Police officers are now having to show that their life is threatened by criminals do you think this is fair? why?

2015-05-30T18:04:49-04:00

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made May 30 at 2015 6:17 PM

2015-05-30T18:17:19-04:00

That has always been the case, It is just now with the advent of small portable recording devices and citizens willing to use them that Police Actions are much more under a Microscope and they can't just say "I felt threatened" As it should be. You would hope that they could be held to a higher standard and could count on their Opinion calls but like any other business or organization there are bad apples and they are getting caught and their actions are being challenged. I would think all good cops would applaud this.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made May 30 at 2015 6:32 PM

2015-05-30T18:32:02-04:00

I think this is geared towards certain elements of this group. But i'll assume you want an honest discussion (sans emotions) so I'll say this. Why is that a bad thing? If you are given the authority to take a life, said authority should have some constraints. You'd hope that any LEA that drew their weapon did so because of a legitimate threat and not as a tool to force compliance or as an extension of their manhood/ womanhood. So yes I think it is fair to demand that if a service weapon is used in the line of duty, the Police Officer should have done so only in order to subdue a clear and lethal threat. Not exactly the "Police can do no wrong" answer, but it is an honest one.

Response by MSgt Brian Welch made May 30 at 2015 8:42 PM

2015-05-30T20:42:49-04:00

Fair? No. But, much of what has brought it about is the fault of law enforcement. The majority of police officers are good, well intended individuals. Among them are some bad seeds and it seems to me internally no one does anything about it, in fact they harbor the bad seeds among them.

Response by BG David Fleming III made May 30 at 2015 10:41 PM

2015-05-30T22:41:28-04:00

A threat to one officer, may not be a threat to another! You must articulate how he/she were a threat to you based on the factors presented to you at that point in time causing you to use force to neutralize the threat! This has always been the case. Nothing new!

Response by MSgt Michelle Mondia made May 31 at 2015 12:19 AM

2015-05-31T00:19:20-04:00

Is this any different than when we get issued ROE? seems fair to ask them to act responsibly and prove the nessesity of their actions.

Response by SGT John W Lugo made May 31 at 2015 12:26 AM

2015-05-31T00:26:45-04:00

More reason to have every Police Officer wear body cams, Due to more recent events that have been more observed than ever before, It will come a day were civilians will have to protect themselves against criminals then we shall see if things work themselves out for the better. If a Police officer fails to conduct himself, or herself in the role they take a oath to uphold then he nor she should be surprised in the outcome for their own actions, but a criminal will never change,nor be asked to take a oath to steal without committing harm to their victims during the commission of the crime.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 31 at 2015 9:24 AM

2015-05-31T09:24:27-04:00

This is not a new thing.
It even has a Constitutional basis..
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985))

The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that 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 question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989))

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made May 31 at 2015 12:29 PM

2015-05-31T12:29:57-04:00

Do you mean to say that we are expecting police officers to have show that they have valid cause to use lethal, potentially life-ending force, and Color of Authority towards people who have not been convicted of any crime and are therefore presumed innocent? I'm fer it.

For comparison, I propose the polar opposite. I propose that police be free to take any action that they want without investigation or repercussion. I'm again' it.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 31 at 2015 5:47 PM

2015-05-31T17:47:33-04:00

They definitely need more discipline as events like several cops beating and shoot homeless guy has occurred. An officer shooting in the back a suspect trying to run away for minor legal infractions. An officer shoots at a van full of kids. Those incidents tell me the practical application of ROE is very much distorted.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 7:05 PM

2015-05-31T19:05:31-04:00

As a police officer, now retired, thank God, I NEVER had the right, privilege, or responsibility to shoot anyone who WAS NOT posing a threat of serious bodily harm or death to myself or the public, in general, or a specific indiviual. I hasten to add that no, I repeat NO, law enforcement officer anywhere in the country is taught to "shoot to kill" while in the academy nor in annual requals. This is a critical misperception by the public, thanks completely to the Media and cop shows. Police are trained to target "Center of Mass" as it is the area on the human body where, if hit, will likely result in the quickest and surest way to STOP the perpetrator from doing what he or she is doing that is inherently dangerous to innocent persons. Of course, you can throw that all out the window if the bad guy is high on certain drugs like PCP, for instance. We popped a guy over three dozen times back in the late 1970s who, while extremely high on PCP, had slashed his mother nearly to death with a huge meat cleaver before we were called to the scene. It took all those shots, mostly Center of Mass, before the guy's heart realized it had stopped beating a minute or two earlier. He actually got up off the floor with the knife three times before he finally stayed down. True story.

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made May 31 at 2015 8:58 PM

2015-05-31T20:58:10-04:00

Yes, deadly force should ONLY be used to protect their lives

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2015 9:00 PM

2015-05-31T21:00:51-04:00

Fricken Karzai's RoE all over again!

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made May 31 at 2015 9:11 PM

2015-05-31T21:11:07-04:00

I think the few soured the water for the many.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 31 at 2015 10:53 PM

2015-05-31T22:53:10-04:00

It's called having articulation on a police report. Now, everyone is an expert in police tactic and the first thing they will use will be the political cannon to bury the police officer.