Votre arme. Vos munitions. Pas d’excuses.

Les tribunaux demandent maintenant que les officiers de police reçoivent un entraînement au discernement, en utilisant leurs armes et munitions de service et ce, dans des conditions de stress.

Zuchel vs. City and County of Denver, Colorado  (997 F. 2d  730, 10th Circuit Court)

Plaintiff's son was shot and killed by a city police officer during a street disturbance. The plaintiff settled claims against the police officer before the trial, and the jury considered only federal civil rights claims against the city. The jury awarded damages of $330,000.00, finding that the department's training program, which constituted only a movie and a lecture on the use of deadly force, to be constitutionally inadequate.

Federal appeals court upheld this result, finding that the training provided was inadequate and indicated that the city was "deliberately indifferent" to the need for more training on the use of deadly force. The court found sufficient evidence to show that the officer's use of deadly force was unjustified. The appeals court criticized the city's lack of "live-fire shoot/no-shoot drills” providing practice on when to shoot or not to shoot.

"Viewing the above evidence most favorably to plaintiffs", the court concluded, "it is clearly sufficient to support the jury's determination that the Denver police training program in place prior" to the shooting "was inadequate, and that a direct connection existed between the inadequacy and the shooting."

The court held that Denver Police Department was " Deliberately Indifferent " to the need for better firearm's training of it's officers and stated that this inadequate training led to an officer's fatal shooting of an unarmed citizen.

Lundren vs. McDaniel (814  F. 2d 600, 11th Circuit 1987)

The court held that the deputies who shot and killed a store owner while responding to what they believed was a burglary in progress were responsible for their actions. The Sheriff of the county was equally at fault since training and supervision falls within his realm of responsibility.

This case underlines the need for shoot/no-shoot training.

McLeod vs. City of Philadelphia  (U.S. District Ct., No. 94-7495, Oct. 6, 1995, 39 ATLA L. Rptr. P. 56, March 1996)

This case involved a 2.2 million dollar settlement. A police officer shot a man who was helping a store clerk who had been shot during a robbery.

This case illustrates the need for shoot/no-shoot training.

Watson vs. City of Los Angeles  (No. BC085132, L.A. Superior Central Ct., California, Dec. 29, 1995, L.A. Daily Journal Verdicts & Settlements, Vol. 109, No. 77, p.5, April 19,1996)

The jury awarded $4,911,668 to a man who was shot and rendered a paraplegic by the officer pursuing him as he fled from a stopped vehicle, because of outstanding warrants and illegal possession of a firearm. The plaintiff claimed he had abandoned his weapon before the officer shot him.

This case underlines the need to train officers in the constitutional limitations of the use of deadly force and in proper application of department policy on the use of deadly force.

 Camacho vs. City of Cudahy  (VC009187, La. Superior Ct., March 31, 1994)

City held liable for a $4,370.000 settlement to surviving family of a man shot and killed by officer responding to a domestic disturbance call. Officer thought a stick in the man's hand was a rifle.

This case underlines the need for shoot/no-shoot training.

Tuttle vs. Oklahoma,   728 F. 2d 456 (10TH CIR 1984)

The court strongly suggested the need for realistic firearms training. The court held that for law enforcement firearm's training to be valid, it must incorporate: stress, decision making, attitude, knowledge, skill, shoot-don’t-shoot, moving targets, officer required to move, low light or adverse light shooting, in-service training and shotgun training.

 Popow vs. City of Margate,   476 F SUPP.  1237  (D.N.J.  1979) 

The court held that the firearm's training was inadequate for the circumstances officers had to operate under. The court specifically stated that training needs to include;

a)     moving targets
b)     low light or adverse light shooting
c)     residential areas

or any experience with film or simulations designed to teach the practical application of deadly-force decision making. The court held that firearm's training should also include instruction on State Laws, City Regulations, (and/or policies) on shooting, and how they are applied in practice. The court also held that firearms training must be given on a continual basis.

City of Canton Ohio vs. Harris,   489  U.S.  378,  109  S. CT.  1197  (1989)

The Supreme Court stated that " A Municipality's inadequate training may give rise to 42 U.S.C., section 1983 liability when it is deliberately indifferent to the rights of the city's inhabitants and actually causes the plaintiff's injury".  The Court enumerated as one example of deliberately inadequate training as being:

 "instances in which the need for more of different training is obvious and the inadequacy is likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights". 

This case illustrates the requirement to properly and continually train police officers, especially in the area of firearms training.

McCelland vs. Facteau 610 F. 2d 693 (1979)

The court stated that " Police Chiefs may be held liable if they breach their duty to train subordinates and establish department procedures that will provide protection for constitutional rights.”

Voutour vs. Vitale, 761 F.2d 812 (1st Cir. 1985)

The court allowed a jury's conclusion to stand that undocumented 'reserve' police training and military training did not constitute adequate training for officers. The court stated "It seems likely that police training, in addition to teaching proficiency in the use of handguns, would include training as to the circumstances in which a police officer should not shoot".

 Acosta vs. City and County of San Fransico  (83  F. 3d  1143, 9th Circuit 1996)

In this case a Federal Appeals Court reinstated a jury's $259,358.19 judgment against the officer for shooting and killing the driver of a car making an escape from an alleged purse snatching. The jury necessarily found that officer could not have reasonably believed himself in danger from a slow moving vehicle, and accordingly officer was not entitled to qualified immunity.

This case illustrates the need to train officers on constitutional limitations of the use of deadly force.

Monell vs. New York City (1978 Supreme Court Decision)

Monell holds that plaintiffs who can prove that the civil rights violations they suffered at the hands of government employees were the result of serious shortcomings in agency custom and practice (deficient supervision or training) may recover damages from government treasuries as well as from the employees involved. This decision opened government's deep pockets to plaintiffs and to holds police agencies accountable in the courts for establishing and applying reasonable standards of police behavior.

This case is a powerful incentive for police agencies and administrators to assure that their officers' actions and the policies and practices that guide them will pass the test of reasonableness.

I  CAPS I Bienvenue I  Simulateurs I  Contact I  Corporatif I  Cours I  Les Liens I