SWATting turns deadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vectorsc

Last time I checked Vance Josephs crappy quarterback call didn't leave a pile of the corpses of innocent people behind it.

I'm just amazed the ROE for civilian police in the USA is much more permissive than the ROE for troops on deployment. If you shot a dude 5 times because he moved in a way that made you uncomfortable, you would probably get an appointment with the chair at the farm in Leavenworth.

I would have said a simple change to the ROE would mostly handle all of these issues: DO YOU SEE A LETHAL WEAPON? NO? NO SHOOT. Solved. Officer risk grows by .000000167%...respect for the police and their work goes up 10x.

---

When LEO deaths surpass combat fatalities we have a bit of a problem here. Considering the population differences between combat zones and here at home (10-20,000 troops in locales with 30M people vs close to 1M police for 300M supposedly "peaceful" citizens), that's a pretty terrible proposition. While Jer is right, serving our community should be priority #1, I'm not going to do my community any good if I'm not alive to serve. I agree that ROE is very different, I've been under both. In Afghanistan, however, we had force multipliers, such as armored vehicles, better body armor, carried rifles 24/7, air support, and never left with less than 12 guys backing us up. Here on the streets of the US, most of the time there are 4-20 officers on duty at a given time (depending upon jurisdiction), rifles rarely come out of the vehicle with you on a call, backup is minutes or more away (instead of right there with you), and any situation can turn ugly without warning (as we saw in Douglas County last weekend). You don't want police on a hair trigger ready to engage in deadly force, but troops sure as hell are.

From the outside looking in, it may appear that police have a looser ROE than military, but you should recognize that we have much more harsh scrutiny when we use our weapon in the line of duty. I've seen one questionable ROE issue downrange and there was absolutely zero chance of the NCO facing any kind of prison time. Meanwhile here, if there is even the slightest hint that the shoot was not on the up and up, that officer is looking at hard time, not to mention his job being gone in a second. One such case happened with a guy I worked with- he didn't use his firearm- and he lost his job and faced charges. Rightfully so, there should be intense scrutiny whenever a LEO uses any kind of force. It just frustrates me that people who don't see what goes on in the background (between IA, DAs, shoot teams- all the things the media doesn't report) say that LEO has "loose" ROE. I pray every day I put on my duty belt that I never have to use my gun. Beyond the obvious (taking a life, and my life being at risk), I worry about the other consequences- even if it's justified, how will the media/public view my actions? Will I end up in the right, like Officer Darren Wilson, but spark national outrage because the suspect was the wrong race? I agree, training needs to be in place so officers make the correct decisions, at the correct times. But there should also be some benefit of the doubt given, and reservation of opinion until all the facts can be discovered. We as a society entrust law enforcement with great responsibility, and with that comes intense scrutiny. But I take severe issue with the notion that police "leave a pile of the corpses of innocent people behind it." Of the many OISs that happen, I've seen a majority be deemed justified. Let's tone down the BLM rhetoric that is patently false and have the conversation like adults.
[rant-off]

I still don’t feel that No Weapon No Shoot is some lofty and unrealistic goal for our LE to aspire to. Even with your well laid out discussion points, every single one of them I will concede.

The problem is analyzing what would happen beforehand - if it has been done then I would be interested in seeing the analysis, but chances are there isn’t anything to look at. Anything greater than a 1to1 trade for reduction in deaths of civilians vs officers would be clearly beneficial. And seeing as how the very definition of duty and sacrifice indicates that an officer should lay down their lives such that an innocent can live would indicate even a direct trade is advisable, it would be very interesting to see some numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

ETA 2:
6,937 military casualties in operation Iraqi freedom and afganistan since 2001; not counting any other combat and non-combat fatalities at home and abroad. I'm not sure how to get those figures, but it would definately add several hundred if not a couple thousand.
2,687 total LEO casualties in that same period.

If we do a broad scope, total LEO casualties since our founding: Approximately 20,000
Total Military casualties since our founding: Over 1,300,000

LEO fatalities are tragic; I just don't want to diminish that of the soldier...

---

Thanks for posting this. Wonder what percentage of LE casualties are gunshots, hit by car, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

It depends on the situation imho.

If multiple officers have rifles up and on target, ready to fire (such as the case of the guy in the hotel hallway) it needs to be a policy of not firing until a weapon is visible. In that situation, officers have more than enough reaction time available to unload on a suspect if they start to present e.g. a firearm before there is any statistically significant risk.

On the other hand, if an officer has a weapon holstered and a suspect appears to be reaching for a weapon, then it is far more justified for the officer to draw and fire, as there would be far too much risk upon the officers life if he waited for actual presentation of a firearm.

Once a gun is already pointed at another by a trained individual (either LEO pointing at suspect or suspect pointing at LEO) as long as they are more than four feet apart, there's pretty much zero tactical chance of the other suddenly pulling a weapon from concealment and successfully getting it up to (successfully) shoot before having at least a couple holes punched inside them.

TLDR: If officers (especially multiple officers) already have guns drawn and ready, then it needs to be a "only if you see a weapon, or they try to otherwise physically attack, then you can use deadly physical force".
If officers have not already drawn their weapon, then it needs to be a "if they appear to be going for a weapon, you can use deadly physical force" policy.

I'll ETA: There are 14 "civilian" career professions that are more deadly than career law enforcement, the 15th deadliest profession. Even things like roofers are 4x more deadly, pilots 5x more deadly, even your taxi driver and groundskeeper have a statistically far riskier career. There are certainly risks involved, but I do tire over the myth/perception that it's an incredibly dangerous job such as that "normal" people cannot comprehend the risks.

ETA 2:
6,937 military casualties in operation Iraqi freedom and afganistan since 2001; not counting any other combat and non-combat fatalities at home and abroad. I'm not sure how to get those figures, but it would definately add several hundred if not a couple thousand.
2,687 total LEO casualties in that same period.

If we do a broad scope, total LEO casualties since our founding: Approximately 20,000
Total Military casualties since our founding: Over 1,300,000

LEO fatalities are tragic; I just don't want to diminish that of the soldier...

---

Use of force policy is a lot more complicated than just boilerplate "Gun visible shoot, no gun, no shoot." But I understand your meaning, and don't disagree. I don't write policy or procedures, I just follow, and I like to think coupled with a sturdy base of common sense, I have received adequate training to conduct myself appropriately in a use of force situation- but we won't know until that day comes- which I hope never does.

As far as "More deadly" professions, yes, LE is not very high on the list. That being said, the likelihood of a roofer or groundskeeper being assaulted, stabbed, or shot, is excessively low. Outside of LE/Security, can you name another civilian job that either requires or highly recommends employees wear body armor? That factor alone adds a level of danger, perhaps not deadliness.

I wasn't referring to overall totals, not even since 2001. You misunderstood my meaning, and perhaps I should have been more precise, the last two years have seen more LE deaths (each year, not in total) than combat related. That in no way diminishes the tragedy of those killed in service to our country overseas, I lost a couple good friends downrange. I was just pointing out that in recent times the pendulum is swinging away from combat to the warzone some of our cities are turning into at times. Don't mistake my words, it's far safer here than in places beyond our borders (Mexico for one), but you also have to factor there are a lot of people who reside within our borders who hold a very low opinion, teetering on homicidal, towards LE. Until attitudes change, the "us vs them" mentality (which I vehemently disagree with) isn't likely to end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

As far as "More deadly" professions, yes, LE is not very high on the list. That being said, the likelihood of a roofer or groundskeeper being assaulted, stabbed, or shot, is excessively low. Outside of LE/Security, can you name another civilian job that either requires or highly recommends employees wear body armor? That factor alone adds a level of danger, perhaps not deadliness.

---

So injury or death only counts if you're assaulted, stabbed, or shot, got it. Someone should let all the first responders know so they can start changing over to their new 1 on, 30 off shift schedules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

So injury or death only counts if you're assaulted, stabbed, or shot, got it. Someone should let all the first responders know so they can start changing over to their new 1 on, 30 off shift schedules.

---

You misinterpreted my meaning.

I don't think I am. A job can be endlessly dangerous, but it doesn't register on your radar unless it involves person on person violence.

I get it man. If you were to admit that other people face danger that is just as dangerous as you face, then you'd lose your self-appointed position of Ultimate Authority on Danger.

No problem.