In light of yesterday’s incident I thought I’d share this for discussion. CBP and its sister agencies have a significant track record of placing themselves in danger and then shooting drivers trying to flee a scene. “It is suspected that in many vehicle shooting cases, the subject driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby exposing themselves to additional risk and creating justification for the use of deadly force.”
ICE and CBP are two separate agencies, but both have displayed very questionable tactics in and around vehicles. Since July, ICE has fired at cars approximately a dozen times, in situations frequently similar to this one. In three of those incidents charges have been dropped against the alleged perpetrators in DC, Los Angeles, and near Chicago. The NY Times has tracked ICE shootings involving vehicles nine times since September, which comprises all or most of ICE’s shootings. In the same period of time all LA law enforcement agencies have shot approximately a dozen people.
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING
This thread is about the OPs broad question.
This is NOT a thread on yesterday's MN/ICE shooting. If you wish to discuss that specifically, please see the pinned megathread.
KEEP THIS TO THE OPS GENERAL QUESTION
I was always taught not to move in front of suspect vehicles it at all possible. I have also seen stories of ICE agents diving INTO suspect vehicles as they tried to drive away, which is also something we were taught not to do.
I personally think it is bad tactics to put yourself in danger like that, but I also like not having broken ankles, so...
I used to teach a vehicle CQB class, and a solid two hours of that was just reviewing where to stand and where not to stand around vehicles.
Time after time we’d drill into guys to not cross in front of the car if the driver was still in the driver seat. For one they can run you over, two they have a relatively good shot on you.
One class was so bad we put fencing around the front of the car at lunch and called it the No No Square.
I think that's what everyone from sane organizations are taught. The only exception is if you are in a narrow alley we were told to drop prone and go f/a into the engine block. You'll probably die but everyone else maybe won't. About the only time we were taught to go f/a
(military not leo)
NYPD taught us in the academy that if we were in a narrow alley and car taking up the whole alley came down it towards us, to Spiderman jump over the oncoming car. They were more worried about us taking out the driver, him slamming his foot on the gas and the car becoming a missile on wheels.
It’s also in the patrol guide to not use deadly force on the operator of a motor vehicle unless they are using deadly force other than the vehicle.
And never shoot the blind girl's dog after it gets hit by a car.
Haha. If you're in a narrow alley in front of a bad guy's car as a LEO you definitely fucked up. But that's also easily justifiable deadly force if they start to come towards you.
i swear iraq is like 67% narrow alleys
i know that is a thing but I'm too old to know what the thing is...
No one knows
we actually had a case in Denver a decade ago with similar circumstances. DPD ended up changing their UOF policy as a result.
What does f/a mean here?
full auto. Generally no one uses it on a rifle as you'll score like ass for both speed and accuracy compared to semi. Plus all your AR series rifles aren't really made to shoot f/a sustained for more than like 15 rounds. f/a is usually limited to AWs (automatic weapons aka machine guns like the mk46/mk48) since they are designed around sustained automatic fire.
Basically in training they run us against a shot clock and each miss adds like 1.5 or 3 seconds to your time. Everyone always scored far, far worse using f/a which is how they sell you a trained shooter in semi is always way more dangerous than anyone using f/a or burst.
Out side of the day set aside to prove f/a sucks I don't think I ever used full auto on my rifle.
Understood, thanks for the explanation
We’ve always been trained to not deliberately put ourselves in front of a vehicle, especially one that is moving or may try to flee.
And with the way things are in my state, in most circumstances if we step in front of a moving car and then shoot the driver we’ll be getting charged.
And personally, even if stepping in front of a car to put myself in imminent danger would be a justified shooting, I’m not doing it. A couple of 9mm or .223 rounds is not stopping a moving multiton machine and killing the driver just means it’s now moving with no one in control. It doesn’t eliminate the threat, just makes it more unpredictable.
I can’t speak to anything ICE does, has done, or how they’re trained. I’ve had very limited dealings with them over my career
[removed]
Removed - Read the pin.
If you have questions about a specific case, use the pinned megathread.
[deleted]
I actually sighed in relief when I saw you weren’t verified lol
My department specifically has a policy in place that placing oneself in front of a vehicle to attempt to stop it from fleeing is against policy and could lead to termination if a shooting occurred
Yep, ours too.
I think that’s pretty standard everywhere. I can’t find the current DHS policy but the last DOJ policy I found says:
“firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.” (Emphasis mine)
Ours has almost the exact same wording.
Maybe DOJ uses Lexipol too lol
Does that also apply to blocking someone with your squad car?
Like boxing in a car with patrol cars? There are specific Emergency vehicle policies on how to conduct them, but they are more than fine. You being in a car and getting hit with another car during a box in is not considered deadly force if that suspect vehicle is stationary as they could never get the speed to cause issue if you actually have good training
I know CBP has a policy that allows them to pursue, not sure about ICE. But my agency doesn't really care about staying out of the way and letting people go because we'll pursue forever. If ICE is not allowed to pursue, it would make more sense because their only way to catch people would be when they have them stopped. Basically, out of desperation.
They need to have some serious discussions about letting people go and getting them next time.
In a few of these ops gone wrong it seems as if they have the intel to know exactly where someone is going to be, but they’re letting people get into cars before grabbing them or attempting apprehension at really bad times. I’m not sure what’s causing this, lack of planning maybe? But vehicle takedowns need to be taught if they’re going to keep doing this stuff.
There's certainly been some videos out there of ICE attempting arrests where you really wonder how much training and support they ever received. Hemming and hawing over actually making an arrest, not controlling the scene as people show up, just a lot of stuff where you'd expect better from a nightclub bouncer.
Whether or not there is a policy violation will have no affect on the outcome of any criminal proceeding. This has been established in case law. Refer to Graham v. Conner.
I would hope that as a profession law-enforcement can do much better than “well it’s legal.”
There’s been a lot of morally reprehensible shit in history that was perfectly legal
Do you know if a policy violation has any affect on a civil wrongful death suit, as opposed to a criminal one?
[removed]
Lame mods mean you don't get accurate info.
I said "thank you for approving my comment" and was banned for it.
No, everything is not "automod removed"
In most situations, we aren't even allowed to block a vehicle with another vehicle. We need to make sure there is an avenue of escape for the suspect when they are in a vehicle.
These lessons are often learned the hard way before real change in tactics take hold.
After a shooting nearby sent a few dozen rounds through a Tahoe’s windows we rewrote our policy to say that a police vehicle used to pin a suspect vehicle from the rear was required to have a ballistic rated front windshield.
As we didn’t have any ballistic windshields at the time we had to write some BS addendum about exceptions during attempts to stop significant violent felons from fleeing or something.
Literally wrote the whole thing up and then thought “well shit. We don’t have any bulletproof glass.”
Looks like everyone is getting a Cybertruck!
Do you now?
I left that agency a while back but one of the last things I did was writing the grant to get three. Apparently there’s a mad dash to get the windshield car at the beginning of each shift 😆
It's happened to every law enforcement agency. Trying to make it seem like an issue for these agencies is just pot-stirring and rage-baiting.
Law Enforcement should avoid putting themselves in front of cars, but people should also avoid driving their cars at law enforcement.
It’s happened at every law enforcement agency, but I’d have a hard time finding an agency of any size in the US that has fired into a vehicle nine times in four months, or an agency that has had charges in three of those shootings dropped or dismissed in such short order. To say nothing of all the previous reports on CBP and ICE shooting into vehicles. The linked report is 13 years old.
The agent/officer involved in this incident was dragged six months ago after reaching into a car. Here he is six months later walking in front of a car.
Everyone who has ever done this job makes mistakes. Sometimes the gods of policing see to it that you live. It’s everyone’s responsibility not to make the same mistake twice.
Lately there has been a lot of misinformation put out online about who ICE/CBP are able to detain/arrest and under what circumstances. I would Hazzard a guess that that has emboldened people to try to flee them/resist arrest.
ICE and CBP are currently being specifically targeted for harassment, and vilified in the media. People are forming groups specifically to find and stop them.
It's not an apples to orange comparison.
I'm gonna be honest guys. If you place yourself in front of a vehicle in an attempt to get them to stop the vehicle..
I have no sympathy for what happens to you. And if you use that as justification for then shooting someone because you believed your life was in danger...I look forward to the whole book being thrown at you.
Yes, and yes.
The Flair chuckle died down after about 15 seconds. Thank you :)
Serious question that I can't currently figure out how to word differently so it doesn't sound challenging, but how do the agency sizes compare and how many non-shooting instances are there? Many years ago, my department changed the definition of staff assault then consequently claimed that staff assaults were decreasing. I hope that helps explain why I'm asking.
I'm corrections and the last vehicle shooting I know of in this field was Brooklyn BOP (I'm state elsewhere), so obviously it's not the same.
PS I've been awake for 20+ hrs and I hope my intentions are clear. Sorry if they aren't. We are so understaffed, which I'm sure many of you can sympathize with.
Jesus this report is so old I actually worked for a living when it came out. It addresses SOPs like three or four major revisions of the UoF policy ago. It is also largely about port runners and dealing with coyotes on the border. It has nothing to do with what happened in MN.
Between the original post and your response CBP shot two people in a vehicle that allegedly tried to run them over and fled the scene.
Yeah, your point? This is still an outdated study that was long on assumptions and short on proof that in any event doesn’t apply to a working reality of anyone hired after 2009. You ran a google search and found a match. Congrats.
The point is it’s not outdated: CBP and ICE are still engaging in the behavior mentioned here: “allows shooting at the driver of any suspect vehicle that comes in the direction of agents. It is suspected that in many vehicle shooting cases, the subject driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby exposing themselves to additional risk and creating justification for the use of deadly force. In most of these cases, the agents have stated that they were shooting at the driver of a vehicle that was coming at them and posing an imminent threat to their life. In some cases, passengers were struck by agents’ gunfire.”
heck this was two and a half months ago. Not exactly a banner exactly of brilliant tactics around vehicles.
this was in august.
Curious you cut the “it appears that” from the start of that quote rather than using the complete sentence. They had complete access to the agency and cases reviewed with the backing of the president and couldn’t get there to the recommendations they needed to make. So they drew the required conclusions for the policy change that was already written. Padding their descriptions with liar words rather than the documented facts of the cases that again they had complete access to.
But polices did change none the less and now are pretty boiler plate. But try not to be there doesn’t mean graham v Connor goes out the window if someone tries to run you down.
And again all of this has nothing to do with ICE.
I think it depends on the crime of the suspect attempting to flee, if it’s a violent criminal, who may or may not be armed, and who is an immediate threat to society then deadly force is definitely justified, however if it’s a minor, non-violent offense then the LEO should avoid putting themselves in jeopardy.
Is thier training for border patrol or street work or both? They don't know what they're doing and it's ramping up. The vetting rumors are also coming to light with videos of these guys taking women into portable bathrooms. Somethings gotta give.
Retired vet
Also keep in mind "PERF" has no authority to force agencies to follow their edicts. Their chairman has NEVER been a cop and doesnt have a clue about actual on the street policing. Its a think tank of non rates.
The President is the Chief of Nashville, the VP is chief of Sacramento, Treasurer is career Philly PD, even the secretary is Chief of Minneapolis.
https://www.policeforum.org/chuck-wexler
Zero experience whatsoever
The dude has a pretty sparkling resume and he’s surrounded by cops. I don’t think “Chuck Wexler was never on patrol” is your best argument when this report specifically highlights CBP behavior that we saw literally yesterday.
Its easy to come up with "policy" when you have no skin in the game.
[deleted]
What you "maintain" is irrelevant.
Regardless of recent events, case law is clear on self-induced jeopardy so tactical positioning absolutely matters. You are spreading bullshit. Stop talking in an educated manner about things you know nothing about.
[removed]
[removed]