A tough one to call

[Right Side Up]

Sending a swat team out to perform surveillance would look out of place to anyone.

The kid should have had better friends, or at least sent the billy bad ass friend that likes to fight outside to check on things.

Stoopid moves on both sides, but the kid has an excuse, he's untrained in these kind of things.

[gunplumber]

The officers were in the midst of serving a search warrant at an unrelated address in the New Columbia housing complex when they shot Aberto Flores-Haro, 31.

This bothers me.

If the warrant required a SWAT team, what was the plan for moving innocent bystanders such as this young man from the area of the "high risk" warrant service?

[the gman]

Originally Posted by Right Side Up

Sending a swat team out to perform surveillance would look out of place to anyone.

The kid should have had better friends, or at least sent the billy bad ass friend that likes to fight outside to check on things.

Stoopid moves on both sides, but the kid has an excuse, he's untrained in these kind of things.

Actually not really. The SWAT team folks are trained to perform surveillance where as your average patrol cop or detective aren't. Sure, we can sit in an unmarked car in civvies, drinking coffee and munching on donuts on a city street where plenty of traffic and other cars can mask (somewhat) the stake out but it ain't the same as out in the woods. Not many cops have been trained to do that (unless they happened to be in a specialty MOS in the military) so the SWAT team are the designated go to guys.

We had a couple SWAT guys in ghillie suits concealed in the back of a residence where we had intel a murder suspect was hiding. Perp thought he would be smart when he saw the uniformed cops arriving and send his GF out the front while he took off out the back. Apparently he filled his pants when the two guys in ghillie suits stood up and tackled him as he tried to bail through the back yard.....

Lane County has a multi agency investigation team that handles all officer involved shootings and they are highly experienced when it comes to getting to the bottom of things. We are supposed to trust the media implicitly when they consistently twist the truth, fail to report facts that would be exculpatory in nature and gloss over their errors? Like the infamous NBC Zimmerman tape that flat out LIED to paint Zimmerman as a bad guy??? Riiiight, I'm all over that. The lamestream media generally does the weakest job in reporting anything and I fear Oscar Wilde was correct when he opined "Modern journalism....justifies its own existence by the great Darwinian principle of the survival of the vulgarest." The 4th estate has lost most of it's credibility over the years as far as I am concerned and all news reports should be looked at with a high level of suspicion whether they emanate from Fox or NBC.

Regardless, reading between the lines of the reports we have would seem to indicate this individual had a checkered past and multiple negative contacts with LE that might predispose him to not obey lawful commands and weigh on the minds of the officers present at the scene. I would have to say that SWAT and 24 hour surveillance with officers on the ground usually aren't authorized for anything but very serious offenses. I haven't seen the official report but I might suspect there was way more to this than a simple assault or battery. Perhaps more information isn't being revealed to avoid blowing a bigger investigation or compromising confidential informants? I don't know but I would think (and certainly hope!) there was way more at stake than just a battery or assault.

[gunplumber]

Originally Posted by the gman

I would have to say that SWAT and 24 hour surveillance with officers on the ground usually aren't authorized for anything but very serious offenses. I haven't seen the official report but I might suspect there was way more to this than a simple assault or battery. .

But if I'm reading it right - it was a warrant for a different person at a different house and they were trespassing on this innocent bystander's property while conducting surveillance the other guy at the other house.

[JeffJ]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

But if I'm reading it right - it was a warrant for a different person at a different house and they were trespassing on this innocent bystander's property while conducting surveillance the other guy at the other house.

But you missed the part about them being cops..they can do anything they want...if you don't resist, they can aim better...

[Right Side Up]

Originally Posted by the gman

Actually not really. The SWAT team folks are trained to perform surveillance where as your average patrol cop or detective aren't.

I learned something today. I didn't know that. I thought they were called out as the last resort. The next time I see officers hiding in my grass I won't be alarmed, and just turn on the sprinkler.


I tell people to show me their friends and I'll show them their future. In this kids case sadly it rings true.

[raexcct2]

Gunplumber,

The Aberto Flores-Haro incident was a different shooting. It appears Portland has a problem with their SWAT team.

[ronpaulFAL]

Yes, the media twists and spins the news. However, the public has a right to be nervous about cops since the post-shooting investigations are run by cops. Granted, we've never been there, but cops have a duty to act with discretion; the more gear they have, the more discretion they should use.

Case in point: yes, that 30-06 could penetrate their body armor. Can the 4 full auto M4s penetrate the young man's t-shirt? I think so... so it was still massively in the advantage of the SWAT team. You shouldn't shoot someone who you just surprised as they run away from you. If he was making verbal threats or aiming his gun, I'm sure the cops would have stated that in their defense- and if not, they have a huge PR problem. Bottom line- the kid was massively overpowered and they knew it. They could have and should have acted with more discretion, particularly if they were just running surveillance. I won't defend their actions on the basis that "we don't know the whole story" because the cops have an obligation to justify their actions to the public. The investigation should be performed transparently, with civilian volunteers sitting on the investigation board.

[gunplumber]

The investigation should be performed transparently, with civilian their fellow citizen volunteers sitting on the investigation board.

fixed it for you

[the gman]

Originally Posted by Right Side Up

I learned something today. I didn't know that. I thought they were called out as the last resort. The next time I see officers hiding in my grass I won't be alarmed, and just turn on the sprinkler.


I tell people to show me their friends and I'll show them their future. In this kids case sadly it rings true.

SWAT is normally called out to incidents involving barricaded subjects, particularly dangerous suspects or any time there is a critical incident outside of what patrol or detectives normally handle. In my dept, SWAT officers work regular patrol or other assignment until activated for SWAT deployment. This means most shifts have at least one or two SWAT officers working and who can provide advice and assistance in a short period of time. SWAT is also activated to carry out high risk warrant service where information is both timely and accurate about the location of a suspect wanted for violent felonies or who poses a significant risk to the community. We don't call out SWAT for a guy who beat someone up but a murder suspect or big time drug dealer with a predisposition to or history of violence would be cause to have SWAT serve the warrant.

Falling in with bad 'friends' is indeed a common cause of younger folks to come into conflict with LE but it would seem in this case, the dead guy was pretty capable of getting himself into trouble without assistance. I know a young man in my AO who was a pretty small time crook, has been for quite some time, mostly as a result of his family upbringing (crooks, the lot of 'em) and his addiction to meth. He has steadily progressed from petty misdemeanors to felonies and has finally jumped up into the big leagues by getting himself involved in a murder. Stupid is as stupid does and if he refuses to surrender himself or comply with officers attempting to serve the warrant for his arrest AND has a weapon, the outcome might be painful.

Some of us learn lessons via experience or by watching others make the mistakes. Sadly, many youthful mistakes end in death or painful trips to the ER. Unfortunately, this young man didn't live to move past this mistake and I have no doubt those officers who shot him are terribly affected by it on a personal level. Despite being cleared, I imagine they often revisit the event and figure out how they could have handled it differently but life rarely allows a rewind and replay. There were no winners in this incident.

[the gman]

Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL

Yes, the media twists and spins the news. However, the public has a right to be nervous about cops since the post-shooting investigations are run by cops. Granted, we've never been there, but cops have a duty to act with discretion; the more gear they have, the more discretion they should use.

Case in point: yes, that 30-06 could penetrate their body armor. Can the 4 full auto M4s penetrate the young man's t-shirt? I think so... so it was still massively in the advantage of the SWAT team. You shouldn't shoot someone who you just surprised as they run away from you. If he was making verbal threats or aiming his gun, I'm sure the cops would have stated that in their defense- and if not, they have a huge PR problem. Bottom line- the kid was massively overpowered and they knew it. They could have and should have acted with more discretion, particularly if they were just running surveillance. I won't defend their actions on the basis that "we don't know the whole story" because the cops have an obligation to justify their actions to the public. The investigation should be performed transparently, with civilian volunteers sitting on the investigation board.

The team that investigates OIS are not just cops but also includes the Lane County District Attorney's office. http://www.oregon.gov/OSP/NEWSRL/new...e_county.shtml

I agree with Mark that having citizen representatives on such boards should be incorporated and commonplace. I cannot understand why this isn't part and parcel of the process.

Equally, actions involving use of force by LE are governed by case law; Graham vs Connor and Tennessee vs Garner being the most applicable.

In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Court suggested that there are three circumstances when an officer can use deadly force: first, when the officer is threatened with a deadly weapon; second, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm or death to the officer or to another; or third, when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving threatened or actual serious physical harm or death to another person. The Court also noted that, when feasible, a warning should precede the use of deadly force.

Police officers in all states are granted authority to use force to accomplish lawful objectives, such as arrest, entry to serve a warrant or make an arrest, and detention. Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2007). All use of force lawsuits are measured by standards established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). In the Graham case, the Court instructed lower courts to always ask three questions to measure the lawfulness of a particular use of force. First, what was the severity of the crime that the officer believed the suspect to have committed or be committing? Second, did the suspect present an immediate threat to the safety of officers or the public? Third, was the suspect actively resisting arrest or attempting to escape?

The Supreme Court cautioned courts examining excessive force claims that "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." The Court also stated that the use of force should be measured by what the officer knew at the scene, not by the "20/20 vision of hindsight" by a Monday-morning quarterback.

To place that into context, it would be pretty easy for me and 11 other citizens to sit in judgement on yourself as a surgeon in a malpractice suit and listen to a smart ass lawyer question the actions you took in attempting to save someone's life. You may very well have sensible, logical and perfectly ethical reasoning for the actions you took, given a rapidly changing, deteriorating situation that could lead to the loss of life. To an outsider, hearing you cut open someone's chest to manually massage their heart, well, that might sound extreme to someone unfamiliar with common medical practice. Heaven forbid that you ran into a situation you hadn't encountered before or took some action that might be regarded as 'experimental' or unorthodox.

Did the team have an 'actions on' plan that they discussed prior to the mission? I don't know but I know my military counter terror team ALWAYS had such contingency plans and we practiced them. We went over them EVERY time BEFORE we deployed and we ran a lot of patrols and missions. It's as simple as saying "if X happens, we will do Y and follow up with Z." You cannot cover every eventuality but you can sure cover most of the basics you could expect on most patrols or missions.

I am given the public's trust in order to do my job but that doesn't mean I have to expose myself to the threat of death or serious bodily injury in order not to hurt others. If my HONEST perception is that a person means to injure or kill me or others, I will use the appropriate level of force to ensure that doesn't happen. Ever been shot Doc? I have, twice and lemme tell ya, it isn't a pleasant experience. Should I let a guy armed with a deer rifle who is telling me to "**** off" when I identify myself and (and he has already seen me in his flashlight beam) tell him to drop his weapon get to a position of cover and concealment where he might engage me? Bearing in mind I have no cover and despite wearing body armor, it sure doesn't help one bit if you collect a round in the head. I don't know cuz I wasn't in that position with all the information the officers who were there had at the time. Doesn't automatically mean they did everything right or that the young man did everything wrong, just that I wasn't in the arena and I haven't had the opportunity to review all the evidence and testimony presented.

There is also the well documented issue of "sympathetic firing" which happens (in both military and LE shootings) when one member of a group opens fire so others in the group do so. Sometimes this is because one guy stood in one place can see something the others can't (such as a weapon being drawn) or because there is a powerful mental reaction to members of a group behaving in a certain way. Ever seen the old Candid Camera shots of one guy standing still looking up in the air at nothing while others walk by? Pretty soon there is another person who stops and starts looking up and then another and another. Similar process.

Perhaps one cop thought he was justified in using deadly force and the other two who also fired joined in on that basis? Maybe all 3 decided individually deadly force was justified and shot on that basis? I don't know. I do know that it is a helluva decision to make, knowing that if you get it wrong, you or members of your team might be killed or seriously injured OR you might get hung out to dry for unlawfully killing someone.

Different SWAT teams have different selection criteria, different levels of funding and training and this can often lead to trouble when they are employed. The National Tactical Officer's Association has been pushing for some years for national standards to be adopted for SWAT selection, training and deployment but are having limited success. At the very least, I personally believe there should be a state standard for SWAT just as there is for regular police operations.

Despite being a police officer, I don't automatically give other officers the benefit of the doubt nor always support their actions. Doing the job does give me an insight into some of the challenges faced by officers and I try to share those insights with others so they may partially understand some portion of those challenges. I am not a surgeon so I cannot understand what happens in the OR or the reasoning behind some decisions that are made. I am willing to listen with an open mind to what those who are intimately familiar with those situations have to say before I make blanket statements about the actions the surgeon should or should not have taken. Even then, my opinion is based upon my own perceptions and may be incorrect based upon what is or isn't common practice in the OR. YMMV

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by the gman

To place that into context, it would be pretty easy for me and 11 other citizens to sit in judgement on yourself as a surgeon in a malpractice suit and listen to a smart ass lawyer question the actions you took in attempting to save someone's life. You may very well have sensible, logical and perfectly ethical reasoning for the actions you took, given a rapidly changing, deteriorating situation that could lead to the loss of life. To an outsider, hearing you cut open someone's chest to manually massage their heart, well, that might sound extreme to someone unfamiliar with common medical practice. Heaven forbid that you ran into a situation you hadn't encountered before or took some action that might be regarded as 'experimental' or unorthodox.

This is kind of why I call BS on these after-action investigations that, as far as I know, are run by a panel of cops with a token non-cop. Not sure if that's true or not. At any rate, I have never been sued but the lawyers never let doctors sit on the jury if they can help it. Surgeons are used to justifying their decisions to non-surgeons, and cops need to open themselves up to this level of scrutiny. I know the others aren't there, but they weren't holding the scalpel either, and surgeons are doing OK with far less legal protection than than policemen currently enjoy.

Sounds like gman is experienced and logical, which I like. Hoping there are more cops who can provide a rationale for increasing the violence; I may not always agree, but it's much easier to swallow if I disagree on a minor point rather than just hearing about senseless violence. If the police can tone down the militarization stuff and subject themselves to greater monitoring, they might regain the respect of citizens who are currently less than enamored with them.

[the gman]

I completely agree there should be more citizen involvement with the police and the way they operate. Police officers are public servants NOT overlords and our job is to serve the community rather than bully and belittle our way through the day. This doesn't mean we need to be touchy feely; we need to be firm when required, aggressive when needed and respect the level of power we are entrusted with by the citizens of whom we are part.

Sir Robert Peel had it right when he said "the police are the public and the public are the police." In essence, the police can only operate effectively with the consent of the public. There is no need for this to be some kind of pipe dream; all of us can play a part in this process by insisting our council members and representatives create committees and boards which involve the community in reviewing police functions. I guess all I would ask is that those who serve on such boards get some training on police procedures and go out for some ridealongs on busy nights with experienced officers to better understand the challenges of the job.

My dept has a citizen's academy program we run a couple times a year. It is 14 weeks long, involving 4 or 5 hours per night, one night per week. It is completely voluntary and allows regular folks to get a taste of what their police department does and how they operate. They get to shoot, operate police vehicles on the track, study law, use of force requirements and the general guidelines we operate under. They come out on the street with the officers for a few hours for ridealongs and see what we deal with on a regular basis. Some people thinking of a career in police work take part but most are just regular citizens who have often wondered what it is the police actually do and how they do it. I think it is a great program and one which should be mandatory for anyone looking to be on a police oversight committee or council.

If I might just take one part of your comments Doc; you have public oversight at a trial but unless I have misunderstood, in a hearing on professional ability or competence, isn't it a case of medical personnel reviewing the actions of other medical personnel?? And that trials are fairly uncommon but review boards are much more commonplace? Shouldn't the lay public be more involved in such processes given that medical mishaps kill far more people every year than officer involved shootings? Not trying to be a smart ass but trying to make a point that when you point a finger at someone, there are 3 more fingers pointing right back at you....


Goodwill to all here.

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by the gman

If I might just take one part of your comments Doc; you have public oversight at a trial but unless I have misunderstood, in a hearing on professional ability or competence, isn't it a case of medical personnel reviewing the actions of other medical personnel?? And that trials are fairly uncommon but review boards are much more commonplace? Shouldn't the lay public be more involved in such processes given that medical mishaps kill far more people every year than officer involved shootings? Not trying to be a smart ass but trying to make a point that when you point a finger at someone, there are 3 more fingers pointing right back at you....

That depends on the state. For my state, I believe lawsuits do have to go through a board composed of bioethicists, physicians, lawyers and some sort of arbitration specialist to run the machine. There are two important differences here:

1) More diversity. It isn't 11 physicians and a token non-physician which can be bullied, marginalized and ignored. From what I understand of departmental investigations, there are very few non-cops/former cops/DA types involved. I could be wrong about that though, and I do imagine it is depends on locale.

2) They don't make the final decision. Their mandate is to identify likely frivolous lawsuits and then they make a recommendation to a judge with an explanation of their rationale. In contrast, I understand that charges usually stop at police dept investigations without a finding for cause.

Medical errors are certainly more numerous than police shootings, but have gone down substantially after an Institute of Medicine report several years ago shone a light on the problem. Most hospitals have implemented numerous protocols and checklists, many of which are helpful and do reduce the number of complications. Much more paperwork, but such is life. So, medical errors are sharply declining, whereas the police shootings, swattings and the like only seem to be getting worse. The trend is worrisome and merits extra attention.

I think it would be fantastic to have a standardized protocol for SWAT team members, even a jointly funded national training center to coordinate that. Of course, that center would need to be free of Federal money and it would need to have some non-police oversight of their training protocols; from the tone of the cop forums I have read, modern police are not trained with the same code of honor and service that you clearly adhere to. Hell, even talk with Gunsite or another training center, develop a comprehensive protocol, and send the SWAT boys there. I think it is very important to avoid Federal funding since these are agents of states or localities and serve as a sort of balance against Federal police forces.

[J MOSBY]

With the current trend in government and the reported horrible mistakes by swat teams, no matter how few, I fear the time may come when a swat team truck turns onto your street and someone yells, Swat team ! Run for your life!

Or worse, Swat team ! Take your positions !

[Dave Hume]

The surgical analogy to civilian review is ludicrous.

If there's one thing we've learned about policing, it's that it's not done by brain surgeons.

[the gman]

No Dave, the analogy to medical review isn't at all ridiculous. The average cop might not be a brain surgeon but by the same token, the average MD doesn't have a massive IQ advantage over the average copper. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

When there is an OIS, an investigative panel is assembled to determine what happened, why, by whom and if the OIS was justified or not. Currently, most if not all such panels are comprised of serving or retired police officers and, oftentimes, the DA for the jurisdiction. If there is a possible conflict of interest, the local DA may apportion their part to a DA in another part of the state. The DA will review the report produced and either decided to move forward with charges or if applicable, refer the case for a grand jury hearing who determine if there is sufficient probable cause to support any charges against the officer(s) or not. If PC is found to exist, then the officer is formally charged and the case proceeds to trial.

In the case of a medical review of medical staff and their actions, as I understand it, this is a 'closed shop' review by other medical personnel of actions taken by the MD, RN or whomever possibly screwed the pooch. The action (or lack of) may have resulted in the death of someone or a very serious injury. The medical person under investigation is being investigated by folks who work in the same profession and who may or may not know the individual concerned. Again, from what I understand, the medical review is usually conducted in house rather than being referred to an outside medical agency. If the review board finds the person culpable of criminal negligence, who refers the case to the DA?

Where is the outside oversight in this process? And how is it different from cops reviewing the actions of other cops when docs review the actions of other docs?? We normally ascribe doctors and other medical staff the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what they do but some of the WORST serial killers in history have been doctors and nurses. More people have been killed by medical malpractice or incompetence than firearms for decades. Even the guy who graduates bottom of the class at med school still graduates.

BTW, just so we know what we are talking about, a study from 2003 showed that approximately 195,000 people died as a result of medical malpractice. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

In contrast, while there isn't a national database that shows how many OIS shootings and deaths occur, the FBI stats show in 2010, there were 387 justifiable homicides by law enforcement. http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-forc...134256308.html

I recommend reading the series by the Las Vegas Review Journal as it is extremely informative and remarkably detailed.

Of course, there is a VAST difference in the jobs that medical staff undertake compared to police officers but if we are calling for citizen oversight of professions that potentially carry the inadvertent death penalty for our fellow citizens, shouldn't everyone be in favor of following the same rules? In no way am I attempting to deflect criticism of excessive use of force by police; I am merely suggesting that more citizen involvement in all deaths caused by people in a position of community trust can only be a good thing.

[gunplumber]

One of the huge differences between a doctor and a police officer, is that in most cases (certain ER visits get whoever is on call) we can comparison shop for the doctor we want, get second and third opinions, or decline the service altogether. With police, we cannot opt out in the same way.

To make the comparison better, we'd have to have a doctor force his way into our house and perform a surgery that he thought we needed, and then find out it was the wrong surgery or the wrong house.

While police, doctors, and even car mechanics should be held liable for actions that don't meet a reasonable and prudent standard, the path leading to that action is vastly different.

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by the gman

No Dave, the analogy to medical review isn't at all ridiculous. The average cop might not be a brain surgeon but by the same token, the average MD doesn't have a massive IQ advantage over the average copper. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

When there is an OIS, an investigative panel is assembled to determine what happened, why, by whom and if the OIS was justified or not. Currently, most if not all such panels are comprised of serving or retired police officers and, oftentimes, the DA for the jurisdiction. If there is a possible conflict of interest, the local DA may apportion their part to a DA in another part of the state. The DA will review the report produced and either decided to move forward with charges or if applicable, refer the case for a grand jury hearing who determine if there is sufficient probable cause to support any charges against the officer(s) or not. If PC is found to exist, then the officer is formally charged and the case proceeds to trial.

In the case of a medical review of medical staff and their actions, as I understand it, this is a 'closed shop' review by other medical personnel of actions taken by the MD, RN or whomever possibly screwed the pooch. The action (or lack of) may have resulted in the death of someone or a very serious injury. The medical person under investigation is being investigated by folks who work in the same profession and who may or may not know the individual concerned. Again, from what I understand, the medical review is usually conducted in house rather than being referred to an outside medical agency. If the review board finds the person culpable of criminal negligence, who refers the case to the DA?

Where is the outside oversight in this process? And how is it different from cops reviewing the actions of other cops when docs review the actions of other docs?? We normally ascribe doctors and other medical staff the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what they do but some of the WORST serial killers in history have been doctors and nurses. More people have been killed by medical malpractice or incompetence than firearms for decades. Even the guy who graduates bottom of the class at med school still graduates.

BTW, just so we know what we are talking about, a study from 2003 showed that approximately 195,000 people died as a result of medical malpractice. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

In contrast, while there isn't a national database that shows how many OIS shootings and deaths occur, the FBI stats show in 2010, there were 387 justifiable homicides by law enforcement. http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-forc...134256308.html

I recommend reading the series by the Las Vegas Review Journal as it is extremely informative and remarkably detailed.

Of course, there is a VAST difference in the jobs that medical staff undertake compared to police officers but if we are calling for citizen oversight of professions that potentially carry the inadvertent death penalty for our fellow citizens, shouldn't everyone be in favor of following the same rules? In no way am I attempting to deflect criticism of excessive use of force by police; I am merely suggesting that more citizen involvement in all deaths caused by people in a position of community trust can only be a good thing.

I don't think the comparison is ridiculous, per se. There are some similar aspects between the two.

In my state, there are usually two investigations: one run by a board set to look for frivolous lawsuits as required by our state's tort law (as I describe above; comprised of physicians, lawyers, bioethicists, clergy sometimes, and an administration type to coordinate it). This is usually triggered by a civil suit since criminal proceedings are, in my experience, quite rare; I haven't even heard of an event within our state in the past decade. Of these criminal events, the only ones I've heard of at all are almost urban legends- "Angel of Death" type stuff. At any rate, this proceeding is run outside the health care system and the participants are recused if there's a significant relationship. This is rarely the case since it operates statewide, and we are talking about a lot of physicians in a given state!

The other investigation is indeed in-house, and run by hospital administration primarily to troubleshoot and to determine whether the physician needs discipline, training, or temporary/permanent revocation of privileges.

Either of these events can lead to revocation of hospital privileges or medical license. When you are sued, you have to notify the state medical board, regardless of the decision, and explain the situation in writing. If you lose or settle you often have to present yourself to the board for more thorough examination, in person, before your license can be renewed (annual basis).

So, yes, there are fairly unbiased and biased investigations that are run in parallel, but the unbiased one is used to make a recommendation to the judge for pretrial dismissal, with an explanation. These investigations aren't particularly transparent until one is brought into court. It has its flaws but it has led to good "policing" of physicians. Nurses and other personnel are better protected than MDs because 1) ultimately, any physician participating in said care can be included in the suit/charges (and almost always is, even broke residents; nurses don't have a lot of money to take), 2) the hospital umbrella malpractice policies provide them with excellent coverage, and 3) they are usually protected by their union. I happen to know some plain negligent nurses, and there isn't much I can do about it other than keep on their asses about every detail.

Hope this helps explain the system. The main advantage with this one over the OIS plans I've seen in papers is that the OIS boards appear to be comprised of a higher proportion of policemen, who often work in the same dept. Plus, doctors can be a spiteful bunch and are, by nature, quick to point out how they might have done a better job (I am also prone to this).

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

One of the huge differences between a doctor and a police officer, is that in most cases (certain ER visits get whoever is on call) we can comparison shop for the doctor we want, get second and third opinions, or decline the service altogether. With police, we cannot opt out in the same way.

To make the comparison better, we'd have to have a doctor force his way into our house and perform a surgery that he thought we needed, and then find out it was the wrong surgery or the wrong house.

While police, doctors, and even car mechanics should be held liable for actions that don't meet a reasonable and prudent standard, the path leading to that action is vastly different.

Agreed. I have watched my wife at the mercy of incompetent doctors and it was not appealing; glad I was able to switch! It would be great to have switched cops when I got that ticket last year for 4 over, from a park ranger no less (outside of a park! Didn't know he had jurisdiction).

[ronpaulFAL]

One more thing- errors are less about intelligence than they are about attitude and work ethic. You have to go the extra mile. In the case of this shooting, that might have included more careful surveillance, a judicious trigger finger or use of non-lethal methods. I'm not going to beat a dead horse, but they need to put all that fancy equipment and training to better use. I would have been satisfied if they had waited until he pointed the gun at them, and immediately hosed him down with full auto fire.

At least these cops didn't commit any sins of commission; not sure if they omitted some stuff though

Finally, no offense meant to any of the good cops reading this. It's just my opinion, and I have great respect for those of you who do your jobs with honor and the right attitude.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally Posted by the gman

No Dave, the analogy to medical review isn't at all ridiculous. The average cop might not be a brain surgeon but by the same token, the average MD doesn't have a massive IQ advantage over the average copper. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

When there is an OIS, an investigative panel is assembled to determine what happened, why, by whom and if the OIS was justified or not. Currently, most if not all such panels are comprised of serving or retired police officers and, oftentimes, the DA for the jurisdiction. If there is a possible conflict of interest, the local DA may apportion their part to a DA in another part of the state. The DA will review the report produced and either decided to move forward with charges or if applicable, refer the case for a grand jury hearing who determine if there is sufficient probable cause to support any charges against the officer(s) or not. If PC is found to exist, then the officer is formally charged and the case proceeds to trial.

In the case of a medical review of medical staff and their actions, as I understand it, this is a 'closed shop' review by other medical personnel of actions taken by the MD, RN or whomever possibly screwed the pooch. The action (or lack of) may have resulted in the death of someone or a very serious injury. The medical person under investigation is being investigated by folks who work in the same profession and who may or may not know the individual concerned. Again, from what I understand, the medical review is usually conducted in house rather than being referred to an outside medical agency. If the review board finds the person culpable of criminal negligence, who refers the case to the DA?

Where is the outside oversight in this process? And how is it different from cops reviewing the actions of other cops when docs review the actions of other docs?? We normally ascribe doctors and other medical staff the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what they do but some of the WORST serial killers in history have been doctors and nurses. More people have been killed by medical malpractice or incompetence than firearms for decades. Even the guy who graduates bottom of the class at med school still graduates.

BTW, just so we know what we are talking about, a study from 2003 showed that approximately 195,000 people died as a result of medical malpractice. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

In contrast, while there isn't a national database that shows how many OIS shootings and deaths occur, the FBI stats show in 2010, there were 387 justifiable homicides by law enforcement. http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-forc...134256308.html

I recommend reading the series by the Las Vegas Review Journal as it is extremely informative and remarkably detailed.

Of course, there is a VAST difference in the jobs that medical staff undertake compared to police officers but if we are calling for citizen oversight of professions that potentially carry the inadvertent death penalty for our fellow citizens, shouldn't everyone be in favor of following the same rules? In no way am I attempting to deflect criticism of excessive use of force by police; I am merely suggesting that more citizen involvement in all deaths caused by people in a position of community trust can only be a good thing.

Does anyone believe that there are electrical engineers, or even college professors, who have an IQ less than 100, as indicated by the ranges for those specialties? Anyone believe that electrical engineers seldom get above 130 either? And we know that there are numerous lawyers who would fall in the under 100 category - many even post here.

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by SWOHFAL

Does anyone believe that there are electrical engineers, or even college professors, who have an IQ less than 100, as indicated by the ranges for those specialties? Anyone believe that electrical engineers seldom get above 130 either? And we know that there are numerous lawyers who would fall in the under 100 category - many even post here.

I went to school with some electrical engineers who probably had IQs over 140, based on comparison to my own IQ which was tested in medical school. Granted, my school had at the time the world's best electrical engineering program.

I also know other people with very high IQs, and they aren't worth a damn. Conversely, I know people with IQs of maybe 110 who are at the top of their field. I place more emphasis on practical knowledge, attitude and work ethic than I do on a test.

I'm sure there are some very smart cops out there, but without the right attitude they are still a liability to society.

[308bolt]

IQs are supposedly a measurable potential. Very few people ever live up to their potential.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL

I went to school with some electrical engineers who probably had IQs over 140, based on comparison to my own IQ which was tested in medical school. Granted, my school had at the time the world's best electrical engineering program.

I also know other people with very high IQs, and they aren't worth a damn. Conversely, I know people with IQs of maybe 110 who are at the top of their field. I place more emphasis on practical knowledge, attitude and work ethic than I do on a test.

I'm sure there are some very smart cops out there, but without the right attitude they are still a liability to society.

I just wanted to make a point about the validity of that chart....

[gunplumber]

Originally Posted by SWOHFAL

I just wanted to make a point about the validity of that chart....

I submit that the chart isn't particularly relevant to anything.

IQ measures IQ. Nothing else. IQ is whatever the guy making the IQ test says it is.

I submit that "academic intelligence" and "street smarts/cunning" converge only in the exceptional.

A (insert profession) may have the academic intelligence to recognize a crisis, but lack other traits - judgement, decisiveness, etc., that may result in failure, where a less intelligent person succeeds.

I look to myself as an example. In my life, I have succeeded where others who were stronger, faster, and smarter have failed. So what trait are we measuring? Likewise, I have far surpassed others in tests of strength and academic achievement, yet failed in my objective because I lacked maturity of judgement (usually means I opened my mouth when I should have kept it shut). Or maybe I was right to open my mouth - but being right didn't matter - "getting along" did. And that is a completely different thing.

So of course, IQ is a factor in making a surgeon. Or a cop. But it is only once facet of the total person and focusing on it to the exclusion of other traits is foolish, in my never-humble opinion.

How smart is a wolf? A wolf is as smart as a wolf needs to be. Or he gets dead.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

I submit that the chart isn't particularly relevant to anything.

Exactly. However, I submit that it isn't even relevant to what it is supposed to measure. We can debate the merits of IQ as a measurement of value, but I believe the chart presented doesn't even detail the distribution of that quantity among various professions with any accuracy. Seems more like yet more junk "pop" science to me.

[gunplumber]

good point. from a purely statistical point of view, thirty candidates in one state in one short period is hardly statistically significant, nor does it establish mode or standard deviation - only high and low and we have no evidence that it is a normal distribution. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

To some extent, one can compare an emergency room doctor with a beat cop. Both have to make life and death decisions with minimal information in a short time. The doctor has a slight advantage, I think, in that he has greater information at his disposal. Unless in a MCI, he can assume the guy on the gurney is the one needing his attention. The cop may have to play hide and seek to even find the potential bad guy. There may be multiple bad guys. There may be undecideds. A SWAT officer has a huge advantage in intel over the beat cop. Generally, it is not as time critical. And because of that, perhaps a SWAT officer has an expectation of greater restraint? He has more time to be methodical. Sure, there may be an instant of decision in a HR scenario, but it isn't the same as walking in on a 211 in progress.

[NHBandit]

The job of the police is to capture & present the offender in front of a judge. It's the judge, and or jury's job to decide guilt or innocence. When people became "perps" instead of "suspects" it went to hell from there. To you folks trying to justify the actions of the police in this article, what part of the subject was shot in the back while walking away is so hard to comprehend ? By more than one cop even. Forget all the "what ifs" & the guessing game about what the aleged crime was, the verbal grandstanding the SUSPECT had done in the past about not going peacefully, etc. Young guys with huge egos tend to say things like that but when confronted they piss themselves & start crying. I read the whole story & saw no mention of hostages, shots fired by the suspect, or even that he pointed his rifle in the general direction of the police. So he told the cops to FOAD & started to walk back towards the house ? He deserves to die for that ? The kid was SHOT IN THE BACK. Case closed. WTF is wrong with you people who are trying to make excuses for that ?

[Dave Hume]

Originally Posted by NHBandit

The job of the police is to capture & present the offender in front of a judge. It's the judge, and or jury's job to decide guilt or innocence. When people became "perps" instead of "suspects" it went to hell from there. To you folks trying to justify the actions of the police in this article, what part of the subject was shot in the back while walking away is so hard to comprehend ? By more than one cop even. Forget all the "what ifs" & the guessing game about what the aleged crime was, the verbal grandstanding the SUSPECT had done in the past about not going peacefully, etc. Young guys with huge egos tend to say things like that but when confronted they piss themselves & start crying. I read the whole story & saw no mention of hostages, shots fired by the suspect, or even that he pointed his rifle in the general direction of the police. So he told the cops to FOAD & started to walk back towards the house ? He deserves to die for that ? The kid was SHOT IN THE BACK. Case closed. WTF is wrong with you people who are trying to make excuses for that ?

To answer the question:

1) The sycophants to the police you mention are either pork, friends of pork, family of pork, or used to be pork.

2) The aforementioned sycophants are uninformed, for the most part, and have not yet reconciled the cognitive dissonance of being aware of the gross metamorphosis of the police into 'law enforcement', and the de-evolution of the police into a constant paramilitary force at odds with those whom they are purportedly supposed to protect and serve, with the classic American myth of the cop being your friend. Yeah...they're bat-shit blind to what's been going on around them, in common parlance.

NOTE: Remember Tom Joad's soliloquy at the end of "Grapes of Wrath", about '...whenever there's a cop beatin' up on a guy..."?

This isn't anything new.

[the gman]

Originally Posted by NHBandit

The job of the police is to capture & present the offender in front of a judge. It's the judge, and or jury's job to decide guilt or innocence. When people became "perps" instead of "suspects" it went to hell from there. To you folks trying to justify the actions of the police in this article, what part of the subject was shot in the back while walking away is so hard to comprehend ? By more than one cop even. Forget all the "what ifs" & the guessing game about what the aleged crime was, the verbal grandstanding the SUSPECT had done in the past about not going peacefully, etc. Young guys with huge egos tend to say things like that but when confronted they piss themselves & start crying. I read the whole story & saw no mention of hostages, shots fired by the suspect, or even that he pointed his rifle in the general direction of the police. So he told the cops to FOAD & started to walk back towards the house ? He deserves to die for that ? The kid was SHOT IN THE BACK. Case closed. WTF is wrong with you people who are trying to make excuses for that ?

People are shot in the back all the time. Have you ever fought for your life or been placed in a position where you could be killed? The old ideals of the Marquess of Queensbury rules are null and void in a gunfight and in fact, never have existed except in the pages of novels and Hollywierd.

Read some of the factual accounts of the old west Sheriff's and how they took folks into custody or killed dangerous criminals and you'll discover nothing is new. If you are faced with a person who you reasonably believe intends you harm, you don't have to wait until they get to a position of cover before you take action to prevent them causing you harm. If a person has a grenade in his hand, do I have to wait until he pulls the pin before I shoot? Or is he a threat with the grenade in his hand? Action is always faster than reaction. Ever timed how long it takes to turn and shoot with a drawn weapon? It ain't a long time, under a second is all it takes to get you dead so I don't have an issue with a person being shot in the back per se, whether it is a cop or an armed citizen who does the shooting.

That you read the whole STORY is true; you read what the journalist (using that term loosely) extracted from the report on the investigation. What the truth is I don't know and actually, neither do you. I'm not saying that the officers necessarily did everything right nor that the deceased person did everything wrong. I AM saying that attempting to determine whether this incident was justified or not based SOLELY on the fact the person was shot in the back is unrealistic, immature and lacks cognizance of the dynamics of gun fights.

Some of you may wish to review information that can be found here: http://www.forcescience.org/articles.html before rushing to judgement.

I might also mention that in my area, of the last few murders we have investigated or being involved with, the majority of them were carried out by young men, ranging in age from 16 thru 18 and 19. I do not carry a crystal ball along with me to determine if this angry young man is the one who will piss his pants or be the one to kill me. If you possess such powers, I humbly suggest you take up gambling as a professional proposition. This individual WAS confronted by FOUR police officers, identified as such who were pointing weapons at him and ordering him to comply. He failed to do so and didn't piss his pants either.

Let me also say this young man wasn't out for a casual stroll in the woods either; he was armed, out actively looking for LE officers who may be in the area, having been alerted to LE activity in the area by others who had just been lit up by rangers in the area. He went looking for trouble and unfortunately for all concerned, he found it.

[NHBandit]

Originally Posted by the gman

People are shot in the back all the time. Have you ever fought for your life or been placed in a position where you could be killed? The old ideals of the Marquess of Queensbury rules are null and void in a gunfight and in fact, never have existed except in the pages of novels and Hollywierd.

Read some of the factual accounts of the old west Sheriff's and how they took folks into custody or killed dangerous criminals and you'll discover nothing is new. If you are faced with a person who you reasonably believe intends you harm, you don't have to wait until they get to a position of cover before you take action to prevent them causing you harm. If a person has a grenade in his hand, do I have to wait until he pulls the pin before I shoot? Or is he a threat with the grenade in his hand? Action is always faster than reaction. Ever timed how long it takes to turn and shoot with a drawn weapon? It ain't a long time, under a second is all it takes to get you dead so I don't have an issue with a person being shot in the back per se, whether it is a cop or an armed citizen who does the shooting.

That you read the whole STORY is true; you read what the journalist (using that term loosely) extracted from the report on the investigation. What the truth is I don't know and actually, neither do you. I'm not saying that the officers necessarily did everything right nor that the deceased person did everything wrong. I AM saying that attempting to determine whether this incident was justified or not based SOLELY on the fact the person was shot in the back is unrealistic, immature and lacks cognizance of the dynamics of gun fights.

Some of you may wish to review information that can be found here: http://www.forcescience.org/articles.html before rushing to judgement.

I might also mention that in my area, of the last few murders we have investigated or being involved with, the majority of them were carried out by young men, ranging in age from 16 thru 18 and 19. I do not carry a crystal ball along with me to determine if this angry young man is the one who will piss his pants or be the one to kill me. If you possess such powers, I humbly suggest you take up gambling as a professional proposition. This individual WAS confronted by FOUR police officers, identified as such who were pointing weapons at him and ordering him to comply. He failed to do so and didn't piss his pants either.

Let me also say this young man wasn't out for a casual stroll in the woods either; he was armed, out actively looking for LE officers who may be in the area, having been alerted to LE activity in the area by others who had just been lit up by rangers in the area. He went looking for trouble and unfortunately for all concerned, he found it.

I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it. I understand that the police have a dangerous, sometimes life threatening job. But... you chose to take that responsibility. It's also your responsibility to protect the public including a SUSPECT unless your life is in immediate danger. From what I read about this particular incident it dosn't appear that anyones life was being threatened when the kid was shot. I'm getting on in years. When I was a kid we had respect for the police and more often than not when someone was confronted by a cop & told to stop what they were doing they complied. The more the police act like armed thugs the more this type of thing will happen because the instinct now is to run from the police to avoid being killed. People do not respect them anymore. They fear them. It will only get worse. Ever since the well publicised bank robbery in CA many years ago where the bad guys had automatic weapons & body armor made the mainstream news every Podunk small town across the country thinks their PD needs to have an APC & rocket launchers, military type hardware, etc. The small town in NH where I lived for 30 years had ONE cop on duty when I bought my house in 1981 and the police station was one room in the back of the town hall. The most serious crime was on Halloween kids would dump boxes of soap powder in the fountain. 30 years later they have 10 cops on duty 24/7, 5 cruisers, 2 motorcycle cops & a multi million dollar "Public Safety" compound. The most serious crime is that on Halloween kids dump soap powder in the fountain.....

[SWOHFAL]

Originally Posted by NHBandit

I respect your opinion but I don't agree with it. I understand that the police have a dangerous, sometimes life threatening job. But... you chose to take that responsibility. It's also your responsibility to protect the public including a SUSPECT unless your life is in immediate danger. From what I read about this particular incident it dosn't appear that anyones life was being threatened when the kid was shot. I'm getting on in years. When I was a kid we had respect for the police and more often than not when someone was confronted by a cop & told to stop what they were doing they complied. The more the police act like armed thugs the more this type of thing will happen because the instinct now is to run from the police to avoid being killed. People do not respect them anymore. They fear them. It will only get worse. Ever since the well publicised bank robbery in CA many years ago where the bad guys had automatic weapons & body armor made the mainstream news every Podunk small town across the country thinks their PD needs to have an APC & rocket launchers, military type hardware, etc. The small town in NH where I lived for 30 years had ONE cop on duty when I bought my house in 1981 and the police station was one room in the back of the town hall. The most serious crime was on Halloween kids would dump boxes of soap powder in the fountain. 30 years later they have 10 cops on duty 24/7, 5 cruisers, 2 motorcycle cops & a multi million dollar "Public Safety" compound. The most serious crime is that on Halloween kids dump soap powder in the fountain.....

With all that firepower, you can bet your ass the little bastards won't do THAT again....

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by the gman

Ever timed how long it takes to turn and shoot with a drawn weapon? It ain't a long time, under a second is all it takes to get you dead so I don't have an issue with a person being shot in the back per se, whether it is a cop or an armed citizen who does the shooting.

Kind of a stretch to suggest that a young man suspected of assault is a stone cold killer, and a regular Carlos Hathcock with his trusty bolt action rifle. So I would counter and ask, which do you think is faster: the time as the suspect turns, aims and fires his deer rifle and kills an officer; or the time needed for any of the 4 SWAT members to squeeze the triggers on their full auto weapons, which were undoubtedly already off safety, aimed and ready. They are paid to take the extra risk to ensure citizens are not killed unless it is their last resort. This young man made no statement of intent, nor action of aggressive intent other than holding a rifle and seeing what was going bump in the night. I don't care what the dogma is for this shit, it isn't logical. The essence of it is that they shot him in the back and killed him just in case he decided to fire. They can't read minds, and they have a moral obligation to establish definitive risk before taking the most serious of action against a suspect.

I do get that there is a legal precedent for this sort of behavior, and I also understand that these policemen were trained to do that. I was probably drilled into them. However, all policies must be reevaluated periodically. It is obvious to me that the tactics of SWAT have drifted out of whack and they need adjustment.

I think this ultimately boils down to the following: it just seems wrong to shoot this young man in the back when there existed a massive differential in force. It is patently unfair and that doesn't strike most Americans as just.

[the gman]

Firstly, let me make clear I and many of my fellow officers know and understand the risks involved in our chosen profession and accept same as part and parcel of the occupation we chose. The single most dangerous thing I do on a regular basis is the same that all citizens face; driving.

We do have a responsibility to preserve lives, even the lives of those who may wish us harm or attempt to kill us. That doesn't mean that I or fellow officers HAVE to die in order that suspects who possess the means, the ability and intent to do us harm shall live.

I reiterate my point that I, just like all of you, were not there. We do not have the information the officers on scene had, we were not in their shoes, we did not see the movements the young man made, any gestures, facial expressions nor hear the inflection or tone of the comments he made to the officers. In addition, there are many studies on the auditory and visual exclusions that occur during times of intense stress such as car accidents, shootings and physical attacks. Anyone who has hunted knows the feeling; you never even feel the recoil when you drop the hammer on a deer with the .300 Win Mag bolt gun that smacked you silly during range practice. You can describe the shirt the driver who had a head on with you was wearing but you couldn't describe the make, model or even color of the car he was driving. Police officers do not receive any unique training in recalling these details, even SWAT cops.

The young man did not need to be Carlos Hathcock to kill or seriously injure at least ONE officer. That he may have died as a result of his potential decision to turn and fire may not have mattered to him. Studies at the Force Science Research Center shows that an individual may turn and fire one round in as little as a fraction of a second. An untrained female who had never handled a gun before was, with minimal training, able to draw and fire one round from her waistband with only .07 of a second between when the gun was visible to the shot. http://www.forcescience.org/articles...ngthetruth.pdf

In the same article I linked to, it has been proven a person can turn from facing officers to showing his back in about 0.14 of a second. Given the best reaction times found were between .3 and .6 of a second, the young man could conceivably have been facing officers and turned after they made the decision to shoot. I say conceivably, not definitively nor do I offer this as any kind of defense.

Please read the linked article; it may open your eyes to many things you thought you knew but really don't.

I am categorically not saying the officers did everything right but equally and tragically, neither did the young man. There are things we still don't know about the incident and frankly, neither do the officers due to the stress of the incident. However, if some of you think the cops involved in this incident are "high fiving" or celebrating the death of this young man, I would bet a month's pay against it. They may be thankful they are alive but very upset a foolish young man died on that evening. Some you may think otherwise but I guess haters gotta hate. Goodwill to all here.

[JasonB]

Different incident, but same basic mindset.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5484185&page=1

Botched SWAT Raid Officers Given Medals for 'Bravery Under Fire'

[SWOHFAL]

Decent officers in areas that place greater limits on the behavior of officers (and likely have less or no union presence) aren't high-fiving, but I wouldn't bet against it in JBT-heavy areas like many major metros in "blue states" such as those in the NE, IL, and Kali. I know I fear a cop raid gone wrong as much or more than a home invasion and am thankful my yokel police force is few in number and more concerned with writing traffic tickets than drug raids.

[Dave Hume]

Originally Posted by the gman

Firstly, let me make clear I and many of my fellow officers know and understand the risks involved in our chosen profession and accept same as part and parcel of the occupation we chose. The single most dangerous thing I do on a regular basis is the same that all citizens face; driving.

We do have a responsibility to preserve lives, even the lives of those who may wish us harm or attempt to kill us. That doesn't mean that I or fellow officers HAVE to die in order that suspects who possess the means, the ability and intent to do us harm shall live.

I reiterate my point that I, just like all of you, were not there. We do not have the information the officers on scene had, we were not in their shoes, we did not see the movements the young man made, any gestures, facial expressions nor hear the inflection or tone of the comments he made to the officers. In addition, there are many studies on the auditory and visual exclusions that occur during times of intense stress such as car accidents, shootings and physical attacks. Anyone who has hunted knows the feeling; you never even feel the recoil when you drop the hammer on a deer with the .300 Win Mag bolt gun that smacked you silly during range practice. You can describe the shirt the driver who had a head on with you was wearing but you couldn't describe the make, model or even color of the car he was driving. Police officers do not receive any unique training in recalling these details, even SWAT cops.

The young man did not need to be Carlos Hathcock to kill or seriously injure at least ONE officer. That he may have died as a result of his potential decision to turn and fire may not have mattered to him. Studies at the Force Science Research Center shows that an individual may turn and fire one round in as little as a fraction of a second. An untrained female who had never handled a gun before was, with minimal training, able to draw and fire one round from her waistband with only .07 of a second between when the gun was visible to the shot. http://www.forcescience.org/articles...ngthetruth.pdf

In the same article I linked to, it has been proven a person can turn from facing officers to showing his back in about 0.14 of a second. Given the best reaction times found were between .3 and .6 of a second, the young man could conceivably have been facing officers and turned after they made the decision to shoot. I say conceivably, not definitively nor do I offer this as any kind of defense.

Please read the linked article; it may open your eyes to many things you thought you knew but really don't.

I am categorically not saying the officers did everything right but equally and tragically, neither did the young man. There are things we still don't know about the incident and frankly, neither do the officers due to the stress of the incident. However, if some of you think the cops involved in this incident are "high fiving" or celebrating the death of this young man, I would bet a month's pay against it. They may be thankful they are alive but very upset a foolish young man died on that evening. Some you may think otherwise but I guess haters gotta hate. Goodwill to all here.

I can respect the fact that your responses are attempts to be balanced, yet supportive to the cops. In that same attitude, I must say you dismiss some of the very salient points made by previous posters.

Shot in the back.
Did not pose an imminent threat.
Police had command of the situation through overwhelming force.

SHOT IN THE BACK.

Of course we weren't there. But the scenario of overwhelming force presented certainly paints a picture we can make some pretty clear deductions from.

"To Serve and Protect" has become a mockery of what used to be a useful and respected institution in our society...about 30 years ago.

[the gman]

Absolutely did NOT "dismiss" the salient points you mentioned. I think I pretty much explained the whole "shot in the back" situation in my last two posts. It has been scientifically proven a person can go from facing an officer to turning to run away in .14 of a second. The absolute BEST response time measured was .3 of a second for a person to STOP the action of shooting. The average was about .6 of a second. A person who poses a threat can move at least twice as fast as the best reaction time can in ceasing action against them.

No imminent threat? How do we know for sure? What one person sees is not what another sees or more importantly PERCEIVES. Perception is EVERYTHING in life, in relationships and in shootings. We can both come to the same stop sign, look down the road and see the same car, traveling at the same speed towards us. One of us may perceive we can safely make the left turn whereas the other may perceive the vehicle to be too close and wait until it passes.

Similarly, in this instance, what one officer who saw what he perceived to be a threat may not have been the same as what an officer next to him or 6 feet away from him saw and/or perceived. I linked to an article in my previous post I do not know if you read or not but it is common for people involved in high stress events such as vehicle accidents or shootings (whether by police or not) to not see or recall seeing many things that they in fact did process at the time. It is common for people involved in shootings to not recall as much as 90% of the events they relied upon in making the 'shoot or no-shoot' decision. In essence, they may have processed much more information in making the decision to shoot but simply cannot recall what much of that information was.

Add in the factor of this happening at night in very reduced light circumstances which limits the ability of humans to accurately see and process all the actions another person may be making. I do not know what weapon lights (if any) the officers had but if they were the usual Surefire style lights, they are almost worthless in casting a really good beam over a situation, at least in my opinion. I personally have exceptionally high lumen LED lights on ALL my patrol weapons and for my working hand held lights as more light is better than less when it comes to discerning intent and/or threats.

Let me finally address the misconception of "overwhelming force" being some kind of control method. Often times, it certainly can be a method wherein a resistant subject realizes he will not win, recognizes his only option of 'winning' is to submit to authority and does so. There are many THOUSANDS of instances where people are faced with complete and overwhelming force and STILL resist or refuse to surrender or comply. Sometimes they refuse passively (a la the Gandhi effect) or sometimes they refuse actively and fight regardless of the consequences.

Ergo, the mantra of "command through overwhelming force" simply does not apply when the subject to whom the overwhelming force is directed fails to submit to such force. I have pointed guns at people many times, as a police officer, an armed citizen and a soldier and it never fails to amaze me how many folks fail to appreciate the imminent danger of being killed and comply with my commands. One individual in this town was very close to being shot long before I was a cop when he engaged me in a road rage incident. He simply could not process the fact I had a firearm in my hand and was giving him commands to stay away from me and kept advancing. Why did he keep coming in the face of overwhelming force? I still don't know to this day.

What was in this young man's mind? I do not know nor do any of us. Was he in the mindset of never surrendering? Had he recently suffered a loss or a break up of a relationship? Had he been drinking and/or ingesting drugs at the time or previously? There are so many questions left unanswered about the situation that we could debate this into the next century and still have no better answers than we do now.

My whole aim has been to illustrate to some of the less enlightened members here that cops are not super heroes who receive fantastic training in how to deal with all situations we may encounter. We do get some good training but experience provides a 'play book' we use in order to assist us in reaching a decision about actions we may or may not take. Sadly, many decisions involving the use of deadly force have to be made in fractions of a second under less than ideal circumstances, with incomplete information. This is why the Supreme Court ruled as they did in Graham vs Connor: "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." The Court also stated that the use of force should be measured by what the officer knew at the scene, not by the "20/20 vision of hindsight" by a Monday-morning quarterback.

I have also sought to correct some commonly held misconceptions regarding OIS, the investigation of same, the dynamics of gunfights and bust some fairly prevalent myths about OIS. I have specifically NOT endorsed the actions taken by the officers in this case as I do not have sufficient information to reach a decision one way or the other. Again, goodwill to all here.

[gunplumber]

While I do agree that it is possible for a suspect to turn away after an officer made the decision to shoot (OODA Loop), and therefore be shot in the back, I believe the story clearly stated that the police admit he was walking away before they decided to shoot him in the back - specifically because he was walking away. Heck, if he walked away, he might decide later to shoot at them and be in a more defensible position. Or might return to watching Jersey Shores on TV and finishing his dinner.

Remember, the 18 year old they shot was not the one they had an arrest warrant for and was totally within his rights to investigate strange noises on his property, at night, armed. At no point did he ever point the rifle at a police officer or in any other way threaten them. This is why I have doubts as to the righteousness of the shoot.

[SWOHFAL]

No witnesses for the decedent were there either, apparently, so we'll only get one side of the story.

[the gman]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

While I do agree that it is possible for a suspect to turn away after an officer made the decision to shoot (OODA Loop), and therefore be shot in the back, I believe the story clearly stated that the police admit he was walking away before they decided to shoot him in the back - specifically because he was walking away. Heck, if he walked away, he might decide later to shoot at them and be in a more defensible position. Or might return to watching Jersey Shores on TV and finishing his dinner.

Remember, the 18 year old they shot was not the one they had an arrest warrant for and was totally within his rights to investigate strange noises on his property, at night, armed. At no point did he ever point the rifle at a police officer or in any other way threaten them. This is why I have doubts as to the righteousness of the shoot.

As I have said right from the start, I have my own misgivings about the shoot and the actions taken by the team involved. Specifically, I wonder if there was an 'actions on' plan in place or if the team had discussed their options prior to taking up their positions should they be compromised?

This report muddies the water even further: http://www.newslincolncounty.com/?p=54911

Having had the opportunity to dig a little deeper and look at Google Earth of the area, I have to say I am unconvinced the SWAT guys had but one option to engage the young man with deadly force. The area in the photographs shows a heavily wooded area and I would have thought a viable option to shooting would have been to beat feet out of the immediate area and take up positions of at least concealment if not cover. I would have thought this course of action would have defeated the advantage of cover and the deer rifle. Pretty difficult to shoot folks if you can't see them and I'm wondering what kind of flashlight the young man had? I don't know and I would surely like to take a walk in the area where this occurred to look at the topography and relative positions of the deceased young man and the SWAT guys.

On the flip side, apparently they had intel stating some of the folks known to be inside the house were armed and had vowed not to be taken alive. The young man was alerted to the possible presence of police by the folks who had minutes earlier seen police officers further down Ten Mile Creek road and returned to the house to warn others.

I think the most informative portion of the article is where it details the history of the officers involved in the incident; all of them had been involved in previous shooting incidents with fatalities in those incidents. I can't lay my hands on the studies right now but I remember being briefed on stats that show an officer who has been in one shooting incident is more apt or more likely to be involved in another shooting than an officer who has never been in a shooting. IIRC, it is more than twice as likely for the officer who has been in an OIS to be in another and if they have been in more than one OIS, the odds increase again that they will be in multiple OIS.

Perhaps some mental Rubicon is crossed once a police officer shoots a person for the very first time? I do not know but it may be that their reluctance to engage is reduced compared to other officers who have never fired at a human as a police officer. It might be interesting if some studies were done to determine if combat veterans (as opposed to veterans generally) were more or less likely to be involved in OIS over those who had never served?

I am not endorsing the actions of the team nor condemning it but over the last few days, I am increasingly skeptical that the only option was to open fire. It is certainly a tragedy for all concerned.

[gunplumber]

I noticed that too - all 4 had 2-3 kills. I think I saw one had 4 but I can't find the page again. Maybe a prerequisite for swat. Don't want someone to hesitate if the time comes. But don't want a reckless cowboy either.

[JeffJ]

So the lesson here is to give up and hope they don't abuse you too badly or go down fighting??

Sounds like the transformation to a nation of sheeple is almost complete.

[DeMilled]

Just my observations after flexing my google-fu a little...

The cops are after suspects for armed assault/a robbery and beating that put the victim in the hospital.

Now, in this armed assault three people decide to mug a 46 year old female; 54-year old Julie Hubney, 27-year old Matthew Hubney and 25-year old Justin Wood.

While 54-year old Julie Hubney is holding a gun on the 46 year old female victim, 27-year old Matthew Hubney and 25-year old Justin Wood decide to go ahead and hand her a beating. Victim goes to the hospital.

54-year old Julie Hubney is caught, the two young men are still on the run.

The cops learn that the two young men are hiding at their friends house out in BFE.

This friend has a history of getting in trouble with the law, or as his friends have put it "Making several bad decisions" but was generally a good guy.

The cops learn that this friend of the assault suspects is also armed.

The people at the house run armed patrols of the property.

Some have vowed not to be taken alive.



With that background info in mind four SWAT veterans are laying in the grass next to the driveway with night vision equipment surveying the house that they have a warrant to search. They know the people in the house know the cops are coming. Here comes one down the drive with a rifle and a flashlight, SWAT officers remove night vision equipment and are soon spotted by the guy with the flashlight and rifle.

SWAT stands up, identify themselves and order him to drop the rifle.

Sam Mullane yells curse words at the cops and heads for the shed.

Cops shoot him.

Sams' friends either give up and are taken into custody, or run out the back of the house and through the woods.




What have we learned from this?

1. If you want to give shelter to armed fugitives from the law and tell a SWAT team to go pound sand you're about to be engaged by men with rifles and the training to use them.

2. Sam Mullane had his head square up his ass that night and his tactics suck.

3. Sam is dead, cops went home.

4. Sam died protecting two shit bags from lawful arrest.

[SWOHFAL]

Yeah, the world didn't lose much and certainly not the inventor of a cure for cancer, but at 18 he might have changed his ways as he grew up and and matured (then again, he may have grown into an even bigger POS). That said, they probably could've put their thinking caps on and thought about the potential for innocent persons they were unaware of to get injured in a raid on the house and perhaps let the perps and/or those aiding them leave the premises or starving them out and cutting services to the residence until they surrendered or did themselves in to avoid capture. Shades of the kind of one-track testosterone-poisoned thinking that brought us the Waco raid rather than picking Koresh up on a jog or getting the local sheriff to ask him to turn himself in.

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by DeMilled

Just my observations after flexing my google-fu a little...

The cops are after suspects for armed assault/a robbery and beating that put the victim in the hospital.

Now, in this armed assault three people decide to mug a 46 year old female; 54-year old Julie Hubney, 27-year old Matthew Hubney and 25-year old Justin Wood.

While 54-year old Julie Hubney is holding a gun on the 46 year old female victim, 27-year old Matthew Hubney and 25-year old Justin Wood decide to go ahead and hand her a beating. Victim goes to the hospital.

54-year old Julie Hubney is caught, the two young men are still on the run.

The cops learn that the two young men are hiding at their friends house out in BFE.

This friend has a history of getting in trouble with the law, or as his friends have put it "Making several bad decisions" but was generally a good guy.

The cops learn that this friend of the assault suspects is also armed.

The people at the house run armed patrols of the property.

Some have vowed not to be taken alive.



With that background info in mind four SWAT veterans are laying in the grass next to the driveway with night vision equipment surveying the house that they have a warrant to search. They know the people in the house know the cops are coming. Here comes one down the drive with a rifle and a flashlight, SWAT officers remove night vision equipment and are soon spotted by the guy with the flashlight and rifle.

SWAT stands up, identify themselves and order him to drop the rifle.

Sam Mullane yells curse words at the cops and heads for the shed.

Cops shoot him.

Sams' friends either give up and are taken into custody, or run out the back of the house and through the woods.




What have we learned from this?

1. If you want to give shelter to armed fugitives from the law and tell a SWAT team to go pound sand you're about to be engaged by men with rifles and the training to use them.

2. Sam Mullane had his head square up his ass that night and his tactics suck.

3. Sam is dead, cops went home.

4. Sam died protecting two shit bags from lawful arrest.

Guys sound like POS. But if we let their rights get violated, ours will be next!

[DeMilled]

Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL

Guys sound like POS. But if we let their rights get violated, ours will be next!

Well, POS is a bit strong of a characterization for an 18yr old guy like Sam Mullane. Off to a bad start in life, yes. Running with a very bad crowd, definitely. Unrealistic idea of cops ROE and SOP, big yes!

He may very well have been able to turn himself around and been a good productive citizen. However, he decided to pick up a gun...


I'm not sure what right was trampled on here though.


If police find out you are harboring fugitives from the law (especially fugitives like Matthew Hubney and Justin Wood) they're going to have a warrant and they're going to come in.

I believe in law and order.
Police officers are supposed to go out there and hunt down criminals like Hubney and Wood. Going to that house to get them is exactly what we ask of the police and dumb asses that decide to pick up a gun and put themselves between the law and the criminals they have a warrant to arrest get no sympathy from me.

Sam Mullen was going to be charged too.
I believe the charge would have been Aiding and Abetting Fugitives from the Law. He decided to turn it into a gun fight when he picked up that rifle.

He lost the gun fight due to, in my estimation, naivety and lack of conviction in purpose.
Didn't even go out in a blaze of glory. It was just a fizzle that didn't last long at all in the damp coastal air that night.

He picked his fight and lost. He aligned himself with dirt bags and went down for them, simple as that. I'll bet you he's sitting there, in the afterlife, looking at how those two "friends" of his pussed out and saying to himself "I stood up for those two? WTF?"

Violated rights?
Not in my opinion, which is worth exactly twice what you paid for it...

[Seaweed]

You can vote at age 18. You can also do stupid stuff at age 18. Fortunately voting seldom kills you, stupid stuff, well that's a different story.

[ronpaulFAL]

Originally Posted by DeMilled

Well, POS is a bit strong of a characterization for an 18yr old guy like Sam Mullane. Off to a bad start in life, yes. Running with a very bad crowd, definitely. Unrealistic idea of cops ROE and SOP, big yes!

He may very well have been able to turn himself around and been a good productive citizen. However, he decided to pick up a gun...


I'm not sure what right was trampled on here though.


If police find out you are harboring fugitives from the law (especially fugitives like Matthew Hubney and Justin Wood) they're going to have a warrant and they're going to come in.

I believe in law and order.
Police officers are supposed to go out there and hunt down criminals like Hubney and Wood. Going to that house to get them is exactly what we ask of the police and dumb asses that decide to pick up a gun and put themselves between the law and the criminals they have a warrant to arrest get no sympathy from me.

Sam Mullen was going to be charged too.
I believe the charge would have been Aiding and Abetting Fugitives from the Law. He decided to turn it into a gun fight when he picked up that rifle.

He lost the gun fight due to, in my estimation, naivety and lack of conviction in purpose.
Didn't even go out in a blaze of glory. It was just a fizzle that didn't last long at all in the damp coastal air that night.

He picked his fight and lost. He aligned himself with dirt bags and went down for them, simple as that. I'll bet you he's sitting there, in the afterlife, looking at how those two "friends" of his pussed out and saying to himself "I stood up for those two? WTF?"

Violated rights?
Not in my opinion, which is worth exactly twice what you paid for it...

I said "sounds like", not definitive. And yes, it "sounds like" they are POS if they did indeed beat a middle aged woman at gunpoint and put her in the hospital. That's a bit worse than being off to a bad start.

Nonetheless, I believe that when police have superior numbers, tactics and equipment they also have an obligation to act with even greater discretion and forethought than we would normally expect of them. I highly doubt that kid was running for cover in order to quickly and efficiently kill them all in an area with abundant concealment, using a bolt action 5 shot deer rifle.