Untitled-1

Republished with permission from forcescience.org:

Probably no single force event raises more questions, inflames more protests, and generates more misperceptions than the police killing of an unarmed suspect. Now, thanks to a new 437-page study published in book form, we know more about the circumstances that drive these fateful encounters and the lessons for training and street performance to be drawn from them.

In Context: Understanding Police Killings of Unarmed Citizens presents the research of a team headed by Nick Selby, a Texas detective who’s an expert in law enforcement data analysis and founder of the Dallas-area analytics technology firm StreetCred Software, Inc. Here’s a summary of the findings and the conclusions reached by Selby and his law enforcement-backgrounded co-authors, Ben Singleton and Ed Flosi (a certified Force Science Analyst).

MOTIVES & METHODS. The killing of unarmed individuals compelled examination, Selby explains, because that seemed in the popular mind to be the deadly force area most likely to harbor unacceptable police conduct. Other sources assembling data on the subject, such as the Washington Post, he writes, were good at “counting the high-level number of people killed by police” but tended to ignore important facts, “such as why the decedent was killed.”

In short, “There was no context…which makes it impossible for the police to learn from mistakes and build on strengths” and for the public to better understand officers’ deadly force decisions.

“[T]his lack of research and analysis,” notes former Cmsr. Lawrence Murphy of the Nassau County (NY) PD in a foreword to the study, “has allowed the media to run unchecked with a narrative that claims the police are killing unarmed people of color at an alarming rate.”

The task Selby and his co-authors set “was to search as far and wide as possible to get context”–from witness statements, audio and video recordings, medical examiner and coroner reports, grand jury hearings, police accounts, toxicology reports, news stories, and other publicly available information.

In the end, they documented and detailed what they believe is every so-called “unarmed” fatality at the hands of LEOs in the U.S. last year–153 in all.

The cases were not “cherry-picked” to support a point of view, Selby insists. The objective was “to be objective,” not to “defend officers indiscriminately.” Indeed, the researchers concluded that while most controversial killings were fully justified, in some cases the cops were “just plain wrong.”

KEY FINDINGS. Nearly 300 pages of the book are devoted to describing and dissecting the 153 fatalities, one by one, month by month throughout the year. For each, the basic circumstances are reconstructed and then the three authors, each drawing on his own policing experience and other relevant expertise, offer observations on the human dynamics and other influential factors that shaped the encounter.

Among the important findings are these:

1. The cause of these deaths is often not shooting

“Belying a powerful media narrative to the contrary,” the authors write, “nearly half of the 153 cases involved no shooting, and the decedent died by other cause.” Most often, that cause was “an abnormal reaction or complication after officers deployed tools or techniques with the intent of using non-deadly force.”

In other words, involved officers were trying to avoid the likelihood of an unarmed suspect’s death or serious bodily harm. Even in cases where there were shootings, 27% of the time officers deployed a TASER before going to a firearm.

“To me,” Selby told Force Science News, “this says that officers tried to do absolutely everything they possibly could to avoid taking a life in at least a quarter of incidents.”

2. Police are not targeting minorities for special attention

“Media narratives that the police are more likely to target black people in deadly encounters are, statistically speaking, demonstrably wrong,” Selby writes.

Contacts with about 70% of unarmed people who died at the hands of police were initiated by citizens complaining that the subjects were posing some danger to the community, the research shows. Even when police do select their targets, that group “does not vary significantly from the racial composition” of the group collectively identified by citizen complaints.

But the authors state they could not determine, given the data at hand, whether the police treat white people differently once an event begins. “This is a separate question that must be answered, using a much wider array of contextual data,” they note.

The study points out: “[T]he majority of those ultimately killed by police were themselves engaging in behavior that was criminal (which brought the police to the scene) and posing direct threats to law enforcement or other civilians (which most often precipitated the use of force).” All told, 70% of the unarmed subjects killed “were in the process of violent crimes or property crimes at the time of their fatal encounter with police.”

3. Drugs & mental illness are strong factors

“While media, political, and activist attention has been centered on race, in our research the most significant findings by group of decedents involved illegal drug use and mental health issues,” the study states. “Almost half the cases, 46%, involved suspected or proved acute narcotic intoxication and/or mental health crises–from a public health standpoint, an astonishing number.”

Unarmed mentally ill people accounted for 19% of the death toll, while 27% were under the influence of acute narcotic intoxication, meth-induced psychosis, PCP, or synthetic drugs. In almost every acute drug case, the researchers report, the “decedents fought with the police and others, and after they were immobilized, suffered heart failure or heart attacks.” In nearly 70% of these cases, officers had used tools “intended to be non-deadly.”

4. There is no systematic illegal use of force by American LEOs

In their case-by-case analysis, Selby and his colleagues did find more uses of force that they considered questionable than they expected; about 7% of cases “appeared to involve the unjustified use of deadly force by a police officer.”

But is there anything approaching an “epidemic” of systematic and illegal use of force against unarmed civilians, as some activist groups would have us believe? No, the authors conclude, there is not.

They invite readers to “compare our analysis to your own and point out where you disagree” and they provide over 500 source notes where the facts they report can be checked.

5. Officers need to build confidence with hand-on techniques

Taking what they admit is a controversial position, the authors argue that officers today may be too quick to use control tools like CEWs or OC, instead of applying hands-on tactics to subdue some unarmed subjects. The researchers say they were “struck by several incidents…that might have easily been addressed [successfully] by going hands-on” instead of resorting quickly to a less-lethal or deadly weapon.

Sometimes unarmed “rowdy” people need to be “grabbed and secured,” even though they may fight in response, Selby writes. “Officers should be expected not to treat every assault as a life-and-death situation….

“Over-reliance on TASER or pepper spray has its own set of dangers. Officers who do not practice fighting…risk being surprised by physicality, over-powered or out-maneuvered by those they confront… [T]hose who practice their physical skills are mentally and physically [better] prepared.”

6. Expansion of police video is urgently needed

In only 26% of the 153 “unarmed” cases studied were video recordings available, and often these came from bystanders or non-police surveillance cameras. Aggressive efforts of agencies “to expand their video coverage…can’t be delayed any longer,” the study warns.

While video is by no means a panacea, without it officers are not protected from [false] accusations, and the agency loses community trust,” the study states. Within three years, the researchers predict, “if video is unavailable, the police will be disbelieved on principle.”

7. Police must release more data–and soon

“The key finding that can drive the greatest impact from a policy perspective was informed by the very difficulty we faced finding data to support the police account of incidents,” the researchers assert.

“Law enforcement agencies simply must find better ways to release more data…more quickly. There is a significant public interest in this data, and the public has a legitimate right to understand how it is being policed….

“Police agencies failing to release information look like they’re hiding something, [while] agencies that release data when they have it are invested with the trust of their communities….

“Release early, release often, put a face to the investigation, and don’t ever appear to be hiding.”

8. A reminder, to ward off complacency…

To correct media and protester implications and as a reminder for officers, Selby and his team offer this nugget of reality: “It is a mistake to equate ‘unarmed’ to always mean ‘not dangerous.’ “

Seven out of 10 unarmed people killed by police during the study period “were in the middle of committing crimes such as robbery, carjacking, assault, serious destruction of property, or burglary.” More than one-quarter had already assaulted and injured civilians in violent attacks, and two had committed murders before police cut short their crimes–“this despite the fact that the decedent was not armed.”

The book In Context can be ordered on line, in Kindle or print formats, by searching the title on Amazon.com or in B&N Nook format by searching the title on barnesandnoble.com. Lead author Nick Selby can be reached at: nick.selby@gmail.com

Recommended For You

38 Responses to New Study on Police Homicides of Unarmed Suspects: Roughly Half Not Firearms-Related

  1. It seems to me that, in the name of statistical balance, police officers need to kill a lot more white and Asian people. Logical, no? Insane, but logical.

    • I guarantee the po-leece will kill LESS unarmed folk when they are ALWAYS on camera-smile 🙂

      • I think long term you will be right, but until all cops really understand that they might, you know, be prosecuted for executing a man on camera, they haven’t cared much up until this point.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_James_Boyd

        Or better yet…

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

        Ar least the subhumam filth with badges is being prosecuted in the Boyd case. In Guerena, what usually happens, happened. The city paid a bunch of money, and the disgusting filth pretending to be public serveants who let him die and denied him medical attention were not prosecuted. Likely they were promoted, as often happens.

      • Hate to break the news to you Walker, but any LEO who began their career in the last 3 decades is very familiar and comfortable with doing their job while being videotaped, and any professional LEO working today believes a body camera should be mandatory standard issue equipment by every LE Agency in the U.S.

        You can credit government bean counters flinching at the cost, not LEO’s as the reason many agencies still don’t have body cams.

        The cost of the body cam alone isn’t the holdup for budget writers, it’s the big ticket cost of the necessary software and hardware to retain, store, and retrieve the staggering amount of data that’s accumulated once street officers begin wearing a camera that captures every minute of an 8 or 10 hour shift.

        Vehicle cams are much more common but only capture an incident if the perpetrator remains in camera view which is usually not the case in violent encounters.

        I promise you there is nothing more relieving or gratifying than to have video to prove a cop hating false accuser is actually a lying criminal turd, and that is exactly what the vast majority of body cam videos utilized to date have done

        • Oh the falsehoods. I guess let’s just start at the beginning….

          Hate to break the news to you Walker, but any LEO who began their career in the last 3 decades is very familiar and comfortable with doing their job while being videotaped, and any professional LEO working today believes a body camera should be mandatory standard issue equipment by every LE Agency in the U.S.

          Starting off with a completely insane statement that every cop is “comfortable” being taped. Hilarious! That’s people who record police encounters are routinely arrested, thrown to the ground, or have their phone seized. There’s plenty of mid-to-large departments where nobody wants a camera in the car, let alone a body cam.

          You can credit government bean counters flinching at the cost, not LEO’s as the reason many agencies still don’t have body cams.

          Once again, plenty of cops know that they live in the gray, and the body camera might impinge on their doing of their job.

          “The cost of the body cam alone isn’t the holdup for budget writers, it’s the big ticket cost of the necessary software and hardware to retain, store, and retrieve the staggering amount of data that’s accumulated once street officers begin wearing a camera that captures every minute of an 8 or 10 hour shift.”

          We’ve run the numbers several times here on the tiny cost of data storage, and how much easier record keeping becomes. Another non-issue. Cheaper than the cost of one tiny 6 figure settlement.

          “Vehicle cams are much more common but only capture an incident if the perpetrator remains in camera view which is usually not the case in violent encounters.”

          Vehicle cams are still not the norm, except if you’re state highway patrol, then it’s about 75%. The rest of the real world is less than 50%, and many are ancient tape-based units which seem to “have technical difficulties” at the wrong time. For the public anyway.

          “I promise you there is nothing more relieving or gratifying than to have video to prove a cop hating false accuser is actually a lying criminal turd, and that is exactly what the vast majority of body cam videos utilized to date have done”

          One thing that’s not a total misstatement. The problem is that if cops have any access to the recordings, they tend to get scrambled when things go sideways for the cop. And please, don’t suggest that they’re never touched, or that they’re tamper-proof. I can scramble a body cam with readily obtainable things in seconds and a VCR in a cruiser? Please…

        • 16V you’re full of $#!t. Cop haters can pretend all you want, but your outright lie claiming hardware and software to retain, store, and retrieve body cam data isn’t a major recurring expense many times greater that the initial cost of the body camera alone proves you’re just making up $#!t that sounds good to other cop haters. Same for the rest of your lame response, nothing but lies.

        • Man are you full of guano Teddy. Cops hate being filmed. Period. BTW I don’t hate cops-just bad,immoral and the ones who think they ARE a standing army(and above the law). +1000000 Ralph and 16V…

        • Teddy, how completely dirty are you? You sound like a Rampart cop before the crackdown…

    • Hey, cops kill plenty of white people. It’s just that most white people are indoctrinated to worship cops regardless of their criminality.

  2. I don’t really see the point in this.

    Are there bad apples in police departments? Yes. Are they protected by the union? Yes. Are the overwhelming majority of officers good guys? Yes. No book or study will change any of that.

    The simple fact is that haters gonna hate. Cop haters will not be dissuaded from their views by this publication (which will be suppressed in their circles and the MSM anyway) and the rest of us already knew what was going on.

    • Overwhelming majority of ‘good guys’, I would have agreed with you on that at one time.
      But in recent years, there have been too many times where it’s all on video, there are lots of cops around, and while the ‘good guys’ might not participate in an illegal beating, it’s very rare that any of them lift a finger to stop it.

      Until good cops are commonly willing to hold bad cops publicly accountable for willful criminal acts, there can’t be any good cops.

    • “Are there bad apples in police departments? Yes.”

      Of course. The real question is, what do you and the rest of these “good officers” do? Yeah, you let them go until they become a liability which can no longer be covered up. I’ve seen it hundreds of times, no I’m not a cop, yeah I’m connected enough to know how it really works.

      “Are they protected by the union? Yes.”

      Long before a disciplinary board sits down and the union defends them, you and your brothers have badged them out of a dozen DWIs, have let them slide as they lifted a little blow from the bust, have known that their duty-bag contains more oxy than most pharmacies. Give it a rest, you know who the loose cannon on the squad is, and until he’s sanctioned from on high (or the LT at least) he’s gonna be covered for.

      “Are the overwhelming majority of officers good guys? Yes.”

      If the definition of a “good guy” is someone who routinely covers (or even *once*, you arrest everyone else for *once*) for someone in the squad’s malfeasance, I don’t consider you one. You’re just another self-serving worker, concerned fare more about internal politics, and keeping his fat paycheck and gravy benes – compared to the average American anyway.

      I know cops. There’s many I like. But the ‘Pride, Integrity, Guts, Service’ shit? Spare me. I’ve seen too much and know more. It’s a job. One that pays well (generally) and only this year squeaked in the top ten most dangerous jobs for once in the last decade or so. Your job is far less likely to get you killed than driving a truck. Or a forklift in a warehouse. Or being a roofer. Or….

      • First off, I’m not a cop but I know dozens of them.

        From what they’ve told me whether or not officers will crucify another officer for bad behavior or not depends almost entirely on the atmosphere of the department. In big cities, the union rules over all because the elected officials tend to be Democrats who will excuse anything a public sector union does, including protecting officers from disciplinary actions.

        In places like this there is a “from the top” mentality that is extremely corrosive to good order and discipline because the union makes it very clear to these guys that the officer who shoots an unarmed guy in the back while he’s running away is going to be protected while the officers that speak out against such behavior are the ones that are going to get nailed to a cross. In many of these cases it’s not as simple as just speaking up and doing the right thing. Doing so will result in the union coming after you with a full court press. Suddenly performance reviews all turn to shit for no apparent reason and there are anonymous complaints against the officer which require reviews. The union’s objective here is not just to chase you out of the department, it’s to ruin your life by preventing you from moving to another department this making an example out of you. Fuck with the union and your career in LE is over is an unwritten rule in some departments and many of these guys don’t have much in the way of alternative career options.

        You can talk all you want about “doing the right thing” but when the metal meets the meat most people will choose to keep a roof over their family’s head and food on the table rather than stick their neck out and very likely get their head cut off while not actually achieving anything in the way of justice. Maybe that doesn’t include you or maybe it does. Personally I don’t think you actually know until you’re the one in the situation where it’s feed your kids or speak out for justice but I’m damn sure that the vast majority of people will say “When it’s you or my kids, my kids win” the same way many people here on TTAG say they won’t lift a finger to stop a violent attack if it doesn’t involve their family. Going home at the end of the day is what matters to the vast majority of people and doing something that risks losing that home just isn’t an option to them.

        If you want to clean up policing bust the unions. That’s what the cops I deal with tell me.

        • For what ever little it may be worth, I agree with you completely on all points except for the one about police unions being protected primarily by Democratic administrations in big cities. That kind of protection seems to be endemic to governments across the country, even in dark red Republican states and cities. It has no tie to a specific party. As an example, back when Scott Walker (Republican) was elected governor of Wisconsin and people were protesting his administration and trying to get him recalled, he and his Republican cronies in the state legislature started busting every government union, EXCEPT the police. They even went after the firefighters union. They didn’t go after the police union because they knew they would need the police to suppress the people demonstrating against Walker’s administration.

        • Great mythology, but the unions have sweet FA to do with what happens on the street.

          I do very much appreciate the ‘go along to get along’ and ‘I may need him to cover my ass someday’ dynamic. Seriously, I do cut guys some slack for what happens – until they start up with this “most cops are good” nonsense.

          Most cops aren’t completely malevolent, but are semi-corrupt people of great professional compromise. Worried about their above-average paycheck and cushy pension.

          Once you finally screw the pooch and your squad can/does write you off – then you’re at the mercy of the union.

        • @Richard Archer:

          Fair point. The power of unions is corrosive to everything it touches.

          @16V:

          You’re free to any opinion you like but unions most certainly do have an effect on what happens on the street because they are the root of the atmosphere in a department.

          The union helps politicians get elected and that means they get to whisper in the politicians ear. The politicians tell the brass what to do and what not to do and the brass sets the rules for the department. When an officer does something bad, politics comes into play because it’s the politicians that dictate to the brass about discipline and in turn take their cues from the union. When the union says “This guy’s a good union member and has rank in the union” the politicians instruct the brass to use kid gloves in any disciplinary actions that might be forthcoming.

          That’s not me talking, that’s a bunch of cops.

        • strych9, I get that the best you can do is Paul Blart, Mall Cop.

          The real world of policing has jack shit to do with your fantasy. Just like the military, you protect the members of your squad until it is expedient to throw them under the bus, or at least punish them for their misdeeds. Until that moment; when the blanket party is sanctioned, you do whatever you can to cover for them. Because you may need them to cover for you.

      • Pascal, I don’t disagree with you, my point is that if “the system” is what us little people have to go through, why don’t these “good cops” at least do their jobs and introduce the “bad cops” to it.

        Regardless of how unions have added advantage to police the little people don’t have, these “good cops” should be all over arresting the “bad cops” regardless. They have no problem arresting *us* and subjecting us to a broken system. How about one of their own, before he’s rolling hard (110+) to a traffic accident he’s been told he’s not needed at, while playing with the car computer and talking to his GF on the cell. On a busy highway. A guy that already has at-fault accidents, and would be fired in the real world long ago. Oh yeah, he crossed-over and killed two teenage girls. Should be in jail getting gang shower-loved at the very least. Instead, he did get fired, but just some probation.

        http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/ex-illinois-trooper-who-killed-collinsville-sisters-in-crash-trying/article_40c3d4b6-fbff-5362-9115-4de398229778.html

        Anyone with a scintilla of human decency would have gone home and eaten their gun. Instead this POS wants his DL back.

    • You’re exactly right strych9, the only thing I would add is that nationwide, only a small percentage minority of LEO’s are union members or even work for an agency where the rank & file have collective bargaining power.

      • So what’s your excuse for the malfeasance again, since you’ve admittedly discredited the unions?

    • strych9, don’t believe for a second that Farago had any intention of dissuading or enlightening any of his fellow cop haters, he was just throwing red meat to elicit a response from imbeciles like 16V, and it worked.

      • Yup Teddy, “imbeciles” like me who know many cops, across many departments, and have had many family who have done the job.

        Stick your propaganda where the sun don’t shine. I do know better.

    • “Are the overwhelming majority of officers good guys? Yes.”

      See this is where we differ… or at the very least, see things in slightly different context. I can’t say one way or another that the “overwhelming majority” of cops are “good guys”. Of the dozen of so LEOs i know close enough to make an assessment of their character, morals, attitude towards their job and the citizenry, etc, I’d say its closer to 50/50, but that’s a small sample size and so I’ll concede your point for the sake or argument the the overwhelming majority are good guys. That does not mean they are good cops. With the prevalence of bad behavior on the parts of our badged overseers, and the consistent lack of any meaningful punishment or consequences to those who perpetrate it, and conceding your point that only some tiny percentage of bad apples are actually committing these bad acts, that leaves only two real possibilities. The remaining overwhelming majority of “good cops” are either fully aware of the bad acts and do nothing to stop it, fight against it, or punish it, or they are completely incompetent as law enforcement officers.

      If option 1, then these “good cops” are not that at all. Especially with the higher burden of responsibility they SHOULD be held to (due to the special privileges granted to them), any tolerance AT ALL of illegal abusive behavior should be punished almost as severely as actually comitting those acts. Turning a blind eye to abuse of authority does not make you a “good guy” just because you didn’t participate yourself.

      If option 2, you are completely incompetent at your job and should not be wearing a badge. Your entire chosen profession, all your training, and the entire purpose of the heavily-funded gov’t backed, well-equipped organization to which you belong is dedicated to the investigation and apprehension of crimes/criminals. And you are completely clueless that YOUR CO-WORKERS whom you spend a majority of your waking hours with, in close proximity to, under stressful circumstances that inevitably create close bonds of brotherhood with, are committing illegal, immoral acts and abusing their authority? Then you’re so bad at your job you should be fired.

      Tl:dr; even granting that the “overwhelming majority” of cops are “good guys”, that means they are either completely f***ing incompetent, or are OK with turning a blind eye to the small percentage of “bad guys”. In my mind that either disqualifies you from employment as a cop, or disqualifies you from being considered a “good guy” respectively.

  3. More people are killed with hammers every year than rifles. Even so-called ‘assault rifles.’ Source: FBI Crime stats.

  4. 4. There is no systematic illegal use of *deadly* force by American LEOs

    Fixed it for you.
    Without the qualifier “deadly”, it’s a blatant falsehood. Cops in the USA have been handing out non-judicial punishment for as long as there have been cops in the USA and it’s widely institutionalized.

    • I believe it was understood that we are talking about illegal force where the unarmed person died. Therefore it would be redundant to say lethal force. All these stats were compiled from the instances when unarmed persons died. And in many cases, lethal force was not used (legal or otherwise) even though the result was death. Heart attacks and such were the cause. So the 7% figure seems high to the authors but sounds about right to me.

  5. I disagree with the recommendation that cops should go hand-to-hand with suspects rather than use less-likely-to-be-lethal tools like pepper spray and tasers. While cops are better prepared for a brawl than are most private citizens, they aren’t Chuck Norris in Walker – Texas Ranger. No cop can afford to lose a fight. Going hand-to-hand, unless the cop has an overwhelming physical advantage, is a good way to lose.

    • My Da was a cop in Miami 1950’s into early 1970’s. When I was little, I asked him if he ever had to fight at work.

      His reply: “Son, they pay me to fight.”

      In 20 years in the big city and another 20 or so in a very rural Sheriff’s Office, he never shot anyone. Tasers and OC were not in wide use yet.

      Policing has changed. Not all for the better.

      • No kidding. One grandfather Chicago PD, the other Sheriff, uncles were deputies.

        Back in the ’30s through ’50s, when being a cop was actually kind of dangerous. Pointing a gun at another citizen was serious business, and you had best know how to use your fists, that club, and spring-jack.

  6. “Officers should be expected not to treat every assault as a life-and-death situation….

    If someone attacks you while you are openly armed that says to me they are attempting to either kill or seriously harm you and thus deadly force is justified. Don’t attack people that are openly armed expecting to not be treated as though you are trying to kill them because that would be incredibly stupid.

    Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

  7. The tendency in the last couple generations of LEO’s to forgoe the empty hands step in the use of force continuum ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum ) is a problem created by the fact that many applicants who can pass a background investigation to be hired (particularly female applicants) have never been in a physical confrontation their entire life, they’re afraid to get physical because they’ve never really been in as much as a real life shoving match, much less a fight. Too many of today’s LE administrators prefer that officers avoid hands on or impact weapon force altogether which is why so many go straight to oc spray or taser.

  8. “4. There is no systematic illegal use of force by American LEOs”

    Because the courts have made almost every instance of lethal force by government employees legal. Treat these government thugs like tax paying citizens and their use of “illegal” force will skyrocket.

    • What a crock of $#!t. Good thing there’s only a small minority of died in the wool cop haters outside the war zones in and around the major cities Chris, because dumb@$$€$ such as yourself would experience what the cop hating dumb@$$€$ in Baltimore now have to suffer when LEO’s give up and quit trying to be proactive out of fear of false accusations from a large population of lying criminal turds.

      • Come on, Ted.
        Excluding the rare homicidal maniac, nobody wants to kill anybody, and virtually everybody who kills is in a heightened state of rage or fear.

        The difference is very plain.
        When a LEO fears for his life and shoots somebody, nobody (especially nobody involved in enforcing the laws) wants to second-guess a trained professional for saving his own life, or for ‘just doing his job’.
        When a non-LEO fears for his life and shoots somebody, plenty of people, including prosecutors, judges, and juries, are willing to second-guess a trigger happy civilian who killed somebody.

        The result, especially when combined with qualified immunity, is the legality of a LEO’s shooting is judged by whether he was afraid, while the legality of a non-LEO’s shooting is judged by whether somebody who has all the time in the world to review the situation would find it reasonable for him to fear for his life.

        Then an unreasonable shooting by a LEO is lawful, while a man like Ted Wafer gets convicted of Murder Two for an equally unreasonable shooting.

        • FedUp your come back is more of the same old lame cop hating non spcific line of bull$#!t just like we hear in rants from 16V & Chris Mallory.

          Unless you live in one of the radical anti gun states like CA, MD, NJ, or NY, armed citizens and LEO’s alike face the same scrutiny whether it be use of force investigations or grand jury reviews that put a burden on the shooter to be in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others. In some cases additional factors such duty to retreat may apply to non LE shootings, but in recent years new legislation introducing castle doctrine and stand your ground laws in pro 2nd amendment States give armed citizens the same legal protections LE has always had. Cop haters never let the truth and reality stand in the way of their hate and lies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *