The concept of PID (person identification/positive identification/whatever PID acronym) is one of the most basic concepts in use of force yet it seems to be so misunderstood. We aren't confirming names, birthdays, or zodiac signs, we are determining if who or what we are observing is a valid threat to ourselves or others.
The acorn incident just reinforces this issue. We shoot when we have positively confirmed what we are about to shoot is an articulatable threat. Watching the acorn video, what PID occurred? He heard a noise. What was he aiming at when he fired? What did the supervisor shoot at?
As a police officer, we can't just blindly shoot. Every shot needs a valid target determined through PID. Firing indiscriminately puts the public at risk and that is absolutely opposite of what we should be doing.
We've discussed shooting shadows at length over the years and the need for light to illuminate unknowns is a must. That illumination helps us recognize if there is a threat and how to proceed further if at all. It's the same topic.
Did the supervisor have a reasonable belief a valid threat was present based on information provided by the initial officer? Will this raise some questions and change policy or even law regarding deadly force? We will see.
The acorn incident just reinforces this issue. We shoot when we have positively confirmed what we are about to shoot is an articulatable threat. Watching the acorn video, what PID occurred? He heard a noise. What was he aiming at when he fired? What did the supervisor shoot at?
As a police officer, we can't just blindly shoot. Every shot needs a valid target determined through PID. Firing indiscriminately puts the public at risk and that is absolutely opposite of what we should be doing.
We've discussed shooting shadows at length over the years and the need for light to illuminate unknowns is a must. That illumination helps us recognize if there is a threat and how to proceed further if at all. It's the same topic.
Did the supervisor have a reasonable belief a valid threat was present based on information provided by the initial officer? Will this raise some questions and change policy or even law regarding deadly force? We will see.
