NYC Shooting
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
First, people should understand the Objective-Reasonableness standard, as put forth by the Supreme Court, before any judgement can be rendered as to whether force used was excessive. This issue was determined in the case of Graham vs. Conner. Basically it goes something like this:
The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
Now, from there, you must look at each officers actions individually, in light of the circumstances which he/she presents. Each officer will have to justify their own shooting, even if multiple officers are present and shooting.
In this particular case, I keep hearing about the totallity of bullets being excessive. That has absolutely no legal bearing on whether the use-of-force was excessive.
For instance, in this case of three officers shooting, you ask officer A why he shot and why the number of times he did. This individual officers actions are then deemed justified or not. Then you do the same with Officers B and C individually. If all are deemed to be within a legal standard, the the overall 20 rounds issue is irrelevant.
I believe it is peoples fundamental lack of understanding of the legal standard for excessive force which makes them call it such in the first place. And this for which they argue a criminal/civil penalty against officers.
In the second, I believe that people hold police officers to an unreasonably high standard. This is the case which usually begets a moral judgement. This usually comes from a lack of understanding the psychological/physiological reactions to a deadly threat stimulus with regards to police shootings, as well as the practical realities of police training.
The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
Now, from there, you must look at each officers actions individually, in light of the circumstances which he/she presents. Each officer will have to justify their own shooting, even if multiple officers are present and shooting.
In this particular case, I keep hearing about the totallity of bullets being excessive. That has absolutely no legal bearing on whether the use-of-force was excessive.
For instance, in this case of three officers shooting, you ask officer A why he shot and why the number of times he did. This individual officers actions are then deemed justified or not. Then you do the same with Officers B and C individually. If all are deemed to be within a legal standard, the the overall 20 rounds issue is irrelevant.
I believe it is peoples fundamental lack of understanding of the legal standard for excessive force which makes them call it such in the first place. And this for which they argue a criminal/civil penalty against officers.
In the second, I believe that people hold police officers to an unreasonably high standard. This is the case which usually begets a moral judgement. This usually comes from a lack of understanding the psychological/physiological reactions to a deadly threat stimulus with regards to police shootings, as well as the practical realities of police training.
jim777
Master Black Belt
A very good friend of mine was one of the first cops on the scene after the Diallo shooting, and spoke with a number of the cops involved. One of the things that never got mentioned in the media is exactly what happened there, and could have happened here. And that is: when you fire a gun down a long hallway, the sound of the gunfire bounces off the end of the hallway and comes back at you. You shoot, and half a second later the echo of the shot being fired hits you in the face. So, the cop firing the gun hears two shots. IMMEDIATELY your mind tells you the guy on the other end of the hallway is firing back. At that point, it is literally (and unfortunately) kill or be killed. So, you fire again, your partner fires, your shots and returns are echoing all over the place, smoke fills the area so you can't see what's going on....It's very unfortunate but that does contribute to high shot totals.
Anyway, Just a thought, I'm not lecturing anyone here.
I had another thought to throw in the mix - for the record, I'm just a citizen with a glock, and have never pointed a gun at anybody.
But it seems to be that if you're going to shoot, shoot! I've been taught at least two shots to the center of mass, and, if the guy is still standing, one to the head. The part that bothers me is the idea of emptying your gun through lack of discipline.
So I've heard different numbers: 3 or 5 cops shot 15 or 20 rounds. What kind of guns were they using?
Since I don't know, I'll try to make my point using a couple of scenarios.
We'll start conservative:
15 shots, 5 cops, with old service revolvers. Average: three shots apiece, leaving an average of three shots apiece, or 15 more rounds.
15 shots 3 cops, with revolvers, average, 5 rounds apiece, leaving one. On average, no empty guns yet.
18 shots, 3 cops, revolvers. Out of bullets on all counts.
I'm guessing they carried some sort of semi. Around here, the pistol of choice is the Glock .40. 15 round magazine, plus one in the pipe. For simplicity's sake, we'll call it 15.
3 cops, 20 shots. Average: Two shot 7, and one shot 6. That still leaves 25 shots between the three of them. Two with 8 left, and one with 9.
The 9mm. has 17 in the mag, and even the .45 has 13 rounds.
Not counting reloading mags.
I just don't get the sense that these guys fired away until their guns stopped firing.
Something else I had heard once on Glocktalk, and maybe someone here can shed some light on it. Someone suggested target practicing with a T-shirt over the target, because in self-defense situations, you often can't see where, or if, your bullets are hitting, especially in low-light.
That is, blood doesn't explode out of the wound like in hollywood special effects. (what do they call them? squibs?)
Maybe these guys couldn't see that they were hitting him, until he stopped.
But it seems to be that if you're going to shoot, shoot! I've been taught at least two shots to the center of mass, and, if the guy is still standing, one to the head. The part that bothers me is the idea of emptying your gun through lack of discipline.
So I've heard different numbers: 3 or 5 cops shot 15 or 20 rounds. What kind of guns were they using?
Since I don't know, I'll try to make my point using a couple of scenarios.
We'll start conservative:
15 shots, 5 cops, with old service revolvers. Average: three shots apiece, leaving an average of three shots apiece, or 15 more rounds.
15 shots 3 cops, with revolvers, average, 5 rounds apiece, leaving one. On average, no empty guns yet.
18 shots, 3 cops, revolvers. Out of bullets on all counts.
I'm guessing they carried some sort of semi. Around here, the pistol of choice is the Glock .40. 15 round magazine, plus one in the pipe. For simplicity's sake, we'll call it 15.
3 cops, 20 shots. Average: Two shot 7, and one shot 6. That still leaves 25 shots between the three of them. Two with 8 left, and one with 9.
The 9mm. has 17 in the mag, and even the .45 has 13 rounds.
Not counting reloading mags.
I just don't get the sense that these guys fired away until their guns stopped firing.
Something else I had heard once on Glocktalk, and maybe someone here can shed some light on it. Someone suggested target practicing with a T-shirt over the target, because in self-defense situations, you often can't see where, or if, your bullets are hitting, especially in low-light.
That is, blood doesn't explode out of the wound like in hollywood special effects. (what do they call them? squibs?)
Maybe these guys couldn't see that they were hitting him, until he stopped.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Sorry, but I'm going to cut this up and respond for convienence...
Everyone can have an opinion, but it would be nice if people looked to others who have been in similar situations or have been in shootings to broaden their viewpoint. The first thing people often comment on in these situations is how the number of shots fired is "excessive," when that usually isn't the case.
My point in mentioning that is to point out that I am a human being. I am not special. Anyone with some training can fire off a mag within a few seconds; shorter then it would take someone to register that the threat has stopped.
I was clear that WE meaning ALL OF US including you, do not know all the facts. But based on what we do know, this appears to be a clean shooting. We have to make judgements based on evidence that we have, not judgements based on speculations on what could happen from evidence we do not have.
In no way did I say that all the cops fired an equal number of shots. I was clear in saying that with 5 cops involved (the number given in the linked article) that leaves ABOUT 4 SHOTS per cop for 20 shots. I did not imply that each cop shot an equal number of shots. One could have shot 2, another 6, another 7, another 0, and another 5, for example. My point was that when you divy up the shots among 5 cops, 20 shots is not unreasonable.
Everyone can have an opinion, but it would be nice if people looked to others who have been in similar situations or have been in shootings to broaden their viewpoint. The first thing people often comment on in these situations is how the number of shots fired is "excessive," when that usually isn't the case.
My point in mentioning that is to point out that I am a human being. I am not special. Anyone with some training can fire off a mag within a few seconds; shorter then it would take someone to register that the threat has stopped.
I was clear that WE meaning ALL OF US including you, do not know all the facts. But based on what we do know, this appears to be a clean shooting. We have to make judgements based on evidence that we have, not judgements based on speculations on what could happen from evidence we do not have.
In no way did I say that all the cops fired an equal number of shots. I was clear in saying that with 5 cops involved (the number given in the linked article) that leaves ABOUT 4 SHOTS per cop for 20 shots. I did not imply that each cop shot an equal number of shots. One could have shot 2, another 6, another 7, another 0, and another 5, for example. My point was that when you divy up the shots among 5 cops, 20 shots is not unreasonable.
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
Exactly Cru. I think people believe that in these situations the cop is going to calmly aim 1-2 well aimed shots (perhaps to the leg, or shoot the gun out of his hand), you see those big gouts of blood so you know you hit him and down he goes and thats it. When in reality your scared, think you are going to get shot, you start shooting but nothing seems to happen so you keep on shooting. When theres 3 other people around you, each of you thinks that it ME hes shooting at or you think hes about to kill your partner.
And you are right, how is it that ANY side can critique the number of shots at this point? Im just saying that the number doesnt MEAN anything unless more evidence comes to light. Others seem to knee-jerk that any shooting past 5-6 rounds is automatically indicitive of poor training or an execution. Thats not the case. If you are justified in using deadly force, you use it till you are no longer justified. The number of shots it takes to get there is irrelavent IMO.
And you are right, how is it that ANY side can critique the number of shots at this point? Im just saying that the number doesnt MEAN anything unless more evidence comes to light. Others seem to knee-jerk that any shooting past 5-6 rounds is automatically indicitive of poor training or an execution. Thats not the case. If you are justified in using deadly force, you use it till you are no longer justified. The number of shots it takes to get there is irrelavent IMO.
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
What happens when your 2 to the body dont do anything and you miss the head shot? The failure drill is passe (sp?) for defensive shooting. If you are going in on a building entry where you are in that "mode" it may have its use, but in general you shoot untill the threat is stopped. You pause to see if your Mozambique drill worked, hes going to empty his gun into you. Rapid fire CQB point shooting is absolutely acceptable and not evidence of "panic shooting". Why do you think SWAT/SEAL/SAS guys go in and lay bursts of 9mm on people with their MP5's? Because pistol bullets are not the best tool for the job so you hit them as many times as you need to.
CoryKS
Senior Master
For a really good analysis of the Diallo case, may I recommend a book called Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking? Very interesting book about the method by which people make quick judgements. It's similar in concept to The Gift of Fear but broader in scale; where de Becker focuses on the quick judgements that set off our fear instinct, Gladwell looks at how the brain applies this method to all aspects of life. The final chapter is devoted to how and why the system breaks down, and he uses the Diallo case as an example. It was a lot more complicated than it was made out to be in the media.
It sounds like this case is similar. The information in the article was collected after the incident, and we don't know how much information the police had when they had to make fast decisions.
Totally agreed, that's why I qualified it with "at least." I figure train for at least two and one, then I won't just take one shot and freeze. Sometimes I train for 4 and two. Sometimes I unload my mag rapid fire to the CoM. I want to build good habits, but I don't want to constrain myself.
I've gotten some tips from a friend of mine who's in the FBI, and he stressed to me the importance of the difference in shooting, then analyzing, vs. analyzing while shooting. You could easily burn 6 rounds while analyzing, and you would typically be justified in doing so.
Especially if, like I was asking above, you're not seeing red marks from where you're hitting. You may not be getting feedback, until the guy falls down. (Not blown backwards, or shaken around like a rag doll, either).
Whoops, on re-reading your post Blotan, I realized I didn't communicate clearly what I meant to say was.
"The part that bothers me is the implication that they were emptying their guns through lack of discipline."
Instead of what I wrote:
I was responding to this post:
Then I tried to make the point that one the average there were plenty of shots left to deal with other situations, should something unforeseen have arisen. Obviously I wasn't clear. Sorry, but I was trying to agree with you.
"The part that bothers me is the implication that they were emptying their guns through lack of discipline."
Instead of what I wrote:
I was responding to this post:
Then I tried to make the point that one the average there were plenty of shots left to deal with other situations, should something unforeseen have arisen. Obviously I wasn't clear. Sorry, but I was trying to agree with you.
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
All good points. There are some people out there training (for lack of a better term) "random sequence engagement". You never shoot the same sequence of rounds twice in a row. On every command to fire you can shoot from 1-5/6 rounds.
Point taken. By now I should know when to just walk away...
redfang
Purple Belt
My department's policy is shoot until the threat stops. All officers are trained to shoot center mass of the target.
One reality is that most handguns do not have tremendous stopping power. If someone is jacked up on adrenaline, drugs, etc. they can be shot multiple times, keep advancing, and continue fighting for several minutes,EVEN IF THEY HAVE RECEIVED FATAL WOUNDS. A few months back, I attended an officer survival training. A portion of it was just watching car vid after car vid of officers shooting suspects many times and having those suspects continue to fight and in most of the tapes kill the officer. These were all actual footage, not dramatizations. One suspect took a shot to his heart and still managed to struggle with and then kill the officer.
One reality is that most handguns do not have tremendous stopping power. If someone is jacked up on adrenaline, drugs, etc. they can be shot multiple times, keep advancing, and continue fighting for several minutes,EVEN IF THEY HAVE RECEIVED FATAL WOUNDS. A few months back, I attended an officer survival training. A portion of it was just watching car vid after car vid of officers shooting suspects many times and having those suspects continue to fight and in most of the tapes kill the officer. These were all actual footage, not dramatizations. One suspect took a shot to his heart and still managed to struggle with and then kill the officer.
