This debate is sad. Police should be able to apprehend a suspect who's armed only with a screw driver without killing them.
Our standards are so depressing.
Yawn.
How would you do it? Karate chop to the head? Shoot the screwdriver with your gun?
Deadly weapon, deadly force. If anyone is mistaken in the belief that a screwdriver isn't deadly, type in "screwdriver murder" in the ol' googles and scan through the hundred of incidents that appear.
I will say that they (or someone else) certainly could do it, they would also be risking injury in doing so.
Not really true either. Yes, a cop needs to feel like he/she or someone else is in immediate danger. But it also needs to be a reasonable feeling or, what a reasonable person would feel in the same situation. In that sense, it is not different for everyone. It's based on past case law and any new case needs to pass previous muster. Officer Slager thought his life was in danger when he shot Walter Scott six times in the back at twenty paces during the worlds slowest escape attempt. He "articulated" as much in the police report which was total bs and based on what all similar reports are supposed to say. He could not have described the event accurately and expected any judge to believe him.
I don't know. I don't really expect cops to fight people with screwdrivers all the time. A taser would have been good. But I can't say it's a good idea to have a general policy that goes something like, if you think you can take him...
Not true? Odd. How can you say that there's a definite line in the sand? This conversation and this thread proves it IS different for everyone.
I think maybe we are talking about different things? I am not sure.
I just wonder how much training and/or research you've done beyond the wiki articles. There are plenty of articles, research, books on lethal force encounters. Start with 'On Killing' by Grossman and anything by Brian Willis who incidentally is an ex-CPS member.
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
Curious GreenLantern2814, and any one else, would your thoughts on the situation be different if it was a knife in his hand?
If there is any reasonable way a police officer can avoid taking a life, that is the correct course of action.
I didn't mean to get hung up on this specific example. There seem to be many flagrant abuses of power by local police services across the United States.
If nothing else, the training these organisations receive is showing to be grossly inadequate for what they have to deal with, and a lack of oversight compounds the problem.
I don't know what it will take for Americans to start viewing black people as human beings, but that's your ultimate solution to this mess.
I'm all over the map here - I apologise. It's an emotional topic.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy W-M - February 15, 2024
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
If there is any reasonable way a police officer can avoid taking a life, that is the correct course of action.
Yes, I will agree. I would say anyone who disagrees with that is incredibly stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
There seem to be many flagrant abuses of power by local police services across the United States.
There is, I've mentioned a couple of the individuals who didn't deserve their fates due to the actions of certain police officers. And to be clear, in no way or shape do I believe that the man with the screwdriver deserved to die. My argument falls on self-defense of the police. They had every right to live, a screwdriver is a deadly weapon to any man or woman who wants it to be. I believe they had right to protect themselves from such a fate, and as such were justified in using deadly force to prevent potential harm and potentially their own deaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
If nothing else, the training these organisations receive is showing to be grossly inadequate for what they have to deal with, and a lack of oversight compounds the problem.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it's hard to judge any type of training when we don't know the specifics of theirs and without an alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
I don't know what it will take for Americans to start viewing black people as human beings, but that's your ultimate solution to this mess.
With respect to the screwdriver incident, I don't see why we should consider this a racial issue. They were called to the house, they went.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
I'm all over the map here - I apologise. It's an emotional topic.
That's fair.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Not true? Odd. How can you say that there's a definite line in the sand? This conversation and this thread proves it IS different for everyone.
I think maybe we are talking about different things? I am not sure.
I just wonder how much training and/or research you've done beyond the wiki articles. There are plenty of articles, research, books on lethal force encounters. Start with 'On Killing' by Grossman and anything by Brian Willis who incidentally is an ex-CPS member.
Well because I'm not the one saying there is a line in the sand. The SCOTUS and various circuit courts around the USA say as much. Here's the one regarding objective reasonableness you don't seem to get...
Quote:
In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, the Supreme Court expanded its definition to include "objective reasonableness" standard—not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been—and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene
Of course there is leeway because of the stressfull nature of the job. But it's not a blank slate to say "I feared for my life so we're all good". Also, when dealing with a murder suspect, the rules change according to court rulings. There is no doubt a murder suspect chasing a cop could justifiably be shot simply for those two factors.
Yes, I will agree. I would say anyone who disagrees with that is incredibly stupid.
There is, I've mentioned a couple of the individuals who didn't deserve their fates due to the actions of certain police officers. And to be clear, in no way or shape do I believe that the man with the screwdriver deserved to die. My argument falls on self-defense of the police. They had every right to live, a screwdriver is a deadly weapon to any man or woman who wants it to be. I believe they had right to protect themselves from such a fate, and as such were justified in using deadly force to prevent potential harm and potentially their own deaths.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it's hard to judge any type of training when we don't know the specifics of theirs and without an alternative.
With respect to the screwdriver incident, I don't see why we should consider this a racial issue. They were called to the house, they went.
That's fair.
I didn't mean to get the screwdriver case and race tangled together - I understand they're separate issues. The screwdriver spoke more to the lack of ability for police to effectively contain that situation and unfortunately many others like it. Mentally ill people being gunned down or vicously beaten by police is nothing new either.
A group of officers should be able to subdue that man. If they were unable to, then see to it that future officers have the tools to do so.
As for race riots. America needs a big hug. Everyone in that country needs to look at the person across from them and say 'I don't want you to die'. Build from there.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
I don't know. I don't really expect cops to fight people with screwdrivers all the time. A taser would have been good. But I can't say it's a good idea to have a general policy that goes something like, if you think you can take him...
I expect police officers to be capable of handling scenarios far More dangerous With far less lethal results. They are there to gain control of the scene - they are not military personnel. Riots in Baltimore aside, they are not at war. And if they are, we have another set of problems.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy W-M - February 15, 2024
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
I expect police officers to be capable of handling scenarios far More dangerous With far less lethal results. They are there to gain control of the scene - they are not military personnel. Riots in Baltimore aside, they are not at war. And if they are, we have another set of problems.
How do you define more dangerous? It's potential death to the officer, it doesn't get more dangerous to the individual.
Calgary had a similar altercation. Man with screwdriver shot dead by a police officer.
Originally Posted by Expert says Calgary police officer's deadly shooting of Jonathan Rawlings was 'reasonable'
Lawrence said that given the fact Rawlings was an estimated three metres feet from Wilkinson when he brandished the screwdriver, the officer had little time to react.
“In this scenario I think it’s reasonable for the officer to think his life is in danger,” he said.
Originally Posted by Calgary Screwdriver Attack Results Police Shooting Man Four Times
"A screwdriver is an edge weapon," testified Cpl. Greg Gillis, an RCMP expert on the use of force. "It is appropriate for (an officer) to manage that threat with his service pistol.
"We tell people that armed persons should not get within 25 feet."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASIRT: CPS officer justified in fatal shooting of Jonathan Rawlings
“By reviewing the full investigative file and taking into consideration the opinion of Crown Counsel, I am satisfied the officer involved in this incident was justified in using lethal force during the course of the arrest,” says Clifton Purvis, ASIRT Executive Director.
2 experts and the ASIRT all reaching the same conclusion. Honestly, I believe it comes down to people not realizing just how 'fragile' we are and how fast things can happen. If you can lift an average grocery bag (sometimes I even carry in two!), you got enough strength to easily stab someone with a screwdriver. If you're within 25 feet, nearly 8 metres, the RCMP considers that an unsafe distance. That's a large distance, and it's not being super extra cautious.
Not sure how many times this gets reposted but it's worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
It seems to be lost on people though. Experts, as far as I know, universally agree that a stabbing weapon, usually knife but a screwdriver would count, should be considered deadly within a relatively large distance (much farther than in the incident we are discussing). Yet, people without training or knowledge believe that they could take down the guy with a roundhouse kick or a power-driver or maybe telepathy - I don't know.
Pretty much any other topic where unqualified people go against expert opinions (I'm thinking anti-vaxx crowd and the like) are universally panned but when it comes to deadly force it seems like it's the norm.
How would you do it? Karate chop to the head? Shoot the screwdriver with your gun?
Deadly weapon, deadly force. If anyone is mistaken in the belief that a screwdriver isn't deadly, type in "screwdriver murder" in the ol' googles and scan through the hundred of incidents that appear.
I will say that they (or someone else) certainly could do it, they would also be risking injury in doing so.
Police officers in the UK diffuse situations like this all the time without fire arms.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
So you are condoning violence? The wilful injuring of innocent people and destruction of local business, schools and homes?
Is this what you are saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
If I'm a black guy in the States, I think I'd probably believe violence against me was sponsored by the state, condoned and accepted, so yeah, I get why they'd want to resort to rioting. I don't know about targeting homes, schools and people (has that actually happened?) but if the only way you are going to get attention to this serious problem is going wild in the streets, then yeah, go for it.
Like it was pointed out, they were peacefully demonstrating for days and nobody paid attention. I'd never even heard of this case before yesterday and that says a couple things: 1) it's so commonplace now that a story of an unarmed black guy dying in police custody under mysterious circumstances goes un-noticed and 2) nobody cares.
If I think nobody cares about me, why do I care about them?
I guess I am condoning the violence.
Violence is almost always a last resort, so, if there is such a massive group of people that feel that powerless then who am I to judge their efforts to gain power over their own lives, even if it is just momentarily?
Edit: Condone is the wrong word anyway. I understand the violence, but I'm some white jabroni Canadian, I'm not in a position to really 'condone' anything that's going on there.
I try to understand what it must be like to have the system of local and federal governments aligned against you, but of course I can't.
Last edited by Flash Walken; 04-28-2015 at 11:33 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Police officers in the UK diffuse situations like this all the time without fire arms.
And yet the authorised firearm officer's are still trained to shoot in similar circumstances. Not saying that the North American police have nothing to learn from the British police, they certainly could, but not even the British police gold standard are trained to only disarm someone with a knife. Other diffusing techniques are employed - a man with a screwdriver appearing to lunge at an officer isn't a time when those diffusing techniques would be used.
"Firearms - in what are known as otherwise so dangerous situations, (a situation where the subject isn't armed with a firearm but is armed with an edged weapon and is showing intent to use it) then it may be necessary to shoot and kill them if another persons life is in immediate danger. Only authorised firearms officers (AFO's) carry firearms. Their armed response vehicles could be some distance away. Their deployment with firearms is strictly controlled by a tactical firearms cadre working with the force incident manager (FIM) in silver control. "
How would you do it? Karate chop to the head? Shoot the screwdriver with your gun?
Deadly weapon, deadly force. If anyone is mistaken in the belief that a screwdriver isn't deadly, type in "screwdriver murder" in the ol' googles and scan through the hundred of incidents that appear.
I will say that they (or someone else) certainly could do it, they would also be risking injury in doing so.
How do police in the UK do it, given that they don't carry guns? They need to deal with a lot more knife attacks over there due to the heavier restrictions on guns, yet somehow manage without the cops needing to shoot dead everyone they see holding a possible weapon
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
Police officers in the UK diffuse situations like this all the time without fire arms.
In North America, I think firearms have become a substitution for having stones and being physically fit.
I'm always surprised at how many police officers I see that are terribly out of shape and likely couldn't chase a suspect or avoid an attack if they needed to, without having courage in a holster.
Honestly, police should only be accepting applicants that are both in top physical shape, able to stay in shape and can show that they are mentally strong enough to be in danger without automatically resorting to using a firearm. And to be fair, they should probably pay them more to.
A little while ago when that officer shot that suspect in the back when he was fleeing, that officer looked pretty out of shape and didn't even attempt to catch him. I was also surprised when they made his job application public, how amateur it looked. It looked like a highschool student applying for a job at Wal-Mart.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Genuine question from someone a long way from what is going on but why do we only see riots when a black kid gets shot by the police but never when a person of any other race gets shot? Is the % that much higher for the amount of black kids that get shot compared to other races, cannot seem to find any numbers anywhere.
In North America, I think firearms have become a substitution for having stones and being physically fit.
I'm always surprised at how many police officers I see that are terribly out of shape and likely couldn't chase a suspect or avoid an attack if they needed to, without having courage in a holster.
Honestly, police should only be accepting applicants that are both in top physical shape, able to stay in shape and can show that they are mentally strong enough to be in danger without automatically resorting to using a firearm. And to be fair, they should probably pay them more to.
A little while ago when that officer shot that suspect in the back when he was fleeing, that officer looked pretty out of shape and didn't even attempt to catch him. I was also surprised when they made his job application public, how amateur it looked. It looked like a highschool student applying for a job at Wal-Mart.
I don't agree it is a North America thing, America, maybe. I know plenty of police CPS and RCMP members.
Some are big, small, "fat", skinny all shapes. One of the tuffest SOB's I know is a RCMP in Dead Rear. She is tiny, and looks like a soccer mom. Nothing to her really. But she is tuff, and I have had the chance to watch her take down a man much large than herself. You can't judge a book by it's cover. I know plenty of "fat" men that are fit and can move their body when they need to.
From an arms lenght to the states it appears that their police force(s) are at the lower end of the carear path. In Canada, I don't believe that is the case.
What I don't know is if the police (Canada & US) require yearly fitness testing.
I also have to say that the vast majority of police I know "have stones".
Genuine question from someone a long way from what is going on but why do we only see riots when a black kid gets shot by the police but never when a person of any other race gets shot? Is the % that much higher for the amount of black kids that get shot compared to other races, cannot seem to find any numbers anywhere.
I think the sensitive nature of race relations does magnify the issue. When white people are treated unjustly by the police, it's not a question of racism, so it doesn't create as much of an emotional response.
I recall a situation a few years ago in Canada, there was a case in a small town where a native man was killed by a white man. The white man was convicted of manslaughter and given a fairly light sentence. The aboriginal community protested and were very angry about it. The judge that sentenced him defended it be citing a situations that were reversed (native person killing a white person) and the sentences were even less. It ended the protest pretty quickly.
Not police related, but the principles were similar.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I think we need to separate the whole UK thing vs US thing. Frankly people are right, the guns issue feeds directly into this.
In the US you have a lot more guns in high crime areas, a lot more un-registered and illegal guns, and the crime culture in the US leads to a lot more people being willing to use it.
From a cops side, I think that there is also more of a siege mentality, especially those cops that are assigned to higher crime areas. They probably tend to feel vulnerable and targeted and this leads to a heightened sense of self preservation possibly and paranoia.
I also think that the hardcore criminals and average street thugs are more dangerous in the US then in the UK. The UK doesn't have the bloods and crips for example who are more heavily armed then a national guard battalion and aren't afraid to flex their muscles.
I get that we are seeing a lot of poorly trained cops lately and it seems to be in the tougher districts, probably because its tough to find highly trained and dedicated cops and retain them because there's probably a sense of hopelessness when they go to work each night.
This doesn't excuse the rampant poor acts of policemenship that we've seen lately, but should serve to put a magnifying glass on how cops are recruited, trained and supported and monitored.
This also goes back to gun control debates as well. And its not gun control of the licensed types, but gun control against illegal fire arms that magically come from factories in China and other asian countries and find their way onto US docks and into the hands of your average criminals hands.
I also believe that police oversight and community involvement and communication are being handled in a poor manner.
It just seems to me that cops aren't involved in those communities anymore so when they're seen, they're not viewed as friendlies, but an invading hostile force.
The oversight side has failed outright, we've seen too many police officers that are involved in acts of violence, and then swept under the carpet. Personally I think that the Federal Government level has to be more involved in terms of investigation and prosecution decisions.
Communication is obviously terrible, there's almost a physical wall between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect.
But lets not forget that there are thousands of good cops that go out and do a great job, but they're being cast into the same flaming pool as the bad cops.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I took a course a long time ago built around scenario defense.
What happens if someone pulls a knife or a gun or has a bat or other striking weapons.
Its easier to disarm someone with a gun, usually because the gunman is inexperienced.
My instructor was very clear on knives "When you are in a fight with a guy with a knife, you are going to get cut no matter what you do, you are probably get stabbed no matter what you do if you stick around to engage him." then he said "Chances are the only time you'll disarm him is when he can't pull the knife out from in between your ribs"
A knife is the easiest weapon in the world to use, it doesn't jam, or misfire when its wet, it can cut you in under a second and stab you in the same amount of time. For the guy with the knife, he doesn't need fancy training, or martial arts skills or mechanical skills. If he gets within 10 feet of you, a half way decently smart person can close the distance to knife range in a hurry.
If he gets inside of your arms you die.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Well because I'm not the one saying there is a line in the sand. The SCOTUS and various circuit courts around the USA say as much. Here's the one regarding objective reasonableness you don't seem to get...
Of course there is leeway because of the stressfull nature of the job. But it's not a blank slate to say "I feared for my life so we're all good". Also, when dealing with a murder suspect, the rules change according to court rulings. There is no doubt a murder suspect chasing a cop could justifiably be shot simply for those two factors.
Training? Really? Are you sure you should be asking that question?
Ahh.... I think I found the disconnect.
I take the position that a cop that uses deadly force has formed those "subjective" grounds based on a whole host of "objective" grounds - anything from subject behavior, officer training, environmental impacts, etc, etc. He articulates those in the subsequent follow-up investigations.
The follow-up investigators, crown and possibly a judge makes a decision on whether his actions were reasonable. Thus the "objective reasonableness" you indicated.
Fact is, the decision is far from clear cut as you seem to think. It seems to me that you feel 5 different cops can go into the same encounter and it should be resolved in the same way each time. That's not the case and in fact would probably be resolved 5 different ways.
Ya sure. Training. I asked. Tell me. PM me if you desire. Wiki-training doesn't count.
