If I arrived on scene to call about an unstable guy brandishing a knife, I probably wouldn't pull up within 15-20 feet of him, draw my lethal weapon and then shoot him 8 times when he walks within 10-15 feet of me.
I'd probably show up, give the alleged perp enough distance not to provoke him and wait for more backup to arrive.
I probably also wouldn't shoot him while he's on the ground, and then I probably wouldn't handcuff his corpse, either.
I can't say any of this for certain, but then, I also don't take on the responsibility of being a police officer, either.
Commendable that that one officer lets him get as close as he ended up getting, but, fail from the beginning to arrive on scene with guns drawn that close to the alleged assailant, especially in a crowded shopping area.
Shooting him 12 times probably also wasn't necessary, but I'm not a cop, so I am not allowed to pass judgement on cops.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
If I arrived on scene to call about an unstable guy brandishing a knife, I probably wouldn't pull up within 15-20 feet of him, draw my lethal weapon and then shoot him 8 times when he walks within 10-15 feet of me.
I'd probably show up, give the alleged perp enough distance not to provoke him and wait for more backup to arrive.
I probably also wouldn't shoot him while he's on the ground, and then I probably wouldn't handcuff his corpse, either.
I can't say any of this for certain, but then, I also don't take on the responsibility of being a police officer, either.
Commendable that that one officer lets him get as close as he ended up getting, but, fail from the beginning to arrive on scene with guns drawn that close to the alleged assailant, especially in a crowded shopping area.
Shooting him 12 times probably also wasn't necessary, but I'm not a cop, so I am not allowed to pass judgement on cops.
That's the thing that stands out Flash, you clearly have experience or training and that shows in your posts.
Fact, is, when police get called to something like that, they don't get paid to sit back in the weeds and wait for other cops to show. The situation HAS to be dealt with. Columbine showed us that.
Please, I implore you to do some research before judging what your clearly have little understanding of. Do something!!!
I'll start you off:
Peer reviewed summary of a book by one of the leading authorities on combat, combat stress, police shootings, etc:
Fact, is, when police get called to something like that, they don't get paid to sit back in the weeds and wait for other cops to show. The situation HAS to be dealt with. Columbine showed us that.
Why did it have to be dealt with so quickly with deadly force? What does Columbine have to do with a guy wielding a knife? Am I being punked?? And what about my previous post did you disagree with? are you saying there's only one option for the cops here? To show up and shoot once he refuses to obey commands?
Why did it have to be dealt with so quickly with deadly force? What does Columbine have to do with a guy wielding a knife? Am I being punked?? And what about my previous post did you disagree with? are you saying there's only one option for the cops here? To show up and shoot once he refuses to obey commands?
Please scroll up and find my initial response to that video. You are doing yourself a disservice by asking the simple question, "To show up and shoot once he refuses to obey commands?" because that's clearly not the reason he got shot.
Columbine was instrumental in changing law enforcement and police tactics. During the incident at Columbine, police waited for other units while the two assailants were inside.
Please scroll up and find my initial response to that video. You are doing yourself a disservice by asking the simple question, "To show up and shoot once he refuses to obey commands?" because that's clearly not the reason he got shot.
Columbine was instrumental in changing law enforcement and police tactics. During the incident at Columbine, police waited for other units while the two assailants were inside.
One has nothing to do with the other. Columbine had assault rifles and shots heard. This guy hadn't hurt anyone yet and had a knife. To try and compare the 2 is ludicrous. It's actually quite insulting to anyone who was involved with Columbine too.
edit: I read your reply and I don't entirely disagree. The problem is the responding officers put themselves into harms way right off the hop by jumping out of the cars so close to the perp. Were they correct in their shooting? Maybe. I'm not a cop and that's the thing, neither are you. We may be eating our cheetohs and typing up these responses in our boxers in the comfort of our homes. But the escalation of force and disregard for human life displayed by the police responding and people defending them 100% is a little troubling. The cops should have attempted non lethal force to subdue this guy. Could it have resulted in harm to the police officers? Maybe. That's the job though. You don't sign up to be a cop and expect it to be easy and never be in harms way. It's a difficult job and especially so in the US... but that doesn't mean that the life of a suspect is less valuable than making sure a cop doesn't face potential injury.
Last edited by White Out 403; 08-21-2014 at 10:52 AM.
Did they even know he had a knife? It looked to me like they were called 'cause the guy "stole" the two cans of whatever that started off the call. No one saw the knife until the cops pulled up. Then the guy pulls the knife out of his pocket that his hand was in, advances on the cops and starts screaming "kill me, kill me".
You show up at a shoplifting call, and in less than 12 seconds have someone with a knife coming at you.
But go ahead, armchair quarterback all you like, experts.
One has nothing to do with the other. Columbine had assault rifles and shots heard. This guy hadn't hurt anyone yet and had a knife. To try and compare the 2 is ludicrous. It's actually quite insulting to anyone who was involved with Columbine too.
Honestly, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Columbine fundamentally changed how police do business and respond to active threats.
Insulting to anyone at Columbine? Spare me the drama.
If I arrived on scene to call about an unstable guy brandishing a knife, I probably wouldn't pull up within 15-20 feet of him, draw my lethal weapon and then shoot him 8 times when he walks within 10-15 feet of me.
I'd probably show up, give the alleged perp enough distance not to provoke him and wait for more backup to arrive.
I probably also wouldn't shoot him while he's on the ground, and then I probably wouldn't handcuff his corpse, either.
I can't say any of this for certain, but then, I also don't take on the responsibility of being a police officer, either.
Commendable that that one officer lets him get as close as he ended up getting, but, fail from the beginning to arrive on scene with guns drawn that close to the alleged assailant, especially in a crowded shopping area.
Shooting him 12 times probably also wasn't necessary, but I'm not a cop, so I am not allowed to pass judgement on cops.
I think you either need to:
A) back away from the keyboard and return to the profession for which you are an expert or;
B) edit all your posts in this thread to add all that green text you meant to include.
Honestly, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Columbine fundamentally changed how police do business and respond to active threats.
Insulting to anyone at Columbine? Spare me the drama.
I'll ask again what does a shooting in a school with shots fired have to do with a knife wielding suspect, with no evidence he has hurt anyone or is about to hurt anyone? The answer is zero. Just stop.
The Following User Says Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
Being a cop is tough. That's why we give them guns and handcuffs and let them shoot and detain people when necessary. Was it necessary for that guy to be shot to death? I'm not a cop, nor am I trained in any way to deal with scenarios like this. But I suspect that simply having a knife and not responding to commands isn't worthy of death. Why not taze the guy? Why are you shooting at centre of mass to kill? I don't think its reasonable to ask cops to go hand to hand with a guy wielding a knife but isn't there a middle ground between hand to knife combat and 5+rounds to centre of mass?
Being a cop is extremely tough, especially in some of the rougher population centers.
Acting in a threatening manner towards a police officer or towards a civilian with a police officer presence is probably going to end up with a dead person, if the police officer doesn't make the wrong decision its either the cop or the civilian that's dead.
Why not taze the guy? excellent question. because Tazers aren't considered to be a hundred percent reliable, and because of that when you see a gun or a knife and the person approaching or acting in a threatening manner the first thing that comes out is a lethal instrument like a gun. If the cop pulls out a tazer against a armed person within that lets say 15 foot radius or 20 foot radius and the weapon fails, or he misses or whatever (a tazer is a one shot weapon iirc) he can't reload in that time and in the time that it takes him to dump the tazer and draw his secondary weapon (gun) the situation is now out of control. This isn't the fricken old west where the law man is a quick draw expert marksman like in the movie.
Why are they shooting at center mass to kill? Whenever I see that question, my first question is have you shot a pistol? Have you shot a pistol where your heart is racing and a quart of adrenaline has been pumped into your system?
This isn't lethal weapon where Mel Gibson is hitting people from 50 yards away. Pistols are probably the least accurate of the fire arms out there. Anything further then lets say 10 yards and your odds of a hit go down exponentially, also remember that the person is moving so hitting an arm or a let is improbably at best. On top of that unlike the movies if you miss that bullet travels a good long distance and it can't be recalled. So your job as a cop is to hit the target, and to bring that target down, so you shoot center mass, you don't shoot at a arm or a let of a gun.
The whole thinking that its not unreasonable for a cop to go hand to hand with a knife welding person is just obnoxiously silly. A knife in close quarters is a incredibly lethal weapon. A knife is still one of the most dangerous weapons out there because at close quarters even an inexperienced person with a knife has a large in range target for a plunging and slashing weapon, and if the cop misses a block or missteps he runs the risk of pretty lethal weapons. Again this is reality not the movies. Even in the military the whole hand to hand combat stuff isn't infallible ninja stuff, We preferred not to do it, unless it was something that just happened but we didn't welcome it or encourage people to look for it.
I think you have a very odd conception of gun's tazers, accuracy and shooting skills and what's involved in hand to hand combat.
I think you've misread my post captain, I said it is unreasonable to ask a cop to go up against a perp who has a knife with just his hands. So let me just get that out of the way first.
Your tazer comments are fair, and in a situation where it's just 1 cop that's reasonable. But there's 2 cops. That allows 1 cop to taze or pepper spray while a 2nd cop has his firearm trained on the perp to make sure if it doesn't work they're still safe. That could have been done here but it wasn't. It should have.
Acting threatening around a cop shouldn't end in someone being dead is my greater point. We should have a well trained and well paid police force out there to prevent deaths from happening when possible. All I'm saying is that in this case this wasn't done. There were other options that were perfectly safe for these officers to explore, but due to a series of missteps they wound up having to shoot this guy.
1- Give yourself more distance from the perp as not to escalate the situation further
2- If commands are ignored and you have backup as this officer did, one should attempt non lethal force while the other provides the safety of lethal force if necessary
What about those 2 comments are so outrageous? I imagine that in most developed countries in the word following this type of protocol is why shooting deaths are so rare and they're so depressingly high in the United States.
Your point of the centre of mass is well made, and I will concede that for sure,
Last edited by White Out 403; 08-21-2014 at 11:06 AM.
When was there even time to think about or get a taser ready to deploy? They were responding to a shoplifting call. No reason to think it's going to escalate quickly or sit in hiding waiting for back-up. They walk out of the truck to talk to the guy and see what's going on, in two seconds he's yelling 'shoot me' and going towards them aggressively.
I wish he didn't have to be shot either but that was the only outcome available.
I'll ask again what does a shooting in a school with shots fired have to do with a knife wielding suspect, with no evidence he has hurt anyone or is about to hurt anyone? The answer is zero. Just stop.
Sigh. Reread post 649. Also read post 606.
I should stop, you're right there. No point in arguing personal opinions based on little to no understanding of what one is talking about.
Enjoy your day.
Last edited by Bent Wookie; 08-21-2014 at 11:12 AM.
You guys are nuts (the ones arguing with Wookie). It's not like they showed up to confront a guy alone in his kitchen. He is armed around other people. You can't afford to debate - hence the reference to Columbine.
Honestly I'm not sure if you're just trolling me because you realize you're wrong or, just lazy, but please explain to me why Columbine would change how this situation is dealt with. Pretend that I'm a child and really boil it down to basics.
I get that you're saying that police now supposedly don't wait for backup (citation required) but how does that change how they would handle a knife wielding perp? What imminent threat does he pose in the same way someone with an assault rifle pose? The video shows him leaving people alone as they walk by and when the police show up he is alone, with no one near him but the police.
St. Louis PD has released cellphone footage of the shooting and killing of Kajieme Powell by two St. Louis police officers on August 19. According to police he was shot within 2 to 3 feet of the police and holding a knife with a overhand grip and yelling "Shoot me, Kill me now". The shooting took place about two miles from where Michael Brown was killed.
Honestly I'm not sure if you're just trolling me because you realize you're wrong or, just lazy, but please explain to me why Columbine would change how this situation is dealt with. Pretend that I'm a child and really boil it down to basics.
I get that you're saying that police now supposedly don't wait for backup (citation required) but how does that change how they would handle a knife wielding perp? What imminent threat does he pose in the same way someone with an assault rifle pose? The video shows him leaving people alone as they walk by and when the police show up he is alone, with no one near him but the police.
The columbine reference makes no sense. Sorry.
I appreciate and accept your apology.
Last edited by Bent Wookie; 08-21-2014 at 12:04 PM.
If that was a knife I have no problem with the shooting but the extra shots while he was down did seem like overkill. How dumb do you have to be though to charge a couple cops with a knife.
If that was a knife I have no problem with the shooting but the extra shots while he was down did seem like overkill. How dumb do you have to be though to charge a couple cops with a knife.
Not dumb, but want to suicide by cop. It's much more common than people know.
