The Direction of Law Enforcement

[Gunner3456]

First, I don't have all the answers.
If I did, would I be on here as a mod? Sorry Joe!

Real or fake Officers happen, don't have an answer for ya...great society we live in eh?

Blaming the Officer for the confusion in this incident is really not accurate. Most officers are issued their cars, meaning they may not have a choice, so blame SCSO for using unmarked cars, not the officers fault.

Blaming the police department is valid though, IMHO. They shouldn't be having officers make late night and potentially escalating calls in unmarked cars, IMHO.

Also I need to point out, the Deputy was still in his car at the time he was identifying himself...a definite disadvantage. If you were the one approaching said car, and was drawn down on, you are able to exit the threat area a lot faster than the person in the car. It takes time to put the gun down, start the car (if needed), place in gear, and stomp on the gas. Yes, can happen pretty fast...but the average shooter can also empty a 10 shot magazine in about a second and a half or less.

And, go to prison even though a stranger had pulled down on him. The police catch a break we don't get. It may surprise some, but I value my life as much as an officer values his.

May the dregs of society dress up like a SWAT team and invade your home?
Yep, may happen...but tell me how to keep it from happening?

Don't know, and wouldn't say here. I've always believed, as have countless members of the military and our founding fathers, that some things are worth dying for. I also never planned on living forever. "We pledge our lives and our fortunes..." And, they knew they were committing treason against the King and the penalty was a quick ride on a rope.

If someone wants to truly kill you, there's not a thing you can do about it. Some things we have no control over, some things we do.

That depends on the circumstances, my equipment at the time and my ability including situational awareness. But, you're probably right.

We need to try to minimize the things we can't control, if its possible...and be ever vigilant for the things we can.

How true.

 

[hermannr]

BTW: Thank you for your response.

I have a couple questions, and some speculation (founded, but speculation)

Here is what I see happen: Creech walks up to the car, Hirzil says "police: drop the gun" Creech says "prove it" and puts his gun in his belt (that part is fact as posted in one of the news reports at the time. When they collected up Creech's body the gun was found in his belt).

I put the Creech says "prove it" in their on speculation for two reasons...I know what the guy was like, and to set up one of my questions. Before I can assume you have any authority, and before I may respond as you would like me too, I want to know you are not someone impersonating a cop. The law says that if questioned, you also have to prove your identity. No?

I think that it is very telling that Hirzel stated that Creech never pointed the gun at him. So, where was the threat that required a response of deadly force.

My speculation: Hirzel paniced.

 

[wichaka]

For a moment, let's take Hirzel and Creach out of the equation, and analyze just the part of the incident where Creach closes the distance to, as Hirzel states, within 3 feet of his patrol car.

I think what's remarkable is the fact that a person, whether LE or not, has a gun pointed at another, and that person continues to close the distance. A disregard of an obvious threat...no?

Which again begs a few questions; Any ambient light? What's the eye sight of the person who chose to disregard command(s) to stop, and continue to close the distance? What's his demeanor at the time? Mental capacity?

Here's a perfect example of the 'reasonable person' factor that the courts look at, at the time of the incident. What 'reasonable' person, with a gun pointed at them, told to stop, would continue to close the distance?

I agree with LE identifying oneself, no argument there.

Question: Did Creach not see the gun that was being pointed at him, or was he in such an angered mood that he disregarded the possible threat?

So, where was the threat that required a response of deadly force?
It was at the time when Hirzel had pointed in on Creach, (in his statement) identifies himself, and commands Creach to drop his gun. Creach disregards and continues to close the distance.

No LE person and citizen alike, has to wait for someone to point a gun at them to feel threatened. Again, open carry does not apply here. But a person unknown to you, with gun in hand, who is told to stop, and continues to close the distance, is now considered a threat.

This is what must be articulated in your eventual statement to your attorney, and then possible testimony in court to keep yourself in the clear...civil suit not withstanding...sorry.

Now, should there be some witnesses to the incident, whom all see it differently...your goose may be cooked. But if you know what your actions are, and they pretty much follow what I outlined above, you should be good to go. I said 'should', nothing is a given. I'll say it here again, seek out the advice of an experienced attorney who is well versed in use of force issues, and your money will be well spent, and you can thank me later.

 

[Gunner3456]

I'm completely confused. As it happens, we do live in an area with no street lights and no real close neighbors. Believe me, it gets dark out there. When I go outside at night I don't turn on house lights because then I highlight myself, not someone lurking, maybe even in the woods. I let my eyes adjust.

Now, we have a nice paved driveway. If I saw an unmarked car sitting in it at 11:00 at night, my hackles would go up. Even police draw their guns at night to search around a house. I've seen them do it. I carry my G23 24/7 and I'm really cautious outside at night.

I probably wouldn't approach that car. I'd probably go right back into the house and put some lights on him and observe. I might dial 911.

However, if I did chose to approach the car (it's my property after all) and I saw even the glint of a gun, some people might die. I promise my gun would be drawn. I might have even gone back into the house and grabbed something better first.

The stupidity of sending an unmarked car at 0 dark thirty, and having an officer in it with gun drawn just baffles me.

 

[Buddhalux]

I dunno about that Wichaka. Some of us were trained to run towards the guns firing. As any Infantryman how they get out of a kill zone or respond to an ambush.

 

[Swedish K]

ya know up in this part of the country many of the undercover vehicles really are undercover and don't stand out like a sore thumb unlike other places I have lived. I think the only full sized rear wheel drive sedans with standard black steel wheels and chrome center caps sold in this country all go to cop shops. That said I can see why you might doubt an undercover being legitimate. I also can say that even if you were right, that it was an imposter, do you really want to continue to advance on him after a warning and be "dead right"?

 

[Gunner3456]

ya know up in this part of the country many of the undercover vehicles really are undercover and don't stand out like a sore thumb unlike other places I have lived. I think the only full sized rear wheel drive sedans with standard black steel wheels and chrome center caps sold in this country all go to cop shops. That said I can see why you might doubt an undercover being legitimate. I also can say that even if you were right, that it was an imposter, do you really want to continue to advance on him after a warning and be "dead right"?

Just for me, I think I already addressed whether I would advance. My answer was no I wouldn't, but that I legally could, and that if I did I'd probably first go get a battle rifle.

My only reason for answering your post is to say that around here, the unmarked cars are mainstream cars with full wheel covers, etc. One that I know of is a silver 2008 Impala, just like my wife's. I mean just like it. Not even the license plate style gives it away as anything other than someone's car.

It had best not be parked in my rural driveway at 11:00 at night and not expect a reaction from me. The reaction might only be that I arm myself better, put some bright lights on it, and dial 911, but I'd react.

 

[wichaka]

I dunno about that Wichaka. Some of us were trained to run towards the guns firing. As any Infantryman how they get out of a kill zone or respond to an ambush.

There's a clear difference here; We are discussing citizen and home life street issues, not military operations.


First, the court has a 'reasonableness' standard they apply in making their decision(s).

Next; they do not look at what a "Infantryman' would do, they look at what a 'reasonable' person at the time of the incident would do.


Apples - Oranges?

 

[packman]

you and your type are what is missing in large part for the LE world. thank you for your service. i wish there more like you

 

[wichaka]

I appreciate your kind words, thanks for your support...and I don't take that lightly!

Knowledge is power, so instead of letting the public flounder with laws, procedures, policies etc., that they may not be aware of, or not understand...tis better to have some quality, constructive communication about how things work, so all can come together and be better informed and work together for the common good, instead of having this deep division.

Again, I'm not here to change anyone's mind...that's up to each individual person.

The offer is open to anyone who wants to come out and ride a shift with me...my passenger seat is waiting.

What I'm trying to do is dispel some of the myths and fallacies that have come up from the public over the years. I want to explain why things are done a certain way, how we go about our doing the job. The best way I know how to do this is back it up with laws, and indisputable facts...not opinions or assumptions.

If I'm asked an opinion, I'll give you my best shot at it based on my training, knowledge and experience.

As I wind up my career, looking at pulling the plug for good at the end of the year...but the way the economy is going, and a daughter wanting to be a veterinarian, I may be doing this job til I'm tottering around with a walker!

 

[Gunner3456]

I appreciate your kind words, thanks for your support...and I don't take that lightly!

Knowledge is power, so instead of letting the public flounder with laws, procedures, policies etc., that they may not be aware of, or not understand...tis better to have some quality, constructive communication about how things work, so all can come together and be better informed and work together for the common good, instead of having this deep division.

Again, I'm not here to change anyone's mind...that's up to each individual person.

The offer is open to anyone who wants to come out and ride a shift with me...my passenger seat is waiting.

What I'm trying to do is dispel some of the myths and fallacies that have come up from the public over the years. I want to explain why things are done a certain way, how we go about our doing the job. The best way I know how to do this is back it up with laws, and indisputable facts...not opinions or assumptions.

If I'm asked an opinion, I'll give you my best shot at it based on my training, knowledge and experience.

As I wind up my career, looking at pulling the plug for good at the end of the year...but the way the economy is going, and a daughter wanting to be a veterinarian, I may be doing this job til I'm tottering around with a walker!

Wichaka, I know you're a good guy and an exemplary LEO. Maybe your whole department is exemplary. Thanks for the ride along offer, but I'll pass. I know I'd see only the good side of law enforcement officers, and the bad side of humanity.

Years ago I went on several such rides with a fairly young cop who was a relative. I can tell you that he and his cronies took pride in abusing frequent fliers. They didn't try to hide it from me, believing that I was a "friendly." I kept my mouth shut and never complained because I didn't want family strife. I got it later anyway because some people are all bad.

Some of us who have rare contact with law enforcement have knowledge and experience which is appalling. I've had a couple of driving tickets and that was all good. The officers were professional and I had it coming - no complaints - I just paid the fines.

It would be very, very hard to convince me that it's not true that many bullies and type A personalities are attracted to that car, lights, siren, uniform, badge etc., and the authority which goes with it. Around here, they even socialize in groups. They believe they are better than others (they are "special") and, NO one else wants them.

$.02

 

[wichaka]

It would be very, very hard to convince me that it's not true that many bullies and type A personalities are attracted to that car, lights, siren, uniform, badge etc., and the authority which goes with it. Around here, they even socialize in groups. They believe they are better than others (they are "special") and, NO one else wants them.

$.02

I think I pointed that out with my first post...no argument here, it happens.

 

[Riot]

Next; they do not look at what a "Infantryman' would do, they look at what a 'reasonable' person at the time of the incident would do.

Actually this has changed from the "Reasonable Person Standard" to the "Reasonable Officer Standard".

It judges the officer by the perspective from another officer with the same amount of training given a similar circumstance if they would have a similar outcome.


Been studying up on case law and use of force policies lately...trying to become a defensive tactics instructor for my facility.

 

[Jammer Six]

Actually this has changed from the "Reasonable Person Standard" to the "Reasonable Officer Standard".

That's interesting. I'd like to read about it, if you have a source, please.

 

[wichaka]

The 'Reasonable' person standard applies to citizens in both TORT and criminal proceedings. The basic definition is; what a 'reasonable' person would do in the same or similar circumstance.

The 'reasonable' officer standard is fairly similar, but more outlined by the courts; The inquiry must be limited to the facts and circumstances confronting officer(s) at that time...judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

It is within this context, this perspective that the reasonableness of an officer's judgment of the "necessity" to use deadly force must be viewed.

I have seen and heard both standards still being brought up in court. Again, the standard is very close, but one is geared more for LE. Again, we thank the courts (The Supremes) for this.

The reasonableness standard started with the court case Graham v Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989), where 3 issues of 'reasonableness' surfaced about the police use of force;

1 - what was the severity of the crime that the officer believed the suspect to have committed or be committing?

2 - did the suspect present an immediate threat to the safety of officer(s) or the public?

3 - was the suspect actively resisting arrest or attempting to escape?

The above case also brought out the following;

"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." -- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-397 (1989)

We can also get into the argument of, officer caused or contributed to the necessity of;

Basically is that if officers had performed their duties differently, the suspects would have been denied the opportunity, or ability, to commit the threatening acts that justified the use of deadly force.

There are at least three problems with this line of argument.

First, it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's insistence in Graham v. Connor that the relevant facts and circumstances are those confronting the officer(s) at the moment;

Second, it extends the application of the fourth amendment to actions and events that precede either a search or a seizure;

And, third, it opens up a wide range of legal duties owed by the police to suspects, effectively making the police responsible for a suspect's actions as well as for their own.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that reasonableness under the fourth amendment does not require police officers to choose the least intrusive alternative, only a reasonable one. Following that principle, most courts have rejected arguments that the use of deadly force was not necessary because officers had less intrusive options available or it was made necessary by the actions of the officers themselves.

Taking the above and putting it in an example; in another thread on here about the young male with a knife, see here; http://www.northwestfirearms.com/ge...44-medford-police-shoot-kill-another-one.html.

The police may confront and surround a subject, keep him for going anywhere, because of the threat/danger the subject may pose to the community, and have no legal obligation to retreat, or use less lethal force, etc.

I said MAY, I didn't say they are commanded to do it. As I have said in other posts, there is always discretion and it should be applied to every situation. But the bottom line is, the courts have held that LE can confront and control dangerous subjects, and officers may not be held liable for doing so, no matter how the subject responds.

 

[Jammer Six]

Thanks, Wichaka. I'm going to track down the citation.

 

[michaels]

Wichaka,

From reading your posts here,
it seems like,
You believe that if the public knows the laws surrounding use of force by the police, they will be more accepting of them.
I understand that the laws are geared towards the police, and if I or anyone I love were shot by the police, it would be found legal.

Not that I forsee this happening in my life.

I think what needs to happen is different training of the police.

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

Too often I hear of a police shooting, and o believe that it was the police who escalated the situation.

Again, I live in Portland, and while I am aware of the "danger" of my city, a knowledge of where you are and how to interact with people will keep you safer than any amount of firepower.

This is where I see the local police lacking.

There's too much "listen to me, law is on my side, and I'm a good guy"

 

[wichaka]

michaels,

...not necessarily accepting the laws, just have a (better) understanding of them.

I've posted two things a few times in this thread;

1 - Not trying to change anyone's mind;

2 - Discretion must be used in all incidents. Meaning; just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD.

Statements such as "Why didn't they shoot the gun/knife out of his hand." "Why didn't they tase him/her instead" "That officer just plain murdered him/her." etc., and the list goes on. Over the years this kinda tells me that possibly some people don't know, what they don't know.

I am laying out the frame work for which LE operates, this allows everyone to see for themselves how the system works, and what has shaped it...right or wrong. It is up to every individual to research the info., and see for themselves how they feel about it after a good digestion period.

One can still cry foul with the next Police shooting, but it would go a long way towards ones credibility if they got the correct facts first, before wanting to lynch someone.

So before or the next time, someone cries out "How do the Police get away with that?", read what I've posted. It may not change your mind about LE, and its not intended to...but it may at least shed some light on the standard used, to reach the final outcome decision...right, wrong, or indifferent.


In the area of training, what needs to be done different?

 

[michaels]

Essentially, police need to curb there "enthusiasm" to use deadly force.

At the slightest perception of danger, many times in the last decade, the Portland police have made regretable decisions regarding use of force.

I do agree with you that reactive, consistent, blanket statements is a sign of ignorance.

I believe that I (purposefully) threw a hardball example to you, of what I feel is wrong with the modern, local police and I believe the answer I received was a comment on my ignorance.

 

[wichaka]

Essentially, police need to curb there "enthusiasm" to use deadly force.

A couple things come to mind;

1 - We live in a more violent world;

2 - Seems we hear more about this kind of thing, whether its LE or the public doing it...dirty laundry sells.

Overall, society as a whole tends to have a propensity to be more violent. There's definitely frustration on both sides of the coin.

Looking at this from a purely citizen point of view...there are standards, laws etc. that exonerate both LE and citizen alike in some instances. We all tend to grimace when criminals get off because of some technicality, or worse when someone whom we think should get off for defending their life, gets tagged with manslaughter...unfortunately it can go both ways.

Overall I think common sense has left the building.