police department Police Department Thinks 'Two Bullet Limit' Will Prevent Questionable Shootings

[Reefa]

Two months ago, five San Francisco police officers surrounded a man armed with a knife and shot him 21 times. In response, the police department has introduced reforms meant to keep this sort of "interaction" to a minimum in the future. On the positive side, the reform efforts include training that will hopefully lead to fewer tense situations being resolved by officers emptying their weapons in the direction of their target.

 

Quote

Recruits must attend two-hour classes on de-escalation tactics, which teach how to deal with people in crisis, consider proportional force options, respect the sanctity of life and slow down incidents when possible.

 

This is undercut, however, by a new policy so completely asinine even I'm against it, despite my theoretical ownership of timcushinghatescops.com.

 

Quote

New pistol training guidelines require police recruits to hear the command "threat" before they fire at targets, to shoot only two rounds at a time, and to stop and reassess threats after every two shots.

 

In what is likely to be referred to as the "Barney Fife Rule," officers will only be allowed to shoot two bullets at a time, no matter what the situation is.

In some cases, this won't be enough bullets. In far too many cases, this will still be too many bullets. The push towards de-escalation is undermined by a permission slip that says two (2) bullets may be fired per officer (at minimum) even if the situation would be better served by the methods discussed in the mandatory training session officers slept through/mocked/interrupted with logical questions like "the hell is this two-bullet limit?"

In the case of Mario Woods -- who was shot 21 times by five officers -- he'd have only been killed by ten bullets. I suppose this is how the SFPD has chosen to interpret "less-lethal force." On the plus side, surrounding homes/citizens are far less likely to be the recipients of wayward bullets. And it will definitely make it very difficult for any officers pulling a "Brelo" to explain why they unloaded 49 bullets in 30 seconds at a suspect from point-blank range.

What the rule does, unfortunately, is make it more dangerous to be a police officer. In exchange, it does nearly nothing to lessen the danger of being a citizen. Lose-lose. The correct response would be to throw the entire weight of the PD's upper echelon behind de-escalation training.

A two-hour class officers are forced to attend won't make the message stick. What will make it stick are rules that make it explicitly clear that lethal force is a last resort -- something that should be used only very rarely. Any shooting should be accompanied by a raft of paperwork and a full investigation, overseen by an independent review team. The "shoot first and shoot often" mentality is only partly addressed by the two-bullet limit, which itself is illogical, unworkable and -- at worst -- a guaranteed way to avoid additional scrutiny for questionable shootings. After all, if only two bullets were used (and it only takes one to kill/maim someone), then it's a by-the-book shooting that warrants no further examination.

If nothing else, the fact that the policy can so readily be linked to an incompetent law enforcement officer depicted in a Golden Era TV show should have been enough to deter the SFPD from moving forward with the initiative. It should have limited itself to altering the mindset of its officers, rather than giving them a two-bullet "out" that undercuts the department's "will this do?" approach to de-escalation.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160218/09292333641/police-department-thinks-two-bullet-limit-will-prevent-questionable-shootings.shtml

 

[nickhog]

WOW... Let's go ahead and complete the "Barney Rule" and and force the officers to put the bullets in the button down uniform shirt pocket.  That will surely save the lives of "citizens" participating in criminal activity, which to me makes them criminals.  It's easy to judge a police officer's action if you aren't the one standing in front of  a drugged up person with a weapon pointed at your face.  IMO, Best way to keep a police officer from shooting you, act civil, obey the laws that apply to "all" of us, and don't carry a weapon.

[Reefa]

9 minutes ago, nickhog said:

Best way to keep a police officer from shooting you, act civil, obey the laws that apply to "all" of us, and don't carry a weapon.

 

Is your middle name FBI?

[SnakeMasteR]

14 minutes ago, nickhog said:

WOW... Let's go ahead and complete the "Barney Rule" and and force the officers to put the bullets in the button down uniform shirt pocket.  That will surely save the lives of "citizens" participating in criminal activity, which to me makes them criminals.  It's easy to judge a police officer's action if you aren't the one standing in front of  a drugged up person with a weapon pointed at your face.  IMO, Best way to keep a police officer from shooting you, act civil, obey the laws that apply to "all" of us, and don't carry a weapon.

 

Police doesn't stand for Rambo Galore, don't you ever asked yourself why they spend so much time with training and tactics specifically for de-escalation in such situations?

 

Stepping up to someone only to have a reason for a trigger is the opposite of it.

 

And as you can see in the video footage, they had a shitload of time to target the arm or leg, yet they executed him shooting all at once, like as if someone said "NOW!".

 

They obviously wanted to kill him.

[steven36]

I have to agree  California  dont have the best track record  in the world for the police.  1965 Watts riots and  1992 Los Angeles riots is proof of that and  when they make the people mad they cant handle them they have call in the National Guard to stop it.

 

It dont matter if they took the guns away they would  still gang up on people and beat them up . Most the time it be 5 or more cops on one person .

[vibranium]

19 minutes ago, n0_risk! said:

And as you can see in the video footage, they had a shitload of time to target the arm or leg, yet they executed him shooting all at once, like as if someone said "NOW!".

 

They obviously wanted to kill him.

 

 

[steven36]

1 hour ago, F3dupsk1Nup said:

 

Is your middle name FBI?

What happenings in the USA  and live if you get shot by the police after you get better you may go to jail anyways.

What happens when you survive a police shooting in Baltimore?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/18/surviving-police-shooting-baltimore-freddie-gray

 

Anyway  police shootings are a 50 state problem what one city decides  in one state is not going make much difference.

Quote

 

• 12,501 local police departments
• 3,063 sheriffs’ offices
• 50 primary state law enforcement agencies
• 1,733 special jurisdiction agencies
• 683 other agencies, primarily county constable offices in Texas.

 

 

 

 

 

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/28/2-3summerfall2011/f_lawenf_census.html

 

And in everyone  of these the police carry more than 2 bullets so what difference would it make if one didn't ?

[VileTouch]

oooh, the..."two bullets rule"

 

 

[steven36]

If they wanted to stop police brutality they  would do as one of  the other towns  in California did and make the police ware cameras

 

California Town’s Simple Solution To Police Brutality Has Lowered Use Of Force By 60 Percent

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/153997-california-towns-simple-solution-police-brutality-lowered-use-force-60-percent/

 

They dont even need guns to gang up on you and beat you too death . the 2 bullet rule is the dumbest thing i ever heard of  since i watched Andy Griffith on TV  

 

 

[mikie]

You or I shoot some guy with a knife & we're in big trouble unless he's chasing us down the street.  

Common sense I would think would be stay away from that guy with a knife & not walk up to him pointing a gun at him waiting for the slightest reason to shoot.