"Officer Safety"-- the justification for nearly anything

[Hohn]

Being a LEO is a risky job. Most folks who sign up for that know this to be true and expect that it comes with the territory-- like military service. This risk is a major part of the reason we respect these LEOs and recognize their heroism.

It appears to me though that increasingly there is an expectation by some authorities that LEOs not face risk, or that the definition of what a reasonable risk is has shifted pretty dramatically.

Witness the number of news stories where the dog is killed-- just because.

Witness the number of times an armed person in a raid is killed just for being armed. Not threatening, not menancing, and sometimes just hasn't complied in the within milliseconds of patience the SWAT team has after commanding him to put his gun down. "Drop the gun!" Bang-- suspect gets shot almost immediately after.

Witness the militarization of police, with one department after another proudly displaying the MRAPS they get from the DoD. I submit to you there is never a need for a LEO to have an MRAP.

~~~

The common thread in all these cases is "officer safety." The problem is that safety is a myth-- there's always some amount of risk along the spectrum of security. There is NO LIMIT to the amount of abuse that can be justified in the name of "officer safety."

Suspect has a gun. He *might* use it, so shoot him. LTCH holder is armed. Better disarm him and confiscate the weapon because it *might* be a risk. Dog *might* bite you-- so shoot the dog preemptively.

It reminds me of those idiot reporters who freak out that a person can buy a gun from a private owner on Armslist. Afte all, you *MIGHT* be selling that gun to a murderer! That Barrett .50 MIGHT be used to shoot down a helicopter!

(aside: I always hoped the person being interviewed by those knuckleheads would retort with something like: "Yes, and you might be a child molester that I should shoot dead in the name of public safety-- you never know.")


I know that mantra about judged by 12 rather than carried by 6. You know what? It's complete and utter BS. Yes, it's better to be alive and on trial than be dead. But it's a completely false dichotomy that the only choices are being trigger happy and dealing with an IAB investigation or a jury trial, or getting killed.

There are time--surely-- when a LEO faces a legit "kill or be killed" situation.

But I have a really hard time taking the cops word for it if he or she should shoot first. If the suspect shoots first, then all doubt is removed. The intent is clear and I say open fire.

But when a cop shoots first? How do we know it was justified? He had a "hunch"? We can never know what really happened, because the other key witness is probably dead.



There seems to be an inherent tension between officer safety and public liberty.



Think of the Old West. Liberty of the public? About as free as you could ever be. Officer safety? Not so much. LEOs then were only as safe as the draw speed advantage they had over the BG.



I hope that we have the courage to live free, and that we don't deprive our LEOs of the nobility of their service by trying to remove all risks.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't know about officer being "a myth", certainly circumstances dictate this. The problem with it is that it is often a stalking horse for justifying bad searches, but that is my perspective.

You seem to be discussing deadly force? That standard is the same as everyone else, reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death.

Think of the Old West. Liberty of the public? About as free as you could ever be.

Ummm, you may wish to study history further. There were many restrictions, especially on certain ethnic groups (African-Americans, Chinese-Americans, etc.).

Officer safety? Not so much.

Have you read Bat Materson?

 

[88GT]

But I have a really hard time taking the cops word for it if he or she should shoot first. If the suspect shoots first, then all doubt is removed. The intent is clear and I say open fire.

But when a cop shoots first? How do we know it was justified? He had a "hunch"? We can never know what really happened, because the other key witness is probably dead.

There have been many a discussion here on INGO where I have wanted to say that in the interest of the liberty and life of the citizen, I believe that LE should be required to wait until fired upon before discharging a weapon in defense of themselves or other LEOs. For precisely the reason you have articulated here.


**Excuses herself to don the Nomex**

 

[rockhopper46038]

I'd agree with the OP to the extent that I believe our elected and appointed officials (if not so much the LEOs, themselves) have found for themselves a "trump card" that has been proven to work any time they wish to either impose more restrictions on individual freedom and liberties, or protect themselves from any criminal or civil liability that might be ascribed to the policies they write and implement using, in many cases, the local police force. That trump card being either "public safety", or alternatively "officer safety".

 

[Denny347]

We appreciate posters opinions here but alas they are only opinions.

 

[DOWNRANGE]

Not sure I want to comment on this thread due to the topic but must say one thing. There are more and more cameras, smart phones and traffic cams etc, helping one to figure out what really happened.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

believe that LE should be required to wait until fired upon before discharging a weapon in defense of themselves or other LEOs. For precisely the reason you have articulated here.

Do not police officers have a right to life? Are they not afforded the same rights as the rest of us?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

There have been many a discussion here on INGO where I have wanted to say that in the interest of the liberty and life of the citizen, I believe that LE should be required to wait until fired upon before discharging a weapon in defense of themselves or other LEOs. For precisely the reason you have articulated here.


**Excuses herself to don the Nomex**

Would you wait for someone to fire the first round?

 

[saberstar]

My problem is when they are found to be guilty of a crime they get paid time off or not even 10% of what a citizen would receive.

 

[Mark 1911]

As long as the people have equal access to the same weapons as our public servants, I don't see any issues. That being said, I would like one of those MRAPS for my deer hunting trips, it would look cool in the parking lot. And for my fishing trips and family outings on the lake, one of these would be nice:

 

[Denny347]

Courts have been LESS likely to use "officer safety" as a blanket in recent rulings. Indiana Supreme Court ruled, not too long ago, against officer safety reason for searching a vehicle incident to arrest of driver. That was allowed by USSC but ISC narrowed it down. No longer is officer safety justified as a reason to search a car. Look at stop and frisk that got struck down in NYC. There are other examples. LEOs are MUCH more restricted than our predecessors. Sit around and talk to retired LEOs and they will tell you stories that will make your hair stand up. They were allowed to get away with so much with the public and courts blessing. No way we are allowed to do such things anymore.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

My problem is when they are found to be guilty of a crime they get paid time off or not even 10% of what a citizen would receive.

Thats funny, Bisard got more time in prison than most non-cops that commit DUI causing death.

 

[Denny347]

My problem is when they are found to be guilty of a crime they get paid time off or not even 10% of what a citizen would receive.

Example?

 

[Denny347]

Would you wait for someone to fire the first round?

Of course she would.

 

[Denny347]

Do not police officers have a right to life? Are they not afforded the same rights as the rest of us?

Nah...that would take away the fun of whipping out their Johnson and pissing on us now wouldn't it?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sit around and talk to retired LEOs and they will tell you stories that will make your hair stand up.

Love the "Board of Directors" meetings here in Lafayette. That sounded like a good time to me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thats funny, Bisard got more time in prison than most non-cops that commit DUI causing death.

And convicted with blood draw that would have been thrown out in any other non-LEO case.

 

[Denny347]

And convicted with blood draw that would have been thrown out in any other non-LEO case.

Hell, I had a DUI case where I left the name line blank in the body of the charging affidavit. The screening prosecutor saw that and wrote it in for me when screening the case that night. Lawyer got the charge thrown out because of it at trial. I have a TON of situations like that. Business as usual in Indy for non LEO. But we get favored.....riiiiiight.

 

[JMoses]

Since LEO's (according to members of this website) are mere citizens, I think that Indiana should pass a law that says that ALL CITIZENS shall not fire a weapon at another individual unless that individual has been fired upon first.

 

[MAC100]

Since LEO's (according to members of this website) are mere citizens, I think that Indiana should pass a law that says that ALL CITIZENS shall not fire a weapon at another individual unless that individual has been fired upon first.

Though I see were you coming from you have to be carful with wording of laws. What about the 250lb man attacking and attempting to rape a 100lb woman with nothing but his hands. She fires on him but he did not fire on her first so... What about the guy that out weighs you by 100lbs and is 20 years younger and faster coming at you with a knife. You have your side arm but hey he did not fire on you so its a no go to use it.