The Law Enforcement Officer Thread

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leblanc-rcmp-leak-rwanda-1.7116278

Public Safety Minister Dominic Le Blanc is concerned about the arrest of a RCMP officer who tried to get information that would be useful for Rwanda.

This was in the wake of Cameron Ortis' arrest (he's a civlian intel analyst) for passing confidential info to foreign actors.

For clarity, here’s the 44 page use of force report regarding the acorn incident: [1]

To summarize: the suspect in this particular case owned a number of guns, and sent a picture to his girlfriend of himself in her car, which he had stolen, with what appeared to be a suppressed firearm. After arresting him and placing him in their vehicle, the first deputy heard the acorn hit the car and believed for some reason that it was a suppressed gunshot, and that he’d been shot. He fell to the ground, yelled out that he’d been shot, and fired at the vehicle. The second deputy didn’t hear anything but had also been made aware beforehand that the suspect may have a suppressed weapon, and upon seeing the first deputy fall to the ground and call out that they’d been shot also fired at the vehicle.

The agency concluded that the first deputy had acted inappropriately and used excessive force, his actions violating the legal standard of “objective reasonableness”. No wrongdoing was found on the second deputy’s part.

Here’s the statement from the sheriff on the situation:

She also mentioned that the incident would be incorporated in use of force training going forward, and that the first deputy had been asked to resign as part of the investigation.

Now, the first deputy is obviously an idiot who shouldn’t be anywhere near a uniform, but which part of this exactly is objectionable? Did the second deputy or the agency act inappropriately in any way? Did existing law prove inadequate in addressing the first deputy’s actions? The “lol hair trigger cops” take is uninformed at best in this case, imo.

These can't both be true at the same time. Hearing an acorn falling onto a car and not only believing that it's a gunshot but believing that you have been shot and falling to the ground as a result is 100% exactly "lol hair trigger cops". Especially with the department response "well, he did actually think he was in danger", as if that was a mitigating factor instead of the actual problem.

I guess I can see the logic there, as much as it might be true you can’t actually train police to distrust anything fellow officers say on the grounds that many fell officers are paranoid, jumpy, bigots. Unit cohesion would drop something fierce if everyone was checking each other’s work.

I would however still question the second deputy’s choice to fire at the car, they seem to have made no independent judgment as to the source of the shots they had been ‘alerted’ to and just fired upon the closest target. They had reason to believe that shots had been fired, but no reason valid enough to deploy deadly force to believe that the handcuffed person in the car was the one responsible.

I think the ordering of words in this statement speaks to the fundamental problem we have here. The department see themselves as first having a responsibility to protect officers and second a responsibility to protect the public, that’s the wrong way round. The public haven’t signed up to put their lives at risk to protect the police, the police have signed up to put their lives at risk to (nominally) protect the public.

I’d ask where the investigation is into the people who hired, trained and supervised deputy one. Deputy one was obviously completely inadequate for police work and put lives at risk through that, the people who hired, trained and supervised that individual all failed to see the warning signs or correct the harmful behaviour, where’s the action to change them for the future?

Edited by Silasw on Feb 18th 2024 at 7:15:25 PM

"Did existing law prove inadequate in addressing the first deputy’s actions?"

I mean, yes, obviously. Because a police officer firing at a detained person because an acorn fell on the car and him somehow thinking he had been shot goes way beyond "oopsie, time to resign" and should fall under reckless endangerment or some other charge.

Question, was anyone hurt in the incident? If nobody was hurt, then I'd argue resignation is adequate. Though I'd argue it shouldn't be optional in this situation.

I fail to see why serious consequences should be discarded just because dumb luck prevented grossly incompetent police from killing innocents.

In health and safety language this was a near miss, near misses still require action to be taken to prevent them happening again and prevent the risk of them re-emerging.

Drink driving in a serious offence even if you luckily avoid killing anyone.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 18th 2024 at 8:04:18 PM

Yeah, it’s worth asking “how would this be treated if they weren’t cops”? Shooting at a car with a person it it because an acorn hit you seems like it would be considered reckless endangerment in that case. When a police officer’s actions are egregiously unreasonable, as they are here, and endanger people, they should be held legally accountable.

Edited by Galadriel on Feb 18th 2024 at 12:26:16 PM

It didn't even hit him, it hit the top of the car. Despite saying he had been shot, I don't think anything actually touched him.

Edited by Hawkeye86 on Feb 18th 2024 at 3:32:51 PM

I believe he may have been touched by the casings being discharged from his own firearm once he started shooting wildly. But you’re current that he wasn’t impacted by anything other than sound before he started shooting.

I'm pretty sure my implied objections to the situation was that the officer did not receive any legal consequences for his actions. Again, it's been 3 months, I think the likelihood of getting charged for this is slim. His actions were found unreasonable and he had to resign or he would have been fired. Hurray, whoop-de-doo! Explain how if a civilian did anything remotely similar, they would have been let off with at most a nice bit of evidence for civil liability? And saying the suspect was a potential criminal with firearms is irrelevant that current situation. The man was searched, handcuffed and secured in the back of the police car. He could be wanted for murder and that would not be relevant for the behavior displayed. But apparently, the officer's behavior didn't rise up to criminal negligence.

And I don't find the second officer's actions great either, though more from a "That's really stupid" sort of view, and am going back and forth on if I would consider her "accomplice to a crime" sort of deal. According to her body cam, she heard her partner scream shots fired, asked where from, then mag dumped into the car. Never saw the suspect, never got a view of him, just heard the other cop call "shots fired", then shot everything into the car. I find that not a particularly smart move, because without knowing where the threat was or a reasonable estimate, decided to empty everything into the car, because the other officer was firing. It runs into one of those rules of safe firearm usage you're supposed to follow "Be sure of your target and what's behind it." I wouldn't find that ethically or intelligently reasonable.

If you see the first part of my summary of the situation, you’ll note that the suspect in this case is someone who was known to be armed. A handcuffed person can still fire a gun, and at this point a complete search of the suspect hadn’t been conducted yet. It is difficult to impossible to determine the direction of gunshots with the unaided ear, and depending on the weapon used and any cover/concealment the shooter might be using there may not be a visual indicator of the direction of the gunfire either. What additional steps would you suggest the second deputy should have taken in this situation?

How is this relevant in any way? Civillians aren’t state agents with special authorization to carry weapons and use deadly force. Obviously the outcome would have been different if a civilian had done this, that’s a meaningless statement.

Beyond that, while you might find it reasonable to be able to rapidly make perfect threat estimations while under stress, generally that type of thing is something people struggle with. The vast majority of police officers never draw their gun in the field, much less fire it. Given your previous support for reducing police budgets I’m assuming you’re not in favor of additional tactical training for police, right?

Beyond that, how are you suggesting the law be changed in light of this situation? You seem to want the first deputy to be charged with something, but what? Reckless endangerment isn’t really applicable here given that both officers fired their weapons intentionally, and attempted homicide would require a radical rewrite of core legal principles regarding cases being judged on only the facts available at the time of the incident.

No he was known to have access to firearms, there’s a very important distinction to be made between having access to firearms and being armed.

Being known to have access to firearms and being in the vicinity of a shooting is not a valid reason for a person to have lethal force used against them.

They should have sought to determine the origins of the shooting through visual or audio indicators and after making an approximation of the source should have also made a determination as to any possible non-shooting individuals in the line of fire, only then should they have deployed lethal force.

In the end they tried to kill an unarmed and handcuffed man who posed no threat, the fact that they failed doesn’t mean they should be allowed to walk away.

By the standards you are laying out if they had successfully killed the man they should also face no consequences, do you see how absurd that looks?

You’ve also not replied to my other points, do you feel there’s nothing there worth responding to or are you in agreement with me?

In countries with gun licensing laws such reckless firearms usage would get your licence revoked, as for reckless endangerment, how does firing the weapon intentionally mean it wasn’t reckless endangerment to falsely claim to being shot at? I guess you could claim a mitigation factor of lack of mental capability/paranoia, but in that case officer one should be subjected to mandatory psychiatric care before his paranoia hurts someone else.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 18th 2024 at 11:14:16 AM

Reckless endangerment is about disregarding foreseeable consequences, not acting without intention. So I'd argue it fits very well.

Edited by Khudzlin on Feb 18th 2024 at 3:17:32 AM

"Civilians aren’t state agents with special authorization to carry weapons and use deadly force."

A special authorization he in no way, shape, or form was justified in using in the situation. If he wasn't justified in using lethal force, then there should be an actual punishment. Saying it was without malice means jackshit, he still attempting to shoot someone over nothing.

The suspect has not been convicted of a felony, he hasn't been charged with anything, he wasn't actively shooting, he was as far as we know cooperating, and was in the process of being arrested, and was currently detained, handcuffed, and locked in the backseat of a police car, and one of the deputies did do a search, though not a full search, on him. Were you expecting them to cavity search the guy before they say for sure he didn't have a weapon? Known to have access to a weapon, so apparently it's legal to fire on him willy-nilly means because apparently as far as we're concerned he has no rights (either 2nd amendment or right to life). Are you seriously arguing that because he's known to have arms, we have to treat him as a hair trigger away of getting a gun and firing accurately cuffed up out of the back of a police car and should fire on him first, without ascertaining that he was actually brandishing a weapon and that he did fire?

And you're saying it's perfectly reasonable for the second officer to just fire into what the first officer was firing at, just because the first one was firing? She doesn't have any visual of the suspect, cannot ascertain any other gunfire other than the other sheriff, and doesn't even know the location of the suspect, because after she mag dumped into the car, she had to ask where the suspect was. So she doesn't have visual of the target or any clear estimation of their current location, can't tell if there is any other fire except the other officer, and is firing wildly in a residential area, and that sounds smart to you?

And my statement is that apparently we're holding civilians to a higher standard than trained professionals. We give police officers a lot of authority over us, so when they screw up royally, the point is that they should be held to greater responsibility than a civilian. So if a civilian doing this sort of crap would be arrested, why is an officer doing the same gets to get off with forced resignation? Because his job is stressful? Because he apparently feared for his life? Apparently we expect civilians to make perfect threat estimations under stress, because a civilian that did this under the same circumstances would be arrested, but the trained professionals we task with authority over us, no, they can't be expected to do that. And since when have I made it my position to defund the police? As far as I recall, my position has been to move funds from different areas towards specific actions and that there has been a lot of waste towards silliness, but I haven't specifically called for defunding.

Tell me this, had this actually gone differently, the suspect got hit, he's now in the hospital and fighting for his life, does that change things? What if the suspect died. Does that change things? What if it was found out that the second officer was the one that killed him. Does that change anything? If the only reason they're not arrested is because the guy by sheer luck survived unharmed, I consider that unreasonable. If whether or not the person survives determines whether or not the actions were criminally negligent, I consider that unreasonable. And why couldn't the first officer be charged with reckless endangerment, just because the second officer joined in? The first officer performed an unreasonable action, and just because the second officer under mistaken information from the first one engaged in stupid behavior, does not justify the first officer's behavior. And IANAL, but off the top of my head, reckless endangerment, culpable negligence, and discharging firearm in a public residence without cause.

Edited by HeyMikey on Feb 18th 2024 at 4:18:55 AM

Cops shouldn't have to kill someone before it becomes a bad thing for them to recklessly fire at people at the drop of a hat.

Though often enough, they do.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 18th 2024 at 4:33:07 AM

Besides, it's not like the guy in the car was the only one in danger due to idiots firing their guns in the street.

Slight correction: he was known to have access to firearms, and appeared to be brandishing one immediately prior to his arrest.

As I mentioned above, the unaided ear and eye are poor ways to locate gunshots. This effect is compounded if the weapon being fired is fitted with a suppressor, which minimizes the both the visual and auditory signature of a weapon and is something the suspect was believed to have on his weapon. Given the location of the suspect inside the vehicle, a visual confirmation of gunfire would be very difficult to make without close inspection as well. The law requires a use of force judgement to be reasonable based on the facts available to the officer at the time of the incident. In this incident the suspect was reasonably believed to be armed with a suppressed weapon and had made violent threats, and the second deputy had just seen their partner collapse and yell out that they’d been shot. I don’t think there’s a single court in the country that would be able to find the second deputy’s actions unreasonable.

Just to address a couple posts all at once, reckless endangerment as a crime requires recklessness as a culpable mental state. Note that the legal definition is a little different than the colloquial definition. Legally speaking, recklessness means being aware of, and disregarding a risk in a way that would be a gross deviation from the standard of care that would ordinarily be exercised in a situation. It’s arguable that the officers knowingly disregarded a risk, but it’s the second part that isn’t satisfied here. Police officers are legally allowed to use deadly force on someone they believe is attempting to do the same to them, and had reason to believe the suspect was firing from inside the vehicle at them. If they had done something like fired away from the vehicle then reckless endangerment might apply.

How else are you suggesting police officers should make decisions, other than on the facts available to them at a given moment?

Whether they’re mistaken or not doesn’t really matter. The classic “realistic toy gun” example comes to mind: if a cop shoots someone who points a realistic toy gun at them they aren’t criminally liable, as at the moment of the shooting the information available to them indicated a deadly threat. You are asking for police to be held to the standard of omniscience, which I hopefully don’t have to explain is a standard no police officer or human anywhere could ever hope to meet.

That the law is written this way absolutely leaves room for inappropriate conduct. Unfortunately the inescapable reality is that laws are enforced by people, and people are fallible and limited in their perception. This is something no amount of outrage will ever change.

"People make mistakes" isn't an excuse for fucking up. Especially when it endangers lives. We don't give civilians a pass for this shit. We shouldn't give cops a pass for it either.

The real problem here is that the ones to enforce these standards are other cops. Who for whatever reason aren't comfortable calling each out on their bullshit. At least they weren't in this case.

Edited by M84 on Feb 19th 2024 at 2:18:22 AM

But there wasn't a valid, reasonable belief that his life was in danger. He heard a noise and freaked the fuck out and started shooting and saying he was hit. That is miles away from a cop seeing someone with a realistic toy gun.

Edited by Hawkeye86 on Feb 18th 2024 at 1:47:26 PM

Does sending a picture really meet the legal definition of brandishing? Because I feel like that would run afoul of the 2nd amendment.

Yes it would be difficult, sometimes do difficult things is part of the job description. I’m not allowed to join the police over here because my eyesight is so poor that if I was attacked when on patrol and lost my glasses I would not be able to accurately identify the attacker and deploy force only when appropriate. I have no issue with holding police usage if deadly force to high standards.

Does the law make no distinction between general use of force and the use of deadly force with intent to kill?

Oh I agree, that’s the problem.

This is where we disagree, everyone in America has a gun, which means to me that gunfire when you have detained an individual known to have access to a gun does not create a reasonable belief that the detained individual is the one shooting.

Especially ridiculous since he wasn't even hit by anything. The acorn landed on the car. He just imagined being shot in his panic.

The suspect was not last seen brandishing a weapon, he was seen in possession of a weapon according to Florida statute. Sending a picture of you having a weapon does not rise the legal level of brandishing according to Florida statute. According to Florida statute, brandishing a weapon requires that the exhibition or display of the weapon be in the presence of an individual and performing careless or intimidating behavior. Taking a picture of you holding a weapon, is not brandishing. He was not displaying the weapon or making it known in front of the sheriffs or his girlfriend at the time of the interaction and it would be hard to prosecute based on that, because the weapon wasn't on him or within the immediate vicinity. At worst, you could say he had a weapon while committing a felony, but that wasn't at the current time when he was interacting with the sheriffs and shouldn't have factored into the facts of the situation.

And apparently holding police to standards that we would hold civilians to is asking them for omniscience. We are not asking police to be mind readers, we're stating that if a civilian performing the same use of deadly force with the same facts would be held legally culpable, the police should be as well. In our gun loving country, we lionize the use of force when appropriate, the "good guy with a gun" and all that. So if for a similar case, the jittery, undisciplined, freaked out civilian performing the exact same action means being charged, the supposedly trained, disciplined officer should be held to a higher standard, since they have both the supposed training to manage a stressful situation and are given greater powers over us, otherwise that's advocating for the privilege for police to be screwups and get away with it.

Edited by HeyMikey on Feb 19th 2024 at 7:05:46 AM