Why Aren’t Police Required To ....

[Abbynormal]

In the Colorado situation: My opinion is this:

1: The homeowner shot multiple times an intruder that was attacking his
grandson and he reacted by shooting said bad guy at least 3 times WITH the POPO outside!

2: Homeowner appeared at residential front door immediately afterward.

3: POPO DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT home owner was deafened by multiple shots inside his residence, thus making him deaf to spoken words and more than likely in shock!

4: POPO'S lowest on experience, time on job, gene pool, fired multiple shots, thus killing HOMEOWNER, not PERP!

5: Local POPO and DA realized their liability and sucked it up and are fighting the deceased family in their inability to react to home intrusions.

DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M 100% PRO COP, BUT THIS ONE WAS THE ONE THAT WENT OVER THE LINE.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

I suspect more police are killed by cars than by guns (too tired to search the internet right now though).

 

[shouldazagged]

I suspect more police are killed by cars than by guns (too tired to search the internet right now though).

I'd wager you're right. By cars, or in cars.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I suspect more police are killed by cars than by guns (too tired to search the internet right now though).

That was at least true in years gone by. Today's violent society has gun deaths creeping up, but as far as LE deaths that I am closely associated with, vehicles win by a small margin . . .

 

[WardenRoss]

The only time I ever felt real fear for my life was working a break-down, on a narrow bridge, in the dark, in the rain, on interstate 75, at the bottom of a hill.

I won't go into explaining how bad, distracted, unskilled, fearless, blind, and whatever, the oncoming traffic was.

And then someone complains about how bright the emergency lights are.

And I'm thinking to myself "I was on my way home, and only four miles from the house.............."

 

[Doug M.]

LE generally has to use undetected movement for safety. OSHA went full stupid a few years ago with the requirements for reflective gear; lots of folks wear it all the time, which is not a problem for most of them. It is a serious problem for LE. (I carried a compliant vest and threw it on for certain purposes such as car crashes, but not for enforcement; heck no.)

Vehicle lighting: Many lessons have gone into that situation. The first point of squad car lighting is to convey that there is a traffic hazard, and to do so in a manner in which there is ample time to adapt to it. The other traffic is mandated by law (at least everywhere with which I am familiar) to adjust whatever they are doing to cops, fire, highway vehicles, etc. If I have a mile's warning (which would be typical on an Interstate around here), that's plenty of time to change lanes, slow down as needed, etc. I still see people who fail to do so, and I used to write people who didn't if I was done with the enforcement action. (We also used to sometimes have another squad placed to stop those who went by improperly. We almost always got plenty of them, and would sometimes leapfrog for miles swapping stops.)

The next purpose for the lighting is to the front - light use as part of tactical control of the stop. A stopped driver should not see the officer approach, or see their shadow, because the spotlight(s), takedowns, and flashing patterns preclude that. It should be almost like the cop beamed in off the Enterprise. It gives officers concealment, allowing them to check out the actions of occupants and otherwise be safer. Given that vehicle stops, whether for traffic or other reasons, are a major source of assaults on officers, it has to be that way. For those who think that's too aggressive, there are regular reports of officers who precluded ambushes in such a manner, and research done over 25 years ago shows that the officers most likely to be assaulted and murdered are those who do not control their encounters and look unprepared. (And the Kansas City experiment, over 40 years ago and contradicted, shows that aggressive traffic enforcement is the single most effective way to find and interdict criminals. I've known officers who worked in bad places and never made a stop in a full career that was not expected to result in an arrest.) It only matters when it really matters, so one has to do it every time, without any consideration of the apparent nature of the driver. Cops meet all kinds of bad people, of all variety of age, sex, orientation, ethnic/racial background, attire, etc. They don't have the luxury of being biased in any direction, good or bad.

The Colorado situation is tragic, but not misconduct. IIRC, the homeowner was hearing impaired already, but I am sure the shots did not help. The problem is that the cops did ID him as a potential offender (using their own lights) and took almost 6 seconds to act on his non-compliance to their lawful commands. That is FOREVER in a scenario in which all of the research tells us that the decision/action period must be well under a second.