Why did the CPS member fire the rubber bullets? It didn’t look like the guy was doing anything aggressive. After getting hit, he runs toward the officers.
Because it's a less lethal method of trying to separate the guy from his weapons. It can be a lot more effective than it was in this case. They're not really rubber bullets though. It's an ARWEN. Very good weapon system when it works.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
And I should add, it's allows the police to use a less lethalethod without getting too close. A taser is less optimal in this case because the guy had a knife. An ARWEN has a lot bigger range.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
I understand it’s less lethal but what changed in the situation that necessitated the use of rubber bullets? Did they get tired of waiting and want to end the situation? It seems like it was a poor choice.
The Following User Says Thank You to wwkayaker For This Useful Post:
Why did the CPS member fire the rubber bullets? It didn’t look like the guy was doing anything aggressive. After getting hit, he runs toward the officers.
Yeah, I know he had a knife but it doesn’t look like he was moving from his original position prior to getting shot with the rubber bullets.
I was just typing this.
The actual shooting I feel bad for the officer put in that position. But the officer who's shooting some guy clearly going through mental health issues with rubber bullets when he is not a threat?
Time and distance are the best de-escalation technique. They had distance, they had time. Instead some ###### decides to shoot so he can get back to filling his speeding ticket quotas?
I understand it’s less lethal but what changed in the situation that necessitated the use of rubber bullets? Did they get tired of waiting and want to end the situation? It seems like it was a poor choice.
I think it’s prudent to end a threat before they can get the chance to close distance when they have a knife. Certainly they didn’t expect him to get more mad and then charge, that wouldn’t have been the goal obviously.
I’m not even going to dignify the other guy commenting here about getting back to writing speeding tickets with a response to that. If that’s where you’re at with your argument then I’ve really got nothing to gain my engaging.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
The Following User Says Thank You to metallicat For This Useful Post:
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
The actual shooting I feel bad for the officer put in that position. But the officer who's shooting some guy clearly going through mental health issues with rubber bullets when he is not a threat?
Time and distance are the best de-escalation technique. They had distance, they had time. Instead some ###### decides to shoot so he can get back to filling his speeding ticket quotas?
I’ve seriously lost faith in humanity with posts like this. Comicial and shameful
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jgotti For This Useful Post:
I think it’s prudent to end a threat before they can get the chance to close distance when they have a knife. Certainly they didn’t expect him to get more mad and then charge, that wouldn’t have been the goal obviously.
I’m not even going to dignify the other guy commenting here about getting back to writing speeding tickets with a response to that. If that’s where you’re at with your argument then I’ve really got nothing to gain my engaging.
It appears that the officer shooting rubber bullets created a greater threat as it resulted in the man running towards the officers. If the guy had a gun, I’d agree with the tactic because the gun can be lethal from a distance. The knife wasn’t a huge threat from 30 feet away especially with a dozen officers having weapons trained on the man. This situation provided opportunities for other techniques to be employed.
The police chief said the officers responded to an assault and not a mental health situation which is why other options weren’t used. I don’t know how long the situation lasted but I don’t think it would take long to assess the man’s mental state especially if a mental health professional was involved.
I don’t know what info the police had on the man but if they knew he had PTSD, they should have handled it differently. If he was in a fight or flight situation, getting hit with rubber bullets looks like it escalated his fight reaction in which he reacted to his perceived threat and ran towards them. I don’t think he would have been in a state of mind to make a rational choice.
Time and distance. It’s de-escalation 101. And 201. And 301.
“I didn’t expect the guy acting irrational going through a mental health crisis to act irrational after I shot him with a couple rubber bullets” - CPS’s finest.
There was zero reason to fire. Especially as he was crouched down and would never close the gap in time. There was no threat. There was no reason to shoot. Blood is certainly on his hands because he got impatient.
This where a mental health expert, or you know anyone but a cop, would be able to tell you that shooting a person with rubber pellets will more often provoke, not calm, the person.
It appears that the officer shooting rubber bullets created a greater threat as it resulted in the man running towards the officers. If the guy had a gun, I’d agree with the tactic because the gun can be lethal from a distance. The knife wasn’t a huge threat from 30 feet away especially with a dozen officers having weapons trained on the man. This situation provided opportunities for other techniques to be employed.
The police chief said the officers responded to an assault and not a mental health situation which is why other options weren’t used. I don’t know how long the situation lasted but I don’t think it would take long to assess the man’s mental state especially if a mental health professional was involved.
I don’t know what info the police had on the man but if they knew he had PTSD, they should have handled it differently. If he was in a fight or flight situation, getting hit with rubber bullets looks like it escalated his fight reaction in which he reacted to his perceived threat and ran towards them. I don’t think he would have been in a state of mind to make a rational choice.
Lots to unpack here:
The bolded part. In my opinion, less lethal is not for lethal force encounters. Period.
At what point should the Arwen be used? Wait until he's charging? Not at all?
You are pretty vague about the mental health professional. Get them involved? What does that mean? Put a vest on them and send them out? Do you really think that's wise? Putting someone at risk like that? I can't imagine any professional mental health organization would agree with that strategy.
I think the chief really laid this out pretty well. Over 9000 mental health type calls to the CPS last year and VERY few ended in any sort of use of force. If you look at that stat, I would think that not only are they doing a good job, but they seem to be well trained and committed to helping those in mental crisis.
Time and distance. It’s de-escalation 101. And 201. And 301.
“I didn’t expect the guy acting irrational going through a mental health crisis to act irrational after I shot him with a couple rubber bullets” - CPS’s finest.
There was zero reason to fire. Especially as he was crouched down and would never close the gap in time. There was no threat. There was no reason to shoot. Blood is certainly on his hands because he got impatient.
This where a mental health expert, or you know anyone but a cop, would be able to tell you that shooting a person with rubber pellets will more often provoke, not calm, the person.
The irony of this idea. That police need extra tools so that they don't shoot people. Then they use one and it's considered an escalation.
Time and distance on 17 Avenue x 40th Street SE... alrighty then.
Well, I’m sure you can imagine the use of a mental health professional that doesn’t put them at risk. Asking a therapist to pull up a chair and sit beside the guy to talk him down seems a tad careless. Could a mental health worker be on site and speak to the person from a distance? Could a psychiatrist assess the situation and provide advice to the police? Why are those options unavailable but shooting the guy with rubber bullets is acceptable? Maybe they had a crisis worker on site but I doubt it since the police chief would have said so.
From what I see in the video, the Arwen shouldn’t have been used at that point. The result was a man dead and a police dog critically injured. Also, officers and bystanders now likely need counselling to deal with the traumatic event. Plenty of damage was done when it may have been avoided.
I don’t know the statistics on all of the police activities. I’m judging the actions of the CPS in this video and saying that I think it was unnecessary to use the device when they did. I think the police do a great job for the most part but they didn’t in this situation.
Well, I’m sure you can imagine the use of a mental health professional that doesn’t put them at risk. Asking a therapist to pull up a chair and sit beside the guy to talk him down seems a tad careless. Could a mental health worker be on site and speak to the person from a distance? Could a psychiatrist assess the situation and provide advice to the police? Why are those options unavailable but shooting the guy with rubber bullets is acceptable? Maybe they had a crisis worker on site but I doubt it since the police chief would have said so.
From what I see in the video, the Arwen shouldn’t have been used at that point. The result was a man dead and a police dog critically injured. Also, officers and bystanders now likely need counselling to deal with the traumatic event. Plenty of damage was done when it may have been avoided.
I don’t know the statistics on all of the police activities. I’m judging the actions of the CPS in this video and saying that I think it was unnecessary to use the device when they did. I think the police do a great job for the most part but they didn’t in this situation.
I would suggest that the option of having a mental health professional "on site" would be difficult. How would you assess what is safe and what is not? Is 30 feet away safe? Is that an adequate position to offer therapy? I am not sure you can just ask someone holding a knife and stick and who has already assaulted people to hang tight till we get some resources in place.
I was arguing that this is EXACTLY the reason why police developed the Arwen program - to do everything they can to not use lethal force. This filled all the check boxes in my opinion - criminal offence, active assailant, holding weapons and non-communicative/responsive.
• Drawing a line in the sand.
o When a subject poses an immediate threat to officers or
others, police must often make tough decisions.
o However, if that threat can be reduced or eliminated by the
officers on scene, or simply has not materialized yet, then
can we be flexible?
• Not taking action is a “failure to act.”
o If the subject has committed no crime and is only a harm to
themselves, what is the need to force a resolution?
o For example: Why rush to enter a room when we can talk
from the doorway?
• “I go home safely vs. we all go home safely.”
o There is intrinsic value in trying to preserve all human life.
It is better for the general public and the overall wellness of
officers
Quote:
Supervisors: Need to give officers time to work these
situations – not every incident can be handled quickly.
Ask any supervisors in the room if they would rather
have their officers spend extra time ensuring a
positive outcome, or if they would prefer to be
tasked with managing a use of force or OIS.
Quote:
. For example, it’s important to look beyond the mere
presence of a weapon (knife, bat, other impact weapon)
a. What is subject doing with the weapon (intent)?
b. Potential threat vs. imminent threat
c. Intent to do harm (offensive action) vs. selfprotection (defensive action)
d. Understanding these differences will influence your
decision-making and response
Another factor in threat assessment – “transfer of malice”
(or aggression)
1. Subject may be initially upset with spouse, boss, etc.
2. Is he showing signs of transferring those emotions to
the police or others?
3. Try to contain that aggression – and avoid doing
anything that causes the subject to transfer his/her
aggression to you or others
...
Quote:
1. It is impossible (and unwise) to identify every option
available to deal with the conflict – this step is about
considering and narrowing best available options
2. Just because you’ve created options doesn’t mean you
need to act now – in some situations, waiting and
collecting more information may be the best option
3. Continuing to communicate with the subject will
almost always be an option
100% if that officer was taught (and used) de-escalation techniques like ICAT he's not shooting there. Never. It's 100% going against every de-escalation training technique being taught today. It's escalation. You're aware the first shot occurred when the victim had a knee on the ground, right? He wasn't going to close the distance without some Goku level instant-transmission.
As for ARWEN, they should be used in conjunction with firearms in a situation like this when the person is actually a threat. You know, standing, facing the police, looking like they may charge. And, should it fail, your other officers are there with a firearm.
Instead the ARWEN was used here to get the attention of the man doing some weird ninja crawl not even paying attention to the officers.
Explain to me, and PERF, what harm it would have been to wait for him to at least have 2 feet on the ground before they shot him with it? Where would be the harm in another half hour watching him do his breakdown? None? Okay then.
100% if that officer was taught (and used) de-escalation techniques like ICAT he's not shooting there. Never. It's 100% going against every de-escalation training technique being taught today. It's escalation. You're aware the first shot occurred when the victim had a knee on the ground, right? He wasn't going to close the distance without some Goku level instant-transmission.
As for ARWEN, they should be used in conjunction with firearms in a situation like this when the person is actually a threat. You know, standing, facing the police, looking like they may charge. And, should it fail, your other officers are there with a firearm.
Instead the ARWEN was used here to get the attention of the man doing some weird ninja crawl not even paying attention to the officers.
Explain to me, and PERF, what harm it would have been to wait for him to at least have 2 feet on the ground before they shot him with it? Where would be the harm in another half hour watching him do his breakdown? None? Okay then.
100%? Come on now. Now you're just being obtuse. What are you basing this on? Your own experience in such encounters?
That training. It's great. And I am sure ALL of that was considered.
What would be the harm if he got up and ran the opposite way into a business. Or down an alley into an apartment? And with a knife after already demonstrating both irrational, unresponsive and assaultive behavior? I suppose then you'd be asking why the police did nothing.
I guess what I am saying is that it sure is easy to sit behind your computer and second guess what did happen with very little training, knowledge or education on the matter. And you can post a training manual and say that you believe 100% of the time, it works. But I don't think that's realistic or sincere.
The Following User Says Thank You to Captain Otto For This Useful Post:
This is less than 2 seconds before he is shot the first time. He was in a similar position but the door blocks the view. No one was around him for him to be a threat. Police with firearms, a k9 unit, and officer doofie with his arwen are all in position if he did decide to get up unprovoked.
After that shot he gets up, leans on his cane and maybe now focuses his attention on the police. He does not appear to be in a charging position yet but could certainly and easily be misconstrued as such by the officers. Still, he's not in this position if not for the first shot.
This is the exact moment he is hit, still leaning on his cane thing. Not approaching them, certainly not rushing them.
And then for some odd reason he doesn't appear to like being hit by rubber bullets and this is where he shows his aggression. He smashes his cane thing on the ground and rushes the officer.
I would suggest that the option of having a mental health professional "on site" would be difficult. How would you assess what is safe and what is not? Is 30 feet away safe? Is that an adequate position to offer therapy? I am not sure you can just ask someone holding a knife and stick and who has already assaulted people to hang tight till we get some resources in place.
I was arguing that this is EXACTLY the reason why police developed the Arwen program - to do everything they can to not use lethal force. This filled all the check boxes in my opinion - criminal offence, active assailant, holding weapons and non-communicative/responsive.
There is a lot to unpack here as well.
Suicide hotlines do some wonderful work from a distance. A lot of counselling is currently done via phone or video. What does proximity have to do with effectiveness of therapy?
I’m arguing that the police didn’t do everything they could prior to using force. Do you know how long this event went on? Was there time to bring in a health professional? It looks like the situation could have remained lower risk for long enough to bring a health professional down. You say non communicative but do you know that for sure? Let’s say there was no communication and examine why. A dozen officers with guns interacting with a person in a diminished mental state doesn’t seem like an ideal setting for communication. And now I’m back to my point which is that a non-police presence may have been less threatening, more knowledgeable and more likely to deescalate the situation.
From what I see in the video, a stabbing wasn’t imminent and there was time employ other strategies.
This is less than 2 seconds before he is shot the first time. He was in a similar position but the door blocks the view. No one was around him for him to be a threat. Police with firearms, a k9 unit, and officer doofie with his arwen are all in position if he did decide to get up unprovoked.
After that shot he gets up, leans on his cane and maybe now focuses his attention on the police. He does not appear to be in a charging position yet but could certainly and easily be misconstrued as such by the officers. Still, he's not in this position if not for the first shot.
This is the exact moment he is hit, still leaning on his cane thing. Not approaching them, certainly not rushing them.
And then for some odd reason he doesn't appear to like being hit by rubber bullets and this is where he shows his aggression. He smashes his cane thing on the ground and rushes the officer.
Aside from the fact the police were called there for an assault. And he is clearly demonstrating non-complaint behavior and easily articulable assaultive behavior.
You use a lot of words that are suggestive and vague: unprovoked, maybe now focuses, He does not appear, could certainly, he's not in this position if not for the first shot, and maybe now focuses his attention, He does not appear. I mean, ya, it could have been a lot of things or could have different meanings. I just don't think it's a great look to assess things on what little knowledge or understanding you have.
You are really focused on the Arwen. As I stated earlier, the Arwen is designed for exactly the purpose in which it was used. It checked all the boxes from deployment - criminal offense, assaultive, non-compliant, weapons.
What would be the harm if he got up and ran the opposite way into a business. Or down an alley into an apartment? And with a knife after already demonstrating both irrational, unresponsive and assaultive behavior? I suppose then you'd be asking why the police did nothing.
For the record he was surrounded. Dude was literally sitting down crossed leg while police set up. So there is no running down an alley.
"If he got up." Let's stop there. If he's on his feet when he's first shot I'm not chiming in. If he's on his feet and approaching anyone and not just doing slow wuxia-wannabe circles, I'm not having this discussion. But he was on the ground.
And for some reason getting hit by rubber pellets didn't have the same calming affect on him as lavender tea that the idiot officer thought it would.
There shouldn't be a time limit here. Certainly as long as he's on the ground and not a threat, stay the course. If it takes him an hour to calm down and catch his mental bearings, why not wait an hour? You've correctly referred to it as less-lethal and not non-lethal. So even if it didn't result in just pissing him off, it was still an unnecessary risk when he could have done...nothing.
Maybe if the cop didn't need to get back to watch the premiere of The Walking Dead the result is the same, Mr. Tuel gets up and charges the officers. Maybe. Maybe in 5 minutes he would have come to his senses. But zero reason for the cop not to just wait and let it play out.
Last edited by OptimalTates; 02-23-2022 at 09:36 PM.
