You know what...this is a really good post, and I'm going to put in a bit of effort and see if I can expand on some possibilities here. i will try to do this as neutrally/in good faith as possible....
Just a comment on this. There were three officers on scene and they completely failed to contain the guy. Would you not say that is a total failure of the basic training officers receive in academy?
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Just a comment on this. There were three officers on scene and they completely failed to contain the guy. Would you not say that is a total failure of the basic training officers receive in academy?
It's tough to say, because I currently can't watch the video, and last saw it a couple days ago. I also don't know how they are trained. I know that since it was already at 'guns drawn' stage when the video starts, there have been multiple points of failure.
I can surmise, that since he's not shot while he's behind (relative to the camera viewpoint) the suv, that the cops aren't "trigger happy cowboys".
I know that officers with guns drawn will try to keep a certain distance, and in that distance, there's a lot of room to maneuver for someone so-minded.
There is always room for improvement, and since the optimal outcome did not happen here, there were clearly points of failure. Were they 100% completely avoidable so that the optimal outcome could have been attained...I don't know, and I won't guess.
But yes...there were multiple points of failure here
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
Helpful to have input from someone with the perspective of a police background.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I think that the answer is yes. They should not have to wait until someone is shooting at them to use their guns. Generally, since this isn't the movies, by the time someone is shooting at you, it's too late. Also, while this is less relevant to Canada, there are many places to hide a gun, including on a body. You can't assume that just because you can't see a gun, that there is no gun.
Why don’t police have rules of engagement?
I’m legit ignorant here but don’t I see military movies all the time with the all important “rules of engagement”? Don’t fire unless fired upon?
Why wouldn’t we expect this from our keep-the-peace-first cops? Seems only fair if I expect the same from our military.
Except in instances where public safety is a concern, I’d expect police to avoid firing at all costs. But that’s just my view on police.
Er... because what's at stake in opening fire on another country's military forces without provocation is that you start a war? That's the outcome those rules are attempting to prevent... They're not there to save the lives of people in an opposing military force.
Quote:
I’m legit ignorant here but don’t I see military movies all the time with the all important “rules of engagement”? Don’t fire unless fired upon?
I think this whole discussion would work a lot better if peoples' intuitions weren't so heavily derived from movies.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
You know what...this is a really good post, and I'm going to put in a bit of effort and see if I can expand on some possibilities here. i will try to do this as neutrally/in good faith as possible.
Thanks, it was intended to be neutral. I don't mean to put forward that the police were wrong, in the same sense that I don't mean to put forward that they were right.
The point was to ask questions that I/we don't know the answers to. Questions where the answers change in which direction blame lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
True. But you don't know what went wrong, how it went wrong, how it could have been handled or fixed or if the helicopter in the tree was the best of a list of bad options. You can tell something went wrong, and maybe it could have gone better...or not.
Agreed. None of us do. Therefore, we can't say the police acted properly.
Yes, helicopter in the tree might be the best of all options. That doesn't mean the pilot messed up, but someone did.
Perhaps, the individual officers did the best in the situation given their training, and resources. But, IF the problem was inadequate training or resources then the blame can still lie with the police as an institution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
I think that the answer is yes. They should not have to wait until someone is shooting at them to use their guns. Generally, since this isn't the movies, by the time someone is shooting at you, it's too late. Also, while this is less relevant to Canada, there are many places to hide a gun, including on a body. You can't assume that just because you can't see a gun, that there is no gun.
I don't think you need to be fired upon in order to return fire. However, I also don't think that an officer and open fire and say "well maybe he had a gun somewhere".
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
They are. Though, one could argue that one can always use more training.
Yes, they are trained. But how often is certification updated, if at all? Is the focus on non-lethal intervention versus lethal?
If you're trained to shoot first and ask questions later, then you're going to shoot first and ask questions later. Not saying that is the case here, but from what I've read throughout this thread training in the States appears to be (although it may not be) much shorter than in Canada, with a small focus on de-escalation and large focus on 'better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
Unknown, so I can't/won't speculate. However, it is generally accepted that police were called for an argument of some sort, and encountered Blake. It's alleged that there was a fight between him and 2 officers that he 'won'. He may or may not have had a knife on his person (some independent parties claim the officers were shouting at him to drop the knife), there was a taser use attempt, and then the gunshots as Blake was trying to get into the suv. Even with the video, there's a lot of unanswered questions that need answering.
Agreed, there are A LOT of questions. Which is why we can't definitively state that the police were right, or that the police were wrong.
The default position is shooting someone 7 times (with 4 making contact) in the back is 'wrong'.
Given the questions we cannot say the police actions override that default shooting someone in the back 7 times (with 4 making contact) is justified.
I mean, given the answers to the questions that position could be justified. I do think it's reasonable for a lay-person to be sitting back asking "WTF, how do you justify shooting someone in the back" at this juncture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
Tasers don't always work. For the 'shoot like a gun' variants, they shoot 2 barbs that have to both hit skin to work. So if one barb hits skin and one gets fouled up in a sweater, it won't work. If both hit skin, but are too close together they won't work (so I'm told). Both can miss. Tasers are not very reliable weapons. As to how an officer can fire a gun but not a taser...usually, as there are 2 cops, procedure would be for one to have their gun out, and one to taser (as they are so unreliable). In this particular case, it looks like the officer tried to taser Blake, and instead of rushing them, after the taser didn't work, he went in the opposite direction, heading for his driver's side door...so creating even more space between him and the officers.
Tasers don't go through clothing? Like, I don't mean to derail this, but really? Or is the example your citing a freak occurrence where something wonky happens? Are they more effective at closer range?
If it is the case that tasers fail a disproportionate amount of time, as in two tasers wouldn't be able to get through jeans and hoodie; should they be redesigned? Should officers carry more than one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
Again, you may be confusing real world experience with tv bullets. Officers are trained to shoot until the threat stops. That is rarely with 1-2 bullets. With the range the officer was at, 4 hits on 7 shots is some worrisome marksmanship, but also understandable, due to adrenaline, barrel-walk, etc. But yes, it's not the best marksmanship, at all.
In fairness, I don't think I'm confusing real world experience with TV bullets, as I have no real world experience. I genuinely don't know, hence asking the question.
How many bullets did the officer's gun hold? Based on your reply, if the officer was in threat (which I question, but for the sake of argument will accept) did he empty his magazine? That would seem reasonable if the object is to shoot until the threat is stopped. If not, why stop at 7?
Also, yes the officer would have adrenaline, but he's trained for this isn't he? Shouldn't he be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
This is the biggest thing. Each situation is different and unique to itself and the people involved. How a situation goes down depends on how EVERYONE involved acts.
Agreed, which to me is where the level of training comes into play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
I don't know what and how US officers are trained, so I can't/won't speak to that. I've heard that Canadian ones are much better trained. But that's only anecdotal.
I think we're in the same boat here (I'd think a lot of posters have the same belief on this).
To me, that's the underlying problem in all of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
What do you base that on? You have no knowledge of their training, how up to date it was, or any other info other than "this situation didn't turn out how I feel it should have." Sometimes, sh** happens, even if you are the best, most awesomely trained person in any field.
If three officers cannot subdue a suspect with their physical restraint training, tasers, and shoot the suspect in the back 7 times (four making contact) then I think 'this situation didn't turn out how I feel it should have' is a fair feeling.
No I don't know their actual training, but I'm going to quote another poster with regard to training keeping in mind even the best of the best have off days and poor outcomes:
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
I don't know what and how US officers are trained, so I can't/won't speak to that. I've heard that Canadian ones are much better trained. But that's only anecdotal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
A layman doesn't have the experience or knowledge to make a cursory review of a situation like this. Why should a layman's thoughts be of any matter to someone in this case? I have more knowledge about police tactics in general than your average layman, and even my opinion or "cursory review" of this doesn't mean a thing. There was an optimal outcome. That did not happen. Now, there needs to be a review to determine what did happen, why it happened, and why the optimal outcome did not happen. That is not a review conducted by laypeople.
Agreed, but it is fair for lay-people to demand answers. It's fair for lay-people to say we don't want our police seemingly shooting us in the back.
Again, that doesn't mean this incident was or was not justified. Just that the police should be held accountable to the citizenry, and the citizenry should be asking questions when the outcome is outside what they expect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
Not always. You don't know the full situation. Does he have a gun inside of his vehicle? It's alleged that he was overheard to be saying he was going to go get his gun. Does he have one? Is it in the suv? Do you know there are 3 kids in that SUV? If he gets into his SUV, is he going to shoot the police? Himself? Hold the kids hostage? Drive away over the police? He's already allegedly outfought three officers, so do you holster your gun and try to drag him out? Try to wrestle for a round 2, hoping for a better outcome? Also, you have about 3-5 seconds to figure all this out.
I don't like the defense of having to prove your aren't armed. I don't think that should be the standard.
What saddens me, is that I now question who said that Jacob Blake said he had a gun in the car? Anecdotally it seems like US police officers have claimed things which make their actions reasonable, only to have video footage discredit them (see Masai Ujiri and Alameda County Sheriff Office where the Sheriff Office claimed that Ujiri was the aggressor, that body cam footage confirmed this, then the body cam footage proved the opposite). The reports of a Blue Wall of Silence with regard to not going against fellow officers even when they're wrong.
Remember the reports said that Jacob Blake had a knife which were later proven false. So I don't know if we can defacto believe the gun claim, when the knife claim was false.
If Jacob Blake said he was going for a gun (which doesn't make sense to me) then at what point is it reasonable to shoot? I don't know.
I think it's fair to say we need more facts. That there is a path of information that given the facts could lead to the shooting being justified. At the same time there is a path of information that given the facts could lead to the shooting being unjustified and the fault of the individual officer. Also, there is a path of information that given the facts could lead to the shooting being unjustified but the fault of the system not necessarily the individual officer.
Honestly, I think it will be a combination of events and shared blame to various degrees. To me there seems to be a systemic problem in the US with regard to policing. Which means, you can have the best of the best police officers in every scenario and negative outcomes like this will still happen.
Imagine if the officer who fired the shots did everything by the book. We still have a victim that was shot at in the back 7 times (4 making contact) when he didn't have a weapon on him, no gun in the car, and three officers that failed to subdue the victim, three officers that failed to taze the victim; three officers that lost or failed to gain control of the situation. If those officers did everything by the book, then perhaps it's the book that is inadequate and failed.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Last edited by Maritime Q-Scout; 08-30-2020 at 11:41 AM.
Reason: edited as apparently it was 3 officers on the scene not 2
The Following User Says Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
How do you deal with the fact that if the officer has a gun, a gun is always present?
That's the part that always gives me pause. Sure, definitely, go with the taser first. That will diminish the number of incidents that get past the "non-lethal force" phase. But as we've seen many times, it doesn't always work. Then what measures do you use? Once you're in a physical struggle with a suspect, that suspect has access to a firearm - yours. As a cop, you have to assume that he's going to try to take your gun and kill you with it. Even if he incapacitates you with just his hands, he can still take your gun and shoot you. So how do you deal with that problem?
Er... because what's at stake in opening fire on another country's military forces without provocation is that you start a war? That's the outcome those rules are attempting to prevent... They're not there to save the lives of people in an opposing military force.
I think this whole discussion would work a lot better if peoples' intuitions weren't so heavily derived from movies.
No it would work better if police didn’t shoot unarmed civilians. Your inability to discuss it without constantly getting lost in tangents is an issue.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
How do you deal with the fact that if the officer has a gun, a gun is always present?
That's the part that always gives me pause. Sure, definitely, go with the taser first. That will diminish the number of incidents that get past the "non-lethal force" phase. But as we've seen many times, it doesn't always work. Then what measures do you use? Once you're in a physical struggle with a suspect, that suspect has access to a firearm - yours. As a cop, you have to assume that he's going to try to take your gun and kill you with it. Even if he incapacitates you with just his hands, he can still take your gun and shoot you. So how do you deal with that problem?
I think the issue for me is that I could understand a cop shooting someone in a struggle, the fact that they don’t is a good thing (probably for them too). But why are we shooting people that are walking or running away? And it’s not just walking to a car to get some imaginary gun, we’ve seen them shoot people running into absolutely nowhere.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I don't have a problem with counterprotests but Fox News is telling these guys that all of the protesters are violent Antifa so it's no wonder they act so aggressively. Hopefully they get arrested.
Last edited by DownInFlames; 08-30-2020 at 12:21 PM.
I think the issue for me is that I could understand a cop shooting someone in a struggle, the fact that they don’t is a good thing (probably for them too). But why are we shooting people that are walking or running away? And it’s not just walking to a car to get some imaginary gun, we’ve seen them shoot people running into absolutely nowhere.
Right, I am with you - I was responding to the position expressed by Maritime that the Police should not be able to use a firearm unless the suspect himself has his own firearm. I don't think that's a reasonable standard. I said earlier, I think in the situation with Blake, if you're going to justify shooting the guy in the back, there needs to actually be a gun visible that he could plausibly be going for. If it's a knife, he needs to have it in his hand, and if that's what you're afraid of, at least back off, and if he starts moving toward you, then you can unload your clip into him.
I am unsure about how to respond to Whitetiger's points, about the potential that he then drives away and uses the kids in the car as hostages. I suppose that we just have to accept the risk that he might do that, until he actually does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
No it would work better if police didn’t shoot unarmed civilians. Your inability to discuss it without constantly getting lost in tangents is an issue.
What tangent? What are you talking about? I responded directly to your post. If anyone's going off on a tangent, it's you - what the heck does this have to do with use of force in the military? They're not in even remotely comparable situations.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Police do have very strict rules of engagement. They have policies officers are expected to follow. This was the out I was giving to White Tiger in the question I asked him. Three officers on scene and they clearly failed to contain a suspect resulting in deadly force being applied. This was clear failure of basic three point containment.
I've worked for two municipalities and both have had clearly documented policies and procedures in regards to rules of engagement, escalation, weapons use, and use of deadly force. The officers are required to do yearly acknowledgements of those policies and procedures. This is pretty standard for all CALEA agencies and part of their insurance requirements.
Quote:
I’m legit ignorant here but don’t I see military movies all the time with the all important “rules of engagement”? Don’t fire unless fired upon?
Why wouldn’t we expect this from our keep-the-peace-first cops? Seems only fair if I expect the same from our military.
Except in instances where public safety is a concern, I’d expect police to avoid firing at all costs. But that’s just my view on police.
Cops used to have this expectation as well, but then the "warrior mentality" was introduced to police forces. This mentality is centered around the use of violence as a deterrent to violence, and a use of extreme force against possible force. This is what most officers are being trained to fall back upon, rather than other means of diffusing situations.
Sadly the police department has remained on the sidelines and not provided a buffer of any shape or form. Therein lays the problem with the police in America, and spilling over into Canada.
Isn't this what the protestors all want? Cops defunded and on the sidelines?
Have fun when the right wing paramilitary Trumper's fill the void.
This is getting out of hand. Trump is indeed escalating things rather than act as a calming force. Even in peaceful communities are feeling the pressure of this. Sleepy Gilbert AZ has had two nights of violent altercations between protesters on both sides. Sadly the police department has remained on the sidelines and not provided a buffer of any shape or form. Therein lays the problem with the police in America, and spilling over into Canada.
Police officers are supposed to be "peacekeepers" and provide a service to the public. But police forces have become militarized and their purview is no longer to act a "peacekeepers" but instead act as a brute force implement for enforcement of "law," or at least the ones they believe in. The role of peacekeeper, communicator, and arbiter of issues within the community have been replaced with thugs who wish to enforce their will on the community.
Do you remember the days when a cop car was highly visible, so it would act as an immediate deterrent? Remember when an officer was dressed in an actual uniform, with tie, and spit polished shoes. Their duty belt was limited to a couple pouches and their side arm? Cops were approachable and were viewed as friends to the community. Fast forward to today. Cop cars are ghosted out - monochrome ghost markings that match the color of their car, blacked out windows, and internal lights - all meant to sneak up and act as an intimidation factor. Uniforms have given way to casual battle dress fatigues (cacrgo pant BDUs) and combat boots. Duty belts have given way to duty vests so they can load up with more equipment. Cops are now armed to the teeth with multiple ways to inflict lethal and non-lethal force. Cops are no longer approachable, and most of the get off on that.
That is the largest issue in all of this. The "warrior mentality" has eliminated the peacekeeper mindset, and as a result public trust has pretty much come to an end. Without that trusted arbiter, things will continue to escalate. Until that is fixed, we are in for a very long period of distrust and continued violence.
I think distrust of the police has less to do with police appearances and more with their lack of accountability. If you meet a person with a gun, and they aren't even subject to the normal deterrents in firing it, how can you trust them?
Isn't this what the protestors all want? Cops defunded and on the sidelines?
Have fun when the right wing paramilitary Trumper's fill the void.
You've got it wrong, and perhaps this is a reason as to why "defund" wasn't the best term to go with despite how clear the policy proposal was for anyone who read it.
Thanks, it was intended to be neutral. I don't mean to put forward that the police were wrong, in the same sense that I don't mean to put forward that they were right.
Exactly. I don't know if they were right or wrong. That video doesn't show enough for me to make that call, as far as I'm concerned. It shows a very concerning situation, to be sure.
Quote:
The point was to ask questions that I/we don't know the answers to. Questions where the answers change in which direction blame lies.
The only problem I have with this is that more often than not...folks won't get answers to those questions. They can ask them all they want, and the questions DO need to BE asked...but the general public won't get the answers. Someone has to, somewhere, though. Which is why civilian/cop overwatch collaborations (such as ASIRT) are a good idea.
And when folks don't get answers, and especially don't get answers they feel they deserve (or they do get them, and don't LIKE the answer) then they get mad.
Quote:
Agreed. None of us do. Therefore, we can't say the police acted properly.
Which makes us a poor judge/jury of the incident
Quote:
Yes, helicopter in the tree might be the best of all options. That doesn't mean the pilot messed up, but someone did.
Perhaps, the individual officers did the best in the situation given their training, and resources. But, IF the problem was inadequate training or resources then the blame can still lie with the police as an institution.
Agreed. Which is why I can't speak to their training. What they have or haven't had, if it is/isn't up to date. If they 'took' to the training or not. A problem I've seen that doesn't seem to be accounted for is people learning in different ways. It seems that the trainer comes in, teaches 1-2 ways to do something, and that's that...so 10 people in the class really got the material, 13 basically understand it for the most part. 3 took to it like a duck to water and it just 'clicked' in their brain. And one guy is wondering if the teacher was speaking a different language. ALL of them get sent out onto the street, "trained".
Quote:
I don't think you need to be fired upon in order to return fire. However, I also don't think that an officer and open fire and say "well maybe he had a gun somewhere".
Exactly. It's a thin, difficult line to walk. It's the whole problem behind "I feared for my life." Yes, any number of 'what if' scenarios could have played out, and you can likely find a decent number of people who it happened to, so because they've heard stories and seen videos of when a situation went horribly, horribly bad, that's what they are thinking. I've even heard, in my line of work: "You aren't worst-case scenario'ing hard enough. Try again and come back with a different prep plan."
I often say "You see what you look for." It's very true in this set of situations, too. If you look for the bad/worst, and prepare for the bad/worst, that's what you are going to see/assume all the time eventually. It doesn't help that these kind of decisions are made almost in split seconds...so of course, being human, our brains jump right to "worst case! worst case! OMG! OMG!"
This is made even trickier, in the States, by the sheer number of guns kicking around. I am honestly not sure how, were I an American police officer, I would do in not assuming every person I see had a gun tucked somewhere. That kind of...paranoia/prep HAS to affect your thinking. Especially over time..."He was a 20 year veteran of the force..."
Quote:
Yes, they are trained. But how often is certification updated, if at all? Is the focus on non-lethal intervention versus lethal?
I have no idea what the certification requirements are for the various US Police Depts, and couldn't even guess. I have heard that staffing issues make training/re-cert even harder, as it's harder and harder to take someone off the street for training/re-cert when you've been short-staffed and run ragged for months and it shows no sign of slowing down. It's 'easy' to let training get pushed back and pushed back and pushed back..."We're slammed this week, Officer. The phones are ringing off the hook. We'll try to get to your Firearms Re-Cert next tour, ok. Get out there, we need you on your beat NOW."
Quote:
If you're trained to shoot first and ask questions later, then you're going to shoot first and ask questions later. Not saying that is the case here, but from what I've read throughout this thread training in the States appears to be (although it may not be) much shorter than in Canada, with a small focus on de-escalation and large focus on 'better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6'.
I can't speak to specific US training (I know, I know, I sound like a broken record, but I don't want to give wrong impressions) but the general trending I have, personally, noticed is a shifting away from the concept of "We are the shield that protects at all costs." to "Make it to the end of your shift and make it home." It's hard to find fault in someone saying "I want to help people...but I want to make it home alive at the end of my shift, too." 'Safety' is not a 'bad' word, but there is a huge focus on 'Officer safety, first and foremost above all else.' And as I mentioned, I find it hard to find fault with that concept, but the change it's wrought is pretty plain (at least, to me...who's been interested in policing as a career for 35 years).
Quote:
Agreed, there are A LOT of questions. Which is why we can't definitively state that the police were right, or that the police were wrong.
The default position is shooting someone 7 times (with 4 making contact) in the back is 'wrong'.
Given the questions we cannot say the police actions override that default shooting someone in the back 7 times (with 4 making contact) is justified.
No, we can't just say that anymore. The police in the States have damaged the trust of the public so badly that they can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt...and I don't say that lightly.
Quote:
I mean, given the answers to the questions that position could be justified. I do think it's reasonable for a lay-person to be sitting back asking "WTF, how do you justify shooting someone in the back" at this juncture.
I think it's reasonable to ask that. But as I mentioned before, I'm not sure a lay-person is ENTITLED to know that. And then the question becomes "Should they be?" and frankly and honestly...I don't have an answer for that. I keep wavering back and forth on it, and have for 20 years.
Quote:
Tasers don't go through clothing? Like, I don't mean to derail this, but really? Or is the example your citing a freak occurrence where something wonky happens? Are they more effective at closer range?
They can go through some clothing. Will they likely go through a tshirt or a standard button-down shirt? Yup. I believe that the actual needle part of the probe is about a half inch long? With a single, small barb to try to keep it in. So trying to tase someone in a tshirt means you have a good chance of a good connection. Trying to tase someone in full on winter gear (or those 'puffy vests' is much harder. The darts also have to be a minimum of 10cm apart, iirc (taser class was a long, long time ago) and they are hard to aim. The top dart isn't too bad, but in order to get the needed spread, the bottom probe shoots out and down...meaning you can miss with it. Both probes have to be well and good in the subject for it to work, so clothing can foul up and even prevent a probe from getting the hold it needs. Depending on how fast the person who's been shot is, and where they've been shot, they may be able to dislodge one probe enough to render the taser useless (pulling it out, or twisting away and unseating a loose hit to begin with). While the Taser company says that tasers should be effective 87-96% of the time, actual field use, according to various police sources (take that for what you will) rate it's actual effectiveness around 35-50%
Quote:
If it is the case that tasers fail a disproportionate amount of time, as in two tasers wouldn't be able to get through jeans and hoodie; should they be redesigned? Should officers carry more than one?
You generally only get one chance to use one. By that time, work or fail, it's generally too late and the situation has changed one way or another (usually the subject is too far away...tasers have an effective range of roughly 7.5m, though they can get up to 10.5, if you are lucky.
Quote:
In fairness, I don't think I'm confusing real world experience with TV bullets, as I have no real world experience. I genuinely don't know, hence asking the question.
Fair enough. I've had a lot of experience with firearms, both from "livin' on the farm" to being in the militia.
Quote:
How many bullets did the officer's gun hold? Based on your reply, if the officer was in threat (which I question, but for the sake of argument will accept) did he empty his magazine? That would seem reasonable if the object is to shoot until the threat is stopped. If not, why stop at 7?
The standard magazine for your usual 'police gun' holds 15 bullets. Going under the assumption (as we've both accepted we can't know/assume if the officer WAS in threat or not) that the officer was threatened, then the training is "Shoot until the threat stops". That very rarely means "pump your entire clip into the body". It is difficult to justify why/how someone with 15 bullets in them is/was a threat (assuming all hit). For the best example, I refer to the Yatim shooting in Toronto. While he was wielding a knife, a police officer shot Mr Yatim 9 times. The jury decided that the initial 3 bullets were sufficient to stop the threat, and that the second volley of 6 shots was excessive, and so the officer was charged. "But Yatim had a knife! The officer could/should have pumped all 15 at him!" No. That is not shooting to stop a threat. That is shooting with obvious intent to kill. A police officer SHOULD be trained to know and recognize the difference.
Quote:
Also, yes the officer would have adrenaline, but he's trained for this isn't he? Shouldn't he be?
Yes, an officer should be. But that's hard to train for. You never know when or if you are going to draw your gun and/or have to use it. I don't recall the study, but I do recall reading that most officers never fire their gun in the line of duty, or those that do, most only do it once in their entire career. The study noted that if an officer is/does/has fired their weapon more frequently, that they should have an eye kept on them. I wish I could recall the survey, and if it was US or Canadian based, but I can't, sadly. So I can't backup the reliability of this paragraph.
Quote:
I think we're in the same boat here (I'd think a lot of posters have the same belief on this).
I'd hope so. We're generally a pretty reasonable bunch around here.
Quote:
If three officers cannot subdue a suspect with their physical restraint training, tasers, and shoot the suspect in the back 7 times (four making contact) then I think 'this situation didn't turn out how I feel it should have' is a fair feeling.
I agree. I tend to caveat this kind of thing by reminding folks that 2-3 people who are fighting to subdue someone with as little harm as possible to all involved parties (at least, one should hope that's how police are fighting, and how they are supposed to be) are kind of fighting with one hand tied behind their back when fighting someone who doesn't care what or how much harm they cause to who as long as they get away.
Quote:
No I don't know their actual training, but I'm going to quote another poster with regard to training keeping in mind even the best of the best have off days and poor outcomes:
Agreed, but it is fair for lay-people to demand answers. It's fair for lay-people to say we don't want our police seemingly shooting us in the back.
Again, that doesn't mean this incident was or was not justified. Just that the police should be held accountable to the citizenry, and the citizenry should be asking questions when the outcome is outside what they expect.
I don't like the defense of having to prove your aren't armed. I don't think that should be the standard.
What saddens me, is that I now question who said that Jacob Blake said he had a gun in the car? Anecdotally it seems like US police officers have claimed things which make their actions reasonable, only to have video footage discredit them (see Masai Ujiri and Alameda County Sheriff Office where the Sheriff Office claimed that Ujiri was the aggressor, that body cam footage confirmed this, then the body cam footage proved the opposite). The reports of a Blue Wall of Silence with regard to not going against fellow officers even when they're wrong.
Remember the reports said that Jacob Blake had a knife which were later proven false. So I don't know if we can defacto believe the gun claim, when the knife claim was false.
If Jacob Blake said he was going for a gun (which doesn't make sense to me) then at what point is it reasonable to shoot? I don't know.
Hah. And yes, that's generally the best we can hope for. Which leads to something else I want to talk about. Trust and benefit of the doubt. The biggest problem is that police USED to have both of those, and now, especially in the States...they don't. They have shown that they don't deserve either right now. And that's what the public is struggling with. How, or even IF, police can get that trust/benefit of the doubt back...is very much in question.
From what I recall, the person shooting the video claimed to have heard police shouting to "drop the knife!" multiple times...but no knife was seen. Someone (I think one of the police officers, maybe?) claimed that he said he was "going to my car to get my gun." But you are right...WHO heard that? Why were both the knife and gun comments said? Was it an officer who's just lost a fight and had a taser not work but realizing there could be cameras around and this could look bad trying to shout out a justification for the shooting he knew was likely coming? Was it an officer who saw something he thought, in the heat of the moment, looked like a knife, and he was warning his fellow officers not to close back into melee range? Did the optics of the situation even cross the officers minds? And did/were they trying to mitigate those?
We don't know. Until they invent mind-reading machines we won't know. But before, where the police would have had the trust of the public and the benefit of the doubt...they don't anymore, and people are rightfully demanding answers.
Quote:
I think it's fair to say we need more facts. That there is a path of information that given the facts could lead to the shooting being justified. At the same time there is a path of information that given the facts could lead to the shooting being unjustified and the fault of the individual officer. Also, there is a path of information that given the facts could lead to the shooting being unjustified but the fault of the system not necessarily the individual officer.
Honestly, I think it will be a combination of events and shared blame to various degrees. To me there seems to be a systemic problem in the US with regard to policing. Which means, you can have the best of the best police officers in every scenario and negative outcomes like this will still happen.
Imagine if the officer who fired the shots did everything by the book. We still have a victim that was shot at in the back 7 times (4 making contact) when he didn't have a weapon on him, no gun in the car, and three officers that failed to subdue the victim, three officers that failed to taze the victim; three officers that lost or failed to gain control of the situation. If those officers did everything by the book, then perhaps it's the book that is inadequate and failed.
Exactly. Which is why, generally, I don't offer my thoughts on a lot of these situations. There are just too many variables in play, and any of them COULD be true. Have to wait for the investigation to conclude. And sadly, with the lack of trust most PD's have these days, no matter what the investigation finds, a large chunk of people won't believe them.
There needs to be an overhaul. The US police have to get the trust of the public back. And I'm not sure they can.
I've had a single experience with US cops...and it was a bad one. I recall it to this day. I've had dozens to possibly even hundreds of interactions with Canadian cops, and I barely remember them as most were 'good'.
(also, this is not to say that Canadian cops are perfect or without fault, but Maritime and I are discussing US cops and these are my thoughts on policing in the US, not in Canada)
