Should officers who discharge a firearm in the line of duty be PERMANENTLY relieved of duty?

[IdaBriggs]

This is a "yes / no / maybe" question, and I would like to see some discussion about it.

Here are the arguments I see both for and against --

Option: Yes. Once you point a gun at another human being, whether that be in defense of your own life, or that of someone else, the person pulling the trigger is forever changed. At that point in time, officers who have had the misfortune to be unable to find other, peaceful means of protecting their lives and those of the public, need to be removed from the police force for not only their own mental health, but that of the public. They should be offered mental health / post traumatic stress counseling services, but at the end of the day, it is better for everyone if they move on to another line of work.

Option: No. Good police officers undergo extensive training, and if that rare worst case scenario occurs, a police officer should not be more worried about their future employment than they are about protecting themselves or members of the public. At the end of the day we need to *trust* the people who are actually on the scene, and also allow that sometimes, mistakes in judgment will occur. This is a high pressure and difficult job; those who dedicate their lives to serving others deserve our respect, and demanding they completely change careers after a traumatic experience is simply adding insult to psychological injury.

Option: Maybe. Each situation should be determined on its own merit, with outside peer-review evaluation, psychological counseling and crisis intervention training being on going. Just like teachers are expected to participate in ongoing training efforts to maintain credentials, law enforcement officials need the same support structures in place. Like it or not, there are a lot of crazy people with guns out there, and sometimes that means law enforcement professionals may need to act aggressively to protect the innocent.

Thoughts? And if you can show arguments both for and against, as well as which one you find most convincing, I would appreciate the chance for enlightenment.

Please discuss!

[cali]

1. I agree largely with your "Maybe" option.

[IdaBriggs]

19. I am trying to "devil's advocate" for all sides to encourage discussion.

This is a tough one!

[KittyWampus]

2. Maybe, each situation is different. Steroid use, however, should not be tolerated at all.

Even for medical reasons.

Steroids have become an addictive crutch and they negatively effect behavior and thoughts.

[IdaBriggs]

33. Some medications definitely impact judgement, including pain medications.

I know that people with MS sometimes use steroids -- is it your position that people taking these types of medications should not be on active duty due to the side effects?

[KittyWampus]

39. They should be moved to a desk job.

[B2G]

3. So you give a cop a gun with the expressed intent

of firing him if he uses it?

What?

[IdaBriggs]

5. That would be one option - it *used to be* that police officers could go decades

without firing a gun. (At least, that was what I always used to hear - that a police officer firing a gun was an exception to the rule.)

Now it seems to be pretty common, and it looks like they are killing a lot of innocent people, who are neither armed nor actual threats to their own safety or those of the people around them.

If we go with option "YES - Discharge a Weapon / Move on to New Employment Opportunities" it really puts the onus on the *officer* to be in a position where there really is a "life or death" situation going on to justify discharging a weapon.

I think it raises the stakes, and encourages more "creative problem solving" when you can't just reach for the gun to solve the problem.

So, yes, if you are giving someone a tool that you really don't WANT him/her to use, you'd better make the price pretty damn large.

(That would be one argument -- can you provide another one?)

[Scootaloo]

4. Maybe. Depends on the situation

However the determiner of that situation cannot be the officer's "good word" nor an internal "investigation" by his friends and co-workers.

[IdaBriggs]

7. I went with "outside peer review" as opposed to "internal peer review."

My logic is that someone who does NOT have an emotional relationship with the person being reviewed (as in, "this is my co-worker, who I depend upon to save my life the next time we are arresting drug lords, and I don't want to piss them off if they ever have to judge me!&quot would probably be better at determining if the person who discharged a weapon was using appropriately good judgment such that the public would *want* to give them another opportunity to make that type of call again....

I do not think "outside peer review" is currently a standard though...?

[Nye Bevan]

6. So say a cop has a clear shot at an armed kidnapper who is holding hostages.

Is it a good thing if he knows that if he shoots the bad guy he will be expected to "move on to another line of work"?

[IdaBriggs]

8. What do you think?

In *my* mind, if you say "yes", then he is making a decision for the benefit of the public in a way that demonstrates he truly believes there is no other option even at sacrifice of his own career prospects. If you say "no", it means he has to worry about losing his job if he fires his weapon, which may put the public at risk. If you say "maybe", it might mean he went for the gun before all other means were exhausted.

Seriously, what do YOU think? In the situation you describe, what are the pro/con arguments you could see being used? Can you argue both sides, and which side is more persuasive to you?

[Nye Bevan]

9. Call me old-fashioned, but I would want him to shoot the bad guy to save the hostages,

and rather than firing him for doing his job, I would give him a medal.

[IdaBriggs]

15. And what if he shoots the wrong person?

Maybe hits the hostage instead? Or mistakes a playful wrestling match for combat? Or shoots someone with a cell phone, thinking they have a gun. What should happen then?

Please share your thoughts. (I am not trying to be snarky - on one end, we have the hero cop, and on the other, the human/oops cop.)

[YarnAddict]

10. No

They are given guns in order to protect themselves and the public. In a situation where deadly force is absolutely necessary, I don't want them to have to be second-guessing themselves, and weighing their own, or possibly my safety, against their financial future.

[B2G]

12. Exactly.

And since it's politically incorrect these days to own a gun, the cops had better show up and be prepared to use theirs if I'm in mortal danger.

[IdaBriggs]

22. "deadly force is absolutely necessary" -- this seems to be the crux of the matter.

Who makes that determination? How do we create a situation where a police officer is both comfortable drawing a weapon and firing it at another human being as a *reasonable* response to a crisis situation, and yet *discourage them* from making this a "go to/default" option in areas where "deadly force" may NOT actually be an appropriate response?

Asking people to hold these two opposing views in their head every time they go to work seems more than a tad to me!

[YarnAddict]

25. With intensive and proper

training officers should be trusted to make that determination.

Obviously, that isn't always the case, but it should be.

[tkmorris]

35. May I ask why you preferred the "no" option to the "maybe" option?

[YarnAddict]

38. Because it is a "yes" or "no" question

I believe every police shooting is investigated. If it is found to be unnecessary or excessive use of force, or whatever, then that officer should be terminated and prosecuted.

I didn't see where the "maybe" option fit.

[Oktober]

11. No because that would be idiotic...

Every person has the right to self defense no matter if they are a cop or not.

[IdaBriggs]

16. I asked it in another post, but it seems like you might have some insite into this issue also.

What if the police officer "makes a mistake" and shoots an innocent person who was not a threat?

What should happen then? Who gets to determine whether it really *was* self defense, as opposed to *inappropriate levels of fear*?

[Oktober]

29. Same standard we use for everyone else...

Reasonableness....

Would a reasonable person in X situation be in legitimate fear for their safety or life?

[geek tragedy]

13. If it's clearly a good shoot that saves lives, why would

you ruin their career and life over it?

If it's a bad shoot, they should go to prison.

[IdaBriggs]

18. "If its a bad shoot, they should go to prison."

Who do you think should make that determination? What if it was simply a tragic mistake in judgment?

[geek tragedy]

27. There are varying degrees of criminal culpability

for homicide--from intentional to negligent.

[jwirr]

14. I think the Canadians used to have a system that investigated any Mountie who fired their weapon

regardless of why. They were not considered guilty but they had to tell explain why they used the gun and under what circumstances. The system was meant to lower the number of times a Mountie used the gun in his line of duty. Made them think first.

[IdaBriggs]

17. Interesting. Any idea if the program still exists?

Canada has *A LOT* of guns - Michael Moore discussed this in his "Bowling for Columbine" movie, but maybe you have some more current data?

Thank you for sharing!

[jwirr]

20. I do not know if it still exists. From what I understand it is based on the same idea as the one in

UK where people understood that the British police were not trigger happy and thus you did not use force against them. Mine is not current. Just remembering.

[B2G]

21. I believe every city in the US

has a similar policy.

It's called a "firearm discharge report".

[jwirr]

24. Good. However as we are seeing in Ferguson MO - it depends on who reviews the report.

[B2G]

26. If that's the issue, then address that

rather than radically changing the rules of engagement.

But you're going to need to do it on a city by city basis.

[ksoze]

23. Searching for black & white in a grey world

When we arm police to protect us, we assume some risk. The goal is to minimize that risk. The same type of risk we assume when we get on a bus, a train, or a plane and rely on others to handle our safety. We rely on the training and skill of those who protect us. If a police fires his weapon, I believe they are placed on admin leave until an investigation is done. If the penalty for using their weapon is loss of career, we effect the training and decision making that goes into when a weapon is fired. (That training my be at fault).

If a bus driver gets in an accident, we don't take away his license automatically. We review it and see who is at fault. The issue of whom does the review is where we need some work - the police investigating police does not seem to be as optimal as it should be.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. Qualified maybe.

My ''magic rule' would be, you shoot an unarmed person, (ie somebody you thought was 'reaching for a gun' or 'holding a cellphone' or even a bystander) you can't carry a gun any more, no matter what happens in any associated lawsuits or charges. If you're 'acquitted', you still wind up on desk duty or some job that doesn't have you armed. Your judgment or visual acuity or aim has proven itself to be inadequate to the task of actually evaluating the real danger of a given situation and wielding a weapon responsibly.

[B2G]

30. People can kill using other means

Knives, cars or brute strength, for example.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. I would call knives and cars weapons.

I'd let 'brute strength' be evaluated by an agency independent of the police force, made of of civilians in the community in question as a possible 'weapon'. But if you want to claim you 'saw them reaching for a weapon', you didn't shoot them because you thought they were so big they were going to kill you with 'brute strength'. And it certainly doesn't apply to you shooting a bystander.

[Oktober]

31. Perception is a tricky thing...

Even on video and especially in a high stress situation with split second decisions.

One of the more famous examples I remembered...

The Marquise Hudspeth case

[KamaAina]

34. Not if the shooting was justified.

This does sometimes happen, you know.

[True Blue Door]

36. Two things: Pay cops a lot more, and at the same time demand a lot more of them.

They shouldn't even be drawing a firearm if there's no reason to think suspects are armed with them. Police in other countries routinely and easily deal with suspects armed with knives and clubs without resorting to firearms, and it's shameful that in this country it's considered justified and a Good Idea to draw a gun on (let alone shoot) someone who doesn't have one.

And this is crucial: All individual police officers must be subject to removal from the force by a direct vote of the community. The union would obviously object strenuously to such a measure, which is why I say pay the cops a lot more in addition to the stricter oversight. The very word "officer" implies a public trust, and if the community demonstrates they have no confidence in a given officer, then that person has no business wielding authority in the community.

[jmowreader]

37. For unjustifiable shoots yes, justifiable ones no

Saying "any cop who fires his or her weapon for any reason will no longer be a cop" will result in cops never going anywhere that criminals are.

The cop who shot Michael Brown needs to be removed from the police business right now and for all time, but a cop who has to shoot should be given counseling and returned to duty.

[hack89]

40. No. Some shootings are necessary and justified.

no one should loose their vocation for doing the right thing.