There are degrees of stupid. There is stupid, then there is Jimmy Carter level stupid, then there is Nuclear Grade Stupid Bob Owens explores a case of the nuclear grade variety
One of the realities of law enforcement is that higher-level police brass are typically more interested in protecting their own power and advancing their own careers than they care at all about the realities officers face on the street. That detached and self-serving mindset is probably behind a new recommendation by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (and allegedly some other law enforcement organizations) that law enforcement officers should be allowed to fire warning shots.
Wait, wait, did he say warning shots? I would hope the idiots at the International Association of Chiefs of Police realize that bullets do not stop until they hit something, in other words a “warning shot” might very well endanger innocent bystanders, or people in their homes, etc. Of course that is not where their collective stupid stops, oh no………..When Leftists start digging in the Pit of Eternal Stupidity, they keep going and going, and
“There was a lot of discussion,” says the IACP’s Terry Cunningham, describing the process that led the 11 law enforcement organizations to include warning shots in the new consensus use of force policy. Cunningham was struck by the anecdotes of situations in which warning shots saved a life — or might have, had they been allowed.
Let us take a peek at the criteria for using “deadly force”
The new policy still sets strict conditions for warning shots:
1. The use of deadly force is justified;
If deadly force is justified then how will a warning shot help? If the officer, or innocent person is in imminent danger, a warning shot, it seems to me, would increase, and not lessen that imminent threat
2. The warning shot will not pose a substantial risk of injury or death to the officer or others; and
3. The officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.
That is simply adds additional layers for officers to weigh. I fail to see how this does anything positive
But Cunningham says the motivation for the change is to give officers a little more wiggle room when faced with a threat.
“We’re kind of entering into this new environment in use of force where everybody is trying to learn how to better de-escalate,” Cunningham says.
Many police trainers have come to believe that overly rigid use of force rules, however well-meant, may sometimes leave officers with no other option than to kill someone. The new model policy is a response to those concerns.
“Why not give the officers more tools?” Cunningham says. “I think it’s the right thing to do.”
Look, I am not an expert here, but Owens has a lot more training than I, so what does he think?
My training and the training of pretty much every law enforcement officer and other civilians in the United States is that if you encounter a deadly force situation, that you engage the threat with rounds fired at the center of exposed mass of the threat in order to stop the threat’s ability to harm or kill others.
Seems like common sense doesn’t it? The situation is very dire if deadly force is needed so why would anyone suggest the officer be unduly burdened with more rules made up by politically motivated police chiefs?
This new warning shot policy recommendation suggests that officers engaged in a deadly force encounter should take the time to look beyond the threat to see if there is a safe backstop for them to fire a bullet. I do not see this being a viable tactic for patrol officers in a typical encounter that occurs with little or no warning, nor one that will do anything other than greatly increase the risk of innocent bystanders being hit when officers making a split-second decision to fire a warning shot pick a poor choice of backstop that will either fail to stop the projectile, or cause the round to ricochet. In either event, a round was launched when it was not needed to be fired.
Owens adds a lot more, and sees some possible justifications for such a policy
To provide political cover for law enforcement brass, to hang patrol officers out to dry and to protect their own careers in the event of a controversial shooting. “Officer Doe had the option of firing a warning shot in this scenario according to our policy. You can’t blame me for this.”
To provide political cover for law enforcement brass who are receiving pressure from elected officials educated by the entertainment fantasy industry that “shooting to wound” is a viable alternative, apparently completely unaware of the reality that arms and legs still have major arteries, and that a shot to the knee, thigh, elbow, bicep, or should could still result in a fatal bleed-out within seconds or minutes, leaving the officer who fired the shot hung out to try as he explains he was trying to “shoot to wound.”
Much more at Bearing Arms. To me this is simply an overreaction to political pressure to agitators such as Black Lives Matter and other leftist groups, and to a media that reports for sensationalism rather than to impart facts, and useful information. In short, this is a new front in the War on Police.