Presentation on theme: "Heightened emotion and excitement... may influence the subsequent conduct of the involved individuals. That is the “flow of adrenaline” caused by the."— Presentation transcript:
Heightened emotion and excitement... may influence the subsequent conduct of the involved individuals. That is the “flow of adrenaline” caused by the custody pursuit affects later custody conduct… Foresight Benefited by Hindsight The unblinking eye
We have learned to expect that, given the tension and heat of the pursuit and the element of surprise in such a stressful situation, the versions of the facts related by the protagonists and the witnesses will almost always differ somewhat in the myriad details of the action. Faire v City of Arlinton, Texas 5th Cir “ If an officer reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that a suspect was likely to fight back, for instance, the officer would be justified in using more force than in fact was needed.”; “ Officers can have reasonable, but mistaken, beliefs as to the facts establishing the existence of probable cause or exigent circumstances, for example, and in those situations courts will not hold that they have violated the Constitution.”.
A police officer may use reasonable force to make an arrest, prevent escape or overcome resistance, and need not desist in the face of resistance. A peace officer who uses unreasonable or excessive force in making a lawful arrest or detention commits a battery upon the person being arrested or detained as to such excessive force." Unlike private citizens, police officers act under color of law to protect the public interest. They are charged with acting affirmatively and using force as part of their duties, because "the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it." (Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386, 396.) They are, in short, not similarly situated to the ordinary battery defendant and need not be treated the same. In these cases, then, "the defendant police officer is in the exercise of the privilege of protecting the public peace and order [and] he is entitled to the even greater use of force than might be in the same circumstances required for self-defense.... [¶] [T]he burden of proof [is] upon the plaintiff to establish the use of excessive force...." (Wirsing v. Krzeminski, 61 Wis.2d 513, 522, 213 N.W.2d 37, 41.)
"[w]e must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day. What constitutes ‘reasonable’ action may seem quite different to someone facing a possible assailant than to someone analyzing the question at leisure." (Martinez v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 343.)
"[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. at pp ) It makes sense to "surround the police who make these on-the-spot choices in dangerous situations with a fairly wide zone of protection in close cases...." (Martinez v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 334, 344, quoting from Roy v. Inhabitants of City of Lewiston (1st Cir. 1994) 42 F.3d 691, 695.) We share the view of the Missouri courts that, "‘The officer in the first instance is the judge of the manner and means to be taken in making an arrest. Unless a plaintiff can show that unnecessary force was used, courts will protect the officer.’" (Neal v. Helbling, 726 S.W.2d at p. 487.)
Perceptual Habits Yield Your Facts Triangle Perceived Facts/Circumstances Subject’s Actions Officer’s Response 360 by 180 Threat Assessment
Connecticut v. Marra, 528 F. Supp. 381 (D. Conn. 1981) To be entitled to qualified immunity the officer must show two elements: 1.first, the act must have been within the scope of official authority; 2.second, the officer must have honestly and reasonably believed the act to have been necessary and proper under the circumstances. The second element of the test thus has both objective and subjective elements.
There is no perception without the Influence of Emotions…. Past Experience Dictates Perception Experience causes complacent underestimation…Discipline your attention….Cause- effect prediction drills…. Dynamic multi-tasking Fight-flight Zoom-lens response to threat… Adrenaline/nor-adrenaline 80/20 to 20/80 during fight O2 Heart Rate – 72bpm-200bpm Shallow respirations – 16 breaths to 2 or 3 breaths a minute Conscious/unconscious threat response… Target fixation- tunnel vision ( 1/10 to ½ second ) Auditory exclusion Time Distortion Visual field narrows when adrenaline flows Thinking shuts down – 18% oxygenated blood left in the brain Perceptual Routines Automatic – below conscious level Target fixation Brain Lock (freeze) Visual memory Short-term & Long-term Attention narrowing Selective Attention – Mental “noise”
Time to start – Start is a re-action Time to stop – Stop is a re-action Measure Time-motion –(.25) ¼ sec to draw and point fire –Finger on trigger – 30/100 th (3/10 th ) second to compress trigger after visual stimuli to fire Emotional Confrontation with one’s own death - Scramble to Survive Imagination Training – First Date Experience Shoot at the Past – Hit the Future It takes as much time to start shooting as it does to stop shooting!
Short-Term Memory The next time a supervisor directs you verbally, to perform a doing skill, recall the below caption: "When conversing, we forget half of all new information we hear within 24 hours, according to the International Listening Association. After 48 hours, we can recall only 25 percent. And it is unclear how much we grasp in the first place; a recent study shows our attention span averages about eight seconds...” Mental Notes, page 64 Health November/December 1995.
Attribution Theory Doyle – “Look but we don’t see; Listen, but we don’t hear” Perception is shaped by Emotion – Causes false memory vs. Lie Selective attention/Tunnel Vision –intentional Blindness – Unless you pay attention to the feel of your shoes on your feet your shoes go un-noticed. Connecting the dots : A - C ( “B” is attributed ) as a logical connection Basketball Video – Dr. Simons Visual complexity Focus on task Filtered focused Attention-Selective Inattention –30% did not see the Gorrilla »17 ½ passes between persons in white Batter vs. Pitcher Focus – Selective In-attention ( visual blindness ) ( Auditory exclusion ) “Death Encounter causes the “recoil” effect –Sexual assault victim – crawl into your own head –In-congruent false memories –Intoxicated sleeplessness –Recall memory vs. Recognition memory Walk-thru – High School memories
If it looks like a duck, it is a duck!
Form Threat vs. Content Threat
Any Use of Force Presentation must: Be both Federal and State Constitutionally valid. Be in conformance with State Statutes. Be updated with current State and Federal case law. Stand the test of simple, practical, and effective Techniques.
CIVIL/CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT ConstitutionalStatutoryAgency RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
But for Active Resistance, there would be no injury! Any injury sustained must be the Direct, Measured, and Proportionate consequence to actual or perceived threat/harm Mechanics of applied counterforce results in injury which was either intentional or the unintended consequences of the dynamic engagement.
Sometimes you ride the bull! Sometimes the bull rides you!
The fight will not be the way you want it to be. The fight will be the way it is. You must be flexible enough to adapt.
“Hazy border between justified force and excessive force …Given the frailty of the human body, and the wide variety of conditions under which the police must operate, almost any use of force is potentially deadly. Vera Cruz v Escondido, Calf., CA No , 10/3/97…in judging whether force is deadly, we do not consider the result in a particular case-be it that the suspect was killed or injured-but whether the force used had a reasonable probability of causing death.. Definition of “Deadly Force”; 4 th Amendment standard: “...whether the force employed creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury.” Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005)
'Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.' Terry v. Ohio, [392 U.S. 1, 23 (1968)]. The test is not whether it was in fact necessary for the officer to use deadly physical force in order to defend against the imminent use of deadly physical force. The test is whether the officer believed it was necessary to use deadly physical force and whether such belief was objectively reasonable, based on the facts and circumstances known to the police officer at the time the decision to use deadly force was made. State v. Silveira 198 Conn. 454 (1986), State v. Adams 52 Conn. App. 643 (1999). C.G.S. 53a-22 Test: not whether an officer personally believed he was in jeopardy, rather the question is whether the officer reasonably believed he was at risk. That is, what a reasonably well-trained officer would have believed. State v. Smith 73 Conn. App. 173, cert. den. 262 Conn. 923 (2002).
The qualified immunity inquiry, by contrast, concerns an “officer’s mistake as to what the law requires” and acknowledges that “reasonable mistakes can be made as to the legal constraints on particular police conduct.” Kerman, 261 F. 3d at 239. An officer's actions may be found reasonable even where "officers of reasonable competence could disagree," (Malley v. Briggs,) on how a situation should be handled. The reasonableness of an officer's decision to use deadly force is not to be determined based upon a dispassionate and analytical critique at some remote time and place within a safe sanctuary.
A criminal adversary must have, or reasonably appear to have: –the ability to inflict serious bodily injury (he is armed or reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon), –the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm (he is physically positioned to harm you with his weapon), and –his intent (hostile actions or words) indicates that he means to place you in imminent jeopardy -- to do you Serious or Deadly physical harm. When all three of these "attack Threat potential" elements are in place simultaneously, then you are facing a reasonably perceived deadly threat that can justify an emergency deadly force response.
One can not read a person’s mind to determine intent! Intent is inferred from “Conduct”
Less-Lethal Force “…the application of force and /or tactics, that when properly applied, are less likely to result in death or serious physical injury than conventional police tactics and equipment.
Deadly Force "Serious physical injury" means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ; "Deadly physical force" means physical force which can be reasonably expected to cause death or serious physical injury;
…it is true that intent may be formed in an instant; State v. Cooper, 227 Conn. 417, 444, 630 A.2d 1043 (1993) General Statutes § 53a-3 (11) provides: ''A person acts 'intentionally' with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such conduct....''
Statistics reveal that about 90% of shooting incidents take place within a three- second time frame. Within this time frame, a police officer takes appropriate steps to stop the threat and rarely, if ever, engages in a decision-making process about his intent or the degree of injury that will be inflicted. The realistic motivation is primarily reactive and designed to stop the threat or the aggressive behavior. Attempts to shoot to wound or to injure are unrealistic and because of high-miss rates and poor stopping effectiveness can prove dangerous for police officers and others. “International Association of Chiefs of Police National Law Enforcement Policy Center, “ Use of Force”, Concepts and Issue Paper, February 1, p.4. In assessing reasonableness…it is necessary to consider whether the officer could have reasonably and safely removed himself from deadly physical force risk without resorting to the use of deadly physical force. Officers are trained, when confronted with deadly physical force, to fire until the threat of serious or deadly force is abated. …The jury found that extra shots fired were due to a delayed response before the officer realized he was out of danger “Townsell v. Lewis, 938 Fed. Supp 728 (U.S.D.C. Kansas 1996)
Sympathetic Trigger Control Always keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until you have made the decision to shoot. Always be sure of your target and what is beyond.
Maryland v. Albrecht, 336 Md. 475, 649 A.2d 336 (Md. App. 10/21/1994) Albrecht v. State, 97 Md. App. 630, 632 A.2d 163 (1993). You've testified that you were trained when you aimed the gun you had your finger on the trigger? Once you acquired a target. Yes. "startled" into pulling the trigger: It is well settled in this State that where a charge of involuntary manslaughter is predicated on negligently doing some act lawful in itself, the negligence necessary to support a conviction must be gross or criminal, viz., such as manifests a wanton or reckless disregard of human life. A causal connection between such gross negligence and death must exist to support a conviction, although it is not essential that the ultimate harm which resulted was foreseen or intended. On the other hand whether an accused's conduct constituted gross negligence must be determined by the conduct itself and not by the resultant harm. Nor can criminal liability be predicated on every careless act merely because its carelessness results in injury to another. … "overriding question" in this case was whether Albrecht's conduct constituted a "gross and wanton deviation from reasonable conduct" such as would support convictions of involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment.
where the accused is a police officer, the reasonableness of the conduct must be evaluated not from the perspective of a reasonable civilian but rather from the perspective of a reasonable police officer similarly situated. The standard of conduct demanded of a police officer on duty, therefore, is the standard of a reasonable police officer similarly situated. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 1872, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443, 455 (1989). Police officers do not have to act like heroes in old silent film westerns and always let the bad guys draw first. They are entitled to draw their weapons and be ready to use them when confronted with a tense, dangerous situation. But when a police officer intentionally places himself or herself a mere trigger pull away from taking the life of an innocent person, if the officer then carelessly pulls that trigger and kills an innocent person, a finding of manslaughter or reckless endangerment is not erroneous as a matter of law. "Accidentally" pulling a trigger of a loaded, aimed shotgun can constitute involuntary manslaughter just as "accidentally" swerving a truck into a group of school children standing by the side of the road at a bus stop can constitute involuntary manslaughter. Maryland v. Albrecht, 336 Md. 475, 649 A.2d 336 (Md. App. 10/21/1994) Albrecht v. State, 97 Md. App. 630, 632 A.2d 163 (1993).
USE OF FORCE BALANCE What if? Range of Force response TOO HESITANT TOO AGGRESSIVE MINDSET
Force Use? RANGE OF FORCE RESPONSE OPTIONS
USE OF FORCE BALANCE What if? Range of Force Responses ReasonableNecessary Tactics
Range of Force Options FORCE SPECTRUM RESPONSES Your Character Is Your Destiny. Hericlitus
No force Officer uses typical verbal commands Slight force Officer uses strong directive language and/or minimal physical force to encourage compliance Forcibly subdued suspects with hands Officer uses an arm/wrist lock, takedown, block, punch, or kick Forcibly subdued suspect using methods other than hands, e.g., gun or baton Intentional Injury If extent of the injury is serious enough, a jury could conclude that the force used was in excess of what was reasonable, even if the suspect had been resisting at the time.
State-created Danger...“created a situation in which the use of deadly physical force became necessary… the officer’s actions leading up to the shooting are irrelevant to the objective reasonableness of his conduct at the moment he decides to employ deadly force. The reasonableness of the inquiry depends only upon the officer’s knowledge of the circumstances immediately at the moment that he made the split-second decision to employ deadly force. –Maria Salim, Administratrix v. William Proulx, 93 F 3d 86, 92 (2nd Cir.1996) Fourth Amendment – 2 nd Cir Standard
The Fourth Amendment test of reasonableness "is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," the Court identified three criteria to be used by the courts in undertaking this inquiry: The severity of the crime at issue; Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers; and Whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” The reasonableness of force is analyzed in light of such factors as the requirements for: (1) The officer's safety; (2) The motivation for the arrest, and; (3) The extent of the injury inflicted; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989)
Sullivan v. Gagnier, No (2d Cir. 08/21/2000) The fact that a person whom a police officer attempts to arrest resists, threatens, or assaults the officer no doubt justifies the officer's use of some degree of force, but it does not give the officer license to use force without limit. The force used by the officer must be reasonably related to the nature of the resistance and the force used, threatened, or reasonably perceived to be threatened, against the officer....when a police officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, the use of deadly force is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent an escape. Nothing in Garner prohibits an officer from using deadly force in self-defense when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical injury or death to the officer.
Uniform Crime Reports Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted U.S. Department of Justice Report
The number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty has declined since the early 1970's Between 1993 and 2002, of the 636 officers killed -- 32% were in arrest situations 17% were investigating suspicious persons/circumstances 15% were on disturbance calls 15% were making traffic pursuits/stops 15% were in ambush situations 5% were in other situations Of the 785 assailants identified in the killing of law enforcement officers from almost half had a prior conviction one-fifth were on probation or parole at the time
CircumstanceTypes of WeaponsFeloniously Killed Traffic pursuits/stops Disturbance CallFirearmsContacted dispatch prior to attack Arrest SituationsHandgunsApproaching offender Civil DisorderRifleReturning to patrol unit Handling & custody of prisoners ShotgunInterviewing offender in patrol unit Suspicious persons Investigations Knife / cutting instrument Interviewing offender at MV AmbushBombSearching offender or MV Handling Mental Persons Personal WeaponsMaking arrest Traffic Pursuits/Stops VehicleEngaging in foot pursuit / mv pursuit Tactical & Investigative Blunt InstrumentOther
Total Law Enforcement Officers Assaulted ,523 Firearms19,741 Knife / Cutting Instrument10,744 Other Dangerous Weapons73,927 Personal Weapons462,107
In 2004, 57 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed A review of the information regarding the attributes of the victim officers feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2004 revealed the following: the average age of the 57 slain law enforcement officers was 39 years old. Three of the officers killed were under 25 years of age, 9 officers were from 25 to 30 years of age, 21 officers were from 31 to 40 years old, and 22 slain officers were more than 40 years of age. For two officers killed in the line of duty, age was not available. Of the 57 slain officers, 54 were male officers and 3 were female. Forty-six of the officers killed were white, 10 were black, and 1 was an Asian/Pacific Islander. The average height of the slain officers in 2004 was 5 feet 10 inches tall, and the average weight was 200 pounds. The officers feloniously killed had an average of 12 years of law enforcement experience. Two of the officers had less than 1 year of law enforcement experience, 12 officers had 1 to 4 years of service, and 18 officers had 5 to 10 years of experience. Twenty-three of the officers had more than 10 years of service
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed Of the 57 officers slain in 2004, 17 were killed in arrest situations. A breakdown of the data regarding the arrest situations showed that 7 officers were murdered while responding to robberies in progress or pursuing robbery suspects, and 2 were killed while responding to burglaries in progress or pursuing burglary suspects. Eight officers died while attempting other types of arrest. 12 officers were ambushed by their assailants, and of these, 6 were victims of unprovoked attacks and 6 were entrapped or victims of premeditation. Ten officers died while investigating disturbance calls. Nine of these officers were killed when called to investigate family quarrels, and 1 officer was slain investigating a person with a firearm. Six officers were murdered while investigating suspicious persons or circumstances, and 6 were slain in the course of stopping vehicles for traffic violations or the resulting vehicle pursuits. Three officers were killed while working to resolve hostage situations or other high-risk tactical situations, and 2 were slain while handling mentally deranged individuals. One officer was killed while handling a prisoner.
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed Of the 57 officers slain, 54 were killed by assailants using firearms. Of these, 36 officers were killed with handguns, 13 were killed with rifles, and 5 were killed with shotguns. In addition, 2 officers died when vehicles were used as weapons, and one was killed with a knife. Of the 57 officers killed in the line of duty, only 11 fired their own weapons during the incidents that led to their deaths. Thirty of the victim officers did not use or attempt to use their weapons, and 9 attempted to use their weapons Of the 594 officers killed from 1995 to 2004, 126 fired their own weapon during the incident that resulted in their deaths, 94 attempted to fire their own weapon, and 293 did not use or attempt to use their own weapon. For 81 of the deaths, whether or not victim officers used their own weapon during these incidents was not reported.
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed Twenty-four of the 54 officers killed by perpetrators using firearms were within 5 feet of their assailants. Eight were from 6 to 10 feet away, 11 victim officers were from 11 to 20 feet from their killers, 5 were from 21 to 50 feet away, and 1 officer was more than 50 feet away.
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed A study of data regarding weapons used to kill law enforcement officers showed that over the past decade, 545 officers have been slain with firearms. Of these, 396 were killed with handguns, 114 were killed with rifles, and 35 were killed with shotguns. Also in this same time period, 28 officers died after a vehicle was used as a weapon, 9 officers were killed by bomb blasts, and 7 were killed by assailants using knives or other cutting instruments. Personal weapons, i.e., hands, fists, or feet, were used in 3 of the slayings, and blunt instruments were used in 2 of the murders.
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed In 2004, 31 of the 54 officers slain with firearms were wearing body armor at the time of their deaths. Of these, 11 officers died from wounds to the front upper torso (this number includes one officer who, though the officer’s body armor was not penetrated, died from blunt force trauma to the chest as a result of the firearm blast). Five officers died from wounds to the rear of the head, and 5 from wounds to the front head. Three officers were killed after suffering injuries to the neck or throat, 3 died from wounds to the side head, and two from wounds to the rear lower torso or back. One slain officer received fatal wounds to the front lower torso or stomach, and 1 died from wounds in the rear below the officer’s waist. Thirteen of the 54 officers who were wearing body armor died from torso wounds caused by bullets entering their bodies despite wearing the armor. Of those victim officers, 4 were killed with bullets that penetrated through the vest, 3 were killed when the bullet entered above the vest, 2 died when the bullet entered between the side panels of the vest, 2 were killed when bullets entered through the armhole or shoulder area of the vest, and 2 were killed when bullets entered below the vest.
Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed Assailants Of the 50 incidents resulting in the felonious deaths of 57 officers in 2004, 49 were cleared by arrest or by exceptional means (i.e., where law enforcement could identify the perpetrator, but were unable to make an arrest due to circumstances beyond their control, such as the death or suicide of the subject). Fifty-eight alleged assailants were identified in connection with the 50 incidents. Of these, 39 were arrested and charged, though one of these alleged offenders died while in custody and another was committed to a psychiatric institution. Eleven of the assailants were justifiably killed: 6 suspects were killed by someone other than the slain officer, and 5 were killed by victim officers. Eight alleged assailants committed suicide. A study of data collected on attributes of alleged assailants revealed that all 58 were male; 30 were black and 28 were white. The average age of the suspects was 32. Three of the alleged assailants were under 18, 17 were from 18 to 24 years old, 12 were from 25 to 30 years old, 13 were from 31 to 40, and 13 were older than 40. Data collected concerning the criminal histories of the 58 alleged assailants showed that 47 had been arrested previously and 37 had been convicted on prior criminal charges. Thirty-two of the suspects had received parole or probation on prior criminal charges. Of the 58 alleged assailants, 28 previously had been arrested for crimes of violence, including 2 who had been arrested for murder. The criminal history records for 26 suspects included arrests for drug law violations, and for 23, arrests for weapons violations. Fifteen of the suspects had been convicted of crimes as juveniles, and 14 had been arrested previously for assaulting officers or resisting arrests.
According to 2004 data supplied by the Nation’s law enforcement agencies, 82 law enforcement officers were accidentally killed in 80 separate accidents while performing their duties. Officers accidentally killed averaged 11 years of law enforcement experience. Four officers had less than 1 year of law enforcement experience, 22 officers had 1 to 4 years of experience, 24 had from 5 to 10 years of experience, and 32 of the officers had over 10 years of law enforcement experience. more officers lose their lives in automobile accidents than in any other type of circumstance surrounding accidental deaths.
During officers were killed in motorcycle mishaps, and 10 officers were killed when they were struck by vehicles. In addition, 4 officers were mistakenly shot, 3 died in aircraft accidents, 3 drowned, 1 officer fell to his death, and 3 were killed in other situations. In the 10-year period 1995 through 2004, 717 law enforcement officers died from accidents occurring in the line of duty. Of these officers, 404 were killed in automobile mishaps, 120 were killed after they were struck by vehicles, 60 were killed in motorcycle accidents, and 43 lost their lives in aircraft accidents. In addition, 28 of the officers were mistakenly shot, 21 drowned, 20 died from falls, and 21 of the officers lost their lives in other situations.
During 2004 an examination of the data showed that the greatest number of officers, 22, was involved in fatal incidents within the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 4 a.m. The fewest number of accidental deaths of law enforcement officers, 6, occurred from 4: 01 a.m. to 8 a.m Data from 1995–2004 showed that more officers (155) were killed in accidents that occurred from 12:01 a.m. to 4 a.m. than in any other time span during the day. Conversely, the fewest number of officers, 81, were killed in incidents that occurred within the hours of 4:01 a.m. to 8 a.m.
CONNECTICUT 2004 A 19-year law enforcement veteran with the Newington Police Department was shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance call on December 30. A female resident had called the Department at 10:22 p.m. complaining that her boyfriend had injured her during a fight. Responding to the call, the 47-year-old master patrol officer and his partner found the complainant standing in the driveway. She told the officers that her boyfriend was under the influence of alcohol and was inside the house. The two officers accompanied the woman into the home. After securing the first floor, the officers began descending a stairway to search the basement. The master patrol officer was in the lead when the woman’s boyfriend, who was hiding in the cellar, opened fire with a 5.56 mm automatic rifle. Bullets from the weapon penetrated the victim officer’s protective vest, striking him in the stomach and, fatally, in the chest. He fell to the bottom of the stairs; his partner was able to retreat and summon assistance. There followed a lengthy standoff, which involved officers and tactical teams from several nearby agencies using various techniques, including flooding the basement, to compel the assailant to surrender. When all efforts failed to produce the suspect, officials entered the basement. They found the victim officer’s body at the foot of the stairs. A further search of the basement turned up the body of his killer, a 45-year-old man, who had died from a gunshot wound, apparently self-inflicted