« Article on Heller and self defense | Main | Purchase delayed in DE due to age and gender »
Officer mistakenly shoots defender
Story here. The mistake seems understandable: officers respond to "shots fired," encounter a woman and children fleeing a home who report an armed man inside, announce and enter, encounter an armed man coming down the hall. Unfortunately, he was the homeowner; he was apparently coming back from subduing the perp, and either didn't hear the announcement, or under the stress didn't think to put down his gun.
It does put me in mind of a thought Prof. Bob Cottrol had, which was that most of the LE training targets he'd seen with sketches of people on them involved clearly good guys or clearly bad guys. Bad guys are snarling and trying to bring a gun to bear on you, etc.. Perhaps, he thought, it'd be good to have some ambiguous targets, armed man but not trying to bring gun to bear, etc., just to train for situations where shoot/no shoot is ambiguous.
Hat tip to reader William Taggart
12 Comments | Leave a comment
This may open up a can of worms, but I disagree with the title of the post. While this is obviously an unfortunate incident, and could well have been tragic, if the defender didn't follow the officer's commands, or failed to exercise proper muzzle control, the officer's actions may not have been a mistake, but may have been appropriate. Of course this is all speculation, as is the idea that the shooting was a mistake.
And in response to FWB's comments, should we as citizens be required to take fire before defending ourselves?
"or under the stress didn't think to put down his gun."
According to the article (which may be in error), the homeowner was coming down the hallway from the room in which he was holding the suspect at gunpoint. He may have thought it a bad idea to leave the gun there.
There will be a lot of speculation for a few days until more of the story comes out.
Lesson number one - when perp is secured and before the police enter your home, holster your damned handgun.
Then riddle me this, why didn't the cops shoot each other?
They were both carrying guns. Judgment was not in their repetoire, so why didn't they shoot each other along with the homeowner?
Those cops were almost certainly in uniform. That's why.
That's also why, if they were to find themselves in a situation of riots or civil unrest, a lot of civilians I know are prepared to dress in military or police style clothing.
Shouldn't the cop have asked the people fleeing the house who was still in the house? Any bad guys? If so, how many bad guys? Any good guys? If so, how many good guys? Anyone with a gun?
I know these type of situations are highly dynamic and stressful, but I think this is critical information the cop would want to at least try to obtain before entering the house.
> And in response to FWB's comments, should we as citizens be required to take fire before defending ourselves?
I'm not taking a position on whether police should be required to take fire before shooting, but it is perfectly reasonable to put them under obligations that the rest of us don't have.
Police are paid. If they don't like the job conditions, they're free to find other work.
I'm intimately familiar with that neighborhood. I still own a house there (one 32nd and Flower). It's a mix of acreages with livestock privileges and small homes. Mostly blue collar.
The area north of it is going downhill, the area just south is pretty upscale.
Pretty crazy.
I'll have to ask my tenants if they know what happened.
Don't overlook the fact, and NOT in the linked story, that the woman screamed at the cops when they arrived "He's got a gun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" without even giving a hint of who that "he" might be, and certainly not telling the cops her husband was still inside.
Glad it turned out OK, but that wife needs to be smacked for being a freaked-out retard and putting her husband's life in jeopardy.
I do agree with T. Weaver. I don't agree with Carl in Chicago, which I find unusual. I am in uniform, as is Carl. My uniform is that of a normal ordinary citizen. Now, I understand that that can be confusing in a situation like this, when the cops are in easily identifiable uniforms and can readily identify each other.
But that doesn't answer my real, intimated, though unstated question, where was the judgment?
I see people all the time with guns, I haven't shot any of them, or at least not in a long time. Why? Because I have judgment. That's right judgment. Not that cowardly reflex they teach at the police academy that anybody who "has a gun who isn't you needs to be shot, it doesn't matter if he is a threat, don't take the chance, go home at the end of your shift, we'll cover your ass."
So, my question still stands. In the absolute absence of judgment, why didn't these cops shoot each other?
Oh, you mean they exercised some judgment? But their concern for getting it right doesn't extend to anyone else?
...if the defender didn't follow the officer's commands, or failed to exercise proper muzzle control, the officer's actions may not have been a mistake, but may have been appropriate. Of course this is all speculation, as is the idea that the shooting was a mistake.
Duly noted. But do you really want regular armed citizens extending Waco rules to include the Phoenix metro police and any other department that follows this philosophy?
I should say I follow your logic. I hope to God if I'm ever in a defensive shooting I have the luxury of putting the gun down before police arrive, and I hope my wife wouldn't yell "he's got a gun!" to police on their way in. I see how this went the way it did, and I assume the officer acted in good faith.
What bothers me is this loop where any time a police officer shoots an innocent, the police officer is declared to have followed policy, law 'n order types rally behind him, there's a inquiry or review of some kind that finds no wrong-doing, and when the process ends, the policy the officer did no wrong in following is kept in place. Either change the policy or training, or man up and admit you've adopted an "acceptable civilian losses" policy in furtherance of your highest goal of making sure officers go home at the end of their shift.
Again, cops should not be allowed to shoot until after being shot at. If you shoot first as a cop, you should be off the force. Cowboy up and deal with it.
My father was a long time cop and while he dealt with armed thugs, was shot himself, he did not shoot first and ask questions second.
We just have a bunch of legalized thugs called cops running around blasting away because they can.