Posted: 6/30/2004 1:28:39 PM EDT
|
Disclaimer: This is a serious question, if you can't give a serious answer, and be ready to defend it, please don't post anything. Scenario: LEO on patrol hears yelling, "I'll kill you" "give me the money" etc. Finds a subject with a large knife in one hand, holding a person by the coat collar in the other. Knife is held up, ready to strike. The victim is hemmed in on 2 sides by a large brick wall. The only escape route for him is THROUGH the attacker. Officer is far enough back so that he is NOT in immediate danger. Absolutely, a SERIOUS confrontation, yelling voice, moving knife as he yells, tight grasp on victim. In other word EVERYTHING in the scenario says ARMED ROBBERY, AGRESSIVE SUSPECT. The person with the knife, is the person making the threats, he is so tunnel visioned in on the victim the officer is able to observe him CLEARLY, yelling threats, while armed. The question is, what action should the officer take. Immediate use of deadly force against the suspect, to protect the victim? Or verbalize to give the suspect an opportunity to flee, or surrender, (or injure/kill the victim), prior to utlizing deadly force. My answer was that giving a verbal warning before using deadly force endangers the victim, so deadly force should be used w/o the verbal warning. I feel the police have a duty to protect the victim in that secenario that outweighs the responsibility to give a verbal warning to the suspect. |
|
Did you see the person with the knife make the threat? Cant assume the man holding the knife is the suspect and the other man is the victim. Victim may have armed himself in response to the death threat... I would yell "Drop the knife, now." Then shoot if he doesnt immediately comply. |
|
|
Depends on the officer. He knows his limitations. Can hit hit the BG with very little to no chance of harm to the victim? If so, sure. If not, then try to calm the situation. ETA: (assuming the officer witnessed the BG making the "give me the money" statement. Otherwise the officer should not do anything until sure of the situation. If that means sitting back and doing nothing than fine. If the BG doesn't intend to harm the victim then he won't if he doesn't care about harming the victim or not harming the victim then the officer might put the victims life in more danger. Not a good idea to freak the BG, he might grab the victim as a hostage. Might freak and kill the victim. Might just run off. |
| I would say that the officer should observe from a position of concealment, for only a SECOND, to ry and determine if the person holding the knife is the robber, or if he is the victim who just disarmed the robber. Once its determined that the knife holder is the robber.....drop him. |
Absolutely, a SERIOUS confrontation, yelling voice, moving knife as he yells, tight grasp on victim. In other word EVERYTHING in the scenario says ARMED ROBBERY, AGRESSIVE SUSPECT. The person with the knife, is the person making the threats, he is so tunnel visioned in on the victim the officer is able to observe him CLEARLY, yelling threats, while armed. |
Waste the fucker. |
Yeah, but it can also be a domestic violence situation. You automatically start firing and they could both turn on you. I'd command the knife wielding perp to drop it ONCE in hopes it would descalate the situation. All bets are off after the first warning. |
I have to agree with this as well. |
| After what happend to me and some of my friends at a local festival recently I would have no doubt in my mind that i would shoot first and ask questions later. Was at a local festival with a coupld friends and there girlfriends. We walked past a couple guys standing near a car with there girlfriends in the back seats, one of my buddies looked at the guys and next thing we knew one of them had a gun to my buddies head. Buddy asked the guy what his problem was and he stated he didnt like other guys looking at his woman. Buddy told the guy to put the gun down and another one of the guys standing near the car pulled a shotgun and racked it. At that point none of us made any talk and we all backed away from these people carefully and found a police officer . The guys where arrested and are pending charges. come to find out the guns where AIRSOFT toys, and when we asked the officer what would have happened if one of us where armed anddropped these two guys, the officer simply stated nothing, it would have been justifiable. I have yet to get my CCW but this has pushed me to get it faster. My buddy that had the gun to hishead, who has been anti-gun for a while now, told me he wanted to go thru the CCW class with me, and wanted me to go with him to pick out a nice handgun for CCW. Grats to the bad guys for converting a antigun citizen to a progun. |
|
I think at least one verbal is necessary in this situation. I hestitate to go with a pre-emptive use of deadly force in this particular situation because there are still a few facts out there that we don't possess, and we can't be sure if the situation is real (I have been to many incidents that looked, at first glance, to be serious crimes in progress and later turned out to be youthful hijinks or just plain stupid people doing what they do best and most). The one verbal command is ALL they get though, and failure to immediately comply with the lawful command narrows the range of responses significantly down to one: stop the threat. |
|
Without having read beyond your thread opener: Not enough background info available to ID either person as victim or perp, in spite of what you have described. Too much lead-up stuff has been missed and not observed. Go with verbal commands and base further response to what you KNOW rather than ASSUME who is the good or bad guy. |
Yep |
|
From the facts given, the only real answer(to me) seems to be issuing the universal challenge(POLICE! DROP YOUR WEAPON!), then OODAing(sure it's a verb) off the subject with the knife's actions. He may be the victim who grabbed the knife from the attacker a second before being observed by the LEO. It could be a couple shitheads hacking around. You truly don't know who the victim is as you did not observe the inital confrontation and who was saying "I'll kill you." Shooting first seems wrong to me. Assuming you have the whole picture correct from merely a few seconds of observation and are ready to kill the perp or the victim if you're a few inches off in your stress shooting skills is pretty brazen. Maybe you are a great shot. But if you're not in immediate danger from asubject with a knife, the distance between you must be pretty decent, and you better be damn sure you can hit a person who has another at less than arms length. Generally, for most officers to walk away from a shoot with their job and bank account intact and free of criminal charges, they have to show they adhered to use of force rules. In the force continuum a verbal order is first. The mere announcement of an LEO's presence often stops acts like this immediately. Non-compliance begets escalation. You stated the officer is not in immediate danger, so I (hate to say it) assume the subject with the knife is greater than the magic 21 feet, and the officer would have time to react to a charge by the perp. But, for most LE use of force policies defense of a third party from death or serious physical injury is just as compelling as defending yourself. Also, when a shoot is laid out in the eyes of the courts, and the departmental investigation, whether witnesses heard BAM BAM BAM or "POLICE! DROP THE KNIFE!" BAM BAM BAM makes a BIG difference. Truthfully, if the guy turns and runs after the challenge, good. No one was shot, there's a description of the perp and the responding units or detectives will probably catch up with them at some point in the very near future. But there are very few out there that are willing to open up on someone without getting some idea of whats going on. The bottom line is this, either way, if you shoot first or challenge, someone's life is in the balance. It's either the guy behind the gun, who loses everything if he's wrong, or the guy with the knife who may get killed. |
|
OLY-M4gery says: "Disclaimer: This is a serious question, if you can't give a serious answer, and be ready to defend it, please don't post anything. " Then we get:
"What we have here is a failure to communicate". |
|
What's the positioning like? IE: is the victim in a corner with suspect forcing him into it, and I'm directly behind the suspect? Has the victim noticed me? Has the suspect? Am I a good shot with an equally accurate firearm? Maybe if possible I'd try to get within range and hit him in the arm holding the knife. Then, where's the arm? If the round goes through the arm, will it ricochet and hit the victim in the head? Maybe I'm off to the side a bit, and can get in a clean headshot with nothing but the brick wall behind him should I miss. Again, it goes back to the accuracy question. Not much time to really think this one over, eh? I'd get in position for a good shot then verbalize or shoot should he begin attacking (ie: through victims non-compliance). Edit: I vote to use deadly force; BUT only if I can get in a clean shot and not kill the other guy in the process. Otherwise, Verbalize |
You watch a lot of TV, don't you? Try to shoot him in the arm? That's simply stupid. If you have justification to shoot, you aim for COM unless he's wearing armor, in which case you go for the head shot or, alternately, the pelvic bone. |
Thought about that... It's not the TV thing, It's just that what's the point of shooting the perp if it will punch clean through the perp and get the victim, too? I said that as like if I'm directly behind the perp who is directly behind the victim (IE: shoot anything outside of that line to the victim). Otherwise, yeah- as you said. |
This was my concern. By giving verbal commands, the danger to the victim is increased. The victim and suspect are facing each other. The suspect has 1 hand on the victim's upper body holding him. They are standing with the victim's back to a 90 intersection of 2 walls. The suspect is blocking any escape routes. If you step back a bit to one side, the wall will shield the victim, while leaving the suspect exposed. Neither are aware of the officer's presence. The suspect is out in the open, cover wise. The officer is 25' away (let's just say). In other words, the scenario was constructed so the officer has a clear shot at the suspect, within effective handgun range. The suspect is verbalizing clear threats to kill, as well as demanding cash. The suspect has a deadly weapon, and can almost instantly deploy it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My question is this If the officer issues a verbal command, it is possible the response will be the victim being stabbed. If the officer issues NO COMMANDS and shoots immediately, the suspect, or his estate may claim the police should have given him chance to surrender, before shooting. Someone said there could be "liability" for not verbalizing before shooting. Which should the officer do? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see potenetial problems with either approach. But, I also think the has a officers duty to protect the victim, is more improtant than giving the suspect a chance to surrender. There are downsides to both. If the officer verbalizes and the suspect is startled, or intentionally stabs the victim, I beleive the officer may be civilly liable. His actions precipitated the stabbing. If the officer shoots w/o verbalizing, then the suspect may claim his Rights were violated, by not being given an opportunity to surrender, or stop his threatening actions, prior to being shot. On thought it was a pretty good scenario, and just like real life, there is no perfect sulotion. There are only a bunch of possible solutions, all with possible negative outcomes. |
Possible, but the first one (stabbing being the officers fault) would make some one BS lawsuit, if you ask me. Officer can appeal that it's the city and police commission at fault, because the SOP dictates a verbal warning before firing shots; which is what the officer was doing. IMHO, by verbalizing, there's a much lesser risk of lawsuit, and if one happens, there's alot (more) ways for the officer to defend his actions. [edited to clean up/specify quote] |
|
It's obvious the person is after money, not the life. The threat of bodily injury is to induce the surrender of money. If there is a cop, or witness on the scene then the guy is not to likely to kill of even injur the so called victim, who may really have stolen the money form the attacker who is in reality just trying to get their money back in a unsafe fashion. You could shoot the victim of a theft or robbery, instead of the theif, or robber. I chose:[ 42 ] Verbalization to give the suspect an opportunity to surrender |
The perp's family wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. Every Use of Force policy that I have ever seen says, "Within reason, give an order to stop or surrender." In this situation, it is clearly unreasonable to give an order to stop. The victim is in imminent danger of being stabbed, therefore you are easily justified in shooting the perp without warning. Remember, "They don't pay you to fight fair. They pay you to win." |
| If you use training aids like the Deadly Force Trianlge, then deadly force is a viable option. Three sides to a triangle. First side = weapon, Second side= maximum effective range and opportunity (unrestricted access), and the Third side= action. Obviously the officer is going to say put the weapon down, or don't move, as he pulls out his gun, if he hasn't already, or when he first makes contact. As soon as he sees that the attacker takes action, then he'll shoot as long as there is a clear line of fire. If the officer shoots the victim or the victim gets stabbed, then you haven't protected anyone. Maximum affective range with a knife is 21ft. That is the minimum safe distance from a trained person with a knife. He can run at the officer and stab him before the officer can draw his weapon, shoot, and get out of the way of the attacker who has built up forward momentum. It is usually shown as a training video, so it's not my made up BSh that you gave verbal command and cosequences prior. |
|
Immediate use of force to protect victim. We are assuming this officer has seen everything happen before his eyes and is fully aware of the situation. If a warning is called out it gives the assailant a chance to quickly make the victim a hostage (human cover) BEFORE the officer can accurately fire on him. |
|
if I understand the situation-that I have the drop on an obvious hostage taker who could kill the hostage if I yell drop it-I'd plug him, but then it's not my job, plus getting sued by some shitbird's estate causes me this much concern 0 good luck tangling with me in front of a jury. On the other hand I would have difficult time living the rest of my life with the memory of seeing the victim killed before my eyes, living with a big judgment against me would be preferable. |
|
You never know, it could be a couple of dumbasses auditioning for a movie and they're rehearsing a scene. You should see what some of these jokers do on subway cars while reading a script. For that reason and the reason that the "perp" might actually be a good guy reclaiming the money stolen from him by the "victim" I'd give a verbal, but only when close enough to act if the "perp" shows any motion towards harming or taking the victim hostage. Then its deadly force time. If aggressive towards the cop, then the situation is clearly defined and deadly force should be immediately utilized. If aggression is only observed, extenuating circumstances might exist and its ONLY YOUR DUTY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS HAPPENING IF ANYTHING. Going in with guns blazing would be fucking stupid. |
|
Perp is too close to the potential victim. A verbal warning would give the perp time to harm the victim. The officer really has to use deadly force immediately, if possible. This is an immediate threat to another persons life, so deadly force is justified, even though the officer isn't threatened. |
| In a case similar to this, is where the m18's come into play. A lot of departments are issuing them along with glocks or whatever their arm of choice is. the m18(taser pistol) would help neutralize the suspect without risking damage to him or the victim. depending on where the victim was standing at the time. if the suspect had the victim directly in front with the knife to the throat then wouldnt be feasible. Let say the victim was off to the side a little. Just shoot the darts at the suspect, they attach and give him a nice shock at whatever voltage and he will drop the knife as well as himself to the floor real quick. Wont have any control over his muscles to cut/slit anybody. Just my $.02. I'm by no means a cop and haven't seen it in use but I have several friends that carry them while on duty and they have to be tased with it before they are allowed to carry it and didnt exactly have pleasant things to say about the experience. That way everyone walks away at least. |
|
It's an immediate, lethal force situation, provided the officer can make the shot without hitting someone that should'nt be hit....... Later during the civil suit, when the bottomfeeder asks me why did'nt I warn the dirtbag first, I'd explain that the delay could have caused the victim to be taken hostage, or worse, immediately stabbed. Here's a tougher situation, and one I've seen happen. Called to a local mini-mart/gas station for a report of a loon/trespasser. Officer arrives and the bad guy begins removing softball sized rocks from his oversized pockets and begins throwing them at the officer. One hits the officer What do you do? |
Tougher. Technically, at least in my neck of the woods, you are in DF territory, and you have a clear authority to stop the threat. Practically, we aren't robots who automatically jump to a certain level of force when certain criteria are met; this isn't a clinical setting where equations and hard logic apply. If possible, grabbbing the Beanbag out of the trunk and letting fly with some of DefTech's finest would be a good move, but if the other officer is in any kind of distress or the suspect appears to be aiming for his head, the suspect gets dropped with the sidearm. And my first move before all of that (and the one everyone forgets) is to hit my emergency button and get the cavalry rolling. Nobody ever seems to think about calling for help on this stuff, which is why we have incorporated it into training. |
|
If it were a gun, and no contact between the victims, then it's time for the TV theatrics ('drop it', etc).. However, that, as described, is NOT a defensive knife situation... The knife-wielder is physically restraining his subject, while threatening said subject with the knife... Now, if someone mugged you, & you managed to gain control of their knife, would you (a) hold them by the neck at knife point, or (b) let them run away? Same for a gun -> if you pull your CCW on someone, are you gonna grab 'em by the jacket & shuve the gun up their chin? Or are you going to point & maintain safe distance? |
|
Strictly speaking, a hostage situation already exists. Quote from the scenario, "The person with the knife, is the person making threats..." You have an armed suspect holding someone against their will. The suspect has the means and the opportunity (and has expressed a willingness) to inflict immediate great bodily harm or death upon the victim. To all that have responded that they would verbalize a warning first...if the victim were a loved one, how would you react? I have absolutely no doubt, that under these circumstances, I would drop the guy without warning. Your first responsibilty as a responding officer in this case is to the victim, not the suspect. He gave up his right to surrender when he grabbed his victim and held a knife to them. Oly-M4gery: I'm not sure why you were asked the question, but your answer was right on the money. Don't let anyone tell you any different. If it was my wife, I would have thanked you for not giving the guy a chance to kill her. And to those select few who couldn't resist the urge...If I respond as I said I would, yes, I get to go home safe at the end of my shift. |
|
The question came about because of a video, which I described being shown, and discussed. Universally everyone said that deadly force was apropriate in that circumstance. The debate that followed was whether or not verbaliztion was required prior to the use of force. Some were saying it was absolutely required. Others saying it was not required, and more in the middle. It was a somewhat heated debate. I asked it here to get a different persective(s). |