Another wellness-check police shooting in Canada

[GreenLantern]

Unfortunately suicide by cop is an all to real thing that happens every year, I am not saying absolutely that is what happened here, but you can't rule it out either. You can hear the officers call out for him to drop the knife, I am assuming the man advanced on them carrying the knife, non lethal options failed, so they escalated to lethal.

Police go to calls with guys who have duct tape knives to their hands and run at them as soon as they get there. But if they don't intervene, there is a high risk this individual harms themselves or leaves the residence and harms someone else. What should they do? Send in an un armed social worker to talk to a guy with a knife in his hand? Would you volunteer to be that social worker alone in a 600 square foot apartment with this person?

Often times with mental health, unfortunately, the person is just not reasonable and can't be talked down. So its either police intervene and attempt to save them, or you leave them to their own devices and see what harm they can cause to themselves.

In the case of an apartment, you're also putting others at risk in that apartment depending what they decide to do, IE, start a fire. It's a slippery slope, and I agree Police aren't equipped to deal with these situations, they aren't social workers. But who right now is ready to go into that situation and handle it in a way satisfactory to the public? We need to build the necessary systems before we tear down the existing.

[Zulu29]

I’d be curious to know if someone was in the apartment with him. That would certainly be a major factor in their plan to apprehend the guy.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't mind most of your post - particularly about waiting for someone with the appropriate training to attend the scene - but this part is just silly. It's not a video game. It's very difficult to shoot someone in the leg.

Not at all true. In fact most police forces in the west do this routinely. The legs take up half the body, it's not a small target, and a properly trained person should be able to make that shot quite reliably.

I made a post about it here:
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=892

I also made another post about this, citing the Turku terror attack, where again the police shot exactly one shot, in the leg of a madman running around in the city with a knife trying to stab people, hit, and then the situation was pretty much over.

(EDIT: Here's the link to the other post I've made about this, wasn't in the Minneapolis thread, sorry, it was in the Brunswick-thread.)

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...5&postcount=86

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

Not at all true. In fact most police forces in the west do this routinely. The legs take up half the body, it's not a small target, and a properly trained person should be able to make that shot quite reliably.

I made a post about it here:
https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=892

I also made another post about this, citing the Turku terror attack, where again the police shot exactly one shot, in the leg of a madman running around in the city with a knife trying to stab people, hit, and then the situation was pretty much over.

(EDIT: Here's the link to the other post I've made about this, wasn't in the Minneapolis thread, sorry, it was in the Brunswick-thread.)

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...5&postcount=86

I don't recall seeing this when you posted it the first time, but I'm not sure I can accept two pieces of anecdotal evidence as a rebuttal to the consensus view of those who train people in the use of handguns. Maybe I would be convinced if I could read the links, but they're in finnish. I tend to doubt it though. Even the anecdote makes little sense to me - the perpetrator is stabbing a woman, so he takes aim, shoots, hits the guy in the leg. He's still attacking her, so he aims carefully again, hits him in the hand (unclear how the hell that happened, unless it was dumb luck). Both of those bullets could have hit the woman, but didn't. So he's still stabbing her. Then the officer finally shoots him in the chest, stopping the attack.

If anything, that would appear to indicate that the correct place to shoot him in order to stop him from attacking the woman was in the chest in the first place. What the officer did was essentially put her life in danger as he attempted to display his marksmanship. But also, how did he manage to not only get the three shots off, but aim, fire, stop to evaluate whether the shot had the desired effect (is he still stabbing her? No? Better aim and shoot again) and repeat that twice? If a guy with a knife is 20 feet away from you and charges you, you do not have that kind of time.

I just don't buy it, and it would take quite a bit to convince me given the weight of the evidence and expertise going the other way.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I’d be curious to know if someone was in the apartment with him. That would certainly be a major factor in their plan to apprehend the guy.

Article says he was alone.

eel police Const. Sarah Patten said the initial call reported that the man was suffering from a medical condition and not taking his medication.

Patten said the man, who was alone in the unit, was in a "state of crisis" and believed to have weapons on him in his residence.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't recall seeing this when you posted it the first time, but I'm not sure I can accept two pieces of anecdotal evidence as a rebuttal to the consensus view of those who train people in the use of handguns. Maybe I would be convinced if I could read the links, but they're in finnish. I tend to doubt it though. Even the anecdote makes little sense to me - the perpetrator is stabbing a woman, so he takes aim, shoots, hits the guy in the leg. He's still attacking her, so he aims carefully again, hits him in the hand (unclear how the hell that happened, unless it was dumb luck). Both of those bullets could have hit the woman, but didn't. So he's still stabbing her. Then the officer finally shoots him in the chest, stopping the attack.

If anything, that would appear to indicate that the correct place to shoot him in order to stop him from attacking the woman was in the chest in the first place. What the officer did was essentially put her life in danger as he attempted to display his marksmanship. But also, how did he manage to not only get the three shots off, but aim, fire, stop to evaluate whether the shot had the desired effect (is he still stabbing her? No? Better aim and shoot again) and repeat that twice? If a guy with a knife is 20 feet away from you and charges you, you do not have that kind of time.

I just don't buy it, and it would take quite a bit to convince me given the weight of the evidence and expertise going the other way.

Totally. That whole tale sounded absurd.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Ben_in_Canada

IIRC the family called the police concerned he had access to weapons (knives?) and was likely to hurt himself. The kicker was he couldn't speak English either so they could not communicate with him.

There is no translator in the police department?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't recall seeing this when you posted it the first time, but I'm not sure I can accept two pieces of anecdotal evidence as a rebuttal to the consensus view of those who train people in the use of handguns. Maybe I would be convinced if I could read the links, but they're in finnish. I tend to doubt it though. Even the anecdote makes little sense to me - the perpetrator is stabbing a woman, so he takes aim, shoots, hits the guy in the leg. He's still attacking her, so he aims carefully again, hits him in the hand (unclear how the hell that happened, unless it was dumb luck). Both of those bullets could have hit the woman, but didn't. So he's still stabbing her. Then the officer finally shoots him in the chest, stopping the attack.

If anything, that would appear to indicate that the correct place to shoot him in order to stop him from attacking the woman was in the chest in the first place. What the officer did was essentially put her life in danger as he attempted to display his marksmanship. But also, how did he manage to not only get the three shots off, but aim, fire, stop to evaluate whether the shot had the desired effect (is he still stabbing her? No? Better aim and shoot again) and repeat that twice? If a guy with a knife is 20 feet away from you and charges you, you do not have that kind of time.

I just don't buy it, and it would take quite a bit to convince me given the weight of the evidence and expertise going the other way.

There are definitely police forces in Europe that shoot at legs when possible. This idea its the world's most impossible task comes from the police themselves.

Police shootings are typically at close range (i.e. in this case), its not like they are having duals at the ok corral in most shootings.

https://www.policeone.com/use-of-for...sv5zP5OCCcKZt/

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

There are definitely police forces in Europe that shoot at legs when possible. This idea its the world's most impossible task comes from the police themselves.

This isn't totally implausible, but it just strikes me as the same argument anti-vaccine people make about drug companies - sure, they want you to believe the vaccines are safe, because it serves their financial interests. And the response is, sure, but they're also the ones with all the expertise and experience.

Police shootings are typically at close range (i.e. in this case), its not like they are having duals at the ok corral in most shootings.

It would be easier if they did. I could actually sort of see the logic of a pre-emptive shot at the upper thigh area from a reasonable distance against a non-moving target with a weapon. The problem with that is that the current operating theory is that you don't start shooting until they're charging at you, and at that point it's too late to make those sorts of decisions. Is it worth re-thinking that? Maybe. But it will result in more people being shot.

https://www.policeone.com/use-of-for...sv5zP5OCCcKZt/

Why is it that these rebuttals all take the form of deeply implausible anecdotes? First, the guy repeats the statement that police in North America are trained to shoot "two in the chest, one in the head", which as far as I'm aware isn't true at all - our police are trained to just keep shooting them center mass until they no longer pose a threat. Shooting someone in the head has all the same problems as shooting them in the leg. Then they fail to address any of the concerns that are brought up literally every time someone makes this argument?

I can believe that there are certain police forces that try to implement a non-lethal shooting protocol but I can't imagine it being effective, you're just trading higher fataility rates for the perpetrator for higher fatality and injury rates to others. Or so it seems to me.

It would be really nice for one of CP's resident police officers to weigh in on this. Or anyone with extensive experience using handguns.

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

There is no translator in the police department?

There are 6500 different languages spoken in this world; the onus is on you to learn the most basic phrases used in the country you reside in. It really irks me when people fail to do this then blame the police for not communicating.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

There is no translator in the police department?

Most PS's have access to a translation service. There may be someone working who can speak multiple languages, but they may not be free and able to help with any given specific call, so most rely on a translation service.

Most rely on a service provided through a cell phone. The officer would call the service, tell them what kind of language they need, the service finds a translator and then the phone is put on speaker so that the translator can hear both of them.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

There are 6500 different languages spoken in this world; the onus is on you to learn the most basic phrases used in the country you reside in. It really irks me when people fail to do this then blame the police for not communicating.

You actually think it was a language issue?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This isn't totally implausible, but it just strikes me as the same argument anti-vaccine people make about drug companies - sure, they want you to believe the vaccines are safe, because it serves their financial interests. And the response is, sure, but they're also the ones with all the expertise and experience.

It would be easier if they did. I could actually sort of see the logic of a pre-emptive shot at the upper thigh area from a reasonable distance against a non-moving target with a weapon. The problem with that is that the current operating theory is that you don't start shooting until they're charging at you, and at that point it's too late to make those sorts of decisions. Is it worth re-thinking that? Maybe. But it will result in more people being shot.

Why is it that these rebuttals all take the form of deeply implausible anecdotes? First, the guy repeats the statement that police in North America are trained to shoot "two in the chest, one in the head", which as far as I'm aware isn't true at all - our police are trained to just keep shooting them center mass until they no longer pose a threat. Shooting someone in the head has all the same problems as shooting them in the leg. Then they fail to address any of the concerns that are brought up literally every time someone makes this argument?

I can believe that there are certain police forces that try to implement a non-lethal shooting protocol but I can't imagine it being effective, you're just trading higher fataility rates for the perpetrator for higher fatality and injury rates to others. Or so it seems to me.

It would be really nice for one of CP's resident police officers to weigh in on this. Or anyone with extensive experience using handguns.

I’m your huckleberry. Actually Corsi, you’ve done a pretty job covering most of the points raised by Itse. All I can do is speak from personal experience and my training. First, as Corsi has pointed out, it is difficult to shoot a pistol accurately and takes substantial training and practice to become and maintain proficiency. That’s in a controlled environment like a range. Second, it is incredibly difficult to shoot a pistol accurately, after physical exertion and stress. Fine motor functions diminish as your body goes into fight or flight mode. Now, add in a person who is charging at you with a knife and you’ve now added a moving target.

I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m simply saying it’d be insanely difficult and would like result in more misses than hits.

I can’t speak for other police agencies but no, my agency is not trained specifically to shoot two rounds to the body one round to the head. The purpose of discharging your firearm is to stop the threat. If a person was wearing body armour for instance, rounds to centre mass may not be effective so a round to the head may have to be utilized. Again as Corsi mentioned, it’s a smaller target so more chance of a miss.

In all critical incidents, less lethal options are considered where possible. It appears that was the case in this incident as well.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't recall seeing this when you posted it the first time, but I'm not sure I can accept two pieces of anecdotal evidence as a rebuttal to the consensus view of those who train people in the use of handguns. Maybe I would be convinced if I could read the links, but they're in finnish.

Google translate does exist and is really quick.

Järvenpää situation:

The armed man did not obey the police's order to raise his hands when the police had persuaded the man to give up his weapon, says journalist Tuija Nieminen, who was in Yle's presence. He adds that the man had shouted to the police "I want to die."

In connection with the arrest, police fired one shot that hit the man in the thigh. The detainee received first aid on site and has been taken to hospital for treatment.

The highway situatio is a bit longer, but here's a couple of other ones from

Suonenjoki-shooting

The man was armed and, despite the order, did not give up the gun, which is why the police shot the man in the leg.

The person is suspected at this stage of at least a firearms offense and violent resistance by an official.

and Kotka situation...

GOogle translate:

SHOOTING The police have had to use a firearm in Kotka for a man in Alakylä on July 27, 2018 after 11 pm. The police patrol that went to the home alarm had been threatened with a gun and in order to break the resistance, the police shot the person who threatened them in the leg.

Corsi:

I tend to doubt it though. Even the anecdote makes little sense to me - the perpetrator is stabbing a woman, so he takes aim, shoots, hits the guy in the leg. He's still attacking her, so he aims carefully again, hits him in the hand (unclear how the hell that happened, unless it was dumb luck). Both of those bullets could have hit the woman, but didn't. So he's still stabbing her. Then the officer finally shoots him in the chest, stopping the attack.

It only doesn't make sense to you because you've already accepted as truth something which isn't true about how difficult it is to aim and hit something like a leg, and the behavior of the motorcycle police in that example doesn't match with your preconception of "normal" policing.

I would also like to point out that no news article and only very few social media comments in Finland drew attention to the fact that an essentially randomly picked police officer who just happened to drive to the scene and had to react to a life-or-death situation within seconds fired three shots and made three (at least partial) hits on someone who was moving.

Let me just say that again: NOBODY IN FINLAND THOUGHT THAT A POLICE OFFICER SHOOTING LIKE THAT WAS SOMETHING SPECIAL. Because it isn't special.

If you accept that an average cop is expected to be able to take aimed shots at peoples legs in action and mostly hit what their aiming at, then there's nothing that surprising about a police officer who can on top of that take an aimed shot at someones flailing hand and hit. In the Finnish context, that's not "marksmanship", but rather it's just somewhat above the minimum proficiency for people in his profession.


If you accept that you have made a mistake in who you believe and choose to accept that I'm not trying to lie to you and I do know what I'm talking about when I say that seriously the Finnish police, and at least the Swedish police, Norwegian police, German police and Spanish police are all trained to shoot at people's legs and they all very consistently succeed in it, then you have to accept that this is a viable choice and that training the police to primarily shoot to kill is not necessary.

"Aim at center mass and keep firing" is something you teach to people who need to use a weapon they're not properly trained for, or when you want to teach people to effectively and reliably kill people. In many countries it would be unfathomable to have something like that as police procedure. It's not "only in America", there are many other countries that do what you do, but it's still unnecessary use of force and therefore bad and wrong.

The "consensus" you are talking about doesn't exist if you exit the American state of mind and American discussion, and if a "professional" tells you that it's unrealistic to aim for the legs in real life, they're just objectively wrong.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

Corsi:
It only doesn't make sense to you because you've already accepted as truth something which isn't true about how difficult it is to aim and hit something like a leg, and the behavior of the motorcycle police in that example doesn't match with your preconception of "normal" policing.

This isn't true, though. First, an acknowledgment. I am certainly predisposed to continue believing what I have believed previously, as we all are, and I certainly concede that - it's why I said it would take significant evidence to move me off this belief. Of course, that's not impossible - I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong. I'm just saying it would take a lot, and the anecdotes provided so far have actually not responded to the substantive points I've raised... well, really, I didn't raise them. They're sort of the general wisdom that is often raised in this context.

Second, more importantly, the reason that it doesn't make sense to me is that it doesn't jive with what I understand about the use of firearms - namely, it being generally much more difficult than most people think to actually hit a target, much less a moving one, in controlled circumstances, and the arms and legs of a human being obviously move more quickly and less predictably than their torso. Just as convincingly to me, what I know about human physiology. When an adrenaline rush occurs, the human body does not respond in a way that is conducive to shooting a handgun accurately. Muscles tense and are more twitchy and harder to get under control. Pupils widen, affecting vision. Heart rate increases. This is why it's harder, for example, to get your keys into a lock when you feel you're being pursued. Finally, with respect to the policy itself, it's simply not the case that shooting someone in the leg will cause them to be reliably incapacitated. Even shooting someone in the chest doesn't reliably do that, but at least in that case a shot has some stopping force. Shooting someone, stopping to evaluate whether they're incapacitated, then firing again and repeating the process, just does not seem like a remotely realistic strategy to implement on a broad scale (even if it works in some idiosyncratic situation).

So, while I acknowledge that I have a pre-existing bias about this, the reason that I'm hesitant to throw out my existing beliefs as a result of a few anecdotes is not so much that bias, but the actual reasoning behind the pre-existing belief. The anecdotes I've seen so far do not do a very good job of rebutting that reasoning.

I would also like to point out that no news article and only very few social media comments in Finland drew attention to the fact that an essentially randomly picked police officer who just happened to drive to the scene and had to react to a life-or-death situation within seconds fired three shots and made three (at least partial) hits on someone who was moving.

Let me just say that again: NOBODY IN FINLAND THOUGHT THAT A POLICE OFFICER SHOOTING LIKE THAT WAS SOMETHING SPECIAL. Because it isn't special.

This interpretation isn't particularly convincing to me, either. If someone thinks that hitting a guy in the leg, then hand, then chest with three consecutive shots isn't special, they don't know much about how hard it is to shoot a moving target. That's an incredible result. The data I am aware of is that police officers on average hit about one out of every four shots overall - a hit rate of 25% - and they're aiming at center mass, not an extraneous limb. As far as I can tell - and I have heard of no reason why I shouldn't think this - the only way that guy could have hit the moving hand of his suspect was dumb luck. That is, by all accounts, an amazing shot.

If you accept that an average cop is expected to be able to take aimed shots at peoples legs in action and mostly hit what their aiming at, then there's nothing that surprising about a police officer who can on top of that take an aimed shot at someones flailing hand and hit. In the Finnish context, that's not "marksmanship", but rather it's just somewhat above the minimum proficiency for people in his profession.

That's the thing - I don't accept this at all. Zulu29 seems to know at least something about this, and his reaction seems to bear out that I'm not completely off base when I say that this vastly overestimates the skill that can reasonably be expected of the average police officer. As a result of this gap in our respective understandings of what is normal, it stands to reason that we would come to wildly different conclusions about the appropriate standard of care for officers encountering people with weapons. Maybe it's simply a matter of inadequate firearms training - I'm open to the possibility - but I would need to hear from someone with expertise in firearms training who could explain what it would take, in comparison to what is done now, to train all police in Canada / the USA to shoot at that level, if it's even realistically possible.

I tried to look up peer reviewed research on this, and found a few items, all generally along the same lines as my existing view. However, the guy who is most associated with that research, a Dr. Bill Lewinski, appears to me to make his money primarily as an expert witness testifying on behalf of the police. I am not sure if that discredits the research, necessarily, but it makes me hesitant to rely on it. If there is some contrary research that you or anyone else is aware of that comes from a credible source, that might be interesting to read about.

If you accept that you have made a mistake in who you believe and choose to accept that I'm not trying to lie to you and I do know what I'm talking about

I didn't say you were trying to lie to me, I believe that these isolated events happened more or less as you've described, but I don't think they are sufficient to convince me that I've made a mistake in what I believe, after reviewing the reasons that I believe it. And, not to be blunt, but I am not totally convinced that you do know what you're talking about, because... well, what is it that you do for a living? I could be remembering wrong, and apologies if so, but I thought it was driving a taxi. I wouldn't expect that this would lead you to have a great deal of expertise in firearms handling. No more than me, anyway, which is saying very little.

[CaptainCrunch]

Just a quick thing, I'd like to see where the European police officers are taught or encouraged to shoot people in the leg or arm. Frankly pistols are not the most accurate things and there's a reason why people are trained to shoot to center mass.



Also in terms of sending in paramedics or social workers or whatever, the primary duty of the police is going to have to make sure its a safe environment, so in this case, and I would probably want to see a proper investigate, they talked about sending in paramedics and it not being safe.



Even if we change the process, its unlikely that a social worker is going to be sent into any situation without any kind of police escort, or a ensuring that the environment is safe before a health care worker is allowed anywhere near the situation.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

Police go to calls with guys who have duct tape knives to their hands and run at them as soon as they get there. But if they don't intervene, there is a high risk this individual harms themselves or leaves the residence and harms someone else. What should they do? Send in an un armed social worker to talk to a guy with a knife in his hand? Would you volunteer to be that social worker alone in a 600 square foot apartment with this person?

You have to think first responders and social workers aren't all that enthusiastic about proposals to de-fund police and hand over more responsibilities to their roles.

First responders have enough to concern themselves with when arriving at a scene without worrying about defending themselves from violent and deranged individuals. And most social workers are women, and do not feel safe being alone with violent and unpredictable men. My wife was certainly grateful police were available when one of the occupants of a group home she was responsible for threatened his roommates. In his berserk rage, it took four officers to take him down.

[GGG]

The question I have is did the police have the opportunity to retreat?

We clearly have a policy that the paramedics aren’t allowed to engage with an armed subject. We accept that a paramedic should not be providing there services when a subject is armed. In a scenario where this person was the only one in their apartment should the police engage him?

I think you would need to review all of these types of mental health events and see if self harm is more likely than harm during intervention and build policy based on the model that provides the least harm. Engaging, Tasing, Rubber bullets than shooting in this case may be the least harm method on average if the alternative was the person killing themselves.

I do find it a bit troubling that the first question we ask in these events is was the victim(not sure of right term here) a threat to the officer. I think the first question should be was it necessary to put a police officer in the situation where his life could be threatened.

I hope as part of the investigation they evaluate whether simply continuing to surveil the apartment and ensure that he doesn’t harm someone would be a better path. The other aspect would be to look at if this person had sufficient mental health resources around him to properly control his episodes. Part of the focus needs to be eliminate the incident entirely rather than just try to improve incident outcomes.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think your questions have pretty basic answers.

Why did they have to do anything?
Emergency services were called there by his family. Isn't it their responsibility at that point to check in on him to make sure he's okay? A guy flapping around with a knife isn't really okay.

I suppose he's a danger to himself but shooting him isnt a better alternative to just leaving him in there
Yeah, but I doubt they went in there with the goal of shooting him. A guy having a major mental health crisis and a weapon will likely need to be subdued. Things escalated. They tried non-lethal weapons on him by the sounds of things, then shot him when those didn't work and he was still coming at them.

Maybe they will end up getting training on how to handle things like this better in the future. But when cops are being attacked by a guy with a knife in close quarters, that is kinda the type of situation where it's not completely bananas for them to use their guns.

Yes but my point was why did the police choose to put themselves in close quarters with a guy with a knife in the first place? paramedics called them in so they know its a mental health call, they also know the guy doesnt speak english, his kids are there, in my mind the first question they should ask is 'does he have a hostage or is anyone else at risk?' once the answer comes back 'no' then at that point they have all the time in the world to come up with a better plan then 'lets borrow a ladder and climb up onto the 2nd floor balcony where we cant retreat and have no alternative but to shoot the old guy when he freaks out and attacks us', I mean common sense tells you time is your ally

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

There are 6500 different languages spoken in this world; the onus is on you to learn the most basic phrases used in the country you reside in. It really irks me when people fail to do this then blame the police for not communicating.

Have a slurpee please.