As comedienne and actress Joan Rivers used to like to say, Can we talk? As we all know, most police officers in America leave the house every morning, spend their day dealing with shit that at streets and sanitation worker would wilt over, and then they go home to their families. And the vast majority of them never draw their service weapons!
I know of what I speak. As you all know, I come from a police family. My Grandpa never once drew his service revolver off of the range in more than 30 years as a police officer. My uncle drew his once, to back up his partner going through a door. Neither fired a shot. But my uncle admitted later after a few cold ones that he was scared shitless. A wise emotion.
Even officers who have to occasionally have to draw their weapon never fire them. Just look at the Laquan McDonald video from Chicago. There were at least a half a dozen officers. spread and safe, with weapons drawn, but no one fired. It took one rogue cowboy to pump 16 rounds into McDonald’s body. And even when he fired, none of the other officers followed suit.
Cops have too many tools in their belt. They can use force of numbers, de-escalation, pepper spray, batons, and Tasers to gain submission. That’s why it’s so seldom necessary to shoot to kill.
Which is what bothered e so much about the Brooklyn Center killing, when a 26 year police veteran, herself a police training officer, mistaking her service weapon for her Taser, and fatally shooting 20 year old Daunte Wright. This is blatantly ridiculous, since there is no sane way to confuse the two.
But this is what really bothered me. As it has been reported, police departments purposely try to make it impossible to confuse the two, by having the service weapon on the dominant hand side, while the Taser is holstered on the off hand side. The point being that the officer is forced to make a conscious decision. But the problem with that is that in a possible life or death situation, any officer’s initial decision is going to be to opt for maximum force for safety’s sake.
But I have a suggestion. I know, it’s radical, I know, it’s dumb, but it’s my suggestion, and I’m standing by it, have at me in the comments.
Considering the fact that the vast majority of cops never draw their service weapons in the line of duty, and even fewer actually fire them, would it really kill us to try just! Switching! Sides!? After all, universal modern policing calls for minimum use of force, a minimum use of force when detaining a suspect. So, why not holster the Taser on the dominant hand side, and the service weapon on the off hand side? Just for once, why not require the officer to make a conscious decision to employ maximum force, and then leave it up to them to defend it
I know, I know, it can’t be that fucking simple, but the more pressing question is why not? If the object of modern policing is minimum use of force, then why make the use of maximum use of force the primary option available to the officer? Go ahead, you tell me.
Follow me on Twitter at @RealMurfster35
Perhaps it would be good to take it a step further, and have all cops, even uniformed street cops wear their sidearm (handgun) in a shoulder holster. For those who don’t know when using a shoulder holster the gun is on the opposite side of the dominant hand. This would actually make it easier to draw than if worn opposite side on the belt but would still require a conscious choice to draw it instead of a Taser on the hip next to the dominant/shooting hand. However, I can see a potential advantage that would address the issue of cops worrying about someone grabbing their gun in a struggle. I’ll have to give this a little more thought, and since I no longer have a handgun (got a shoulder holster stuff away in some box somewhere I think) it would be impossible for me to test out but I would think it would take very little training to learn to clamp that upper arm down TIGHT on any hand trying to yank out that handgun. And get just enough control to use the other hand to use another move to gain control of a suspect. Just spitballing on this before heading to bed (it’s past midnight out east!) but thought I’d toss that out there for you and others that have some knowledge and/or experience with this stuff.
I had the exact same thought myself Denis…I don’t care WHERE they wear it, just so long as the effort required to PULL it showed a necessary, conscious part on the officer to opt for maximum force…And then let them have to DEFEND that decision in the aftermath…I may be a romantic fool, but I honestly believe that the Cjauvin verdict put in itch between the shoulder blades of wrong cops, every one of them saw Chauvin perp walked out of the courtroom. That could be THEM if they’re not more careful…
Murphy, you are 100% right. I believe every cop–but particularly “bad cops”–sat up and took notice after this verdict: “If I’m not careful, I could be next.” Some will just resign, get out now, and a number of Minneapolis cops did just this, many claiming PTSD when George Floyd died. But “good cops” who stay because they know they are trying to do the right thing SHOULD be willing to try something like Smart Guns to reduce the chances of making a mistake.
About the “grabbing their gun” bit, there’s a simple solution, although it can be pretty costly: Smart guns.
Ironically, it’s generally members of “law” enforcement and the NRA death-merchant lobby that oppose them. These idiots claim that the tech has to be “100% effective, all the time” and yet, there’s ALWAYS a possibility that a REGULAR handgun will jam or misfire at any given time (ie, they’re not “100% effective, all the time”). Police unions say they don’t their members to be “guinea pigs” for the tech but you have to wonder how many of the union officials use “smart” technology in other aspects of their lives (for instance, a phone or computer that uses facial recognition technology to unlock it or rely on remotes for their TVs and their garage doors–hell, keyless entry cars).
When I used to stand quarter deck watch you had two clips with five rounds in each. You didn’t put them in the gun unless you were ready to shoot someone and you only did that to protect life or property.
I still don’t understand why police cannot be trained to shoot to MAIM. Hit a leg if they are running. Use a taser if they are close enough (I really do not know how a taser works!), do something, anything but shoot to kill. If the police are trained to use minimum force, then why do they always shoot to kill?
I asked my s-i-l who is a police officer. Training says to aim for the largest part of the body. That simple.
Thank you
I can see shooting to kill if you’ve been shot at. If there’s no weapon aimed at you and you are first to shoot, no. Aiming to maim or stun seems it should be sufficent if you are shooting first “just in case”.
The man who taught me to shoot (he was certified to do so) made the point that you don’t even PULL it unless you intend to use it. And if you intend to use it, you shoot to kill. That “wing ’em in the kneecap” stuff is for the movies. Training is to go for “center mass”, otherwise known as the 10-ring. He was aware that I was an amateur, in training solely for self-protection, but that’s how he taught me.
If you shoot to kill and you miss, you are still likely to disable (I prefer that term to “maim”). If you shoot to diable and you miss (and it does require mor accuracy to shoot to disable successfully), you are likely to be toast. I don’t say that’s the best logic in the world, but I’m pretty sure it is at least part of the logic.