Cop orders man to put legal OC gun on ground. Kills him when he tries to comply.

[IndyDave1776]

They found him. We all know what happened after that.

Yes we do. Lon Horiuchi should NOT be breathing our air

 

[KLB]

Watching the remainder of the video, the officer says "he wouldn't drop the gun", then says "he brought it out of his jacket". You can't have it both ways.

I think this will probably be found to be a legal shoot.

I don't think it was a good one.

 

[chipbennett]

Watching the remainder of the video, the officer says "he wouldn't drop the gun", then says "he brought it out of his jacket". You can't have it both ways.

I think this will probably be found to be a legal shoot.

I don't think it was a good one.

How do these two statements conflict meaningfully?

 

[Denny347]

I realize there may be situations where a person is hearing impaired, but if an officer is pointing a gun at me and yelling, I will at the least get my hands up. Why this guy did not speak to the officers or show some cooperation is a mystery to me. I know little about the whole situation, but it did seem the officer was perhaps too trigger-happy and could have waited longer to see the intent of the deceased. Tough situation for the officer, that is for sure.

15yrs ago or so, I had a situation in Irvington (east side of Indy) where neighbors called 911 to report a guy next door in the back yard, firing a handgun in the air, at night. The units were very close together and they all shared a common back yard and it was poorly lit back there. I get there first and am out front talking to the caller when I hear gunfire in the back yard, it was too close. I draw my handgun and start heading to the rear. I get there and find the suspect holding a handgun down at his side and a blank look on his face. I'm pointing my handgun at him, YELLING (I emphasize yelling because I want the ENTIRE neighborhood to hear my commands) repeatedly for him to drop the gun. He looks at me blankly, still holding the handgun, ignoring my commands. I move my trigger finger from the frame to the trigger and begin to take the slack out, he still is not complying. Almost pushing the button, he finally drops the handgun and I take him into custody. Come to find out, he was a Serious Violent Felon and he had run out of rounds prior to me finding him so the handgun was locked open when he was holding it down at his side. I was about to shoot a man holding an empty gun (although I had no way of knowing it at the time) who was refusing to drop it, if he moved in any direction OTHER than dropping the handgun it would have been very bad for him. If we had body cameras at the time it could easily looked like I was screaming wildly, pointing my gun at a person holding a handgun down at his side with the slide locked back, empty. Even though I could not see the slide at all, a camera could have likely picked it up and everyone watching the video would ASSUME I saw the exact same thing, empty gun. Looking back, I was lucky it was empty because I thought since his gun was down at his side and I had my gun pointed at him, I was safe. I was waiting for him to bring that handgun up before I actually fired but I was ready with the finger on the trigger for it. We see this in TV shows ALL the time. Good guy pointing a gun at bad guy and waits for bad guy to try to bring up gun before good guy fires. Only years later did I learn that waiting for him to raise his handgun up meant I was likely to get shot BEFORE I had a chance to pull the trigger. Action ALWAYS beats reaction. I've demonstrated this over and over to my recruits during class using the "finger gun" demonstration. I get 2 recruits and have them face each other, one is the good guy, one is the bad guy. The good guy has his finger gun up and pointed at the bad guy. The bad guy has his finger gun down at his side. I instruct the good guy that he can say "bang" when he sees the bad guy's finger gun start to raise. I instruct the bad guy to raise his finger gun (at their choosing) up to the good guy and say bang. Good guy will win right? I've done this and many recruits have done this. EVERY SINGLE TIME, the bad guy wins. They will raise their gun up and "fire" before the good guy and perceive the movement and then act with their own "bang"...every time. If I wait until a bad guy points a gun at me, my only saving grace will be dumb luck they miss me or my vest catches it. I really don't like those odds. Even if I find cover, and interact with the suspect from cover, they will get the first shot at me and sometimes they get lucky hits. Encountering a suspect HOLDING a handgun and refusing to drop it is very dangerous to the officer and could be fatal to the suspect. Looking back, I would have been 100% justified in shooting the suspect firing in the back yard after ignoring countless commands. Also, in the OP's video. I don't mind the "screaming" commands as I could clearly hear WHAT they were saying and as an officer I want people from 2 blocks over to hear me in case this becomes a shooting and we have witnesses that can testify that they heard the officer give lawful commands. My issue with the commands in OP's video is that 2 officers were giving them. Best practice is ONE officer gives commands. However, since they were saying the same thing, it wasn't much of an issue. It becomes an issue when 2 officers are giving commands to the same suspect and give CONFLICTING commands that lead to a shooting. That will be hard to defend. Wheeew, that was a bit long winded.

 

[Denny347]

Watching the remainder of the video, the officer says "he wouldn't drop the gun", then says "he brought it out of his jacket". You can't have it both ways.

I think this will probably be found to be a legal shoot.

I don't think it was a good one.

Now I will say that bad tactics lead to good shootings. Not sure if that applies in this situation but I see it ALL THE TIME in other police action shootings. As a profession it is hard to break the mindset that we only need to concern ourselves that the shooting was legal and that we not need to strive for "best practices" in learning better tactics (on our own time and dime I'm afraid) that could reduce the number of PAS. But many officers only care if the PAS was justified or not. Researching this stuff I came across the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" which is basically a cognitive bias in which a person fails to see their own deficiencies or gaps in knowledge. As a result, they can overestimate their abilities and competence. I suffer from it, working on it though, we all suffer from it. They wrote “Poor performers—and we are all poor performers at some things—fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack. When we think we are at our best is sometimes when we are at our objective worst.” Getting off my soapbox now...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Now I will say that bad tactics lead to good shootings. Not sure if that applies in this situation but I see it ALL THE TIME in other police action shootings. As a profession it is hard to break the mindset that we only need to concern ourselves that the shooting was legal and that we not need to strive for "best practices" in learning better tactics (on our own time and dime I'm afraid) that could reduce the number of PAS. But many officers only care if the PAS was justified or not. Researching this stuff I came across the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" which is basically a cognitive bias in which a person fails to see their own deficiencies or gaps in knowledge. As a result, they can overestimate their abilities and competence. I suffer from it, working on it though, we all suffer from it. They wrote “Poor performers—and we are all poor performers at some things—fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack. When we think we are at our best is sometimes when we are at our objective worst.” Getting off my soapbox now...

Thank you for this insightful post.

 

[KLB]

How do these two statements conflict meaningfully?

How can he drop a gun he is not holding? Trying to get the gun to drop it is what got him shot.

 

[KLB]

Now I will say that bad tactics lead to good shootings. Not sure if that applies in this situation but I see it ALL THE TIME in other police action shootings. As a profession it is hard to break the mindset that we only need to concern ourselves that the shooting was legal and that we not need to strive for "best practices" in learning better tactics (on our own time and dime I'm afraid) that could reduce the number of PAS. But many officers only care if the PAS was justified or not. Researching this stuff I came across the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" which is basically a cognitive bias in which a person fails to see their own deficiencies or gaps in knowledge. As a result, they can overestimate their abilities and competence. I suffer from it, working on it though, we all suffer from it. They wrote “Poor performers—and we are all poor performers at some things—fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack. When we think we are at our best is sometimes when we are at our objective worst.” Getting off my soapbox now...

Excellent post. At the root of things, we are all just human. We all have flaws.

 

[chipbennett]

How can he drop a gun he is not holding? Trying to get the gun to drop it is what got him shot.

Not necessarily accurate. The gun could have been in his hand and also in his pocket (i.e. he could have been holding it in his hand, with his hand in his pocket).

In his crouched position, that determination would have been rather difficult - and compounded by the time he spent not communicating or otherwise acting in a manner that demonstrated intent to comply.

If the gun had been in his pocket while his hand was not also in his pocket, showing the officers his open hands would have immediately demonstrated that he wasn't holding the firearm.

 

[ziggy]

Reply to Denny 347

Reply to Denny 347

Thanks for writing that. I understand 'action beats reaction,' but it seems hard to think reaction cannot pull a trigger faster than action can raise a gun from below waist high. I cannot argue with your experience, but why do you think that is the case? Normal reluctance to shoot someone?
I agree with the idea that you should point your gun low enough to be able to see the hands of the BG; tunnel vision under stress means you will easily miss anything outside of your main area of focus.
I think the Charlotte officer acted lawfully, but it did seem to me to be a bad shoot. What do you think?

 

[two70]

Reply to Denny 347

Thanks for writing that. I understand 'action beats reaction,' but it seems hard to think reaction cannot pull a trigger faster than action can raise a gun from below waist high. I cannot argue with your experience, but why do you think that is the case? Normal reluctance to shoot someone?
I agree with the idea that you should point your gun low enough to be able to see the hands of the BG; tunnel vision under stress means you will easily miss anything outside of your main area of focus.
I think the Charlotte officer acted lawfully, but it did seem to me to be a bad shoot. What do you think?

Perception time + Processing time + Reaction time

The good guy has to perceive the gun is being raised, process that perception and choose a response, then execute the response. While that happens quickly, the bad guy has an insurmountable head start since all he has to do is execute the response, ie. raise and fire.

 

[churchmouse]

Perception time + Processing time + Reaction time

The good guy has to perceive the gun is being raised, process that perception and choose a response, then execute the response. While that happens quickly, the bad guy has an insurmountable head start since all he has to do is execute the response, ie. raise and fire.

There is merit to Denny and your post. Not every good guy will loose in this scenario. Most will of course but reaction times will vary among folks.

 

[two70]

There is merit to Denny and your post. Not every good guy will loose in this scenario. Most will of course but reaction times will vary among folks.

True but probably rather moot since the likelihood of a single shot resulting in an instantaneous stop is very, very small. In other words, even though you might get the shot off first, the bad guy is probably going to get a shot off as well, which is not a good proposition.

 

[ditcherman]

15yrs ago or so, I had a situation in Irvington
snip
Wheeew, that was a bit long winded.

Great post, thank you.
It would be interesting to use your finger gun exercise with laser tag or paintball so you could see a hit, not just hear ‘bang’.

I would like to hear the female officers voice on the male’s camera, I bet she wouldn’t seem like she was all that loud, certainly not the crazed maniac that some have made her out to be. Could be wrong though.

 

[LP1]

Yes, that group of people is known as "criminals".

Do tell: would either officer have been at that Burger King if Franklin had not been committing the acts that led to multiple 911 calls and a police dispatch for assault with a deadly weapon?

First sentence is pure unadulterated BS, and you should be ashamed of it. All people who are profiled are all "criminals"? Ridiculous.

You're citing a situation where the police had reason to suspect that individual, and they acted accordingly. Are your reasoning skills so poor that you can't tell the difference?

 

[chipbennett]

First sentence is pure unadulterated BS, and you should be ashamed of it. All people who are profiled are all "criminals"? Ridiculous.

I am ashamed of nothing. You said: "It's clear that certain groups are subjected to greater police scrutiny." I responded: "Yes, that group of people is known as "criminals"."

Criminals are subjected to greater police scrutiny. This statement is factual, unbiased, and dispassionate. Of what should I be ashamed?

On the other hand, if you're claiming that Franklin was subject to greater police scrutiny because of race, then I refer back to my following statement: "Do tell: would either officer have been at that Burger King if Franklin had not been committing the acts that led to multiple 911 calls and a police dispatch for assault with a deadly weapon?" To which you replied:

You're citing a situation where the police had reason to suspect that individual, and they acted accordingly. Are your reasoning skills so poor that you can't tell the difference?

No, clearly my reasoning skills are just fine, and it is ironic, based on this exchange, that you would call them into question.

 

[Denny347]

There is merit to Denny and your post. Not every good guy will loose in this scenario. Most will of course but reaction times will vary among folks.

Indeed. The AVERAGE bad guy can raise and fire their handgun in .35-.4 seconds. The average police officer will take about .3 seconds to perceive the threat and decide action. They will also take about the same to put decision to action .6 seconds. Check out Force Science Institute as they do these studies and experiments. forcescience.org

 

[KLB]

Not necessarily accurate. The gun could have been in his hand and also in his pocket (i.e. he could have been holding it in his hand, with his hand in his pocket).

In his crouched position, that determination would have been rather difficult - and compounded by the time he spent not communicating or otherwise acting in a manner that demonstrated intent to comply.

If the gun had been in his pocket while his hand was not also in his pocket, showing the officers his open hands would have immediately demonstrated that he wasn't holding the firearm.

If you don't see a gun, why tell him to drop it? Maybe if the officers had told him to show them his hands, he would have. Maybe then he wouldn't have had the gun in his hand, and she would not have panicked and shot him.

You seem to want to defend their actions to the bitter end. The officers did not appear to handle this well.

 

[Denny347]

If you don't see a gun, why tell him to drop it? Maybe if the officers had told him to show them his hands, he would have. Maybe then he wouldn't have had the gun in his hand, and she would not have panicked and shot him.

You seem to want to defend their actions to the bitter end. The officers did not appear to handle this well.

And you have condemned them to the end. Time will tell who is right I suppose. I think Chip is being more pragmatist than defender but many see that as the same thing.

 

[KLB]

And you have condemned them to the end. Time will tell who is right I suppose. I think Chip is being more pragmatist than defender but many see that as the same thing.

How have I condemned her? Because I think she did not handle that interaction well? I'm not calling for her to be jailed. The system will determine if what she did was legal and just.

Telling someone to drop a gun when you do not see a gun is not the same as telling someone to show me your hands. I think that giving clear concise instructions could have avoided what happened here. Yelling drop the gun, when they could not see a gun, did nothing to resolve the encounter. Imagine what might have happened if instead the officers said, "Let me see your hands." And asked, "where is the gun?" Maybe then he doesn't pull the gun out to drop it and get shot.