# How 'creative' are cops allowed to be when taking out assailants in this case?



## ironpony (Jul 31, 2019)

What I mean is, if a cop is in a situation where suspects who are armed, are not going to be taken alive, how creative are they allowed to when it comes to killing them?

For example, for my story, I thought of an idea, where the villains are in a building and not willing to surrender.  So the cops can always say... electrify the buildings water supply and turn on the fire sprinklers and kill them all by electrocution, with the water being electrified.

But would the cops dare do something that questionably innovative, as oppose to just running and shooting anyone who didn't surrender?  Or how creative are they allowed to get in their killings, so they don't have to run and risk their own safety so much?


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 31, 2019)

There's a reason why police uses SWAT teams rather than more "creative" methods, not the least of which is to give any suspects who might have a last-second change of heart a chance to surrender. More often than not, barricaded suspects also have hostages with them, and even if they don't, there's always the issue of causing excessive property damage for which the property owner can then sue the police department.

One but needs to look at the 2002 Nord-Ost Theater hostage crisis in Moscow to realize how easily can "creative" indiscriminate solutions take a turn for the worse. A force of Chechen terrorists including suicide bombers had seized 850 hostages and barricaded inside the theater. Due to the presence of suicide bombers, Russian special forces figured it would be a good idea to first incapacitate the terrorists (along with the hostages) with a powerful knockout gas delivered through the ventilation system. While it worked as planned and Spetsnaz troops were able to secure the building without resistence, the plan backfired when the authorities refused to disclose the classified nature of the chemical agent used to the ambulance crews, over a hundred hostages dying from poisoning with it and more survivors suffering permanent disabilities. By the standards of any Western nation, this operation would be considered botched, the instigators crucified by the media and more than likely put on trial for criminal negligence.

Which is why police has established protocols for dealing with barricaded suspect situations that they strive to observe at all times.


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 31, 2019)

Just a general thought ironpony as you have loads of cop related questions: why don't you go down to your local cop shop and ask if you could shadow them/ do some work experience with them? Worst they can do is say no.


----------



## ironpony (Jul 31, 2019)

Oh okay thanks, and yes there would be no hostages in the situation I described for sure.

I did ask real police in interviews and they said that my scenarios are so unique that there really is no methods and procedures for them, and if they were to happen the police would just have to come up with their own creative methods and wing it, hoping for the best outcome.  So if that's true, I just wonder how far I can push it then.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jul 31, 2019)

I used to be with the sheriff's department. It's all good, and we had "officer discretion," and a lot of creative leeway in how we handled situations, but the minute you, as a cop, are faced with an armed suspect, all the fun and creativity go away. At that point, it's "go time." Draw and shoot fast and accurately, or be killed. The rules get real simple, at that point.

Hostage situation... That's different. Suspect is 50' away and has a knife, they're probably getting tazed. Anything closer than that, they're getting smoked.


----------



## Amnesiac (Jul 31, 2019)

Additionally, if a suspect is barricaded inside a building, pepper spray/CS canisters may be deployed. SWAT team may or may not be called, depending on the situation.


----------



## KenTR (Aug 4, 2019)

The police probably have a lot of protocol to follow in these situations, especially these days when their activities are so closely scrutinized when things go wrong. Probably the simplest way works best, however violent it may be. 

I'm thinking electrifying the water supply might burn the whole building down, not to mention being far more complicated than just storming the building or gassing them out. They'd probably have to get the local power supplier involved. To maintain public safety, time and safety are always of the essence, even if no hostages are involved.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 5, 2019)

Oh okay, that makes sense.

When it comes to property destruction, what if police sharpshooters are forced to hide and aimed their rifles towards one building, through the window of another building.  Would the police just have to break the windows of that building to shoot through it, in order to have that high position, and just pay the damages?


----------



## KenTR (Aug 6, 2019)

Why can't they just open the window?


----------



## ironpony (Aug 6, 2019)

KenTR said:


> Why can't they just open the window?



Because a lot of windows are not made to open and are permanently shut when built.  What then?


----------



## KenTR (Aug 6, 2019)

Well. as the writer, you're in control. Why not just make the windows openable?

Failing that, I'm sure they would just break the glass. The sight and sound of breaking glass is usually a good way to add a bit of nuance to a scene where you want the feeling of action or violence to escalate, although this effect might work better in a script.

I seem to recall a lot of imagery of snipers perched on a rooftop.


----------

