West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gun

[Belsnickel]

(09-15-2016, 10:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: My thing is the first officer on the scene was handling things.  It was the two that came later that did the shooting.  If the second pair did not evaluate what was going on there is a huge communication problem.

And another unarmed man is dead in a suicide by cop situation.

True, a communication problem probably existed. As to your second part, no. The saying that you treat every firearm as if it is loaded applies not just to handling a firearm, but in self-defense situations as well. As far as procedure is concerned, he was armed.

(09-15-2016, 10:34 AM)xxlt Wrote: Exactly. The fired officer was doing the right thing BY POLICY. He was deescalating the subject. Even if the gun was loaded, with it pointed at the ground subject was not a threat. 

Other sources have stated that the firearm was not just pointed at the ground the whole time, that there were movements made in a threatening manner that, when looking at the whole picture, were intended to entice the police to shoot him.

[*bfine32*]

Seems similar to the oregon standoff to me.

One Officer was communicating with the victim and two others shot him.

[Au165]

It's a no win situation for cops anymore.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-15-2016, 10:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: My thing is the first officer on the scene was handling things.  It was the two that came later that did the shooting.  If the second pair did not evaluate what was going on there is a huge communication problem.

And another unarmed man is dead in a suicide by cop situation.

Crappy situation, but the guy was not unarmed.

[Rotobeast]

(09-15-2016, 11:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's borderline impossible for me to give a good answer to that because I don't know that department's policy, I don't know this officer's prior conduct and I don't know the framework for termination during a probationary period for that department.  You'd have to look at the entirety of this officer's record and you'd have to know policy before you could make that determination.  I will say this is one of the problems I have with "at will" employment, they don't even need to give you a reason many times.  

This....

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

(09-15-2016, 12:29 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Crappy situation, but the guy was not unarmed.

Poor phrasing by me.  It turned out the gun was not loaded and in reality posed no threat though the officers could not have known that.

[xxlt]

(09-15-2016, 11:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: True, a communication problem probably existed. As to your second part, no. The saying that you treat every firearm as if it is loaded applies not just to handling a firearm, but in self-defense situations as well. As far as procedure is concerned, he was armed.


Other sources have stated that the firearm was not just pointed at the ground the whole time, that there were movements made in a threatening manner that, when looking at the whole picture, were intended to entice the police to shoot him.

I didn't judge the shooters, and still won't. Even if they get their department's highest honor for conduct, I still don't see a defense for firing the other officer. I didn't catch that he was on probation in the OP, but isn't that all the more reason to give him a chance? Maybe he needs more training in shoot/don't shoot simulations. Maybe the logistics of the situation dictated why he didn't shoot. I thought the original account said he was behind the subject and ordered him to drop the weapon. Even if subject is waving it if there is no target threatened I could see letting him wave it for awhile. The others showed up and shot quickly, it seems. Did they confer with first officer on scene? Were they behind him? On either side? In front of him? All those factors could impact first officers decision not to shoot, IMO. And just because they opened fire, why does that compel him too? Remember the Springsteen song, 41 Shots? Sad to think had he just put a single round (or unloaded his magazine) in the subject or fired a shot and missed him he would apparently still be employed. Firing seems a huge over reaction and completely unjustified based on the facts I have seen.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-15-2016, 05:08 PM)xxlt Wrote: I didn't judge the shooters, and still won't. Even if they get their department's highest honor for conduct, I still don't see a defense for firing the other officer. 

Given that I've already said I don't know enough to make a firm decision on this guy's termination I can absolutely frame an argument for his being censured over this incident.  Basically the guy put his life on the line by not reacting to provocation with a firearm by a man the officer believed was in crisis and wanted the police to shoot him.  Essentially, the officer was gambling with his life that he was correct about the suspect.  That being said it's one thing to gamble with your own life, it is entirely another to gamble with the lives of others.  The minute the suspect put the lives of anyone other than himself in jeopardy he is obligated to respond with deadly force.  Failure to do so would be a terminatable offense.

[Sovereign Nation]

(09-15-2016, 10:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given that I've already said I don't know enough to make a firm decision on this guy's termination I can absolutely frame an argument for his being censured over this incident.  Basically the guy put his life on the line by not reacting to provocation with a firearm by a man the officer believed was in crisis and wanted the police to shoot him.  Essentially, the officer was gambling with his life that he was correct about the suspect.  That being said it's one thing to gamble with your own life, it is entirely another to gamble with the lives of others.  The minute the suspect put the lives of anyone other than himself in jeopardy he is obligated to respond with deadly force.  Failure to do so would be a terminatable offense.

This is true.  It only sounds bad given the circumstances, but unfortunately as a police officer you can't risk the gun being unloaded and the potential for him to start firing wildly, thus risking an innocent being injured or killed.  I can respect the guy's actions for looking for a better solution, but at the same time understand that he has to keep in mind the entirety of the situation. 

I am sure there is something missing from his termination.... maybe he didn't like the other cops showing up and shooting the man and stated it.   That and when he was told how his actions were wrong he may have acted and responded inappropriately.  Maybe he has shown poor judgement previously and this could have been the final strike against him.  A lot could be in play here that we just don't know.

[xxlt]

(09-15-2016, 10:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given that I've already said I don't know enough to make a firm decision on this guy's termination I can absolutely frame an argument for his being censured over this incident.  Basically the guy put his life on the line by not reacting to provocation with a firearm by a man the officer believed was in crisis and wanted the police to shoot him.  Essentially, the officer was gambling with his life that he was correct about the suspect.  That being said it's one thing to gamble with your own life, it is entirely another to gamble with the lives of others.  The minute the suspect put the lives of anyone other than himself in jeopardy he is obligated to respond with deadly force.  Failure to do so would be a terminatable offense.

Yes, but action (or inaction) that allows for discipline "up to and including termination" does not require termination. (Similarly, when the force continuum allows you to escalate the level of force, it does not require it.) So, termination still seems extreme.

And, as we have both noted, we don't have all the facts. And, we almost certainly never will. This highlights the absurdity of news coverage. Citizens never know what really happened, and yet they engage in analysis like this, which is kind of a waste of time when you think about it. On the other hand, we have to do something to pass the time. Still, it makes me happy I don't read the paper much or watch the news shows much. People end up getting worked up about things they don't really know much about.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2016, 10:05 AM)xxlt Wrote: Yes, but action (or inaction) that allows for discipline "up to and including termination" does not require termination. (Similarly, when the force continuum allows you to escalate the level of force, it does not require it.) So, termination still seems extreme.

And, as we have both noted, we don't have all the facts. And, we almost certainly never will. This highlights the absurdity of news coverage. Citizens never know what really happened, and yet they engage in analysis like this, which is kind of a waste of time when you think about it. On the other hand, we have to do something to pass the time. Still, it makes me happy I don't read the paper much or watch the news shows much. People end up getting worked up about things they don't really know much about.

All good points.  The only counter I would offer would be this; if you commit a terminatable offense during your probationary period you're pretty much 100% of the time going to be terminated.

[xxlt]

(09-16-2016, 10:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All good points.  The only counter I would offer would be this; if you commit a terminatable offense during your probationary period you're pretty much 100% of the time going to be terminated.

Probably accurate, but it raises some questions.

General Question: If you just spent the money to send someone to the academy for 16 weeks, shouldn't you try to get some ROI and consider additional training such as another cycle with a FTO, additional firearms training, etc rather than just throwing the investment away, being understaffed, and losing what may have been a very good LEO over a full career?

Specific Question: If an officer is on probation, why is he the first unit responding to a call like this with no FTO, no back up, no nothing? Seems almost like he was being set up for failure. I am sure you know a lot more about this than I do, but I know enough to know some departments are well known for a high level of training and equipment, and others do not share the same reputation among LEOs I spoken with.

Side note: yesterday I saw about 2 dozen cadets observing each other as they received live instruction on how to direct traffic at an intersection in a neighboring community. I had seen this before, but it was many years ago. We all have to learn and back to the case at hand I think expecting a cop on probation to perform as well as a veteran is unrealistic. Maybe the guy in this story will hook on with another department. Maybe he wasn't cut out to be a cop, but seems to me like there was some potential there.