GGR 189 – LAPD Use of Force Reports with Claude Werner

Welcome to Episode 189 of Gun Guy Radio! This is the podcast that shines a positive light on the firearms lifestyle. I’m Your host Ryan Michad and this is your weekly dose of positive firearms talk, without the politics.

This week, I’m joined by Claude Werner, the Tactical Professor, to discuss some of the lessons we can learn from the LAPD’s Categorical Use of Force summaries & reports.

As always, please consider supporting the Firearms Radio Network by shopping Amazon using our Amazon Affiliate Link at firearmsradio.tv/amazon. A portion of your purchase will go towards helping the FRN create awesome pro-gun content!

Please check out the Patriot Patch Company and their current Pre Orders for the Patriotic Flag 4 pack, the In God We Trust and The Diversity T-Shirts pre order!

http://patriotpatch.co/catalog/patriotic-flag-4-pack

http://patriotpatch.co/catalog/in-god-we-trust-patch-pre-order

http://patriotpatch.co/shirt-catalog/diversity-t-shirts-pre-order

Claude, how are you doing? How is your training going?

Main Topic: Learning from LAPD Officer Involved Shooting Summaries with Claude Werner

A little while ago, I had noticed that Claude had referenced a few of these Categorical Use of Force reports that were linked from the Los Angeles Police Department website. Curious, I went on to the website and found that they posted a pretty detailed report of every officer involved use of force/shooting incident that occurred. This included a pretty detailed summary of the events leading up to the incidents, as well as the determination by the Board of Police Commissioners (BOPC) as to whether the officers actions were justified or not. Claude had pointed out several lessons from one of the reports he had linked, so I thought it would be a good idea to discuss how one can get information from such reports, and how they can translate that information into usable data that they can incorporate into their training regimen.

Claude, how did you discover the LAPD Categorical Use of Force (CUF) reports?

What are some ways that you have used these reports to influence how you train/how you train others?

What are some mistakes you see people make when trying to gather usable information from such reports?

Claude has picked a few reports that he thought were especially interesting and imparted some useful knowledge to the armed citizen, so we thought we could discuss some of those and give some examples of how you can use such reports to your own advantage.

Incidents

All the following incidents occurred off-duty. In general, officers are not required nor encouraged by the LAPD to take enforcement action off-duty.

Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners’ [Evaluation and] Findings

“The BOPC reviews each Categorical Use of Force incident based upon the totality of the circumstances, namely all of the facts, evidence, statements and all other pertinent material relating to the particular incident. In every case, the BOPC makes specific findings in three areas:

• Tactics of the involved officer(s);

• Drawing/Exhibiting/Holstering of a weapon by any involved officer(s); and

• the Use of Force by any involved officer(s).

All incidents are evaluated to identify areas where involved officers can benefit from a tactical debriefing to improve their response to future tactical situations. This is an effort to ensure that all officers benefit from the critical analysis that is applied to each incident as it is reviewed by various levels within the Department and by the BOPC.”

==================================================================================

OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING – 009-06 (Off-Duty Intervention in Robbery)

http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/009-06_Van%20Nuys-OIS.pdf

Reason for Police Contact

An officer was off-duty when he encountered an armed suspect committing a crime, resulting in an officer-involved shooting.

Incident Summary

Officer A was off-duty and attired in plainclothes when he attempted to purchase an item at a supermarket. While standing in the check-out line, Officer A observed an individual in the next aisle, later identified as the Subject, point a gun at the cashier in the aisle directly in front of him and demand money from her register. Having observed the Subject’s actions, Officer A believed that the Subject was committing armed robbery and that he could kill someone.

Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners’ Findings

1. Tactics

The BOPC found Officers A and C’s actions to warrant training.

1. Drawing/Exhibiting

The BOPC found Officer A’s drawing and exhibition of a firearm to be in policy.

1. Use of Force

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

=====================================================================================

OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING – 055-06 (Warning Shot)

http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/055-06%20Public%20BOPC%20Summary.pdf

Reason for Police Contact

While off-duty, Detective A and Subject 1, Detective A’s wife, became involved in an argument. Subject 1 fired two shots at Detective A with Detective A’s service pistol, wounding him. Detective A fled as Subject 1 continued to pursue him. Detective A fired a warning shot to prevent Subject 1’s continued advance.

Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners’ Findings

1. Tactics

The BOPC found Detective A’s tactics to be appropriate.

1. Drawing/Exhibiting/Holstering

The BOPC found that drawing/exhibiting/holstering did not apply.

1. Use of Force

The BOPC found Detective A’s use of force to be in policy.

1. Use of Force

The BOPC determined that, although warning shots are generally prohibited, in this incident it was reasonable for Detective A to believe that Subject 1 posed an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death. The BOPC recognized that Detective A had been seriously wounded and ran a considerable distance to escape Subject 1. At the time he fired the warning shot, Detective A was bleeding and was in possession of two firearms. Detective A could have become incapacitated at any time due to the blood loss he was experiencing. Had that occurred, Detective A would have lost control of his firearms and been vulnerable to further attack by Subject 1. The BOPC determined that Detective A had no other reasonable alternatives at the moment he fired the warning shot. The BOPC found Detective A’s use of force to be in policy.

Claude’s Comment:

While I think warning shots aren’t a good general policy, I’m also cautious about saying NEVER. What if the choice is 1) justifiably killing your crazy and enraged wife, who has already shot you twice, in front of your children and grandchildren or 2) firing a warning shot?

In the above incident, an LAPD detective was faced with exactly that scenario. He chose to fire the warning shot. The LAPD Board Of Police Commissioners found his actions reasonable and within policy, due to the extreme circumstances.

===============================================================================

NON-TACTICAL NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE 071-06

http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/071-06_Pacific-ND.pdf

Reason for Police Contact

Officer was off duty at his residence and handled his revolver, which resulted in the discharge of his weapon.

Incident Summary

Officer A was off duty, sleeping at his residence, and Witness A was in the living room watching television. Witness A heard a dog barking, followed by the sound of the gate to the residence’s driveway being rattled. Witness A then saw through a window that a blonde-haired person was at the gate. Witness A responded, yelled, and screamed at the person and told the person to get away from the gate.

Officer A was awoken [sic] by Witness A’s screams and believed that Witness A was being attacked. Officer A grabbed his revolver, and went to the living room and asked Witness A “What?” Witness A was unable to respond, and was still screaming. As Officer A entered the living room, Officer A unintentionally discharged a round from the revolver. The round traveled in a slightly upward direction, and went through the window. Nobody was struck by the round. Officer A had his finger on the trigger at the time he discharged his revolver. After the round was discharged, Witness A saw the red glow of vehicle lights near the driveway, and heard the sound of a car door open or shut. Officer A placed his revolver on a shelf, telephoned the Watch Commander, and reported the incident. Officer A did not indicate that he saw the glow of vehicle lights or heard a car door open or shut.

Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners’ Findings

1. Tactics

The BOPC found Officer A’s tactics were appropriate.

1. Drawing/Exhibiting/Holstering

The BOPC found Officer A’s drawing to be in policy.

1. Use of Force

The BOPC found Officer A’s use force to warrant administrative disapproval.

Use of Force

The BOPC noted that Officer A was in possession of his revolver as he made his way to the living room. As Officer A entered the living room, he held the revolver in his right hand and unintentionally pressed the trigger, discharging one round. The round traveled through the north-facing living room window and into an open field. Officer A immediately placed the weapon in a safe location and notified the Watch Commander. The BOPC was critical that Officer A’s failed to adhere to the basic firearm safety rules while handling his weapon. The BOPC found Officer A’s use of force negligent, requiring administrative disapproval.

=====================================================================================

OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING – 012-08 (Reacting to Burglary)

http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/012-08_Outside%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.

Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners’ Findings

1. Tactics

The BOPC found Officer A’s tactics to warrant a Tactical Debrief.

1. Drawing/Exhibiting/Holstering

The BOPC found Officer A’s drawing and exhibiting to be in policy.

1. Lethal Use of Force

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

==================================================================================

OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTING – 078-08 (Officer’s Child in car during low speed crash – Road Rage)

http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/078-08_Outside%20City-OIS.pdf

Reason for Police Contact

Officer A was off-duty and driving his personally-owned vehicle when Subject 1 collided with his vehicle and did not stop. Officer A followed Subject 1 until Subject 1 stopped in the parking lot of a grocery store. During an ensuing confrontation, Officer A shot Subject 1.

Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners’ Findings

1. Tactics

The BOPC found Officer A’s tactics to warrant administrative disapproval.

1. Drawing/Exhibiting/Holstering

The BOPC found Officer A’s drawing to be out of policy, warranting administrative disapproval.

1. Lethal Use of Force

The BOPC found Officer A’s lethal use of force to be out of policy, warranting administrative disapproval.

1. Lethal Use of Force

According to Officer A, Subject 1 redirected his attention from Officer A and turned his entire body left toward Officer A’s son. Subject 1 fully extended his left arm toward Officer A’s son with his left fingers formed in a “C” configuration, which Officer A believed was a choking grip. After hearing his son scream, Officer A drew his service pistol and fired one round at Subject 1, striking him in the chest. Officer A stated, “He was real – – pretty much able to grab my son at – at that time, and I – and I feared for my son’s safety. The reason – like I said earlier, the reason being, he’s one year old and he’s incapable of protecting himself.” According to Officer A, after being shot, Subject 1 covered his chest with both hands and walked backward past the open front door of the SUV. Subject 1 took several additional steps backward and fell to the ground, landing face down with his hands tucked close to his body. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that Subject 1 neither approached the rear passenger door of Officer A’s vehicle nor was in a position to reach into the vehicle to harm Officer A’s child. Witnesses statements indicate the subject was shot before he reached the front of Officer A’s SUV. This version of events is further supported by the witness statements that indicate Subject 1 immediately fell to the ground after being shot, the description of the scene as depicted by a responding CHP officer and deputy sheriff, and by physical evidence. Officer A’s account of the incident as it pertains to his justification for the use of lethal force is not evidentially supported. The BOPC found Officer A’s lethal use of force to be out of policy, warranting administrative disapproval.

Thank you Claude so much for coming on! Where can people find more information and follow your work?

Sponsor – Patriot Patch Co

Firearms Radio Network T-Shirts (Pre-Order)

Patriotic Flag Patch 4 Pack (Pre-Order)

Patreon:

NEW FRN Patreon http://www.patreon.com/frn

http://www.patreon.com/gun or http://www.gunguyradio.com/pledge

SPONSOR – Ryan Cross Hunter of Design – www.hunterofdesign.com

Wrap-up:

• Remember to subscribe to us in iTunes so that you never miss a show and please leave us a review there as well.  http://www.gunguyradio.com/itunes

• Please consider joining the…
  • Join the NRA
  • Join the Second Amendment Foundation
• Don’t forget to check out the other shows on the Firearms Radio Network

The post GGR 189 – LAPD Use of Force Reports with Claude Werner appeared first on Gun Guy Radio – Positive gun talk without the politics.