This is what were up against

[Archangel M]

An article about an interesting study regarding civilian vs LE opinion regarding use of force:

http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews...s-would-shoot…and-when-they-think-you-should/

The bulk of the story describes how civilian subjects "shot" just about any and everybody in shoot/no shoot scenarios but then criticized officer decisions to shoot people who were in "obvious" (at least to anybody with a modicum of legal training) "shoot" situations.

“This result may have important implications for situations in which 12-person juries must evaluate a given police shooting….In any given, randomly selected jury of 12 citizens, these results suggest that on average, 1 or at most 2 jurors out of 12 would be likely to see an officer on trial in an officer-involved shooting situation as justified in shooting a perpetrator, even under the clearest and most appropriate of circumstances.”

Sharps and Hess want to conduct further research before drawing any solid gender conclusions. However, “no male respondent felt that a shooting response was justified with a female perpetrator,” and only 1 in 16 female respondents favored shooting the male gunman.

The reasons the respondents gave overall for their negative views on shooting graphically illustrate the cop-civilian disconnect. Some thought the suspect wouldn’t really fire because of “the daylight, public conditions of the situation.” Others “concocted elaborate rules of engagement” under which an officer might shoot: if the suspect fired first, or if the suspect had already committed murder, or if the officer had first tried to “convince” the suspect to drop the gun.

Still others “literally invoked the need for clairvoyance on the part of the police, saying that an officer should not fire…because the suspect ‘did not look like she wanted to kill.’ Several qualified their responses with the idea that if the police had to fire, they should shoot the perpetrator’s leg or arm, because…‘a shot to the leg is relatively harmless….’ ”

The researchers speculate that “many of these unrealistic responses may have derived from confusion of media depictions of police work with the real thing on the part of the public…and probably from unrealistic expectations concerning the workings and capabilities of the human nervous system….”

They conclude: “f these ideas and attitudes are as widespread as the results of this initial research effort suggest, there is substantial need for better education in the realities of crime and police work for the public from which, of course, all jurors are selected.…This extreme discrepancy between public perception and actual police policy and operations warrants further attention, both in future research and in the modern criminal justice system….

 

[sgtmac_46]

Thanks for posting this......i'll be getting lots of mileage out of this! Very interesting.

 

[MJS]

Great thread! This just goes to prove what I've been saying all along. People who own guns, typically don't put themselves thru anything else other than the typical course, therefore they never see any stress. The typical jury member will have a distorted view of martial arts, weapons, and use of force.

Its very easy to armchair QB when you're not the one in the officers shoes. I'd bet my paycheck for life that there will be at least one person in every LEO involved shooting, that somehow twists the story/situation, to make the LEO look like the bad guy. What these people fail to constantly see is that there is very little time to think.

The PD I dispatch for brought a trailer in a few years ago, with a FATS simulator in it. It was available for all of the officers, and they even asked a few of the dispatchers if they wanted to give it a try. I thought it'd be pretty cool so I did it.

Of course, like anything, you need to have the right mindset, so even though I knew I wasn't going to 'die' I did my best to think like a cop. I'll tell you what....it was more difficult and stressful than most would think. It really makes you think twice what you all go thru on a daily basis.

 

[KenpoTex]

good article...I enjoy reading stuff from the Force Science Institute. If you go to their website, you can sign up for the e-mails.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Couple of years ago a punk got shot by the cops because he drove through a roadblock and tried to hit the police officer. They shot him, and then there were riots, demanding 'justice for said'. Imo he got his justice instantly.

The reason he didn't want to stop was that the car was stolen or something like that. But at the moment when he hit the road block he had 2 choices: Stop, or try to drive through the officer. He chose wrong.

No crime warrants shooting on the spot. But if you are threatening with deadly force, you 've got it coming. None of this 'But he didn't look like he was going to shoot' crap. You pull a gun out, you get shot.

I don't have guns, and I am strongly in favor of gun control. But that does not mean I would second guess LEOs in a shoot.
I thought I'd mention this because I want to show that one does not imply the other. I can be in favor of gun control AND support an officer shooting someone who threatens deadly force. In fact, I am all in favor of it.
A situation that can be resolved by talking is preferable to shots fired, if only for the sake of the paperwork involved, but when in doubt, the well being of the bystanders and the officer himself is more important than the fate of the one who poses the threat.