PDA

View Full Version : St. Pete: Cops must NOW see who they are shooting at before firing.




phill4paul
12-18-2013, 08:41 AM
In the "I don't even know how to respond" category. I'm pretty sure that every "rules of gun safety" I have ever read includes "be sure of your target and what is beyond."


ST. PETERSBURG — Police officers will now face tougher standards in their use of deadly force.

In one of his last acts as police chief, Chuck Harmon on Tuesday made significant changes to the policy that dictates how and when officers are allowed to fire their weapons.

Officers now must be able to see who they are shooting at before firing, said Harmon, who also stiffened penalties for policy violators.

"It's reasonable to ask people to know what they're shooting at," Harmon told the Tampa Bay Times on Tuesday. "We carry firearms on a daily basis. We are trained professionally. It's a big deal."

The changes are a direct response to one of several fatal officer-involved shootings this year.

The Sept. 7 death of Lelann Cooley fit the description of a typical "suicide-by-cop" scenario. Prosecutors, police and family members all agreed Cooley, 46, goaded police into shooting him after they showed up to his home for a noise complaint. Cooley armed himself, refused to follow orders and pointed a gun at officers.

Many were stunned then at Harmon's actions after an internal investigation into the shooting.

In a rare move, the chief handed down a split decision about the group of officers involved. Harmon cleared four officers but decided two were unjustified in their use of deadly force, a ruling that went against state prosecutors' conclusions.

Explaining his decision, Harmon said that Cooley presented a real threat but that Officers Christopher Turbee, 37, and John Phifer, 34, did not actually see that threat and joined in only after hearing their fellow officers' shots.

Last month, Harmon gave both men an employee notice, a form of written, formal discipline that stays in an officer's personnel file. Within weeks, police union lawyers were appealing the decision to the city.

Last week, the officers got a partial victory.

Days after city labor officials heard Phifer's appeal, his attorney Ken Afienko got word Harmon was downgrading the discipline to a memorandum of counseling, which is essentially informal training.

Then Afienko, who represents the Fraternal Order of Police, heard of the looming policy changes.

"From the union perspective, we are very concerned with any policy that dictates an officer's actions on high-stress calls that are so dynamic in nature," he said Tuesday. "I know of no agency in this area that has a similar policy."

Use of force policies at other county agencies, including the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office and the Clearwater Police Department, don't specifically require target acquisition.

Harmon said target acquisition is part of officer training. The city's policy now clearly says that unless officers are under fire, they "will ascertain the target before discharging their firearm."

In addition to the target acquisition clause, Harmon also put stiffer penalties in place for those who violate the use of force policy. Now, any officer found guilty of a firearms-related violation will, at minimum, receive an employee notice. That includes acts like losing a gun or damaging it through negligence, Harmon said.

When the chief first disciplined Turbee, who has 14 years with the department, and Phifer, who has 10 years with department, Afienko said he was concerned about the message it sent to officers. Harmon's policy changes also concern him.

"There may be times when you're going to have to shoot and not actually see the target," he said. "Not all shootings are you going to have an ideal circumstance. It just doesn't happen."

He cited the Hydra Lacy case, which ended in the deaths of two police officers in 2011, as an example. Officers fired hundreds of rounds at Lacy, whom they could not see as he fired down at them from an attic.

Harmon said he understands exceptions will occur. The Lacy case would be one, he said.

The chief, who retires in January, said he has not reversed his opinion that Turbee and Phifer were not justified in the Cooley shooting.

"When I looked at the violation we had, nothing in our policy said you should have target acquisition when you shot," he said. "I took this as an opportunity to strengthen the policy."

The changes are effective immediately.

"It needed to be done," Harmon said. "And I think it'll make it easier for the next chief to enforce."

Kameel Stanley can be reached at kstanley@tampabay.com or (727) 893-8643. Follow her on Twitter @cornandpotatoes.

St. Petersburg police chief tightens use of force policy 12/17/13 [Last modified: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:04am]

© 2013 Tampa Bay Times

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/st-petersburg-police-chief-toughens-policy-governing-use-of-deadly-force/2157491

ClydeCoulter
12-18-2013, 08:48 AM
"It's reasonable to ask people to know what they're shooting at,"

And they say there is no common sense anymore...whodathunk?

specsaregood
12-18-2013, 08:49 AM
In the "I don't even know how to respond" category. I'm pretty sure that every "rules of gun safety" I have ever read includes "be sure of your target and what is beyond."


I thought this section would have been worth bolding/highlighting:


"From the union perspective, we are very concerned with any policy that dictates an officer's actions on high-stress calls that are so dynamic in nature," he said Tuesday. "I know of no agency in this area that has a similar policy."

jkr
12-18-2013, 08:51 AM
HAHAHAHAHA

IF
YOU
SEE
SUMTHING
SH00T
SUMTHING


next asteroid or comet that comes by, just drop me off...

phill4paul
12-18-2013, 08:51 AM
I thought this section would have been worth bolding/highlighting:


"From the union perspective, we are very concerned with any policy that dictates an officer's actions on high-stress calls that are so dynamic in nature," he said Tuesday. "I know of no agency in this area that has a similar policy."

Indeed it is. Good catch!

Neil Desmond
12-18-2013, 09:00 AM
:rolleyes:

Maybe they just don't want cops to accidentally hit other cops.

Ronin Truth
12-18-2013, 09:10 AM
Gee, what a radical concept. Maybe it will catch on nation wide.

phill4paul
12-18-2013, 09:20 AM
Gee, what a radical concept. Maybe it will catch on nation wide.

No chance. I'm quite sure that the incoming police chief will quietly rescind the directive.

eduardo89
12-18-2013, 12:44 PM
I think this endangers officer safety.

belian78
12-18-2013, 02:13 PM
I think this endangers officer safety.
LOL I hope this is sarcasm, otherwise you truly are showing some true colors around here the last couple days.

eduardo89
12-18-2013, 02:24 PM
LOL I hope this is sarcasm, otherwise you truly are showing some true colors around here the last couple days.

It is obviously sarcasm.

And showing my true colors in the last couple days? What does that mean? I have not changed any of my positions or suddenly expressed them out of the blue. What I believe now I've believed for quite a while, and I never shy away from expressing my true views.

Everyone here knows I'm not a libertarian and haven't identified as one in a few years.

Philhelm
12-18-2013, 03:31 PM
HAHAHAHAHA

IF
YOU
SEE
SUMTHING
SH00T
SUMTHING


next asteroid or comet that comes by, just drop me off...

Damn you...beat me to it.

enhanced_deficit
12-18-2013, 10:35 PM
Unarmed black mother Miriam Carey would have supported this strongly. She may have been alive today if this was in place in US freedom capital DC few weeks ago.

Henry Rogue
12-18-2013, 11:07 PM
At first I thought this was an "Onion" spoof. I'm amazed.

My guess is, the next guy will reverse this new policy.

In one of his last acts as police chief

Occam's Banana
12-19-2013, 01:13 AM
I thought this section would have been worth bolding/highlighting:

"From the union perspective, we are very concerned with any policy that dictates an officer's actions on high-stress calls that are so dynamic in nature," he said Tuesday. "I know of no agency in this area that has a similar policy."

I thougth exactly the same thing about the preceding sentence. Consider what it actually means:
"From the union perspective, we are very concerned with any policy that dictates that cops can't do certain things."

Grubb556
12-19-2013, 01:27 AM
And the government has the gall to say private citizens don't properly handle guns.