Training Officers to Shoot First, and He Will Answer Questions Later

[Hotler]

WASHINGTON — The shooting looked bad. But that is when the professor is at his best. A black motorist, pulled to the side of the road for a turn-signal violation, had stuffed his hand into his pocket. The white officer yelled for him to take it out. When the driver started to comply, the officer shot him dead.

When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. Lewinski is often there to defend their actions. Among the most influential voices on the subject, he has testified in or consulted in nearly 200 cases over the last decade or so and has helped justify countless shootings around the country.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later/ar-BBlkpRv

People need to dog pile on this guy just like they did on the dentist that killed Ceil the lion.
This man should be shamed into the ground.

[dsc]

1. Long and good read

Very interesting and scary.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I think we need to do away with the 'fear' defense.

A police officer ought not to ever be justified in using lethal just because he 'feared' something was going to happen. There needs to have been a reasonable chance that it actually could. Shoot an unarmed person because you 'feared' they were reaching for a gun? Tough luck - no gun, no actual threat, and you've committed manslaughter at the least. Fear that you'll be 'sucked under a car' as it drives away from you? Get a quick lesson in real life physics, not Wiley Coyote and Roadrunner physics, then get hit with charges.

[X_Digger]

4. I don't think you've got that quite right.

The standard in most states is 'would a reasonable person fear imminent grievous bodily harm or death in the same circumstances'.

It's not about whether or not a person was afraid- a person could be genuinely afraid of old people with that old people smell, but shooting Grampa Joe wouldn't be justified just because you were afraid.

If a guy stuck a rolled up magazine against your back and said it was a gun, and you magically killed him, would you be guilty of manslaughter under your imaginary standard? How about a security guard who shoots a bank robber taking hostages with a fake gun?

[FreakinDJ]

8. I don't think you got it quite right

The Supreme Court set the law

The police officer's unions, state by state lobbied for and often wrote the rules of engagement we have now. "Fear Based Executions"

[X_Digger]

10. Cite the jurisprudence.

The rules of engagement, if you actually read judicial transcripts and don't get your talking points from the boob tube, support my facts.

e.g. in Florida..
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

(2)?A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

That 'reasonably believes' invokes the 'reasonable person' standard.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

[cascadiance]

13. I really don't know the rules for officers in this situation...

... but couldn't they just ask him to slowly extend his fingers so his hand is flat before pulling out his hand? That way he couldn't be holding anything like a gun when he pulled it out. It seems like that would be the methodology if you are trying to AVOID shooting someone. And that just came to my mind as a simple form of logic, not something that I've studied from police textbooks.

[X_Digger]

14. No doubt, that is sensible. A risk, but sensible.

If it's a gun in a person's pocket, they don't have to take it out of their pocket to shoot someone.

However, I was responding to the claim that saying 'I was afraid' was enough to avoid a charge. That's a talking point that the media has latched onto without understanding the underlying legal concept.

[DustyJoe]

5. real time

I think the Memphis officer killed just making an everyday traffic stop
might have been justified defending himself but didn't have time in that ambush.
As these scenarios increase you'll see officers get proactive about their
defense for every encounter from robbery calls to plain shoplifting calls.

How would the average person approach a situation that could end their life ?
Cautiously or just walk in hoping for the best in human nature ?

[RichVRichV]

9. Since when is shoot first ever considered caution?

Caution would be putting yourself into a position to protect from getting shot (such as partially behind a structure). Caution would be moving in with superior force to discourage action.

Caution is practiced before an event happens. Shooting because someone makes a move isn't caution, it's reaction. If you've reached that point then caution and preemption have already failed.

Some shootings are justified and unavoidable. But many police have lost the practice of deescalation. Too often their first instinct is to go for their gun. This is as much a training issue as anything, it's a systemic problem.

[DustyJoe]

11. events like Memphis killing will just support instincts like 'go for their gun' first

It won't be too long before police are trained to approach all contact with the public at the
end of a gun muzzle, just in caution.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. Proactive?

What have th been doing so far? If they get more "proactive" they will be shooting everyone they see.

[jwirr]

3. Agree. Training methods like these are outrageous. And they target minorities.

[BlueJazz]

6. Dr. Lewinski is a con-man and a liar plus human garbage. I wouldn't piss on that POS.

If you're a coward and a hair-trigger psycho you shouldn't be a cop. period.

[FreakinDJ]

7. POS