Expert: Loren Stevens - 3/14/2008

Question
My wife and I went to see a child problem counselor. He had a LOT of different law enforcement magazines in the lobby. I read one where they talked about police officers who were shot by guys that came out of their cars with guns in their hands. The article said that the bad guys had the attitude "shoot, or get shot" so they had NO PROBLEM with shooting the officer.

In most cases, the officer did not immediately shoot the guy when he came out of the car with his gun in his hand, but rather tried to verbally "command" the bad guy to put down the gun.

I imagine a lot of police officers also read this magazine (sorry, I do not know the name of the magazine). Is there some rule or law that keeps officers from doing what the bad guys are doing? gun! - shoot INSTANTLY, talk later...?

It was disturbing to read the interviews of these guys who shot the officers. They had no remorse, no hesitation, and no worry about the outcome. They almost ALL believed 100% that the officer was going to shoot them. So they shot first...

Thanks for the time. I look forward to hearing from you.

Answer
Hello William,
You pose interesting questions.
The psychology issues are not something I will venture into. But I will comment on some legal precepts, coupled with my opinion on such matters.
Like all inquiry, how the subject is framed, along with definitions calibrates the parameters.
When you say "bad guys", you can mean these suspects embrace a past pattern of criminal behavior, and tend to be in a constant state of predisposition for crime....
Or, you can deem him to be a wanted fugitive, therefore a "bad guy" in waiting confirmation. Or, more to the qualifiers for police, he would fit one of these criteria:
Believed to have committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime.
All that, and "probable cause" too....
The logic of a "bad guy" coming out shooting, when being stopped for a petit traffic offense is doubtful. Therefore, he must be wanted, belive he is wanted, driving a stolen car, or is "dirty" (in possession of contraband, fruits of a crime, or instrumentalities of crime.
And, to be sure, there are a certain number of these assholes that would come out shooting...just cuz...This probably has a sociopathic ring to it, if not otherwise motivated by some perceived causal reason.
Some incidents may be gang initiation oriented, or some other demonstration of  pseudo-macho behavior.
And, we can't over look the influences of drugs, alcohol, medications, and the calculus factor of commingling these substances.
Last but not least, are mental health issues.
Now, the cops proceed with car stops in a variety of ways. It's kind of like on a sliding scale of progression, going from routine minor traffic violation, with no other indicators in the mix. At the other end of this scale, is the high risk hot felony car stop where the occupants are suspected to be armed and dangerous.
As you can imagine, the protocol would vary, depending on the situation.
Then, there is about everything in the middle, in terms of degree. If there are any indicators that would suggest caution e.g., low rider, gang signs, et al, the level of caution is exacerbated.
Sometimes, which is to say MOST of the time, traffic stops just don't warrant approaching the car at high-port-arms, ready for a fire fight.
Being careful is one thing, being ridiculously overly cautious to me, suggests fear, be it real or imagined.
The officers are trained to respond quickly in dangerous situations. That said, the officers are also usually at a disadvantage, as they need to be in a REACTIVE posture in most situations, rather than in an aggressive PROACTIVE mode.
Now then, about the "Voice commands" you spoke of.
I would invite you to google the law enforcement related "Use of deadly force continuum", which illustrates a method of response to given stimuli.
Now we are down to your inquiry/suggestion about a rule prohibiting officers from doing what some of these bandits do, i.e., shoot first and ask questions later.
For clarity of understanding, the "bad guy" is not bound by any rules what so ever, so he operates in a universe of absolute free will.
The police DO have "rules" about their conduct...The United States Constitution in general, and the first ten amendments in particular (Bill of Rights)along with the 14th amendment.Due Process of Law concerns. A veritable plethora of requirements. Legislated laws, Court Decisions mandates from the judiciary, and executive order from the executive branch.

The police have federal law, state law,county and city law, court decisions, civil law considerations, administrative law restrictions, agency policy, procedures, a mountain of Due Diligence matters to embrace, and lest we forget any Civil Rights issues. You see, the police represent government, and therefore are required to behave in a certain and specific way.
Out side of those parameters, is toro-feces city...
The police, especially those in uniform put their meat out front every shift. They are targets to be sure. When they hired on, they understood there would be risk(s).
Some less informed officers believe their first obligation is to finish their shift safely.....WRONG. If "safety" is the primary  goal, that is 100% attainable. Just never leave headquarters, hide under the desk, lock the doors, and have your pistol on the ready at high port.
Yes, that is a silly concept, but used to illustrate the flaw in the "safety" perception. The first and most important responsibility for the officer, is to do his/her duty....period!!
Well, I've gone on long enough. Hope I haven't
bored you. And, that you find a modicum of value from these remarks.
Good Luck, and regards.
loren