Recently, Chuck Remsberg wrote an article called Heroics or recklessness? You be the judge To date, over 250 Police1 members have commented on the article, which discussed an encounter between an FTO and an armed suspect. The FTO decided against using deadly force, and instead OCs him and resolves the incident without injury to anyone. The deputy chief in charge of patrol operations advocated that the FTO be disciplined, sent to mandatory training, and removed from the FTO program. Was the chief right? Or should the FTO have received a medal for resolving the incident without deadly force?
We asked what you thought. Many officers agreed with the chief and commended the Brass for strong leadership. Some officers vehemently disagreed, arguing that decisions should be left to the responding officer.
Below are a couple of the responses we received. If you want to add your two cents, read the article and comment here.
“As a weapons instructor and training officer, I agree with the analysis that the decision to not shoot was a mistake. I would never train anyone to hold fire under those circumstances and I don’t believe anyone else would either. We do not get paid to lose or draw, we get paid to win.”
- cmoth
“I agree with Chief Solomon, stupidity and/or cowardice can get you, your partner, and the public killed. If you are not prepared to shoot someone, then find another line of work before you get yourself or partner killed.”
- maddog103
“I agree with the officer’s position, and as an FTO, I talk to my trainees about the deadly force decisions they will make throughout their career. The choice of if/when to use deadly force is based upon the officer’s perceived threat. Was deadly force justified or needed? I am not sure that’s the right question. The question should be, Officer what actions did you perceive as threatening great bodily harm or death? I realize, given the situation, any one should be able to articulate the threat and its level. The choice is still the individual officer’s.”
- DJD1027
“Arguing that the officer’s “training” kept him from shooting a man carrying two weapons just indicates that one does not understand the principle of “action vs. reaction”. Properly demonstrated, this would leave no doubt that guns pointed at the ground are just as dangerous as those pointed at your face. Both FTO and trainee did not react properly and placed their lives unnecessarily in jeopardy. As one other person commented, this is only OK because the officers did not get shot or killed. Time for retraining? You bet.”
- daviddenny
“No one but the FTO and his trainee know the atmosphere of the confrontation and therefore should not be allowed comment. The “shoot or don’t shoot” decision was left to an experienced officer that was on the scene and, as a result of his actions, everyone walked away uninjured. I agree that the academies combined with the liberal media tend to lean heavily toward unarmed resolution, but I was not on scene to see the actions of the bad guy nor could I possibly know the mindset. The officer should be commended with the caveat that each situation is unique and his lack of shots fired should not be viewed as setting a precedent by which future situations be judged.”
- tackleberry011
“My feeling is that the suspect should have been shot to stop his advance well before he got into pepper spray range. As a former FTO, I agree that this sets a terrible example for a rookie on how armed suspect confrontations should be dealt with in the future. There is now confusion as to when he should shoot and when he should hold fire. I hope he does not become a victim of this in the future. As for discipline, I don’t think anything more than training and possibly probationary status as an FTO is warranted.”
- rerun201
“If you were not there, you can’t judge. The situation worked out and no one was hurt. My thoughts are that the officers did what they thought was right and succeeded in bringing the situation to an end. I may have reacted differently, but that is not the issue. To reward someone for not using or for using deadly force is not the answer. Rewarding them for ending the situation is a good thing. Punishing someone for not doing it the way you think it should have been done is just as ridiculous.”
- chr1s11
“I agree with the Chief on this one. You do not let people approach you with weapons....especially firearms....and especially within range for you to use OC. No one wants to end a life but you must react correctly when a suspect creates a deadly force situation. This situation may have worked in his favor this time but the overwhelming odds say one or both of those officers should be dead.”
- ray98
“As veteran of 30 years as a police officer and 14 years in private security, my opinion is the suspect should have been shot. There is no room for this type of heroism. Those that are unable to do so should find a different occupation.”
- sunshine
“None of us were there... No one except those officers can say they felt threatened by this guy’s actions. I wished we all had administrators like Solomon; it would make all our jobs easier knowing the Brass has our back when our feet are to the fire. But this is the real world, and not all administrators are built that way. Not knowing these officers or their department, we can’t speculate what ramifications would have come down on them.”
- hadley23
“I think that FTO made a very brave and obviously good decision; no one was injured. As officers our responsibility is to protect the public and that can even mean the bad guy at times. He was the person on the scene, he was the one making the assessment and he deserves credit for doing just that. That’s what we as officers get paid to do, make good, sound decisions. Yes he took a risk and it paid off. Another officer may have opted to shoot the suspect and it would have been justified. The difference is that a person may have died that didn’t need too. The world we live in is dangerous, it comes with the territory. This officer understood that and confronted that danger with bravery.”
- jep2
“This FTO was reckless in every aspect. What he taught to his recruit is unacceptable. There is not an officer working the streets that wants to take the life of any individual, but in this case, the FTO endangered himself and his rookie when this was clearly a shoot situation.”
- wrh
“As an FTO, our job is not only to teach the trainee how to do the job but to protect the trainee’s life. I believe that this particular FTO failed in both jobs. None of us should rely on luck as this officer did. In my training and experience, it has been repeatedly shown that it takes very little time to raise a firearm and shoot. It has also been shown that OC spray doesn’t always work; in fact, during my academy training we were sprayed with OC and had to fight our way through it. By responding to the deadly threat with OC, the FTO was putting the trainee, himself, and the public at risk.”
- mtgrizzly
“I’ll be succinct. Good luck does not equal good tactics. I commend ‘Chief Solomon’ for having the courage to take this on. He made the right call.”
- 92fishzebra
“It was both heroic and reckless. But it was the FTO’s choice to make and, thankfully, it worked out this time. I’m confident in what I would do under these circumstances, but I understand those who are not. I fear we are destined to see more stories like this in the future. Our profession has unwittingly nurtured a culture of fear over the past two decades and now it has gotten to the point where many are afraid to use lawful and justified degrees of force, even in cases that seem crystal clear. Even on rock solid shootings, cities are quick to settle rather than risk losing big. Officers are being indicted for incidents which appear to be justified, simply to appease those who are offended by ANY use of police force. The end of the article hits on a key point: we need to engage the media and community about what we are entitled to do when it comes to the use of force.”
- HYRKY
Note: The comments in this article reflect the opinion(s) of Police1 members and do not reflect the opinion(s) of Police1.com.