I’m sure that by now everybody has seen the video of Kajieme Powell being shot by police in St. Louis. It is very clear from the video that the police did not at any time even consider doing anything but killing him. Readers tell me that police are trained only to shoot to kill and nothing else. But does anybody know why that is?
All I can think of are economic reasons: nobody wants to have to pay the pension or workers’ comp in case something happens to a police. I’m hearing these pensions are not insignificant. So it’s cheaper just to train police to shoot to kill.
If anybody has better explanations, please share.
Clarissa's Blog 
If officers were trained to wound suspects with non-lethal shots, it would be insanely hard to prosecute unjustifiable shootings that result in killings, as the officer could just claim that he was trying to incapacitate the subject, but the subject’s movement caused the shot to become lethal. Lowering the threshold for when to discharge a firearm will probably result in more deaths, with even fewer consequences.
That is the argument.
I don’t know if it’s a valid argument or not because, well, it’s not like police officers are prosecuted much anyway. You have murders committed on tape. Like the one a few weeks ago where a man was choked to death in NYC while he was screaming ‘I have asthma, I can’t breathe, don’t choke me’. The NYC police manual very clearly prohibits putting suspects in a chokehold. And this was on tape, mind you. The consequences? That cop is off the street and now on ‘desk duty’. No criminal charges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner
Also, not sure about this argument because every other country seems to manage just fine with the policy of wounding suspects instead of killing them. Why is the US so different?
I do think the training should focus on how to fucking interact with the public, and how to de-escalate situations (hint: pointing your gun at unarmed protestors is probably not a good idea if your intent is to defuse the situation). And maybe screening wannabe bullies in the first place. It’s shocking how easy it is to become a cop at some places.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/
Just read this ex-cop’s screed. He’s trying to project himself as the voice of reason among all this chaos, and he writes:
“Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you.”
If what he wrote isn’t a sign of a personality disorder, I don’t know what is.
LikeLike
“If what he wrote isn’t a sign of a personality disorder, I don’t know what is.”
– I’ve heard worse in this discussion. I mean, heard in person from people I know. One used to work for local police, one is related to a former police. They unanimous verdict is, “Whatever happens, a police office is always right and always knows best.” This was delivered completely seriously and with great conviction.
LikeLike
I’m sure you saw the video of the clearly deranged cop aiming a weapon at protesters in Ferguson and screaming like a maniac. First they hire obviously sick people, reward them give them raises and then we all sit here and wonder why such things keep happening. It beggars belief that such a very sick person would be given a weapon and unleashed on people.
LikeLike
I don’t know if they are really trained to shoot to kill per se. It is more likely that they are trained in the same manner soldiers are, which is to aim for a target’s center of mass. If one aimed for the extremities, one is more likely to miss a target. Aiming at the chest area minimizes that risk.
LikeLike
The standard training (per a police link in another thread) is called shoot to stop but is actually shoot to kill as it’s 2 shots to the central body mass and one to the head.
Another link (in the link to the article i found) describes a European country with shoot to stop training (Czech Republic) but there police are trained to not shoot until the subject is very close and to aim down (among other reasons) to minimize the danger of bullets passing through the target (or missing).
LikeLike
“The standard training (per a police link in another thread) is called shoot to stop but is actually shoot to kill as it’s 2 shots to the central body mass and one to the head.”
– That’s precisely what I’m wondering about. There must be a reason for this practice. I’m waiting to see if anybody knows of any non-economic reasons.
LikeLike
I’m talking specifically of the control shot in the forehead we have seen in the Ferguson case.
LikeLike
There are two different issues here:
1) If you’re going to shoot, “shoot to wound” is a fiction. Aiming shots is hard enough under the best of circumstances. (I’ve been to a shooting range and shot at paper targets. I was relaxed and having a good time, but it was still tricky.) Aiming at a real human, in a frightening situation where time is precious, is even harder. Only movie characters can aim for the forearm and graze it, causing the suspect to drop his weapon without being seriously injured. In real life, aiming for the forearm will either miss to one side and hit a bystander, or miss on the other side and hit the suspect in the torso. Either way, you’re taking the very real risk of killing somebody. So if you shoot, you shoot with the understanding that what you are doing is likely to kill somebody. If the situation isn’t dangerous enough to necessitate killing somebody, you have no business pointing the gun at somebody. If they trained people to shoot to wound, it would create an even more reckless mindset, because it would make them even more willing to draw their gun, point it at people, and pull the trigger.
So, in that sense, “shoot to kill” is exactly the right way to train people.
2) The other issues, though, is WHEN they should be taught to shoot to kill. Cops seem to be resorting to violence in situations where they really ought to be trying something else. Shooting to kill should be a much rarer option than it currently is.
So, they should be taught to shoot to kill, but they should be taught to do it only under the most exceptional of circumstances.
LikeLike
I agree pretty thoroughly. Shooting was far from the only option in this case and its disgraceful that police are apparently being trained to go from nothing to shooting in no time flat.
LikeLike
“So, they should be taught to shoot to kill, but they should be taught to do it only under the most exceptional of circumstances.”
Indeed. Watching the video, they show up, and within seconds, the guy is dead (and, contrary to their account, no he didn’t lunge at them or run up to them suddenly). No tasers or even industrial strength pepper spray? Especially with multiple cops on the scene who can back each other up.
On top of that, what training do they get in handling someone with an obvious mental illness or anyone who can’t immediately jump to follow orders? Does that vary by department?
Here’s another story where off-duty police (moonlighting as mall cops) wound up killing a man with Down’s Syndrome for the crime of not understanding that he needed to pay again to watch a movie. The aide who was with the man asked police to not touch him or tackle him and to try to resolve the situation peacefully (by say, letting the aide talk to him a little and call family who lived nearby). But no! The guy needed to be tackled, cuffed, and held down… until he suffered asphyxiation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/syndrome-man-movies-ends-morgue/story?id=20046376
Some of them really feel like they should immediately escalate towards violent reprisal for anything.
This is why, when it comes to the Michael Brown case (and from what I read in the NY Times yesterday Ferguson police already admitted to Wilson firing on him as Brown was running away from the car), people shouldn’t jump to believe the cop based on no evidence.
LikeLike
Kajieme Powell has been described as “knife-wielding and knife-brandishing man” in numerous news accounts. But it’s clear from the video that he was not wielding or brandishing. I got the idea from the accounts (before the video) that he was attacking the police, putting them in danger. The video shows that nothing of the kind happened.
LikeLike
“If you’re going to shoot, “shoot to wound” is a fiction. Aiming shots is hard enough under the best of circumstances. (I’ve been to a shooting range and shot at paper targets. I was relaxed and having a good time, but it was still tricky.) ”
– Hard is one thing. But being trained that, whatever happens, your job is to kill is a very different thing. With Michael Brown, it is very obvious that the policeman was very determined to kill no matter what.
LikeLike
Shooting at the head seems like a bad idea. First, it definitely goes beyond “shoot to stop.” Second, it’s a smaller target, increasing the odds of a stray bullet hitting someone. (Shooting at the head might mean aiming up, but in a world with balconies, second story windows, and hills, you can still hit a bystander aiming up.)
LikeLike
I think the head shot is for when they’re on the ground… I think one reason might be that processing a dead suspect is cheaper than a wounded one if the state is going to be on the hook for their medical care.
LikeLike
“I think one reason might be that processing a dead suspect is cheaper than a wounded one if the state is going to be on the hook for their medical care.”
– So economic reasons, as I suspected?
LikeLike
My speculations:
On the civil side: wrongful death suits are much easier to defend and cheaper to pay out than wrongful injury or excessive force suits. (I assume.) In wrongful injury the victim is alive and needs money for years to pay for expensive medical care. In wrongful death, the estate of the victim is paid out. The people who are likely to be killed by police are unlikely to have great earning power at the time of their death or great projected earning power, which factors into how much the government will pay out in a wrongful death settlement.
In criminal cases, it’s easier to defend your version of events if it can’t be contradicted by anyone.
LikeLike
“Readers tell me that police are trained only to shoot to kill and nothing else. But does anybody know why that is?”
The thing is, had it been an affluent person (especially affluent white person), who had maybe snapped in his business workplace and approached police with a knife, would they have defaulted to shooting first? Or would they have tried for a non-lethal method of subduing him or of defusing the situation by continuing to keep him away from bystanders and trying to talk to him?
Would they be considering the repercussions towards them from the connections of a well-off person vs. a random person who isn’t wealthy, maybe doesn’t have family or at least not anyone well-connected (and who is also black and can therefore be written off even more easily?)
LikeLike
http://www.popehat.com/2014/08/14/dont-give-special-rights-to-anybody-oh-except-cops-thats-cool/
If you are arrested for shooting someone, the police will use everything in their power — lies, false friendship, fear, coercion — to get you to make a statement immediately. That’s because they know that the statement is likely to be useful to the prosecution: either it will incriminate you, or it will lock you into one version of events before you’ve had an opportunity to speak with an adviser or see the evidence against you. You won’t have time to make up a story or conform it to the evidence or get your head straight.
But what if a police officer shoots someone? Oh, that’s different. Then police unions and officials push for delays and opportunities to review evidence before any interview of the officer. Last December, after a video showed that a cop lied about his shooting of a suspect, the Dallas Police issued a new policy requiring a 72-hour delay after a shooting before an officer can be interviewed, and an opportunity for the officer to review the videos or witness statements about the incident. Has Dallas changed its policy to offer such courtesies to citizens arrested for crimes? Don’t be ridiculous. If you or I shoot someone, the police will not delay our interrogation until it is personally convenient. But if the police shoot someone:
“New Mexico State Police, which is investigating the shooting, said such interviews hinge on the schedules of investigators and the police officers they are questioning. Sgt. Damyan Brown, a state police spokesman, said the agency has no set timeline for conducting interviews after officer-involved shootings. The Investigations Bureau schedules the interviews at an “agreeable” time for all parties involved, he said.”
LikeLike
I was always very bothered by how much the American justice system relies on confessions. The only other place I’m aware of where “confessions” were of this enormous value was Stalin’s USSR where Stalin’s favorite prosecutor Vyshinsky said that “A confession is the queen of jurisprudence.”
LikeLike
Let us remind ourselves that the cop who murdered Brown is out of town on paid leave. In other words, a vacation.
It is unreal to me that the police use ‘officer safety’ as a reason to not identify cops who kill civilians. That is such a straw man. This never happens. Even Zimmerman, a fucking vigilante, had nothing happen to him after he killed Trayvon Martin. No mob justice, nothing. Furthermore, if you as a head of a police department, can’t even guarantee the safety of your own armed police officers, how can you be trusted to fight actual crime and safeguard the lives of your citizenry? Perhaps you should just dissolve your department.
David Simon has a wonderful series of articles about this.
http://davidsimon.com/the-end-game-for-american-civic-responsibility-pt-iii/
“And similarly, as already noted, anyone seeking to harm one of your officers in an extra-legal manner confronts not only a lone individual, but the combined authority and force of all of your officers, of the county and state police agencies, of your jurisdiction’s prosecutors and judges. In and out of court, no police officer ever stands alone and vulnerable — not in the manner of the average citizen. Say, Mr. Brown, for example.
.
.
Yet incredibly, you continue to hide from any accountability by speaking of retribution against an officer. But such retribution is wholly imagined on your part; the damage to accountability and transparency is actual and of the moment.
.
.
Your department, in order to solve crimes and maintain order, is dependent on the cooperation of witnesses — fellow citizens willing to trust in the process of arrest and prosecution, and in their own personal safety should they properly contribute to that process. ..
.
.
If Ferguson police can’t protect one of their own — a fellow officer who is armed, who is allied with an entire department of armed comrades, who are themselves buttressed by their jurisdiction’s prosecutorial arm, who have the full weight of the law at hand in support of that officer — then how in hell are they going to protect me when I go down to the courthouse and testify? How can they ask me, an ordinary citizen with no armament, alliance or authority, to stand up in open court and be identified?”
LikeLike
Now there are “anonymous callers” who call conservative radio stations and TV channels and offer the officer’s side of the story. They never show their faces, never say how they know what actually happened, there is zero accountability. They can say whatever they want, slander the victim in any way. Notice that everybody who is offering eye-witness accounts against the officer have revealed their names and faces in public.
There are endless claims that the officer was brutalized by Brown but where is proof? The officer could have shown his allegedly brutalized face at once and the matter could have been settled once and for all. But he didn’t and now he had all the time in the world to fabricated any sort of injuries.
This is all so fucked up.
LikeLike
“Notice that everybody who is offering eye-witness accounts against the officer have revealed their names and faces in public. ”
At a significant risk to their well-being, I might add. These protests will die soon, so will the media attention to them. But that same police department is going to be policing the town of Ferguson after everything’s said and done. You think the cops will forget? I fear life’s going to be much much worse for black people in Ferguson. Collective punishment and all that.
LikeLike
I also really dig the constant reminders that “most of the protesters are not from Ferguson.” One has really got to be a degenerate to say things like that. Ferguson is a tiny suburb. Of course, most of the protesters come from other tiny suburbs nearby. It takes one about 10 minutes even without a car to get from one of these suburbs to another. But this hugely important fact that the protesters come from West Florissant, St. Louis, Alton, etc. is being presented like it should really mean something.
LikeLike
Haha. ‘Outside agitator’ has quite a loaded history from the Civil Rights Movement era. The favorite term of segregationists and racial purists of the time. Nice to see the term resurface in these protests, uttered by the chief of the police department of Ferguson.
LikeLike
“These protests will die soon, so will the media attention to them. But that same police department is going to be policing the town of Ferguson after everything’s said and done. You think the cops will forget? I fear life’s going to be much much worse for black people in Ferguson. Collective punishment and all that.”
I found this statistic on the Internet:
“Ferguson is a city located in northern St. Louis County with 21,203 residents living in 8,192 households. The majority (67%) of residents are African-American…22% of residents live below the poverty level.
Despite Ferguson’s relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of $2,635,400. In 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court disposed of 24,532 warrants and 12,018 cases, or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household.”
http://www.correntewire.com/following_the_money_in_ferguson
Don’t you think SB that the residents of Ferguson have already been getting enough collective punishment?
LikeLike
A retired cop explained it to me that you only draw your gun when your life or that of another is in immediate peril, and fire when you’re sure that the perp has intent to kill. Generally when the subject is armed with a gun and pointing it at you, or running at you with a knife. Brandishing a knife is not enough.
If that requirement is met, shoot to kill makes sense because shooting to incapacitate requires excellent marksmanship under extreme duress. If you need to incapacitate, pepper spray and tasing(sp?) are safer, because a shot to the leg or arm can kill a person pretty easily or cause them permanent damage, whereas pepper spray does not. Tasing is a bit different.
Cops clearly aren’t getting the ‘use your gun as THE LAST resort’ training anymore. This cop also said he was trained to shoot twice in the body – no head shots.
Head shots are silly because two body shots will always incapacitate them but might not kill them which is the best possible outcome. A head shot always means death.
I think stun guns, tasers, tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. should be used more often, even against armed suspects. Cops should be held to higher standards than civilians, not lower.
LikeLike
LikeLike
He fulfilled their fantasy and now they are paying him for it.
LikeLike
I carry a firearm everywhere I go and it amazes me how easily these officers start popping off shots at this guy. Even in a very pro-gun state, I’m nervous about shooting a round into the sky due to the paper work. I don’t even want to think about shooting someone, even in the foot and with justifiable self defense.
I think it’s safe to say the cops didn’t need to shoot the poor SOB 3-5 times each at close range. The way they wantonly fire off those rounds tells me they’re way to comfortable shooting someone in the line of duty.
LikeLike
The fund for the officer has surpassed the fund for the victim in size. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/225-000-crowdfunding-raised-support-darren-wilson-n186616
LikeLike
I’d rather not even know this because I don’t want to imagine people who would give their own money to this killer.
LikeLike
A teachable moment.
A Grade Six teacher in Selma, Albama was suspended after she had her students re-enact the slaying of Michael Brown in which a black student was designated as the victim while a white student pretended to gun him down.
“Baughn says the students used paper guns and paper bullets. “They actually shot them out of this made gun,” she says. “The child falls on the ground like he’s dead.”
Baughn claims a white child played the role of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson and a black student pretended to be Michael Brown. “I understand talking about current history,” the mom explained, “but not re-enacting it I don’t… What are we teaching our children?””
http://www.wsfa.com/story/26329405/al-teacher-whose-students-re-enacted-ferguson-shooting-suspended-without-pay?clienttype=generic
Never too early to educate people on whom is in charge and what are the chances of Wilson being convicted?
“Delores Jones-Brown, a law professor and director of the Center on Race, Crime, and Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, looked at 21 publicized cases from 1994 through 2009 in which a police officer killed an unarmed black person. Of those, only seven cases resulted in an indictment—for criminally negligent homicide, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, or violation of civil rights—and only three officers were found guilty.”
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/heres-what-happens-police-officers-who-shoot-unarmed-black-men
LikeLike
It must be excruciatingly painful to teach when these fussy mommies are policing every move the teacher makes. Why don’t they go get a life already?
LikeLike
NYT smear campaign against Michael Brown.
“Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel…dabbled in drugs and alcohol…taken to rapping in recent months…overcame early struggles in school to graduate on time…As a boy, Michael was a handful. When his parents put up a security gate, he would try to climb it. When they left out pens and pencils, he would use them to write on the wall…was not the best student. “His grades were kind of edgy.”
LikeLike