Use of (potentially deadly) Force by LAPD

This is a discussion on Use of (potentially deadly) Force by LAPD within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The LAPD has a summary of every shooting, headstrike, and Chokehold by its officer from 2005 - 2012 online. Categorical Use of Force - official ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Use of (potentially deadly) Force by LAPD

  1. #1
    Member Array HeadHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hotel Carlton
    Posts
    289

    Use of (potentially deadly) Force by LAPD

    The LAPD has a summary of every shooting, headstrike, and Chokehold by its officer from 2005 - 2012 online. Categorical Use of Force - official website of THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT This is a result of the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal government in 2001 and ended last May.

    While most of these incidents relate to police activity, some of them describe off-duty incidents, which occur under circumstances that any of us could encounter. I think these are a useful resource because they lack the sensationalism of a news report and provide much more information. Typically, the off-duty incidents will be marked as "Outside City." Unintentional Discharges are also reported and those circumstances are useful to know as well.

    Only one of my Private Citizen students has been involved in a shooting. The circumstances were similar to this Officer-Involved-Shooting. There was a knock on the door, which he chose not to answer. Shortly thereafter, a breakin occurred and a Citizen-Involved-Shooting resulted.

    I always answer the door when I am home, although I usually do not open it. Most burglars are not looking to enter an occupied residence. A few don't care though, so having some kind of safety equipment on your person is probably wise.

    ABRIDGED SUMMARY OF AN OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING AND FINDINGS BY THE LOS ANGELES BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS

    OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING – 012-08 http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf...20City-OIS.pdf

    Reason for Police Contact
    While off-duty and at his residence, Officer A was confronted by a burglar entering his bedroom through a window, resulting in an OIS.

    Excerpt of Summary and findings

    • Officer A arrived at his residence after completing his work shift.
    • Approximately one hour later, someone knocked at his door and rang the bell. Officer A observed the subject but chose to not answer the door.
    • Moments later, Officer A heard someone knocking at his rear door. Officer A again observed the subject but chose to not answer the door.
    • Shortly thereafter, Officer A heard a knock at his front door and the doorbell ring. Through the peephole, he observed the subject place his right ear against the front door, as if to listen if anyone was inside the apartment. Officer A chose to not answer the door.
    • After several seconds, Officer A observed a shadow pass by his living room window, heading toward his bedroom window.
    • Officer A walked through his hallway, entered his bedroom and observed the subject remove the screen of his bedroom window.
    • Officer A quickly retrieved his pistol from the kitchen. As he obtained his pistol, he heard a loud noise. He then moved back to his bedroom.
    • As he reached the threshold of his bedroom door, he observed the subject by the window, standing with both feet in Officer A's bedroom. Officer A made a statement to the subject. The Officer and the subject were facing each other with a queen-size bed in between them.
    • The subject's hand quickly moved toward his waistband area, as if reaching for a weapon.
    • In response, Officer A fired two to three consecutive rounds, striking the subject. The subject fell backward out of the window.
    • Officer A moved up toward the window to maintain visual contact with him. When Officer A and the subject made eye contact, the subject again reached into his front waistband. Officer A then fired three consecutive rounds at the subject.
    • Shortly thereafter, the local fire department arrived at the scene, conducted a medical assessment on the subject and declared the subject dead.



    Basis for BOPC Findings

    A. Tactics
    In adjudicating this incident, the BOPC considered that:

    1. After recognizing actions similar to those used by the suspect in the previous incident, Officer A should have considered calling 911. However, the BOPC determined that there was not sufficient time to make the proper notification prior to the OIS, due to the rapidly unfolding chain of events.

    2. Officer A left a position of cover to approach the suspect, rather than notifying the local authorities. Although leaving a position of cover is generally not recommended, when Officer A observed the subject fall back through the window and out of his sight, he feared the subject was still a threat. Officer A approached to maintain visual contact with the subject and ensure he was no longer a danger to anyone.

    3. The investigation revealed that Officer A’s service pistol and additional magazines were not loaded to capacity. After the OIS, Officer A believed his service pistol was fully loaded and that he had fired six rounds. This caused confusion during the magazine count, which indicated he possibly fired seven rounds.
    http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf...20City-OIS.pdf
    JD, wmhawth, BadgerJ and 2 others like this.
    Some drink at the fountain of Knowledge, others just gargle.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array dangerranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Exact center of CA
    Posts
    1,389
    That will be some fun reading! DR

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array patri0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    728
    I have been sued for "striking a person on or about the head and neck", while on duty. It is 'legally' considered 'Deadly Force'.
    My 'statement' for the State's AG Depo was "It was meant to be lethal."

    Never heard of "Unintentional Discharges", only "Negligent Discharges".

    It is similar to "Warning Shots" (no such thing, legally) legally, they are "Misses", even if fired straight into the air or ground.
    Retired State Trooper (40 long years) 8 years State Range Instructor - BS Degree- Justice, MS Degree- Criminology
    All forms of Gun Control are Unconstitutional / Illegal and beyond the scope of the US. Supreme Court.
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"- Luke 22:36

  5. #4
    Member Array HeadHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hotel Carlton
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by patri0t View Post
    Never heard of "Unintentional Discharges", only "Negligent Discharges".
    LAPD calls Unintentional Discharges as either 'Accidental' or 'Negligent', dependent on the circumstances. Almost all the UDs I have examined have be adjudicated as 'Negligent' but I did find one 'Accidental.'

    http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf...0City-NTUD.pdf
    Basis for Findings
    In adjudicating this case, the BOPC considered:
    A. Unintentional Discharge
    The definitions for an Unintentional Discharge, both Accidental and Negligent, are as follows:
    Accidental Discharge: The unintentional discharge of a firearm as a result of an accident such as a firearm malfunction or other mechanical failure, not the result of operator error.
    Negligent Discharge: Finding where it was determined that the unintentional discharge of a firearm resulted from operator error, such as the violation of firearm safety rules.
    The preponderance of the available evidence in this case indicated that the unintentional discharge resulted from Officer A turning and unintentionally striking the revolver with his arm – as the revolver was lying in its holster on the kitchen counter – and the revolver falling to the floor. The impact between the revolver and the floor caused the weapon to discharge.
    The BOPC found that Officer A’s action of inadvertently knocking the revolver off the counter did not constitute “operation” of the weapon. As such , this incident did not meet the definition of a Negligent Discharge. Accordingly, the BOPC found that the incident occurred as the result of an accident, rather than operator error.
    Quote Originally Posted by patri0t View Post
    It is similar to "Warning Shots" (no such thing, legally) legally, they are "Misses", even if fired straight into the air or ground.
    The LAPD Use of Force Special Order http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/U_of_F.pdf includes a definition of 'Warning Shots.'

    C. Warning Shots. Warning shots shall only be used in exceptional circumstances where it might reasonably be expected to avoid the the need to use deadly force. Generally, warning shots shall be directed in a manner that minimizes the risk of injury to innocent persons, ricochet dangers and property damage.
    maxwell97 likes this.
    Some drink at the fountain of Knowledge, others just gargle.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array jblives2ride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    896
    that's why I carry at home, 100 percent of home invasions occur in the home...LOL surprised it took 4 shoots to stop the attack...
    StormRhydr likes this.
    I would rather live my life as if there is a God,
    And die to find out there isn't, than live my life
    As if there isn't, and die to find out there is.
    God Bless

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array GentlemanJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    indiana
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by patri0t View Post
    I have been sued for "striking a person on or about the head and neck", while on duty. It is 'legally' considered 'Deadly Force'.
    My 'statement' for the State's AG Depo was "It was meant to be lethal."

    .
    Not my fault, I was aiming at his shoulder and...he ducked!

    Jim

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    7,855
    Quote Originally Posted by GentlemanJim View Post
    Not my fault, I was aiming at his shoulder and...he ducked!


    Jim
    Are we talking gunshot strikes or physical contact blows. I ask this because fluid shockwave strikes to the neck are legal strikes.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,576
    Quote Originally Posted by patri0t View Post
    I have been sued for "striking a person on or about the head and neck", while on duty.
    One can be sued for giving a mean look, but since you broached the subject--was your lawsuit dismissed? won? Lost? settled because the agency didn't feel like spending more money?

    Just because one is sued doesn't mean you've lost the case.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  10. #9
    Member Array HeadHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hotel Carlton
    Posts
    289
    LAPD Officers are discouraged from taking enforcement action when off-duty. In this case, Officer A intervened because of a perception of an imminent shooting of a member of the public by a criminal.

    ABRIDGED SUMMARY OF AN OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING AND FINDINGS BY THE LOS ANGELES BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS

    Officer-Involved Shooting – 108-08
    http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf...20City-OIS.pdf

    Reason for Police Contact

    While off-duty, officer intervened when the subject pointed a gun at two individuals and then carjacked another individual.

    Incident Summary

    Officer A was driving out of state, accompanied by relatives. Officer A was off-duty and wearing civilian clothing. Officer A stopped at a truck stop to use the restroom. Officer A and his relative, Witness A, entered the convenience store area and walked to the rear of the store.

    Meanwhile, the subject produced a handgun from his waist area, pointed it at Witness B (cashier) and demanded the money from the cash register. After taking the money from Witness B, the subject walked from the service counter and exited the building through its north doors.

    Officer A finished using the restroom facilities, exited the north doors and waited for Witness A.

    As the subject left the building, Officer A heard “911” over the store’s PA system. Officer A then observed the subject go north through the parking lot, chased by Witness C and Witness D.

    Forming the opinion that a minor crime had occurred, Officer A decided not involve himself in the foot pursuit and maintained his position by the door in order to act as a witness.

    The subject continued north through the parking lot, passing by the gasoline pumps. As he ran, the subject turned and pointed a blue steel handgun toward Witness C and Witness D. According to Officer A, “the suspect, he drew a gun on the other two gentlemen that went after him, and I thought that he was going to shoot at them for going after him.”

    Officer A, fearing for the safety of Witness C and Witness D, drew his pistol from the holster on his right hip. Officer A verbally identified himself as a police officer and ordered the subject to stop, but the subject continued to flee. Officer A made his way north through the parking lot, using parked vehicles for cover as he did so.

    The subject attempted to carjack an RV but was unsuccessful.

    The subject then began to carjack another car and pulled the driver out and pointed his gun at the driver who was on the ground.

    Officer A made his way down a landscaped slope at the southwest corner of the intersection and took a kneeling position in the lowest point of a drainage ditch at the side of the road, approximately 63 feet from the Chevrolet Cobalt.

    Fearing for the safety of the prostrate driver, Officer A fired two rounds from his pistol in a “controlled pair” at the subject from a distance of 63 feet, then reassessed. Officer A then rapidly fired five additional rounds at the subject. Officer A believed that the Chevrolet Cobalt remained stationary throughout his firing sequence. The Chevrolet Cobalt, driven by the subject, then turned left into the intersection and drove out of Officer A’s field of vision.

    Witnesses disagreed about whether the vehicle was moving when the first two shots were fired. All witnesses agreed the vehicle was moving when the second burst of five shots was fired

    Note: Impacts revealed that a total of four rounds struck the vehicle, two struck its passenger side and two struck from the rear. The reported trajectories of the impacts are consistent with the vehicle negotiating a left turn during the sequence of fire.

    Officer A, along with Witness E, walked back to the rest stop. Due to several 911 calls regarding the robbery, the local police department responded to the scene. Officer A identified himself to uniformed outside agency Officer B and provided a Public Safety Statement.

    Later, the stolen Chevrolet Cobalt was located in a parking lot approximately one mile north of the scene of the officer-involved shooting (OIS). A black Airsoft replica of a Sig-Sauer 9mm semiautomatic pistol was recovered from the right front floorboard of the stolen vehicle. The area was searched for the subject but he was not located and remains unidentified.

    Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners’ Findings

    Basis for Findings
    C. Lethal Use of Force Officer A fired seven rounds at the subject in defense of a victim at whom Officer A saw the subject pointing a pistol, presenting an apparently deadly threat.

    Although Officer A believed he fired all seven rounds while the vehicle stolen by the subject was still stationary, the physical evidence and witness statements support that the vehicle was in motion at the time at least when some of the rounds were fired.

    In determining whether Officer A’s use of lethal force was compliant with the Department policy regarding shooting at moving vehicles, human reaction/response time was considered. Scientific research regarding the time it can take for an officer to react to the cessation of a threat has demonstrated that additional rounds may be fired during a brief period of time during which the officer is still processing and reacting to the change in threat level. The BOPC believed that this could account for Officer A’s perception that the vehicle was stationary throughout the time he fired his rounds.

    The BOPC found Officer A’s use of Lethal Force to be in policy.
    Some drink at the fountain of Knowledge, others just gargle.

  11. #10
    Member Array HeadHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hotel Carlton
    Posts
    289
    http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf...20City-OIS.pdf
    ABRIDGED SUMMARY OF CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENT AND FINDINGS BY THE LOS ANGELES BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS
    OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING – 019-10

    Division Date Duty-On( ) Off(x) Uniform-Yes( ) No(x)

    Involved Officer(s) Length of Service 12 years, 7 months

    Reason for Police Contact Officer A was assaulted by the Subject, which resulted in an officer involved shooting.

    Subject(s) Deceased (x) Wounded ( ) Non-Hit ( )
    Subject: Male, 17 years of age.

    Incident Summary
    Prior to the date of this incident, the Subject had displayed threatening behavior and made verbal threats to kill Witness A and Officer A.

    Officer A came home on the day of the incident. Officer A sat at the kitchen table to fix the zipper of a case in which he stored his back-up gun. Officer A heard Witness A and the Subject entering the home and placed the weapon in his pocket because he did not want the gun to be out when they walked in.

    The Subject was under the influence of drugs and the Subject’s friends were waiting outside in a parked vehicle. The Subject and his friends went into the backyard of the residence and sat on the patio. The Subject then entered the residence and challenged Officer A to fight.
    Witness A and Officer A tried to calm the Subject down. The Subject’s apparent anger escalated and he removed a framed picture from the wall.

    The Subject began threatening Officer A with the picture frame and Officer A started to retreat up the stairs. Officer A took one stair at a time while urging the Subject to calm down and put the picture frame away. Officer A considered running away but realized he would be leaving Witness A unprotected. The Subject then raised the picture frame and swung it at the officer. Officer A removed his gun from his pocket and fired one round at the Subject, which hit the Subject in the chest. The Subject, who was fatally wounded, dropped the picture frame and collapsed.

    The local police and fire agencies responded to the incident. An LAPD supervisor was then notified and LAPD personnel responded.

    Basis for Findings
    A. Tactics Due to the nature of this incident and the lack of any type of nexus to law enforcement activity or tactics, no considerations in relation to tactics were identified. However, current Department policy states that any officer involved in a Categorical Use of Force incident shall be directed to attend a Tactical Debrief.

    B. Drawing/Exhibiting/Holstering According to Officer A, he was carrying his gun in short’s pocket due to a malfunctioning zipper in his fanny pack where he normally carries it. Officer A was in the process of attempting to repair the zipper when Witness A and the Subject returned home.

    Officer A was subsequently faced with a situation where he believed he was about to be struck with a picture frame. Realizing his pleas for the Subject to put down the picture frame were having no effect and fearing for his safety and that of Witness A, Officer A drew his pistol.

    An officer with similar training and experience, in the same or similar heightened state of fear, would reasonably believe that the Subject’s actions represented a significant risk of serious bodily injury to Officer A. Therefore, it was objectively reasonable for Officer A to believe there was a substantial risk that the situation may escalate to the point where deadly force may be justified. The BOPC found Officer A’s Drawing/Exhibiting to be in policy.

    C. Use of Force Officer A tried to calm the Subject down. The Subject took a picture frame from the wall and advanced toward Officer A.
    Officer A backed up the stairs as he verbalized with the Subject to calm down and to drop the picture frame. The Subject continued advancing toward Officer A. The Subject raised both hands upward and raised it over his head in apparent preparation to strike Officer A.

    Realizing his pleas for the Subject to put down the picture frame having no effect on the Subject’s actions and fearing for his safety and that Witness A, Officer A drew his pistol and fired one round at the Subject.

    In evaluating the lethal use of force, the BOPC evaluated Officer A’s actions from the perspective of a similarly situated officer with similar training and experience.

    In objectively evaluating this incident, a reasonable officer would believe that the Subject’s actions represented a significant risk of serious bodily injury. Consequently, the deadly force used by Officer A was objectively reasonable and within Department policy. In conclusion, the BOPC found Officer A’s use of force to be in policy.
    Some drink at the fountain of Knowledge, others just gargle.

  12. #11
    Member Array HeadHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hotel Carlton
    Posts
    289
    This is the kind of incident that could happen to any of us. When someone is in the process of burglarizing or stealing your car, what would you do? How about if the situation escalates?

    LAPD OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING – 033-06
    Excerpt from LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS

    Synopsis of Incident:
    • An off duty police officer in plainclothes was seated in his personal vehicle in front of his home. He noticed a car repeatedly pass his home and vehicle. At some point, the officer placed his pistol in his lap. (drawing/exhibiting) Shortly thereafter, a subject attempted to break into his vehicle using a screwdriver.
    • The officer got out of his vehicle, produced his pistol (drawing/exhibiting), and attempted to take the subject into custody. The subject refused to comply with the officer’s commands and advanced on the officer while holding the screwdriver.
    • The officer fired a warning shot (use of lethal force) into a dirt berm behind the subject. The subject then complied with the officer’s commands and lay down on the ground.
    • The officer’s son came out of the home. The officer instructed him to call the police and then come down to assist, which the son did. (tactics)
    • A car containing the subject’s confederates pulled up near the officer’s vehicle. A female confederate got out of the car and went over to the prone subject. The confederate attempted to convince the subject to leave the area and engaged the officer in a dialogue, questioning the officer’s authenticity as a police officer. (tactics)
    • The officer instructed his son to retrieve his police ID from the car, which the son did. The officer allowed the female confederate to examine his identification but she continued to be verbally aggressive and questioned his authenticity. The officer retrieved his ID from her. (tactics)
    • Three additional confederates exited the car and partially surrounded the officer. They were verbally aggressive toward the officer and insisted he allowed the prone subject to leave. The officer attempted to engage them in conversation to diffuse the situation, which was unsuccessful. (tactics) The female confederate retrieved the screwdriver from the prone subject and went back to their vehicle.
    • The officer instructed his son to get his handcuffs and a tape recorder from the officer’s car. The son handed them to the officer. (tactics) At some point, the officer used his bodyweight to restrain the subject (non-lethal use of force), who was attempting to get up from the ground.
    • Local police officers arrived shortly thereafter and arrested all five suspects for attempted burglary.

    Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners’ Findings
    The BOPC found the officer’s Drawing/Exhibiting/Holstering, Non-lethal Use of Force, and Use of Lethal Force to be in policy. However, his Tactics received administrative disapproval for the following reasons:
    • The officer did not call the local police when his suspicions were aroused.
    • The officer had his pistol in his lap. “[A]ll weapons should be concealed out of public view and carried in a secured manner [when off duty].” --BOPC
    • He came from behind his vehicle and closed with the subject. This left him vulnerable to an attack.
    • The officer had his son assist in the detention of the subject. This involved his son in a potentially volatile situation. It also caused the officer to split his attention between the subject and his son.
    • When the officer attempted to identify himself, he allowed the female confederate to come within arm's reach. This placed him at a tactical disadvantage.
    • When the subject’s accomplices surrounded him, he failed to display command presence and control the approaching group.
    • Officer used his body weight to control the subject with a drawn weapon. This could have resulted in a struggle over the weapon.

    ONLINE ABRIDGED SUMMARY OF CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENT AND FINDINGS
    BY THE LOS ANGELES BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS
    http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf...%20Summary.pdf
    Some drink at the fountain of Knowledge, others just gargle.

  13. #12
    Member Array HeadHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hotel Carlton
    Posts
    289
    Someone said to me that he objected to the Board's findings, saying they were 'just Monday morning quarterbacking.' In his case, I suspect that the BOPC saying that "weapons should be concealed" was probably a sore point.

    My opinion is that the BOPC negative findings were critiques of his tactics. Put in a do, rather than don't, context, they might be stated as:

    * Call for assistance from the authorities at the earliest possible time.
    * Maintain adequate distance and barriers, when available, between yourself and suspected criminals.
    * Keep family members safely away during interactions with criminals.
    * Use mental 'tape loops,' rather than conversation, when confronting aggressive and possibly violent criminals.
    * Position yourself so that criminals cannot take your weapon from you.

    That's not a bad tactics checklist, IMO.
    Some drink at the fountain of Knowledge, others just gargle.

  14. #13
    Member Array HeadHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hotel Carlton
    Posts
    289
    This is an interesting one. Subjects were bail bondsmen taking a jumper into custody, let's presume righteously. However, they aren't visually identifiable and when ordered to drop the weapon, turn toward the officer. An Officer-Involved-Shooting results, justifiably so, IMO. Note also that from the Officer's perspective, there was a non-threat downrange, i.e., this was a downrange drill.

    http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf...theast-OIS.pdf

    ABRIDGED SUMMARY OF CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INCIDENT AND FINDINGS BY THE LOS ANGELES BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS

    OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING – 106-05

    Division Southeast
    Date 11/30/2005
    Duty-On (X) Off() Uniform-Yes(X) No()

    Officer(s) Involved in Use of Force Length of Service - 4 years

    Reason for Police Contact

    While conducting foot patrol, Officers A and B observed Subjects 1 and 2 holding a gun and apparently holding a male captive. When Officer A identified himself as an officer and ordered Subject 1 to stop, Subject 1 turned the arm holding the gun toward Officer A. Officer A fired three rounds at Subject 1.

    Incident Summary

    Subjects 1 and 2, bail bondsmen, set out to apprehend Witness 1 for an outstanding felony warrant. Subjects 1 and 2 not were attired in clothing that would readily identify them as bail bondsmen. Although Subject 1 did not possess a Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) permit, he was armed with a pistol. Subjects 1 and 2 arrived at Witness 1’s residence and conducted surveillance.

    Meanwhile, Officers A and B were in the area conducting crime suppression. The officers conducted a pedestrian stop of unrelated subjects, but did not advise Communications Division (CD) of their actions.

    Subjects 1 and 2 eventually observed Witness 1 arrive at his residence with his family and attempted to apprehend him. Subject 1 pointed a pistol at Witness 1 and instructed him to stop, while Subject 2 secured Witness 1’s wrists by holding them behind his back. While still holding Witness 1’s wrists, Subject 2 walked back to their vehicle. Subject 1 continued to point the pistol at Witness 1. Officers A and B heard a person yell for help and then observed Subject 1 push Witness 1 from behind while pointing a gun toward Witness 1’s head. Coupled with Witness 1’s screams for help and the presence of a handgun, Officer A thought that the incident was a robbery in progress or a potential kidnapping. Officer A then identified himself as a police officer, yelled, “Gun,” drew his weapon, and ordered Subject 1 to drop the gun.

    Alerted by his partner, Officer B looked in Subject 1’s direction, noted that Subject 1 was armed, and took cover. Subject 1 looked in Officer A’s direction and began to move the arm holding the pistol in Officer A’s direction.

    Believing Subject 1 was about to shoot him, Officer A fired three rounds at Subject 1, striking him twice.

    Subjects 1 and 2 and Witness 1 then fell to the ground and lay on their stomachs. Subject 1’s pistol was on the ground several feet from where he was laying. Officer A requested help over his police radio, and, with the assistance of Officer B, took three individuals into custody without further incident. Subject 1 was transported to the hospital for medical treatment.

    When a hostile crowd started to form around the area, Officer A picked up Subject 1’s pistol and placed it in his rear pocket. He returned it to its original position when additional units arrived and calmed the crowd.

    Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners’ Findings


    A. Tactics
    The BOPC found Officer A and B’s tactics to warrant divisional training.

    B. Drawing/Exhibiting/Holstering

    The BOPC found Officers A and B’s drawing to be in policy.

    C. Use of Force
    The BOPC found Officer A’s lethal use of force to be in policy.

    Basis for Findings


    A. Tactics

    The BOPC noted that prior to the officer-involved shooting, Officers A and B advised CD of their location, but did not advise CD that they had detained subjects. This would have alerted other officers in the area of their actions.

    After the officer-involved shooting, Subjects 1 and 2 and Witness 1 fell to the ground. Subject 1’s handgun was on the ground, and a large group of residents exited their homes and began to approach the scene. Fearing Subject 1 may retrieve his weapon or the residents may attempt to take it, Officers A and B approached and handcuffed Subjects 1 and 2, and Officer A placed Subject 1’s handgun in his rear pocket. Once there were sufficient officers present to control the crowd, Officer A placed the handgun back in its original position. Officer A should have secured the weapon and not placed it back in its original position to eliminate the possible perception of planting evidence.

    The BOPC found Officer A and B’s tactics to warrant divisional training.

    B. Drawing/Exhibiting/Holstering

    The BOPC noted Officer A observed Subject 1 push Witness 1 from behind and point a handgun toward Witness 1’s head. Officer A drew his service pistol and alerted his partner of his observations by yelling, “Gun!” Officer B drew his service pistol and assumed a position of cover.

    The BOPC found Officers A and B’s drawing to be in policy.

    C. Use of Force
    The BOPC noted that when Officer A observed Subject 1 point a handgun at Witness 1’s head, Officer A identified himself as a police officer and ordered Subject 1 to stop. Subject 1 looked in Officer A’s direction and began to move his arm, which was holding the handgun, toward Officer A. Officer A fired three rounds at Subject 1.

    The BOPC found Officer A’s lethal use of force to be in policy.
    Some drink at the fountain of Knowledge, others just gargle.

  15. #14
    Member Array HeadHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hotel Carlton
    Posts
    289
    Here's one that's funny in a pathetic sort of way. I wonder how that happened.

    http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf...thwest-OIS.pdf

    Basis for Findings

    A. Tactics
    During the ensuing Officer Involved Shooting incident, Officer D fired a total of 16 rounds, seven of which impacted his police vehicle. The BOPC is concerned that Officer D did not obtain and/or maintain proper sight alignment while engaging Subject 1.
    Some drink at the fountain of Knowledge, others just gargle.

  16. #15
    New Member Array vcaruso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2

    How to access other reports.

    What menu selection on LAPDONLINE.ORG is used to access other reports like these.

    TY
    Last edited by vcaruso; December 27th, 2013 at 06:19 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

los angeles police unintended discharge

Click on a term to search for related topics.