Shooting debrief discussion

[Swanee]

I'd like to have a civil discussion- almost ASO/CRM style- about how his one went, and how the outcome could have been different. What went wrong? What went right? Could the outcome have been different? I don't think anyone going into this scenario wants this type of outcome. So what could be acceptably changed so no one dies? The ground rule is that you can't change the decisions or actions of the perpetrator. Sure, if he didn't drink and drive and fall asleep in a Wendy's drive through, or if he didn't resist, he wouldn't have been shot.

Edit: Decided not to put this one in the PNA side, because I think we have some folks who aren't NA/NFOs and could have some insight.

 

[Brett327]

Wondering from a procedural/legal POV if struggling with/fighting with an LEO provides a basis for the use of deadly force to prevent the suspect's flight. I know that can be justified in some cases, just don't know where that threshold lies. Also interested in the decision making - allow the suspect to flee and create a more favorable scenario to safely apprehend later vs. use of deadly force. Hard to argue that this suspect was a danger to others.

 

[Swanee]

Wondering from a procedural/legal POV if struggling with/fighting with an LEO provides a basis for the use of deadly force to prevent the suspect's flight. I know that can be justified in some cases, just don't know where that threshold lies. Also interested in the decision making - allow the suspect to flee and create a more favorable scenario to safely apprehend later vs. use of deadly force. Hard to argue that this suspect was a danger to others.

I've always been curious as to why the police like to go center of gravity on center of gravity rather than wait to go grab someone when that puts both the police in a much more advantageous situation and the suspect in a much more neutral/not defensive position.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I've always been curious as to why the police like to go center of gravity on center of gravity rather than wait to go grab someone when that puts both the police in a much more advantageous situation and the suspect in a much more neutral/not defensive position.

Explain what you mean by center of gravity on center of gravity? I’ve grappled/wrestled/jiu jitsu for 20 years and I’m not following your meaning.

If you mean chest on chest, chest on back, it’s because you can control the other individual while also being able to use your arms/hands. If you use your hands to grab someone how do you now control their hands and feet?

As to the shooting, it looked justified. The suspect appears to have taken an officers taser and was using it against the officers.

 

[Jim123]

Explain what you mean by center of gravity on center of gravity?

I think he meant figuratively, like meeting force with force and resolving the situation right now and solving it my way.

 

[Brett327]

I think he meant figuratively, like meeting force with force and resolving the situation right now and solving it my way.

That's very Clausewitzian of you.

 

[wiseguy04]

If the suspect had simply run off, it would have turned into a foot pursuit. However, the suspect stole an officer’s taser and pointed it at the officer while running away. This turned it into a justified deadly force encounter, mainly due to two combined facts:

1.) The suspect has already demonstrated a willingness to use force against police (resisting arrest, stealing a taser)

2.) The suspect is now armed with a Taser. If he uses it to incapacitate the officer and is able to retrieve the officer’s duty weapon, he could cause the death of that officer and many other innocent bystanders.

To allow the suspect to run off after firing a Taser at officers would have been irresponsible and placed the general public in danger. The suspect was a threat and the shooting appears to be justified.

 

[Swanee]

Explain what you mean by center of gravity on center of gravity? I’ve grappled/wrestled/jiu jitsu for 20 years and I’m not following your meaning.

If you mean chest on chest, chest on back, it’s because you can control the other individual while also being able to use your arms/hands. If you use your hands to grab someone how do you now control their hands and feet?

As to the shooting, it looked justified. The suspect appears to have taken an officers taser and was using it against the officers.

I think he meant figuratively, like meeting force with force and resolving the situation right now and solving it my way.

This is what I meant. It doesn't necessarily apply in this scenario- but stuff like serving warrants at someone's house- why go into a situation in which you have to gear up like crazy, and potentially face someone who thinks their justified in using force under castle doctrine laws (and are going to do so)? Why not just wait until they are coming out of the subway restroom?

 

[Jim123]

This is what I meant. It doesn't necessarily apply in this scenario- but stuff like serving warrants at someone's house- why go into a situation in which you have to gear up like crazy, and potentially face someone who thinks their justified in using force under castle doctrine laws (and are going to do so)? Why not just wait until they are coming out of the subway restroom?

Sounds exactly like the doctrine that got Jarrod Shivers killed. Sometimes the SWAT team is not the right answer- sometimes it's a pretty dumb answer.

 

[Swanee]

If the suspect had simply run off, it would have turned into a foot pursuit. However, the suspect stole an officer’s taser and pointed it at the officer while running away. This turned it into a justified deadly force encounter, mainly due to two combined facts:

1.) The suspect has already demonstrated a willingness to use force against police (resisting arrest, stealing a taser)

2.) The suspect is now armed with a Taser. If he uses it to incapacitate the officer and is able to retrieve the officer’s duty weapon, he could cause the death of that officer and many other innocent bystanders.

To allow the suspect to run off after firing a Taser at officers would have been irresponsible and placed the general public in danger. The suspect was a threat and the shooting appears to be justified.

1) Concur. But is that "part of the job" and the oath? Different scenario argument here but just because someone has shown that they have a willingness to use force against American forces in El-foreign-country-istan, does that give us the right to shoot them?

2) Was the taser usable after it was discharged? It appears that while he may have hit the cop with it, the barbs didn't stick and it didn't do anything to him (other than surprise the crap out of him).

Is using a lethal weapon against a non-lethal weapon a proper response? If I throw a rock in this scenario, can you shoot me?

Can we discuss how he lost the taser? Was there something that could be done to prevent that? Dummy cording?

Also- why go in 2v1 in this situation? Why not have the taser guy at a standoff distance that gives him the ability to either run the guy down or have a clear taser shot?

What if it was the guy who lost the taser did the shooting? Does that change this scenario?

I'm not saying these guys acting unprofessionally or outside of the scope of their training (I think they conducted themselves well, and within the scope of their training). I'm just curious if there was a way to have a different outcome? Or was use of the authority that we the people give the police to kill people, really used as a last resort here?

 

[Jim123]

Those are smart questions. The answers get in to gray areas... which I'm guessing is why you asked them.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I am just very surprised at this incident as the officers and suspect were nice to each other, had decent conversations, the officers treated him respect while they explained everything, the suspect talked about what was going on in his life, and then it just went bad. I would think given how everything had gone up to that point the officers didn't think that he would just start fighting them. The officer who fired was afterward asking the supervisor "how is Mr. Brooks", so he seemed to show a legitimate concern about him.

Given how this has gone down I wonder how many officers will now just let a suspect run to avoid being in a situation like this?

 

[Mos]

I'm just curious if there was a way to have a different outcome? Or was use of the authority that we the people give the police to kill people, really used as a last resort here?

Looks to me like a case of stupid suspect breaking the cops' decision loop. Granted, this is why most level headed people will say don't do stupid stuff like the deceased did (both leading up to and during the incident), but it's also worth looking at the decision loop, what conditions it, how easy it is to shatter it and whether this should be the case.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

If the guy was just running away, chase him, let him go, whatever. You have his identity and his car. Once he took the taser he was asking to get shot.

It’s especially disheartening to me that a response has been to remove police from schools in many cities/districts. Kids need positive interactions with police and grow up understanding the consequences of fighting police.

 

[Swanee]

I am just very surprised at this incident as the officers and suspect were nice to each other, had decent conversations, the officers treated him respect while they explained everything, the suspect talked about what was going on in his life, and then it just went bad. I would think given how everything had gone up to that point the officers didn't think that he would just start fighting them. The officer who fired was afterward asking the supervisor "how is Mr. Brooks", so he seemed to show a legitimate concern about him.

Given how this has gone down I wonder how many officers will now just let a suspect run to avoid being in a situation like this?

I agree. I won't lie, before I saw the video and the interactions between the police officer and the guy I imagined a different scenario. This one went sideways quickly, and well after the initial relationship between the two parties were established.

If the guy was just running away, chase him, let him go, whatever. You have his identity and his car. Once he took the taser he was asking to get shot.

It’s especially disheartening to me that a response has been to remove police from schools in many cities/districts. Kids need positive interactions with police and grow up understanding the consequences of fighting police.

Was the taser still usable after he shot it at the police? Should that be part of the decision process? And is lethal force a proper response to a non-lethal weapon? Again, I'm not saying that the police officer who shot was necessarily in the wrong/went against what they're trained to it. But- is the response one that should be looked at as something to train to or not to do? Is this a case where we can collectively say, "Yeah, this guy needed to die then and there." I don't know.

I do agree that people need more positive interactions with the police, and that includes adults as much as it includes kids.

Would it help if police didn't show up strapped, and wearing bullet proof vests? How would things change if they looked a little more like Riggs and Murtaugh and less like RoboCop? Do we have the right mix of diplomacy and force? Too much of one and not enough of the other?