?

If he was shot, what is your point?

If he was not shot, what is your point?

But better questions than those would be:

How did his failing to follow orders and moving contribute to his being shot? Assuming he was.

How did his failing to follow orders and moving contribute to his noy being shot? Assuming he was not.

Oh, and WHY people commit action, at the level of analysis we're talking about, given the context, with the benefit of hind sight, is irrelevant. Deaf and shot? Unfortunate. Caught up in the moment, adrenalin flowing, with your game face on as you turn and reflexively bring your gun up and shot? Unfortunate. Plain clothes or off-duty LEO who assumes he's recognized, or that his badge is seen, or that it is other wise obvious what he is and what he is doing and shot? Unfortunate, unfortunate, unfortunate. Stubborn, having read some of these posts and committed yourself to doing what you know is right despite advise to the contrary and shot? Unfortunate.

But ultimately justified for reasons already explained.

And when they are not shot... Good. But those decisions ride on facts registered in split seconds. A glance the other way, hard focus on a front sight, screams, sensory over load, bad lighting, sleep deprivation, a whole host of and/or combination reasons... and those facts can be missed.

[Stevie-Ray]

1. The subject is deaf (even temporairly) and did not see the officers approach from behind [for whatever reason].
2. The subject failed to raise both hands.

Both of which are too near and dear to me. LEOs in this thread can say all they want about these being all but implausible as often as they happen, and I'm sure they would be right. But Bill's layed out 2 classic examples that fit into my family. My now deceased father was completely deaf for the latter 35 years of his life. And my wife's severe RA would not allow her to put up one hand let alone both. This again, would probably not present a problem as, 1, my father is now no longer with us, and 2, my wife is seldom alone and is mostly with me, no matter where we are. But, during a possible case of mistaken identity, (which happens everywhere) if you approach us, she will NOT, repeat not, put her hands up, nor will she drop to her artificial knees, or do anything else mentioned here. And my wife's affliction is not readily apparent within 50 feet if she is standing still. Think really, really hard before you proceed with what you think is justification at this point. Hopefully this is one of those times that dictate other types of actions or maybe bring up another training point that hasn't been mentioned.