I had a run in with a CCW'er last night...

[Michael Brown]

Michael you bring up the Diallo case, which does indeed back up the reaching for the waistband as reasonable justification for a shooting, I do however, have a quote from a police official interviewed after the shooting: 1999: "It looks like one guy may have panicked and the rest followed suit," a police official told The New York Times after the fatal shooting of 22-year-old Amadou Ahmed Diallo, a Guinnea-Bissau immigrant who was killed when four white New York police officers in plain clothes fired 41 shots at him, 19 of which hit his body. The officers said they thought Diallo was reaching for a gun when they shot him in the doorway of his apartment. Turns out it was his wallet." Are we sure that is a good standard to follow?
Anyway, I know the police have a tough job and are under appreciated, however, there does seem to be an us verses them mentality in certain officers (not saying this was the case here) and in some instances even viewing the people they protect and serve as enemy combatants. It seems a more balanced approach could be reached.

Apparently you did not read the cross examination of this official during the trial counselor.

This statement got torn apart during cross when the "official" admitted to not having had training in this area in years nor ever having ANY specialized training in shooting decisions.

He also admitted that his statement was base off the assessment of rumors and other unreliable evidence not facts.

While I do agree the Diallo case is not an optimal piece of police work, the post I was responding to used the wallet example and I was illustrating that the comment regarding hindsight knowledge vs. present knowledge is not accepted by courts even in the most disputed cases, of which I consider the Diallo case.

I would have expected a "fool-checker" of your stature to recognize that.

I don't disagree in the slightest that there is an "Us vs. Them" mentality in certain officers as you point out. However I'd say the there is an equally prevelent "Us vs. Them" mentality coming from certain groups of citizens.

It takes BOTH an "Us" and a "Them" to create an "Us vs. Them" situation.

The bottom line is that both groups are the minority in their pool and no one should broadly judge a group by the distasteful few.

Michael Brown

 

[MLR]

The is completely inaccurate both legally and ethically. Reasonable perception is the standard not absolute fact.

For instance if a subject points a realistic-looking toy pistol at you during the course of a robbery and you BELIEVE your life is in danger, you are justified in using deadly force.

This is a mistake of fact shooting. The subject posed no lethal threat to you, so by your logic that person should be guilty of negligent homicide.

Agreed. Under this circumstance any reasonable person would assume you are in extreme danger.

However, unexplained movement to the waistband is a court-accepted pre-assault cue; i.e. the Diallo shooting in NYC. Two courts both accepted than when confronted with ALL the facts, this was a reasonable mistake of fact shooting.

I believe the Courts were wrong to set this president in this case. If I were to come across a group of gang members when walking at night would I be justified in shooting if one reaches to his back pocket? Does my fear of gangs raise to the level of me legally being in fear of death or great bodily harm?
Do the police have a lower limit to meet when using deadly force?

That is absolutely stupid.

While we may disagree and I may indeed be ignorant of different subjects I assure you that I am not stupid. I had hoped better than name calling from someones who's writings and judgment I respect.

Michael

 

[purplehaze]

Touche! I did not read the cross as closely as I should have.
Yes, Michael I know you were using the wallet scenario for a hindsight view of the facts and I also, one hundred percent agree with you that hindsight cant be used in police/self-defense shootings as evidence of wrongdoing. I understand that looking at facts from a video from behind a desk are vastly different from being there under fire so, to speak. I thought I made it clear I was diverging from the actual argument to merely throw dirt on that particular case and I think Diallo (after admitting to not reading the defense's cross very carefully) is a poor case to use and I say this using more feeling than fact. I also, think my opinion of my feeling of a situation shouldn't be used as a standard either. On another matter what do you do read cop cases all day?
On the US vs Them matter. It doesn't matter how the citizens behave the Officer has the authority in a stop and should be held to a much higher standard and I also, agree it is a minority on both sides that hold this opinion.
However, in this instance someone would be dead for what appears to be an over reaction... it seems clear to me the bar should be high with that kind of power.

Apparently you did not read the cross examination of this official during the trial counselor.

This statement got torn apart during cross when the "official" admitted to not having had training in this area in years nor ever having ANY specialized training in shooting decisions.

He also admitted that his statement was base off the assessment of rumors and other unreliable evidence not facts.

While I do agree the Diallo case is not an optimal piece of police work, the post I was responding to used the wallet example and I was illustrating that the comment regarding hindsight knowledge vs. present knowledge is not accepted by courts even in the most disputed cases, of which I consider the Diallo case.

I would have expected a "fool-checker" of your stature to recognize that.

I don't disagree in the slightest that there is an "Us vs. Them" mentality in certain officers as you point out. However I'd say the there is an equally prevelent "Us vs. Them" mentality coming from certain groups of citizens.

It takes BOTH an "Us" and a "Them" to create an "Us vs. Them" situation.

The bottom line is that both groups are the minority in their pool and no one should broadly judge a group by the distasteful few.

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

On another matter what do you do read cop cases all day?

That's why my daily rate to attorneys is high.

In reality I try to keep up as much as I can because I believe very strongly that police and armed citizens almost always do the right thing in use of force situations from a legal/ethical standpoint.

Those who seek to take those rights from us or benefit from our society's proclivity to allow anyone to sue anyone for anything are usually extremely unscrupulous.

Thus those who are on the side of right have to be twice as prepared to take on those enemies both by gun and by pen.

I simply try to do my best on both fronts.

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

Agreed. Under this circumstance any reasonable person would assume you are in extreme danger.

Then why would you demand 20/20 hindsight from anyone else?

I believe the Courts were wrong to set this president in this case. If I were to come across a group of gang members when walking at night would I be justified in shooting if one reaches to his back pocket? Does my fear of gangs raise to the level of me legally being in fear of death or great bodily harm?
Do the police have a lower limit to meet when using deadly force?

That is just the point. You cannot find a case where someone was shot SIMPLY for reaching for their wallet when asked for ID from police. The gang member example you cite offers no qualification for unexplained movement to the waistband.

Now, if these same gang members surround you, ask you to give them a loan, and then one reaches for his back pocket you are certainly entitled to defend yourself just as any police officer would. I will be glad to serve as an expert witness in such a case. If I were to respond as a police officer and was aware of these facts, you can be certain that I would believe this to be a justifiable shooting and would voice same.

While we may disagree and I may indeed be ignorant of different subjects I assure you that I am not stupid. I had hoped better than name calling from someones who's writings and judgment I respect.

Michael

I would guess that you are not stupid as well. The line of reasoning you used WAS stupid.

Otherwise intelligent people have said/done plenty of stupid things, myself included.

I simply try to mitigate my participation by avoiding making broad generalizations, especially about topics I'm not informed about and can't defend with evidence.

Michael Brown

 

[Glocktogo]

I've had many a long discussion with MB over the years. I've disagreed with him from time to time. This is definitely not one of those occasions. Mike is passionate in this area of the law and very well versed. You may certainly disagree with him from an emotional standpoint, but his facts in the matter are unassailable. Thanks for the input on this one Mike!

 

[Robert871]

You were totally correct in your actions, naturally. ideally she should have announced aloud that she has a ccw and its in the glove box, next to where the insurance verification is.

but (and i am not trying to degrade your side, nor empower hers), i can see from her side too. she just got pulled over, chances are she know shes in trouble for speeding or whatever, we do not think clearly, so we follows orders, once she handed her ccw permit, her brain told her that problem was covered and immediately focused on getting the insurance which was the final part of her instruction. i see nothing odd about the placement of the insurance verification, i keep mine in the little owners manual in the glove box too, makes perfect sense to have it there, its always with the vehicle, and the book has a card holder for it... i can also see the glove box being a common place for the pistol. i personally do not keep mine there, but im sure many people do. just the way it went, i mean when you screw up and are in trouble, im sure you are flustered and forgetful too. i would certainly not say shes not suited to have a ccw, at least that this situation would prove shes not....

with that said, its no ones fault, the police do what they need to do, and rightly so; i think we have all seen at least one or two of those horrifying clips of camera footage of an officer pulling over a person for a routine traffic violation only to be shot dead with no warning, its a tough job and you have to always be on your game, i would not change a thing in your actions in this situation.

if anything could be done to have helped this been a more smooth stop, i suppose it would be education, to keep up and have maybe brought the idea to the for front of her mind that she should have announced that she had the pistol there to both police officers, instead of just letting the monkey brain take over and say "well now i gotta grab the insurance card, i hope i do not get a ticket". in fact i can guarantee that is exactly what was going on in her head, simply never thought twice that it was in there and was an issue after handing the permit to your partner; granted it certainly should have.

EDIT:
maybe this is a whole different can of worms to open up.. and i have put no legal thought or piratical thought to this so please do not hold me to it; but has anyone suggested incorporating asking if the person has a weapon on them, or a ccw permit when engaging in a traffic stop?


i mean i know we are required to inform them of it, but would it not make it more simple and give the officer more control of the stop by insuring a straight answer and motive, i mean if she said no i don't, and then you see the gun huge red flag. but had you been able to ask and she said yes, the next obvious question would have been where is it, "oh its in the glove box right next to my insurance" crisis adverted.

just seems like an obvious question anymore, with the growing masses of people getting ccws.

 

[Michael Brown]

You were totally correct in your actions, naturally. ideally she should have announced aloud that she has a ccw and its in the glove box, next to where the insurance verification is.

but (and i am not trying to degrade your side, nor empower hers), i can see from her side too. she just got pulled over, chances are she know shes in trouble for speeding or whatever, we do not think clearly, so we follows orders, once she handed her ccw permit, her brain told her that problem was covered and immediately focused on getting the insurance which was the final part of her instruction. i see nothing odd about the placement of the insurance verification, i keep mine in the little owners manual in the glove box too, makes perfect sense to have it there, its always with the vehicle, and the book has a card holder for it... i can also see the glove box being a common place for the pistol. i personally do not keep mine there, but im sure many people do. just the way it went, i mean when you screw up and are in trouble, im sure you are flustered and forgetful too. i would certainly not say shes not suited to have a ccw, at least that this situation would prove shes not....

with that said, its no ones fault, the police do what they need to do, and rightly so; i think we have all seen at least one or two of those horrifying clips of camera footage of an officer pulling over a person for a routine traffic violation only to be shot dead with no warning, its a tough job and you have to always be on your game, i would not change a thing in your actions in this situation.

if anything could be done to have helped this been a more smooth stop, i suppose it would be education, to keep up and have maybe brought the idea to the for front of her mind that she should have announced that she had the pistol there to both police officers, instead of just letting the monkey brain take over and say "well now i gotta grab the insurance card, i hope i do not get a ticket". in fact i can guarantee that is exactly what was going on in her head, simply never thought twice that it was in there and was an issue after handing the permit to your partner; granted it certainly should have.

EDIT:
maybe this is a whole different can of worms to open up.. and i have put no legal thought or piratical thought to this so please do not hold me to it; but has anyone suggested incorporating asking if the person has a weapon on them, or a ccw permit when engaging in a traffic stop?


i mean i know we are required to inform them of it, but would it not make it more simple and give the officer more control of the stop by insuring a straight answer and motive, i mean if she said no i don't, and then you see the gun huge red flag. but had you been able to ask and she said yes, the next obvious question would have been where is it, "oh its in the glove box right next to my insurance" crisis adverted.

just seems like an obvious question anymore, with the growing masses of people getting ccws.

I thought this was a balanced, thoughtful post.

Thanks.

Michael Brown

 

[Lithiumokc]

I hope I'm not in the wrong here but it seems to me the problem was a communication failure on the contacting officers part. If everyone's one the same page this would have never been a problem. If she would have started looking around to see if other officers were on the sene to notify each one it would have appeared she was up to something and could have made things much worse. I'm not on anyones side and am not an officer nor have any desire to be but pointing the finger at the ccwer because the contacting officer didn't feel the need to keep his partner up to speed does not make sense to me..

I mean what if he would have put her down? The second shots were fired he would be like.. hey, she informed me of the weapon, why did you shoot her.

 

[juscvin]

For some reason I can't leave this alone.

Please don't confuse this as bashing any LEO, it is not, but this incident was handled poorly, on both sides. Don't the Officers involved typically control the situation? I'm not an LEO, and I have the greatest respect for those that are, it's a tough job, with little respect. That said I also understand the constant threat to the well being of the Officer and the need to control the outcome of any contact with public. I can see though that pulling your gun, pointing it at the occupants of the vehicle, and yelling did nothing to help the situation. Saying that this incident "almost got her shot" doesn't sit well with me. She did not have a gun in her hand, you escalated the situation to a level where everyone was nervous, if you shot her or the passenger it would have been awful. Again, who is in control of this situation? You state "If you act properly the Police will act properly". To me this is kind of like parenting, lead by example, I can assure you the thing those girls left with is thinking COPs are over reactive, gun pointing, yelling, maniacs. Not a good way to build respect.

As I stated in my first post, it is so easy to look at this from the outside, and critique the situation, I hope you and the other officer used it as a learning experience as well. For the public the suggestions are excellent. I approach any traffic stop as the Officer viewing me as a potential threat. I do everything possible to show that I am not, windows down, hands on the wheel, interior light on if it is after dark. I do not dig, look for, or move until the officer has told me to do so. I tell them I am carrying before any other action takes place, my wallet is in my pocket so I wait for the Officer to direct me to get it once he knows where my gun is.

So by your logic he should have waited until this subject picked the gun up to begin his draw? that sounds like a good way for him to get dead