Deputy Shot - Return 12 Rounds of Fire

[carlson1]

Legal question. When he was shooting at the suspect as the suspect ran away if he had hit him in the back would this be a different story since the shooter was running away? Was there still a threat?

Of course all of this is Monday morning quarterbacking.

In the case of a police officer, they can use deadly force to stop a person fleeing from a felony.

Thank you.

[thelurker]

Several observations:

1st: Holy crap, I bank here. I don't go to this branch, but have been a member here for over 30 years.

2nd: The deputy clearly wasn't paying attention to what was going on. The perp (with gun drawn) was within two steps of the counter before the deputy even looked up (1:05 in the video), and if you slow the video down it looks like the deputy had his head down on his cell phone (left hand). This also seems like the deputy dismissed the perp as a threat right away, as the perp only sat down for one second before standing right back up and walking across the lobby to the counter with gun drawn as he stood up, which means the deputy stopped watching him from before he sat down.

3rd: Once the deputy realizes he's in trouble and goes for his weapon, it is too late. He draws while falling from his chair and fires his weapon into the rear cabinets prior to standing back up (1:36 in the video). Glad no one was nearby behind the counter.

4th: It looks like the deputy drops his weapon on the counter (1:43) and was walking away when the video stopped. If so, I am glad there weren't any additional threats to deal with, as he'd have been without a gun.

While it is easy to critique this from my computer, had the deputy simply been observing his surroundings instead of in a chair and looking down, he would have been able to react quicker and might have avoided being shot. So very glad to hear he will survive this incident and that the perp was caught!

ETA: there are a lot of opportunities for training from this video. From situational awareness/managing distractions to weapon handling and what happens to fine motor skills when the poop hits the fan.

[srothstein]

Legal question. When he was shooting at the suspect as the suspect ran away if he had hit him in the back would this be a different story since the shooter was running away? Was there still a threat?

Of course all of this is Monday morning quarterbacking.

In the case of a police officer, they can use deadly force to stop a person fleeing from a felony.

Just a couple minor technical corrections on this. Texas Penal Code section 9.51 allows police (and others) to use deadly force to prevent a felon from escaping "after arrest". Section 9.42 allows anyone to use deadly force to prevent someone from fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime IF they still have the stolen property. As with the CCP allowing anyone to recover stolen property and arrest the person with it, the emphasis is on recovering the property more than just stopping the person from fleeing.

And even more importantly, in 1985 the SCOTUS ruled that this was no longer allowed in general. In Tennessee v. Garner, they said police may only shoot a fleeing felon if they have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. As a result of this decision, a close examination shows that the citizens have more legal authority to shoot fleeing felons than the police do. This is how it should be since the police specifically have the principle job to arrest and bring to trial the suspect while citizens have the primary function of protecting themselves and their property.

[The Annoyed Man]

Legal question. When he was shooting at the suspect as the suspect ran away if he had hit him in the back would this be a different story since the shooter was running away? Was there still a threat?

Of course all of this is Monday morning quarterbacking.

In the case of a police officer, they can use deadly force to stop a person fleeing from a felony.

John Correia of ASP says…and he says that this applies to armed citizens as well as LEOs…"it’s not WHERE you shot them, it’s WHY you shot them that matters."

If an assailant is shooting at you as he runs off or a quartering away from you, and you return fire and hit him in the back, unless the prosecutor's parents weren’t married, you would be subject to the same legal self defense standards as if you had shot the BG in the chest while facing each other. There’s also the matter of what the BG does between your perception of the need to defend yourself, your decision to shoot, and when the neural command reaches your trigger finger. Maybe he turned his back between when you saw the need to shoot, decided to shoot, and actually shot. The WHY versus WHERE standard accommodates this.

That is my understanding of things.

[Keith B]

Legal question. When he was shooting at the suspect as the suspect ran away if he had hit him in the back would this be a different story since the shooter was running away? Was there still a threat?

Of course all of this is Monday morning quarterbacking.

In the case of a police officer, they can use deadly force to stop a person fleeing from a felony.

John Correia of ASP says…and he says that this applies to armed citizens as well as LEOs…"it’s not WHERE you shot them, it’s WHY you shot them that matters."

If an assailant is shooting at you as he runs off or a quartering away from you, and you return fire and hit him in the back, unless the prosecutor's parents weren’t married, you would be subject to the same legal self defense standards as if you had shot the BG in the chest while facing each other. There’s also the matter of what the BG does between your perception of the need to defend yourself, your decision to shoot, and when the neural command reaches your trigger finger. Maybe he turned his back between when you saw the need to shoot, decided to shoot, and actually shot. The WHY versus WHERE standard accommodates this.

That is my understanding of things.

That’s my understanding too. If you feel he is still a threat and is running toward others, etc, then you have the legal justification to use force, including deadly force, to stop him (in most states that is)

[Ruark]

If you feel he is still a threat and is running toward others, etc, then you have the legal justification to use force, including deadly force, to stop him

You would have to be very, very, very, very careful, because you'd have to convince a jury that such was the case. I can see, for example, shooting a mass shooter in the back, as he walk around a mall shooting people at random, something like that. But... here come the "what if" questions... what if some guy holding a gun says "I'm going to go in there and shoot everybody..." and walks off. Are you going to shoot him?

[srothstein]

The Force Science Institute has done some very interesting studies on the time it takes between recognizing a threat and actually shooting at it, plus how hard it it to change your mind once the decision to shoot has been made. If there is ever a question on why you shot someone after they "were no longer and active threat", make very sure your defense attorney knows to contact them and get copies of their studies.

[The Annoyed Man]

The Force Science Institute has done some very interesting studies on the time it takes between recognizing a threat and actually shooting at it, plus how hard it it to change your mind once the decision to shoot has been made. If there is ever a question on why you shot someone after they "were no longer and active threat", make very sure your defense attorney knows to contact them and get copies of their studies.

Correia has mentioned the institution before, and in his videos he has demonstrated actual examples of what they say.

[Jose_in_Dallas]

Whew. I would hope I would be able to act accordingly in a high stress situation like that but hope I never have to. I've done plenty of training (Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Rangemaster) in the hopes to be able to handle situations like this. Unfortunately I do not think LEO's get anywhere near enough training to be on par with the level of threats they get. Case in point. Failure drills. I wonder how many LEO's would be able to deal quickly with some sort of firearm failure. I've had it come up in training classes (where it wasn't the focal point) where I had to clear a firearm and chamber a fresh round in a heart beat, either due to a stoppage or because of my own negligence of not loading around prior to an evolution. An example like I was not allowed to unholster my firearm and chamber a round prior to the stage starting and had to do an Israeli load.

Regarding shooting "someone in the back". I highly recommend taking Massad Ayoob's MAG 40, or at the very least, the "Armed Citizens Rules of Engagement" portion of it (it's two separate classes). My fuzzy memory mirrors what's been said here from his class. Basically it's allowed to stop a fleeing felon if he poses a threat that can continue or something like that. Like he has a weapon and he's fleeing and can poses more harm to others like he's killed others and will continue to do so if he escapes.

[Paladin]

Case in point. Failure drills. I wonder how many LEO's would be able to deal quickly with some sort of firearm failure. I've had it come up in training classes (where it wasn't the focal point) where I had to clear a firearm and chamber a fresh round in a heart beat, either due to a stoppage or because of my own negligence of not loading around prior to an evolution. An example like I was not allowed to unholster my firearm and chamber a round prior to the stage starting and had to do an Israeli load.

I call them malfunction drills and they are absolutely vital. I have found that even after initial training in malfunction drills (like tap-rack-assess in NRA Defensive Pistol) that students are actually slow to execute them. My advanced marksmanship class involves practicing immediate action drills with repetition to the point where students are executing them automatically. That is really where a defensive practitioner should be. But you can't effectively do that training all by yourself. Someone else has to set up the mix of live and dummy rounds (some like Paul Howe just have someone else load the pistol and sometimes leave it with an empty chamber)

[Jose_in_Dallas]

I call them malfunction drills and they are absolutely vital. I have found that even after initial training in malfunction drills (like tap-rack-assess in NRA Defensive Pistol) that students are actually slow to execute them. My advanced marksmanship class involves practicing immediate action drills with repetition to the point where students are executing them automatically. That is really where a defensive practitioner should be. But you can't effectively do that training all by yourself. Someone else has to set up the mix of live and dummy rounds (some like Paul Howe just have someone else load the pistol and sometimes leave it with an empty chamber)

Absolutely agree on the automanticity of actions that you will have to stake your life on. Draw stroke, reloading, malfunction drills, etc. For me, I have over 20 Glock magazines so it's easy to mix and match dummy rounds and magazines. My trouble is mostly trying to do this in an indoor range.

For me, I enjoy the randomness of when something happens that you've trained for and you can quickly respond. A malfunction. A dead battery on your optic. A fumble on your draw. LOL! A cramp when shooting from a kneeling position or rolling over something sharp when shooting from supine.