Man claims to have gun, is killed by the cops, turns out its a hairbrush

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

One thing that gets exagerated badly is the concept of marksmenship with a pistol, for the most part, they're designed around close in work and dumping as many bullets into the center mass as possible. If your nervous or have a shaky hand, more then likely your going to miss, and as you continue to shoot, the recoil is going to take your rounds high and to the right. Anything outside of lets say 10 meters is iffy territory.

I always laugh at the movies where the guy with a pistol takes aim and shoots at the guy on the third floor of a building two city blocks away and hits him.

The "why didn't you just shoot him in the leg' argument never flies with me either. Have you ever watched police videos when they get in a shootout during a traffic stop, and the cop is 5 feet away from the guy, shoots like 15 times and doesn't hit him once? Maybe thats just a bad aim cop, maybe the situation was so intense that it affected him, who knows.. but there are several videos out there that prove its not exactly easy in the heat of the moment to get the target in 1 shot.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Dion

You don't need 3 or 4 cops shooting similtaneously. They are trained marksmen and one shooting should be sufficent.

Ideally that would work. But in reality you have 3 or 4 cops, who are on edge, they see a black male in a bad part of town, the mention that there might be a gun is at the front of their minds. There is a good chance they are acting on a reactions and not protocol.


This is actually a very interesting thread, because I just finished reading Blink. Which has a large portion of the book about a similar incident where someone was shot (a lot) when they where reaching for their wallet. The author attributed it to the police reading the situation extremely poorly. I am sure a similar cause is likely the cause in this case.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Personally, I'm having a lot of trouble with the way the black community is portrayed and allowing to portray themselves in these instances. They recently awarded a kid who was sentence to prison and then released on statutory rape charges, and now they're jumping on this kid as a martry to their cause.

I think people, especially us from a very white Canada, look at isolated incidents such as the Rodney King riots and wonder what kind of people would riot because a convicted piece of scum got beaten when he was resisting arrest. People need to realize there are very good things like that happen, and a very good reason people are quick to pull the race card in incidents like this. The US is a racist, segregated place. In many places police discrimination is a big problem. While this incident might be nothing of the sort, when you've spent your life encountering people treating you differently because of your skin colour, you question everything like this when it happens. Of course riots aren't an appropriate response, but really this is a problem created by whites that is perhaps propogated by blacks, somewhat understandably. I really don't think a white person from Canada can really fully understand this though. How many of us have grown up in an all white neighbourhood when the other side of the freeway is a completely black, poor neighbourhood? It's just a different world in the US in that respect.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Locke

I hear you Dion, but the lady on the phone didnt tell them that. Its a real simple process.

Step 1: Neutralize Gun.
Step 2: Ask questions.

This process is what is causing all the uproar.

If she had said, "He claims to have a gun, but hes been having mental issues lately and I cant say for certain whether he does or not." Then maybe the cops would have approached him more tentatively.

A database of people suffering from mental illness would have simplified this process. It would eliminate the guess work of police wondering why this person is doing what they are doing. That and it might help police in determing another way of neutralizing that gun.

Conversely, they might have fired 40 shots because now all they know is that a wacked out head case is running at them with a gun.

Maybe those cops need to spend more time at the range improving their marksmenship.

[Flames_Gimp]

LOL thinning out the herd.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I think people, especially us from a very white Canada, look at isolated incidents such as the Rodney King riots and wonder what kind of people would riot because a convicted piece of scum got beaten when he was resisting arrest. People need to realize there are very good things like that happen, and a very good reason people are quick to pull the race card in incidents like this. The US is a racist, segregated place. In many places police discrimination is a big problem. While this incident might be nothing of the sort, when you've spent your life encountering people treating you differently because of your skin colour, you question everything like this when it happens. Of course riots aren't an appropriate response, but really this is a problem created by whites that is perhaps propogated by blacks, somewhat understandably. I really don't think a white person from Canada can really fully understand this though. How many of us have grown up in an all white neighbourhood when the other side of the freeway is a completely black, poor neighbourhood? It's just a different world in the US in that respect.

To comment on the Rodney King case. It's been shown that police can make very poor decisions after a high speed case. The stress and the adrenaline can be too much for some officers and when the case comes to a halt they don't use their training and instead react on adrenaline.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dion

A database of people suffering from mental illness would have simplified this process. It would eliminate the guess work of police wondering why this person is doing what they are doing. That and it might help police in determing another way of neutralizing that gun.

No, it wouldn't.

First off, knowing the person has mental illness (which the mother should have mentioned, forget a database) doesn't change the situation, except to make the suspect even more unpredictable.

Second, I would have very little doubt that the police were looking for another way to neutralize the suspect. But, being told he has a gun, seeing him come at them and reach towards his coat? At that point, deadly force becomes the best, and safest, option.

Something tells me this is going to get entertaining.

1) Someone with a gun (seen or otherwise) is considered the highest threat level- grievous bodily harm/death. Thus, the ONLY response is a weapon capable of inflicting the same- a gun. Tasers or less lethal options can be used but there still must be the option to use a higher level of force.

2) With 4 or 5 officers on seen, all seeing the same thing, all trained the same way, when that level of force is necessary, will, in all likelihood, fire as many rounds as they are trained to. It simply wouldn't be feasible to discuss, 'Hey Jim, you fire first... then Bob, you go second.... no wait, Dave, you go second then Bob'.

3) There is a 'database' of people that suffer from mental illness but it is updated by law enforcement agencies bot health regions. However, it doesn't change the level of force used in a circumstance like this.

Again, there is a lot we don't know so it's pretty difficult to assess what really happened.

According to Burninator though, it was just young man that was shot 20 times (see how an over simplification is misleading?).

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Dion

A database of people suffering from mental illness would have simplified this process. It would eliminate the guess work of police wondering why this person is doing what they are doing. That and it might help police in determing another way of neutralizing that gun.

I agree, but buddy clearly didnt want help, and as an 18 year old if he didnt want his name in that database it wouldnt be there.

Sometimes there is only so much you can do.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Indeed, and a standing command, as mentioned above, is protect self first, then ask questions. In a reaction situation, there isn't time to wait for whoever is asking as an incident commander to bark an order at one officer to shoot. It's self defence, and training takes over for all officers.

If you have a group of officers at the scene i'm sure the self defence thing is something they get trained for. A simple command of so and so has my permission to shoot if and when he/she feels threatened.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

According to Burninator though, it was just young man that was shot 20 times (see how an over simplification is misleading?).

It's a good thing I didn't do that then.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dion

If you have a group of officers at the scene i'm sure the self defence thing is something they get trained for. A simple command of so and so has my permission to shoot if and when he/she feels threatened.

That is a standing order, actually. All police officers have the right to shoot if they feel they, or any other party, is in imminent danger.

In your scenario, if so and so with the permission to shoot is at the wrong angle and doesn't see the suspect reaching for his gun, or if their judgment is otherwise impacted, you are asking another officer to die needlessly.

There almost certainly was a better way for this entire situation to be handled. But at that flash point where a group of officers, believing a suspect has a gun, is convinced he is reaching for it, they are going to shoot. And well they should.

The incidents leading up to the shooting is what should be assessed, not the shooting itself, imo.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

The incidents leading up to the shooting is what should be assessed, not the shooting itself, imo.

Thats a good point. Based on the facts at hand the shooting was going to play itself out just the way it did. Its the establishment of these facts that should be brought into question.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

That is a standing order, actually. All police officers have the right to shoot if they feel they, or any other party, is in imminent danger.

In your scenario, if so and so with the permission to shoot is at the wrong angle and doesn't see the suspect reaching for his gun, or if their judgment is otherwise impacted, you are asking another officer to die needlessly.

There almost certainly was a better way for this entire situation to be handled. But at that flash point where a group of officers, believing a suspect has a gun, is convinced he is reaching for it, they are going to shoot. And well they should.

The incidents leading up to the shooting is what should be assessed, not the shooting itself, imo.

that about sums things up.

sounds like the cops did the right thing.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Locke

I agree, but buddy clearly didnt want help, and as an 18 year old if he didnt want his name in that database it wouldnt be there.

Sometimes there is only so much you can do.

He may of not wanted help at the time, but chances are he has a history of mental illness and was treated for it in the past. A database would indicate this.

That friend of mine didn't want help at the time either. In fact his mental illness distorted his way of thinking that he couldn't make a rational thought/descion. In fact 6 months later he went downtown and threw himself off the Bay parkade. Rational minded people don't reject help.

Originally Posted by Dion

If you have a group of officers at the scene i'm sure the self defence thing is something they get trained for. A simple command of so and so has my permission to shoot if and when he/she feels threatened.

No, no and no. The vast majority of police are trained to recognize when the use of deadly force is necessary. There is no 'command' and there is no 'permission'.

Ofcourse in certain situations, ie. hostage, etc when there is 'TIME' (I can't emphasize the value of time enough) a command giving say a sniper the green light to end the threat is certainly a valid point.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

That is a standing order, actually. All police officers have the right to shoot if they feel they, or any other party, is in imminent danger.

In your scenario, if so and so with the permission to shoot is at the wrong angle and doesn't see the suspect reaching for his gun, or if their judgment is otherwise impacted, you are asking another officer to die needlessly.

There almost certainly was a better way for this entire situation to be handled. But at that flash point where a group of officers, believing a suspect has a gun, is convinced he is reaching for it, they are going to shoot. And well they should.

The incidents leading up to the shooting is what should be assessed, not the shooting itself, imo.

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Okay a few things that I think I want to chime in on:

1) Cops are often trained to shoot more than once. RCMP and Calgary Police are both trained to shot at least twice, so the 20 shots being fired is not completely beyond reason if there are a lot of cops there.

2) Handguns are hard to shoot (believe me, I own one, and shoot it regularily and it is pretty hard to shoot accurately beyond about 15 meters, and this is not under any sort of stress), so for cops to shoot more than a few times to ensure that a suspect, who they have every reason to believe is dangerous and armed, is neutralized, does not seem unreasoable either

3) Cops are not trained to wound a suspect. Someone who is shot in the leg, can still shoot back. If it gets to the point that they are shooting, they are shooting to kill. At this point, what difference does it make if one guy shoots twice, or 10 guys shoot 20 times?

Take that for what it is worth. People seem to be held up too much on the fact that there were 20 shots fired, this really is the irrelevant part of the story. What should be debated is were the officers justified in using deadly force? 1 bullet can be just as deadly as 20 bullets, you can't be any deader than dead.

From what I've been able to pick up from this, the cops were told by the dude's mom that he had a gun, and he wasn't following instructions, and moved towards the cops (How aggressively I don't know), but it seems that they may have been justified. How may times they shot is completely irrevant if in fact they were justified in using deadly force.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Jayems

The "why didn't you just shoot him in the leg' argument never flies with me either. Have you ever watched police videos when they get in a shootout during a traffic stop, and the cop is 5 feet away from the guy, shoots like 15 times and doesn't hit him once? Maybe thats just a bad aim cop, maybe the situation was so intense that it affected him, who knows.. but there are several videos out there that prove its not exactly easy in the heat of the moment to get the target in 1 shot.

Bring-back-shantz bought up an excellent point. If you have to pull out your weapon you shoot to kill, not shoot to wound. You aim for the biggest body part, and drill it. Because a wounded person is still a massive threat.

When the British police mistakenly shot that kid in the subway a couple of years they had to head shoot him because they believed that he was carrying a bomb and was holding a trigger, so you cause instant death by obliterating the brain stem.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

No, it wouldn't.

First off, knowing the person has mental illness (which the mother should have mentioned, forget a database) doesn't change the situation, except to make the suspect even more unpredictable.

I disagree. Having someone trained in mental illness might make a difference. That person would at least have some understanding as to why this suspect is acting they way they are. The cop that dealt with my now deceased friend knew what was going on and was able to calm him down. If it was any other officer at the scene i have no doubt he would been shot and killed.

Second, I would have very little doubt that the police were looking for another way to neutralize the suspect. But, being told he has a gun, seeing him come at them and reach towards his coat? At that point, deadly force becomes the best, and safest, option.

For sure the cops were looking for other means to neutralise the suspect. In this case I agree the cops ultimately made the right descion.