Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sheriff's Deputy Mistakes Pistol for Taser

Let me answer this one. It usually goes like this...
1) Hire her, we need more______. (Insert female, minority etc).

2) I know (s)he didn't pass PT test, but (s)hes a ______.

3) I know (s)he didn't really pass firearms training but " ".

4) I know (s)he is not doing well in field training but " ".

5) We can't fire her now, (s)he'll sue us for discrimination.

6) (S)he is being terminated for making a bad decision, even after receiving the best of training.

As a training officer and a POST Certified General Instructor as well as a Taser and a firearms trainer, I sense what you mean, but still see quite a chasm in reasoning. Since a trainer can be held liable for poor or inaequate training that results in an officer he trained causing harm, the lowest common denominator may be a bit higher than you think, and no trainer is going to intentionally risk his own career by setting someone up to fail.

One of the first things you learn in the General Instructor course, which is two weeks, I believe, is to NOT set someone up to fail, not even as an example for others. It's counter to all adult instructor methodology and doesn't teach anyone anything.

Teaching failure is not one of our goals.

No one who fails to score 80% on the qualification course is allowed to carry a gun in my department, regardless of race, religion, or gender. Police training records are public records, and thus open to scrutiny. They are reassigned for 30 days, and if they fail to meet standards by then, they're fired.

No one who has a blemish on his or her criminal record is hireable. Also, all our candidates go through a psychological screening test...a wash-out there means they don't get hired.

We're not perfect, but neither are we as blase' in our hiring practices as you think. The regional Academy does the PT and initial firearms training, and they fail several students each term for inability to shoot, or (more prevelent) inability to pass the drivers course.

And, in fact, we can fire a deputy, who is on probation for six months for failure to meet standards. And have done so.

I am very aware of the liabilities involved in training, negligent retention and negligent supervision. I was not infering that it is the trainers fault, but the person (politician) that ultimately has the responsibility of acting on the trainers observations. I sincerlely appluad your agency if, in fact, the rules are never bent to allow the retention of a minority employee.

You didn't read the links, did you?

If you have something to contribute, feel free to contribute it--perhaps on the second thread I linked, since that was most directly conceived to address private law enforcement. But if you're going to rehash stuff that's already been worked over because you haven't read far enough to know what's been covered and what hasn't, I'm afraid I have better things to do.

Sorry.

My assertion is that its a flawed policy to wear the taser on the same side as your strong side where you draw your service weapon, or lack of policy dictating otherwise. As Im sure you know there are plenty of such policies and training to avoid such confusion under stress and under fire...and this one was flawed or non-existant. Not the trainers fault unless he wrote or was responsible for writing the policy. If he trained based on written policy and taser manufacturers policy, he's not at fault IMO.

I agree...and that's not what TASER suggests. And we wear them on the opposite side.

But LAPD wears them on the strong side, the ones who wear them (not all do, just the high-risk officers.) I don't know why. It's a department policy.

Really? What happened to negligence?

I believe she was definitely negligent in her duty to serve and protect. She was obligated to not fire a lethal weapon in a situation not requiring the use of lethal force.

The situation is no different than many other cases of negligent homocide which are prosecuted in this country every day. Except for the fact, the tree sitter did not die because the cop was no better at shooting her pistol than she was at deciding the appropriate time to shoot it.

If the EMT uses the paddles on a person with a stong pulse and good blood pressure, that is negligence. If he puts a tourniquet around the throat to stop bleeding from a scalp wound, that is negligence.

If a Mother leaves her child in a closed car for an hour when the temp is 105 degrees outside, that is negligence.

If I run over a pedestrian with my car because I am watching the college girls play volleyball in their bikinis alongside the road, that is negligence.

None of these situations contains any criminal intent, but they are just as stupid as drawing a firearm in place of a nonlethal weapon, and just as deadly.

And all should be prosecuted equally, I can not believe that none of these would be prosecutable in your state. I am sure they are all actionable from a civil standpoint.

Nobody said to take her livlihood away. Just demand that she choose a livlihood more suited to her talents.

They are always looking for help at the daycare center, or for checkers at the grocery store.

Heck, I know for a fact that the checkers at Albertsons around here get paid a bunch more than the cops do. A change in career for her would probably be a bump upward in standard of living, as well as safer for her and the public.

Heck if she doesn't like those carreer choices, she can always go back to school and become a lawyer.

Not that it is germane to this discussion, but I have been there since 1976 and when they layed off 80% of the workforce 18 months ago, I got to stay. A lot of guys with five to ten more years of service did not.



We are not talking about just any mistake here. We are talking about an incident of gross negligence, which endangered the life of an individual.

We would forgive her writing the wrong date on a traffic citation. We would even forgive her for pushing the speed limit a bit in her squad car. I wouldn't even scream for her head if she missed the target and perhaps hit a citizen in the background with a bullet in a justified shooting incident. But to unholster a pistol, then aim and fire it and claim it was an accident is not a minor mistake.



Absolutely not! If I bring greivious bodily harm to an individual through my negligence, I expect to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Parts of my job with this employer have involved heavy construction. With the lifting of heavy objects over places with the potential for pedestrian traffic.

Parts of my job have entailed the operation of heavy equipment with my coworkers within reach of same.

Parts of my job have entailed the operation of railroad equipment, or forklift trucks in high traffic areas.

Parts of my job have included application of pesticides in common areas with people and food products intended for public consumption.

A moment's inattention or negligence could have resulted in serious accidents with this kind of work. As a matter of fact, there have been three fatalities at this location while I have worked there. And an untold number of injuries requiring hospitalization.

I do not need any rationalization about an easier field!

Idaho Shooter,

The fact of the matter is, atleast in my state, the only crime in which we prosecute for neglegence is Criminally Negligent Homicide. There is no provision for negligent assault in my state, there may be in yours. If there were, every car wreck resulting in injury would be a criminal prosecution. Believe it or not an hard as it is for some of you hardassed perfect people to believe, the criminal law in this country doesn't usually prosecute people for making mistakes absent criminal intent. Even then, in AL, Criminally Neglegent Homicide is only a misdemeanor, unless you do it while DUI. I sometimes wonder if people are so hardassed because they are insecure and would take any opportunity to thin the herd in order to cut out some of the competiton??????????

Nice dodge on the job...what exactly is your profession or occupation, and where exactly do you work? Playing armchair QB from your comfy little non-dangerous vocation sure is easy huh?

I guess maybe where you're from cops don't make much...around here they make a lot more than Walmart checkers or daycare workers, and they have much better benefits. Punish her hard, and her kids too! Punish, punish, punish!

I would hope if I employed people like some of you hardasses that I'd be aware of your ideology...if I were, you wouldn't be allowed a single missed step at my place of business or it would be termination!

You don't know the difference between negligence and recklessness. Stop pretending you do! This post was ignorant on so many levels.

First of all, she shot somebody. Maybe she should have thought about her kids before she did that.

Secondly, firing her isn't a punishment, it's a consequence. One has no right to hold a job; one earns the privilege of holding a job by demonstrating one's fitness for that job. When one demonstrates unfitness for the job, the job is withdrawn. That's all.

It'd be a lot clearer in the private sector. In the private sector, one does not keep an employee who does not generate more revenue than she costs; and if an employee generates much more revenue than she costs, you raise her salary to reduce her temptation to go do that kind of work for one of your competitors.

But in government work, where there is a coercive monopoly and no profit motive, every worker generates less revenue than he costs, simply because revenue is not generated by the government, but rather extorted by force. So there are different mechanisms in place, and hiring and firing (and promotions and raises) are political concerns rather than economic ones. However, even though your perceptions may be distorted by decades of government work, the fact remains that losing one's job is not punishment for pulling a bonehead stunt, but a simple consequence of it.

First off, I know...she shot somebody!

Yeah Barak, if someone takes my income from me that is a consequence that comes in the form of punishment, whether I have a 'right' to it or not.

She should have thought about her kids before she shot somebody...right Barak...you're goofy but consistent. I imagine you have a lot of time to consider the possible outcomes of every keystroke...policing is dead on point comparable! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Barak, you want every government emplyee fired truth be known!

I wonder how long some people would last without a government....Some things our government does really piss me off, but if you don't like it, change it or leave...Yes I have read your other posts, Barak, and while some of your concepts may sound good, show me one example of where they have worked for the good of a country. As I said in a previous post, Somalia would be a good place for you to start...

Gentlemens,
Been reading all the posts here, and can no longer resist the urge to open my piehole and make a few comments.
In sixteen plus years in law enforcement, I have seen or read about some real Grade A boners...but this one could possibly be at the top of the heap. If the incident is as it seems...although, unless you were there, there never as it seems...than this young lady should probably be sacked. Some of you have sighted training concerns, tasers on strong sides, etc., and while I think they are completely valid concerns, the truth of the matter is that attempting to Tazer crazy people out of trees is not a real sound law enforcement practice. Furthermore, just my humble opinion here, one should know the difference between one's Glock and one's Tazer...no matter where in the hell one carries it. And one should certainly have realized it when it was pointed at said crazy guy in tree. Unfortunately, common sense cannot be trained, and it seems that this officer is lacking in that department. And the reality is is that some people were not cut out for this job, and should probably move along, or be moved along. God knows I've had to work with and for a few who needed to "move along". However, I don't think the officer should be prosecuted, and if they do, I don't see it going anywhere (training concerns, strong side carry, etc.). Civily...somebody gonna pay...probably the department (training concerns, strong side carry, etc.), and crazy guy with extra hole in arse will be able to live in a house, rather than in a tree.
I do like the post from ? about checking on crazy guy in tree, and just leaving him there! Sounds like a street cop talking. Unfortunately, when the neighbors called the Watch Commander complaining, you'd have to go back out there and solve the problem (which is 99% percent of what we do). I'd wake up the fireman...make them bring a ladder.
And since the last few post's have involved pimp slapping Barak around, I mine as well join in the fun! Barak...dude...comparing computer programming to law enforcement? Come on...night and day. I could go into some of the things that are a part of my job and have happened to me, and we could compare notes. I bet there's not a whole lot of similarities...unless of course you've been shot at, had multiple broken bones/surgeries, were in the Rodney King riot, etc. I'm not degrading your profession, but you must admit, there a trifle different. You make a mistake, you click a mouse. I make a mistake, I may go to a federal tennis prison. And you speak of consequences in your above post and I must say, when you compare our professions like you have, the consequence is you lose any validity you might have had.
And privatizing law enforcement? Sign me up! I'm gonna start my own company...few of my homeboys...man, will the streets flow with the blood of the non-believers! You think us cops are out of control now? Of course, it would be government regulated...creating yet another bureaucracy. Barak...understand that I am no fan of big government...within reason, let me do as I please, but I realize government is a neccessary... sometimes an evil one.
Justin

I believe you've just made the very point Barak has been trying to make. That someone holding a job where the consequences of a mistake could be the loss of life should be held to a higher standard. I think it was .280Rem who brought Barak's profession into the discussion, not Barak.

B'sW

You don't act like it. You act like she made a mistake. A mistake is when you type "teh" instead of "the," or when you put the wrong grade of gasoline in your car, or when you think there's one more step than there is and make a comical stumble. That's not what she did. She shot somebody.


Do you hear what you're saying? Nobody takes your income from you: the government takes your income from me. And that bonehead girl cop's income, too.

Taking your income from you is punishment. Sheesh!

You know, there are a lot of us out here who actually have to earn the money we need--and by that I mean that we have to convince somebody that the revenue we provide him is greater than the money he pays us, of his own free will. And we don't merely have to convince him to give us the money we need: we have to convince him to give us more, because the government is going to extort it from us by force so that it can pay you a politically-determined wage that has nothing to do with the value of your work. (It can't have, because there's no way to tell what the value of your work is: you produce no revenue, because you work for the government.)

If I remember correctly, you've worked for the government for many years in several different capacities. If that's so, you may simply not understand how offensive it is to us in the productive class when you talk about having a right to our money; so I'll try not to hold it against you. Let me just say, though, that it's certainly not making you any friends.


Now look who doesn't know what he's talking about. Think about it: a properly-placed software developer can kill a whole lot more people a lot quicker than a rogue cop can. Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of lines of program code there are in the average airliner, for example? There's a good chance you're driving some of the fruit of my own labor around every day; and if you're not, it's practically certain that you pass it going the other way at a combined speed of over a hundred miles an hour.

But perhaps you've forgotten the situation. The guy was up in a tree, where he wasn't hurting anybody. If the cop didn't make precisely the right decision in the merest hint of a split second, he was going to...stay up in the tree and not hurt anybody. We're not even talking about a cop who shoots an unarmed guy during a tense confrontation in a dark alley because he thinks he's seen a gun: we're talking about a cop who without any justification, even pretended justification, that anyone has yet been able to articulate, under no time pressure at all, shoots an unarmed, harmless, nonthreatening guy in a tree in broad daylight, and then--and then!--and then admits to even further incompetence by claiming she mistook a pistol for a Taser.


You haven't been paying attention.

Hey, Z-13. Welcome to the fire. Looks like you don't mind jumping from the frying pan, into it! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Thanks for the work you do as a LEO.

Zebra,

That was me that said something about leaving the guy in the tree...I was a street cop at one time.

Barak,

I don't really have a dog in this fight of whether she gets fired or not, just an opinion. I said from the get go that I could be convinced she should be fired. My personal feelings are that of compassion for other people, this bonehead cop included. I stated on these fact alone I personally would choose to retrain, or maybe re-assign to desk duty if availible. If on the other hand she had been a problem before under stress, this would definately be the last straw. My point of view is just that of compassion, combined with the fact that, though she could have, she didn't kill the guy. I understand the thought process that leads to firing her, and I have said that all along...but I can uderstand keeping her and some heavy remedial training too.

Right to income? Who said that? Not I! No right to work! That doesn't mean that if someone takes it away from me (taxes not withstanding) as a consequence for something that its not punishment. You're just a little far out there man. You know I wasn't talking about taxes...but your anti government tunnel vision reared its ugly head again.

I think I made it very plain that the situation with thinking to taser the guy in the first place was wrong. It is my opinion that IF you were to fire this female...the idiot that ordered a man tasered out of the tree, the officer that first tasered him, and the girl who mistakenly shot him due to her own stupidity combined with the ill-fated order to taser and the flawed policy to wear it next to her sidearm should be ALL BE FIRED! NOT JUST HER! Its like this Barak...she's a bonehead, but she's the bonehead that is just the tip of the iceburg. This 'shooting' was bound to happen by her or another bonehead officer somewhere in the country carrying his taser beside his duty weapon...she's just the unlucky bonehead to play it out when all the stars aligned begining with the ill-fated policy, continuing with what I actually believe to be criminal conduct of deciding to assault the man with a taser who was not an immediate threat. So that thought process now leads me to rethink whether criminal prosecution is possible here...I believe it may be in fact! More facts about the actual behavior of the man would need to be known, but I suggest that if he was just verbally non-compliant with coming out of the tree and had committed no crime and that order to taser was given based on him being a danger to himself by possibly falling out of the tree...then tasering him can't be argued to be a good solution to him being a danger to himself by possibly falling out of the tree. Im thinking here! One could make a case for reckless assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument possibly and all officers including any supervisor that ordered the assault woud be complicite. You've changed my mind Barak.

But either way Barak...you are a little goofy. I've always treated you with respect here though I don't remotely subscribe to your ideologies.

And yes I have had to "earn" my money. I did it in the private sector as an employee, while self employed, and when I was a cop and now as a prosecutor.

280Rem
I understand your points about training and other flaws associated with the policies that led to the shooting... At least I think I do... And I can appreciate the fact the scrum may have hardened your stance and left you in a corner... Certainly no offense intended from this corner, but I have a question or two.

Doesn't running everybody and every policy through this take the blame off the officer that did the incredibly stupid thing? Other forces believe in strong side carry and can justify their stance, it cannot be that big a causal agent here.

The others involved in the decision to tase and the act are certainly not guilty of anything aggregious enough to terminate, IMO.

But I digress... Isn't the dispersion of blame counterproductive to the cops? Here they have egg all over themselves and soft-peddling it will have potentially grave consequences in their future. Accept the stance these things are so obvious they are beyond any need to train AGAINST.

I know if I saw a class at a police academy called "Distinguishing Your Taser From Your Service Revolver 101" I would have deep concerns about the recruit quality... Or rather the faith in them expressed by the force.

My bottom line still revolves around the financial burden she has already put on the force and the way it will be driven by that exponent if she ever makes another questionable move.
art