SBCS Shooting runner with rock in the back question

[cannon]

As you may have seen in OT. There is a thread about SBCS shooting a guy in the back as he was running away.

Suspect did stop before the shooting and mime throwing a rock. Suspect them turned and ran and was shot in shoulders and arm from behind a few seconds later.

My question is.

Will the Deputies decision to shoot fall under department policy, law or both and does anyone know SBCS policy?

[yzErnie]

I would guess no one in this specialty forum will discuss policy for a department they don't work for and if anyone works for that department they won't discuss it with a random internet guy (presumptive) anyway. Are you not getting the answers you want to hear in the post in the OT forum?

[cannon]

I would guess no one in this specialty forum will discuss policy for a department they don't work for and if anyone works for that department they won't discuss it with a random internet guy (presumptive) anyway. Are you not getting the answers you want to hear in the post in the OT forum?

Thank you for responding.

These discussions in OT quickly turn into it was a good/bad shoot very quickly.

My interest is not in was it a good or a bad shoot in everyones opinion. I was more interested in the policy side of it.

I realize every department has its own policy and I think I should have asked. Would this shooting meet your departments policy and I do not need or want to know which department is being talked about.

More interested in. "Where I work." "Yes because...." or "No because..." And I realize anyone responding is really giving an educated opinion.

Sorry to be so wordy but this is the kind of stuff that intrigues me. Yes, I would read the Courts (Former employer) policies and procedures while at lunch.

[CBR_rider]

I posted the link in the other thread to SBCSO policy manual. Their use of force policy is contained therein. Lethal force started under what did I say... page 633 maybe?

To more or less answer the other part of your question.... I personally think it could be justified if the officer can articulate enough facts about the incident to lead a reasonable officer to believe that lethal force was allowed under law. But I have personally witnessed (and been subjected to) discipline based on a supervisor’s BS opinion as opposed to actual policy/law/etc because of their own bias/stupid opinion on how something should have been done/needing a scapegoat/etc. so I don’t know how this will all shake out

[yzErnie]

Thank you for responding.

These discussions in OT quickly turn into it was a good/bad shoot very quickly.

My interest is not in was it a good or a bad shoot in everyones opinion. I was more interested in the policy side of it.

I realize every department has its own policy and I think I should have asked. Would this shooting meet your departments policy and I do not need or want to know which department is being talked about.

More interested in. "Where I work." "Yes because...." or "No because..." And I realize anyone responding is really giving an educated opinion.

Sorry to be so wordy but this is the kind of stuff that intrigues me. Yes, I would read the Courts (Former employer) policies and procedures while at lunch.

There are many variables that come into play when determining whether a shooting is considered justified. Most times, those variables cannot be determined based on a couple minute video that do not show the entire contact or incident. The 'totality of the circumstances' certainly comes into play and policies cannot be written in black and white to cover every circumstance.

Having worked for SBSD for decades, and many of those years as a patrol supervisor, I am intimately familiar with the dept policies that relate to the application of deadly force. I've been retired for several years now but I doubt the policies have changed much.

That said, I never have and will never make any opinion of an OIS without knowing every intricate detail of the incident. I can tell you this, the Internal Affairs division of this department does not play games with its employees and will call it as the investigation's evidence dictates...good or bad.

[cannon]

Thank you