On Wednesday, March 13, the Napa County District Attorney's Office released surveillance footage of a shooting by an American Canyon police officer in Vallejo
Fleeing from police while holding a firearm is not a normal everyday situation that a citizen or an officer finds themselves in, nor should it be treated as one. Unfortunately, a consequence of being human is that elevated stress levels can lead to less than ideal outcomes in the heat of the moment. The law regarding situations like this accounts for this reality, and would easily favor the officer.
A suspect fleeing while holding a firearm makes the officer’s fear for his own safety reasonable. It may have been best if he had noticed the firearm that was dropped, but I don’t know enough to say whether he knew about the suspect’s second firearm and was instructing him to drop both. I find it unlikely, and believe that I would have acted in a similar fashion had I seen a suspect that I’d just seen with a gun digging around in his waistband (for another).
At first glance, the officer appears to have acted with vigilance and to the best of his ability in a dangerous and high-intensity predicament, but his history makes that questionable. Ultimately, this outcome was the fault of the suspect for running away from a police officer while carrying a gun in the first place. Safe, sane people don’t do that, and it immediately creates a dangerous and hairy situation for everyone involved. It’s a line beyond which there are inherently less guarantees for the suspect, as the officer’s legally permitted option to open fire relies entirely on the reasonable perception of imminent danger.
We have stricter rules of engagement for the Army when deployed, “Do not fire unless fired upon” also in many circumstances if someone throws down their weapon you must cease fire.
We have stricter rules of engagement for the Army when deployed, “Do not fire unless fired upon”
Not only is this a fallacy of false equivalence, but it’s also straight up false. This is only one of many rules of engagement that are applied contextually, such as during a reconnaissance operation where stealth is necessary, or a peacekeeping mission where hostile combatants aren’t necessarily expected. It is also not usually the role of a peacekeeper to chase down criminals to enforce another country’s laws. Obvious exceptions to this rule apply in the same way that they apply to law enforcement to allow them to protect themselves during times when they reasonably believe that a gun-toting individual is an immediate and real threat to them. The same logic usually also applies to ordinary civilians acting in self-defense.
also in many circumstances if someone throws down their weapon you must cease fire.
Friendly fire. The reason I know so much about law enforcement methodology isn’t because I like them. I just genuinely believe that the community is wrong to chastise in this instance.
Fleeing from police while holding a firearm is not a normal everyday situation that a citizen or an officer finds themselves in, nor should it be treated as one. Unfortunately, a consequence of being human is that elevated stress levels can lead to less than ideal outcomes in the heat of the moment. The law regarding situations like this accounts for this reality, and would easily favor the officer.
A suspect fleeing while holding a firearm makes the officer’s fear for his own safety reasonable. It may have been best if he had noticed the firearm that was dropped, but I don’t know enough to say whether he knew about the suspect’s second firearm and was instructing him to drop both. I find it unlikely, and believe that I would have acted in a similar fashion had I seen a suspect that I’d just seen with a gun digging around in his waistband (for another).
At first glance, the officer appears to have acted with vigilance and to the best of his ability in a dangerous and high-intensity predicament, but his history makes that questionable. Ultimately, this outcome was the fault of the suspect for running away from a police officer while carrying a gun in the first place. Safe, sane people don’t do that, and it immediately creates a dangerous and hairy situation for everyone involved. It’s a line beyond which there are inherently less guarantees for the suspect, as the officer’s legally permitted option to open fire relies entirely on the reasonable perception of imminent danger.
We have stricter rules of engagement for the Army when deployed, “Do not fire unless fired upon” also in many circumstances if someone throws down their weapon you must cease fire.
Not only is this a fallacy of false equivalence, but it’s also straight up false. This is only one of many rules of engagement that are applied contextually, such as during a reconnaissance operation where stealth is necessary, or a peacekeeping mission where hostile combatants aren’t necessarily expected. It is also not usually the role of a peacekeeper to chase down criminals to enforce another country’s laws. Obvious exceptions to this rule apply in the same way that they apply to law enforcement to allow them to protect themselves during times when they reasonably believe that a gun-toting individual is an immediate and real threat to them. The same logic usually also applies to ordinary civilians acting in self-defense.
Of course. Until they draw a second one.
Why would I think that it was relevant to the police.
Please note the Sidebar:
“② If you’re here to support the police, you’re trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.”
Friendly fire. The reason I know so much about law enforcement methodology isn’t because I like them. I just genuinely believe that the community is wrong to chastise in this instance.