
A Military-Trained Policeman, Fired for Being Less Hasty to Shoot - bobjordan
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718239/military-trained-police-may-be-slower-to-shoot-but-that-got-this-vet-fired
======
mtgx
> "For me, it wasn't enough to kind of take someone's life because they're
> holding a gun that's not pointed at me," Mader said.

What a powerful quote. It should be repeated to regular cops every day of
their training. Because it seems like they've given up on that type of
thinking a long time ago. Shoot first, ask questions later.

~~~
CoderCop
Cop of 6 years here. One use of force incident (Crazy guy swung a stick at me,
wrestled him to the ground without so much as punching him)

This cop needed to be fired. Human action is faster than reaction. A person
holding an un-holstered weapon down at their side can draw, fire, and get 2-3
accurate shots off, before someone who is aiming down the sights, ready to
fire, can recognize the movement and fire his own weapon.

Use of force is judged by what the officer knew at the time, and what a
reasonable officer would have done with that experience. Dude has a gun, is
raising the gun at you. Yeah, its probably a suicide by cop. If its not, or if
hes tired of you not killing him, he will kill you before you can do anything
about it. Now you have a dead police officer, and the murderer has an extra
gun, extra ammo, etc.

This guy needed to be fired. Some of the best cops I have seen have been
military/combat vets. Some of the worst have been as well. It is my
understanding he had other issues than just this situation, but I can't cite
that at the moment

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Use of force is judged by what the officer knew at the time, and what a
> reasonable officer would have done with that experience_

I agree that use of force may have been justified. I do not think the cop
should have been fired. If you're going to fire cops for not shooting fast
enough, you need to also fire them for what often looks like murder.

~~~
rvanniekerk
Exactly, suspension with pay is NOT a justified punishment for an unjust
murder.

Cops are quick to jump in and defend the department for firing this guy, but
when is the last time you've seen a cop speak out against an unjust shooting?

Maybe if "suicide by cop" wasn't such a guaranteed outcome for brandishing a
weapon near a police officer, people would be less inclined to attempt it.

This cop tried to treat the victim like an actual human being in distress and
got fired for it. Guy that popped off 4 shots gets praised for being a "good
cop".

~~~
morganvachon
> _This cop tried to treat the victim like an actual human being in distress
> and got fired for it._

The article implies that he was fired for a totality of events prior to this
incident, including interference with a crime scene, an illegal search, and
cursing at a citizen. It appears his department is using this incident as the
"final straw" to be able to let him go. If all of those other incidents are
true, I don't believe he should be a police officer, despite my feeling that
he acted correctly in initially trying to de-escalate the situation with the
armed subject.

~~~
heisenbit
It is usually a bad idea to take an incident that does not justify firing by
itself (or belongs to a similar class of incidents) as a trigger.

The other alleged professional shortcomings were of a very different nature
and that won't work well in court.

~~~
morganvachon
If all the events happened within an annual evaluation period, it's perfectly
normal for him to be fired after a certain number of write-ups. That's
standard practice at any public safety job, and indeed most government jobs.
I'm guessing this was the third offense in the evaluation period.

I know the media likes to represent police departments as hiding their repeat
offender employees behind "the blue shield", but every law enforcement agency
I've worked for (three including the one I'm currently at) have strict
policies about officer conduct. You screw up more than a couple of times, or
you really screw up by causing or allowing a citizen or other officer to be
hurt or killed, and your career is over.

------
gyrfalc
This article focuses on the cop/vet, but what I'm stuck on is that the 911
center didn't convey the complete report to the police - that the caller
reported the subject's gun was not loaded and that his goal was to get shot.
That seems like critical information to communicate to the police so they can
respond appropriately.

~~~
morganvachon
Having worked as a dispatcher, I can say that my training would have led me to
get that information to the incident commander for the area (the "boss" of the
cops that responded inluding Mader), but not via radio. I would have had a
coworker relay the information to the IC via cellphone or telex.

Even so, that information may or may not have saved the subject's life. The IC
could have decided the information is unsubstantiated and not have relayed it
to the responding officers, or if he had relayed it, the one who took the
fatal shot may still have felt enough of a threat to take the same action.

One more thing: I feel that Mader (the cop who initially responded) acted
correctly in trying to talk the subject down, but when the man started raising
the hand with the gun, Mader would have been justified if he had fired his
weapon as well (remember, no cop on the scene knew the gun wasn't loaded).

------
CalChris
Given the facts from the NPR story, the vet made the right call.

