Ambiguous Deadly Force Decisions Under Stress: Josh Shemenski’s Second Shooting
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Deputy Shemenski was distracted as he approached and arrived on the
scene of the disturbance. How can such distractions affect offi cer safety? What can be done to alleviate this problem? Click here for analysis
2. A vehicle following close behind an offi cer is suspicious enough to raise some serious concerns, especially when there is little or no other traffi c in the area. What options are there for dealing with this problem? Click here for analysis
3. Deputy Shemenski had experienced another shooting 18 months earlier that was very similar to this one. In what ways might that earlier incident have af- fected the way he responded to this one? Click here for analysis
4. Mr. Rusk put himself at grave risk by grabbing his son’s shotgun, but for- tunately Shemenski was mentally fl exible enough to withhold fi re, thereby preventing a tragedy. How important is mental fl exibility to our safety and the safety of others? What can we do to improve our mental fl exibility? Click here for analysis
5. When he suddenly realized how vulnerable he would be if Rusk tried to grab the shotgun or decided to charge him, Deputy Shemenski had to make a quick decision about how he would respond if either of these two ambiguous threats materialized. What can we do to improve our chances of making the right decision in this kind of diffi cult use-of-force situation? Click here for analysis
6. In what ways did Deputy Shemenski’s attitude and actions exemplify winning mindset and warrior spirit? Click here for analysis
or if Deputy Shemenski had found out that it was by asking for more in- formation, he probably would have responded to the scene more slowly and with his headlights off for a lower profi le approach. T is would have enabled him to gather more information, and probably to spot Rusk with the shotgun, before being drawn into the midst of the danger- ously escalating situation. Information is power. T e more you have, the better you can assess the possible danger and plan your response accordingly. Whenever possible, the time to start gathering information is before you arrive on the scene and the dispatcher is usually the key to doing so. Unfortunately, most departments put a low priority on training dispatchers for their key role in offi cer safety, and many put too little emphasis on offi cer safety when developing dispatching proce- dures. Dispatching isn’t an easy job, and we can’t expect our dispatchers to do it well without adequate pro- cedures and training. Offi cer safety and the safety of the public should be the top priority. On the other hand, our safety and the safety of those we serve is ultimately our responsibility. Don’t hesitate to ask the dispatcher for more information if you need it.
every street and location in the county, it is important to become as familiar with them as possible. In addition, GPS—or detailed up-to-date maps where GPS isn’t avail- able—should be used any time there is any doubt about the location of a call. T e time saved by not having to stop to get your bear- ings will usually more than make up for the time spent entering the address into the GPS or locating it on a map. More importantly,
38 The Police Marksman Sep-Oct 2014
it will enable you to focus all your attention on your approach and arrival on the scene. Return to Question 1
Inadequate Information Deputy Shemenski’s arrival on the scene was made more dangerous by a lack of information about what was happening there. If the call had been dispatched as a domestic rather than general disturbance,
Vehicle Following an Offi cer Fortunately, Mr. Rusk had no hostile intensions toward Deputy Shemen- ski, but his actions in following the deputy highlight something that should be of concern to us all. A vehicle following close behind an of-
fi cer is suspicious enough to raise some seri- ous concerns, especially when there is little or no other traffi c in the area. T e driver could prove to be someone following the offi cer by pure coincidence, or as in this case, someone heading to the same loca- tion as the offi cer with benign intentions. But he could also be someone intending to interfere with the offi cer, a predator with a
www.policemarksman.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46