Police carry night sticks and pepper spray. They don't have to use their guns in this fashion.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
I've seen people not be impacted by pepper spray and have heard of people not being impacted by baton to the body (even the legs) because they were so hopped up on something. Maybe the use of taser may have worked (if they had them), but at this point, you can fault them for using force that they were authorized to use.
I think we need to look beyond these officers (who were put in extremely difficult positions and reacted the best way they could have) and look at the broader topic of what kind of responses our law enforcement sends to incidents where assailants with mental issues may be encountered. In a perfect world, we would have mental issue specialists accompany these officers in situations like this, but we know we don't have the resources for it.
Police carry night sticks and pepper spray. They don't have to use their guns in this fashion.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
We aren't talking about your hypothetical cop. We're discussing the specifics of this case. Which is unfolding as many of us predicted. Can't wait to see the sonic youth braintrust skew the facts into their neat little world where police enjoy shooting people. Should be a fun time!
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
knows that the last thing they ever want to do is use their weapon. And those who have shot or those who have justifiably killed a suspect are often very affected by it.
Having to protect the public while protectibg yourself every day is not easy, yet we expect officers to be perfect and seem to nitpick everything they do.
If a man is approaching you with a knife, this is what happens. it is what almost every one of us would do, even if we would be affected afterward by the outcome.
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
"as evidenced in that "I will fucking kill you" video and plethora of photos where these officers are aiming their rifles at unarmed protesters."
A 20 year veteran from a very small town that probably never saw or has been in a event like this. Then there is the idiot protested that had the BB rifle that he saw. (as mentioned quickly on morning Joe this morning)
He completely over reacted. He had worked 4-12 shifts there the last 4 days.
The St. Louis County Sgt who comes by and moves his weapon and moves him away from the protesters in one smooth swoop, definitely had his shit together.
From someone who has been on the unified multi agency multi jurisdictional command staff of many large events, all I can say is that this is one cluster f@@k in terms of communication and organization.
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
I think that the inference here is that "if you are coming at me to potentially kill me, then I am going to harm you and you may die". And yes, cops want to get home safe as does everyone. And no, cops don't want to kill a person because of situations just like this.
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
I never said it should be their top priority, but to expect them when attacked to not do everything to stop the threat is naïve. I have known cops well, and any one of them knew the risks and accepted them and for that matter would risk their lives in a second to try and save another's. But I don't think anyone should expect them not to do everything to ensure their safety when attacked once they have given warning and it is ignored like in this case with the guy coming at them with the knife. That is asking too much.
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
I think you're confusing secret service and a police officer, your life is on the line everyday but you don't put yourself in deadly situations without protecting yourself first. What should have the police officer done in your opinion.
I never said it should be their top priority, but to expect them when attacked to not do everything to stop the threat is naïve. I have known cops well, and any one of them knew the risks and accepted them and for that matter would risk their lives in a second to try and save another's. But I don't think anyone should expect them not to do everything to ensure their safety when attacked once they have given warning and it is ignored like in this case with the guy coming at them with the knife. That is asking too much.
And no one is saying that they shouldn't do what is authorized for them in situations like this. I just think that the argument that police officers also want to come home alive to their loved ones is a lame one that doesn't need to be used to justify the deadly force they may need to use...I mean, no shit they do...but so do steel workers, construction workers, and everyone else.
This situation seems justified as per my previous posts, so I'm not saying the police did anything wrong.
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
I think you're confusing secret service and a police officer, your life is on the line everyday but you don't put yourself in deadly situations without protecting yourself first. What should have the police officer done in your opinion.
Read my previous post to steve. I would say that the main thing is to serve your community in such profession, whether you are putting yourself in harms way or not.
and you accept that you are constrained in what you can do to respond to that risk even if it prevents you from mitigating that risk, but there is nothing unconscionable about your first priority being to get home to your family. That is what most servicemembers want. It's the familiar "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and there is a kernel of truth to it, but self-preservation isn't incompatible with doing the right thing.
...I mean, no shit they do...but so do steel workers, construction workers, and everyone else.
I am simply pointing that out to people that appear to not be taking that into any real consideration and are placing unreasonable demands upon them. Why take exception to it?
Read my previous post to steve. I would say that the main thing is to serve your community in such profession, whether you are putting yourself in harms way or not. [/quote]
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And who ever said it did?
I said if someone is attacking even after having been given warning from the officer then at that point the officer should be able to do everything in his power to defend himself without being criticized and told he shouldn't have. This shoot in the leg nonsense is simply naïve. Do you disagree with that?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Anyone who knows a cop.. Â
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
I already said that's nonsense. If I ever shoot at anyone, it will be center mass every time.
I was making a general point, not one specific to this shooting, but I'll say this much. People here are awfully quick to dismiss the lying in the cop's statement. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Quote:
pulled out a knife and came at the officers, gripping and holding it high, Dotson said.
That's clearly bullshit. Powell's arms are at his sides, so why the lie? The only reason I can think of is, of course, that the cops in question were having second thoughts as to the menace Powell posed. "Hey, let's just say that he raised the knife in the air like he's going to stab us!"
Maybe this was all kosher by the laws of Missouri. I don't know that, so I can't say. All I know is what my eyes see, which is that there doesn't appear to be nearly the threat that those two cops claimed.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Anyone who knows a cop.. Â
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
Well said....I'm unsure of other tools at their disposal, i.e. Tasers which I think are a great weapon to deploy in a situation like this. I just can't imagine being in that situation and having to make a decision like that in a split second.
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
That's clearly bullshit. Powell's arms are at his sides, so why the lie? The only reason I can think of is, of course, that the cops in question were having second thoughts as to the menace Powell posed. "Hey, let's just say that he raised the knife in the air like he's going to stab us!"
Maybe this was all kosher by the laws of Missouri. I don't know that, so I can't say. All I know is what my eyes see, which is that there doesn't appear to be nearly the threat that those two cops claimed.
Reminds me of this police shooting in Dallas.
Quote:
Spencer wrote in a police report that Bennett refused to drop the knife and moved toward him and another officer "in a threatening manner." Spencer says that's when he fired at Bennett four times from about 20 feet away, wounding him.
The video tells a different story. Although the police report says Bennett "lunged" at the officers with a knife, in the video he stands up from the chair but then doesn't appear to move at all until the gun is fired and he crumples to the ground.
The surveillance video doesn't include audio, and Spencer wrote in his report that Bennett yelled at them, "You all are gonna need more officers than this!" But it doesn't show that the incident "escalated, which led an officer to fire his weapon upon the individual," as police spokesman Warren Mitchell said in a statement a few hours after the shooting.
Chief Brown said in a statement Thursday night that Spencer has been placed on indefinite administrative leave pending a "thorough criminal investigation."
Dallas police said the man acted aggressively toward the officers, forcing them to shoot. But the video shows that he had his arms by his side and was yards away when officers started shooting.
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
Ronnie, well maybe we just misunderstood each other. U didn't mean to imply a policeman should ever not follow procedure and infringe on anyone rights because he want to ensure his safety. My only point is that these are people that want to go home at the end of the day. Yes they are willing to risk that to protect society but to ask them not to properly defend themselves is crazy.
military? How do you know this? My combat personnel are at the range at least 4 times a month training on M4s and M9s and my LE neighbor is also regularly at the range training. Not sure where you get your information, but all my experience tells me there is more than enough training.
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
You mistake me. I'm not saying that the police officer wanting to go home to his wife and children isn't important. But that shouldn't be his primary reason for killing someone if there are other options. One officer may view a situation different from another, and he may shoot first while another knows that there were other options. Maybe the first one's main priority was to go home safe to his family and it took precedence over all else (maybe due to poor training, poor decision making, lack of experience, etc.), while the second realized that although he also wants to go home to his family safe, he also knew better on what next step to take (better training, experience, decision making, etc.).
As I've stated, it isn't so clear and all situational dependent. However, as I've said multiple times, if your first priority is to be safe and you let that take precedence over all else, you're in the wrong line of work.
He obviously was the aggressor, had a knife and kept coming at them after repeated warnings all the while yelling shoot me which I would think would indicate they would have to shoot him in order to stop him.
My point is they were so obviously justified that they would have zero reason to lie. My thinking is in their mind holding it high maybe means high enough to be a threat. I don't automatically interpret it as they were trying to make up a reason because there simply is no reason for them to even consider doing that.
One thing no one mentions is that in these big cities, cops are Â
constantly under these types of situations. We just see the screw ups, but day in and day out they are dealing with this type of crap. Its kind of like Eli with no line. If you are constantly being threatened (or getting sacked in Eli's case), then I can understand being overly defensive and situations like this happening if the perpetrator doesn't follow directions. Its like Eli getting skittish in the pocket.
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
You mistake me. I'm not saying that the police officer wanting to go home to his wife and children isn't important. But that shouldn't be his primary reason for killing someone if there are other options. One officer may view a situation different from another, and he may shoot first while another knows that there were other options. Maybe the first one's main priority was to go home safe to his family and it took precedence over all else (maybe due to poor training, poor decision making, lack of experience, etc.), while the second realized that although he also wants to go home to his family safe, he also knew better on what next step to take (better training, experience, decision making, etc.).
As I've stated, it isn't so clear and all situational dependent. However, as I've said multiple times, if your first priority is to be safe and you let that take precedence over all else, you're in the wrong line of work.
I think we both just misinterpreted what each other was trying to say. I never said it should be their first priority and didn't mean to imply that if I did.
military? How do you know this? My combat personnel are at the range at least 4 times a month training on M4s and M9s and my LE neighbor is also regularly at the range training. Not sure where you get your information, but all my experience tells me there is more than enough training.
Yes, Marine with five years in an infantry battalion with three deployments to Iraq in various roles from platoon commander to advisor to an Iraqi Army battalion to battalion intelligence officer with my fair share of being in the shits. Then three more years working in the intelligence community as a liaison officer with a deployment to Afghanistan supporting conventional and task force elements.
And I was an EMP (Enhanced Marksmanship Program) and CMP (Combat Marksmanship Program) instructor for my infantry battalion focused on real world/stress fire training.
So I've seen my fair share of how weapons training is done at the combat unit level and just how many instance of waiver request have been submitted for Marines and sailors due to optempo constraints.
Unless your combat personnel are in the SOF community, I highly doubt that they spent four times a month at a range, which means that they probably don't have time for anything else.
I think we both just misinterpreted what each other was trying to say. I never said it should be their first priority and didn't mean to imply that if I did.
all intergrated with SOF Ops. I wasn't looking for your bona fides or deployment dates, I simply questioned a blanket statement about LE and Military. From what I've seen of LE (FBI, ICE), there's plenty of range time and tactical training. Either way, nothing can take the place of real-world experience.
the pro-cop guys see nothing wrong, the anti-cop guys think the cops are lying. Once again, the same people filtering the same information through their own prejudices and agendas and coming up with the same conclusions they always do.
And your average local law enforcement. Seems to me that it would be a mistake to assume that most police departments are anywhere near FBI standards when it comes to weapons.
all intergrated with SOF Ops. I wasn't looking for your bona fides or deployment dates, I simply questioned a blanket statement about LE and Military. From what I've seen of LE (FBI, ICE), there's plenty of range time and tactical training. Either way, nothing can take the place of real-world experience.
And your blanket statement of fire arms training for 90% of the military wasn't necessarily correct either. No harm done.
And as said before in other threads, you can have the greatest shooting ability (which I freely admit I do not possess), but if you can't make proper decision when to apply those abilities, you are just as dangerous or even more so than those without same level of shooting ability. And no amount of range time is ever going to make up for that.
the pro-cop guys see nothing wrong, the anti-cop guys think the cops are lying. Once again, the same people filtering the same information through their own prejudices and agendas and coming up with the same conclusions they always do.
Pretty depressing, really.
Sure.
You can think that the one piece of information where the police stated that he had the knife up and was coming at them was a lie and still believe after watching the video that they did nothing wrong.
Read for the nuance in people's posts instead of searching for "pro-cop" and "anti-cop" and you'll actually see it.
for your service. Not an easy job you did in Iraq, and sadly, the outcome is not one any of us wanted to see there! ISIL must be stopped.
Likewise, rebel.
Yeah, 2005-2007 in al Anbar (including time in Ramadi) wasn't so much fun. And seeing all of it come to shit at this point is disappointing, but in the end, you can only do so much for them. Too much politics involved in talking about my own feelings about the ISIL so I'll spare you from it...:)
why aren't cops carrying tazers? Couldn't they have been used in both cases, or are they not that effective?
From the article in the OP:
Quote:
CNN's Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo pushed Dotson on the officers' decision to use lethal force, rather than opting for an alternate form of defense like a Taser.
"Certainly a Taser is an option that's available to the officers, but Tasers aren't 100 percent," Dotson said. "So you've got an individual with a knife who's moving towards you, not listening to any verbal commands, continues, says, 'shoot me now, kill me now.' Tasers aren't 100 percent. if that Taser misses, that [individual] continues on and hurts an officer."
"In a lethal situation, they used lethal force," he added.
the pro-cop guys see nothing wrong, the anti-cop guys think the cops are lying. Once again, the same people filtering the same information through their own prejudices and agendas and coming up with the same conclusions they always do.
Pretty depressing, really.
I was critical of the NYC police that choked that man and stood by and watched him die. So in that case I was on the opposite side of the argument and didn't use any preconceived point of view. Maybe it is hard for you but it is possible for people to use discernment and be objective.
you're 9:12 post is along the lines what i was thinking. To be able to put 6 shots on target, Brown had to be very close, or the officer wasn't under that much "stress or duress"..
Can't see how a person who is supposedly beaten almost unconscious, under stress and putting 6 shots on target..
I'm totally fine with police firing in self defense. I'm not as fine with the number of shots.
9 shots? The 1st 7 were excessive enough, but I'll let it slide as it happens quickly. But the last two were clearly fired when the target was prone on the ground. Those were kill shots, as if the 1st 7 didn't already do the job.
there is a situation where a teenager caught stealing at a Food lion was shot with a taser and died.
Of course, the cries of police brutality and why did they taser him instead of just pepper spray him have been going on for a while.
In my opinion, when you are in a confrontation with an officer, being anything but compliant puts you at risk of serious injury and death.
Why put yourself in a position where you have to force a person with the ability to kill you to decide whether or not to use deadly force, or even other means of force that can still cause severe harm. Tasers and pepper spray can still kill you.
What it sounds like your saying, like that cop who posted his statement on the Washington Post, whenever a cop just decides he want to stop you, question, whatever, we should let him do do it?..
What it sounds like your saying, like that cop who posted his statement on the Washington Post, whenever a cop just decides he want to stop you, question, whatever, we should let him do do it?..
Or maybe he is saying to not attack a policeman.
Your example in Charlotte does sound like people being stupid. Â
Why put yourself in a position where you have to force a person with the ability to kill you to decide whether or not to use deadly force, or even other means of force that can still cause severe harm. Tasers and pepper spray can still kill you.
while true, completely ignores the actual question at hand re: Lethal force.
Tasers and pepper spray are much less lethal than guns, no? Police are trained and expected to respond with the appropriate amount of force needed- and they should be held accountable when they go beyond the force necessary for the situation.
It's already known that the guy in this situation put himself in the situation where force was required to subdue him.
So the question is, did the police respond with appropriate force for the situation?
Other than the lie about him having the knife raised in a manner in which it looked like he would strike an officer, I don't think the police did anything wrong here. They were required to make a split second decision to protect themselves.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
I've seen people not be impacted by pepper spray and have heard of people not being impacted by baton to the body (even the legs) because they were so hopped up on something. Maybe the use of taser may have worked (if they had them), but at this point, you can fault them for using force that they were authorized to use.
I think we need to look beyond these officers (who were put in extremely difficult positions and reacted the best way they could have) and look at the broader topic of what kind of responses our law enforcement sends to incidents where assailants with mental issues may be encountered. In a perfect world, we would have mental issue specialists accompany these officers in situations like this, but we know we don't have the resources for it.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
Who specifically? Please provide names.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
Having to protect the public while protectibg yourself every day is not easy, yet we expect officers to be perfect and seem to nitpick everything they do.
If a man is approaching you with a knife, this is what happens. it is what almost every one of us would do, even if we would be affected afterward by the outcome.
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
A 20 year veteran from a very small town that probably never saw or has been in a event like this. Then there is the idiot protested that had the BB rifle that he saw. (as mentioned quickly on morning Joe this morning)
He completely over reacted. He had worked 4-12 shifts there the last 4 days.
The St. Louis County Sgt who comes by and moves his weapon and moves him away from the protesters in one smooth swoop, definitely had his shit together.
From someone who has been on the unified multi agency multi jurisdictional command staff of many large events, all I can say is that this is one cluster f@@k in terms of communication and organization.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
Quote:
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
Quote:
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
I never said it should be their top priority, but to expect them when attacked to not do everything to stop the threat is naïve. I have known cops well, and any one of them knew the risks and accepted them and for that matter would risk their lives in a second to try and save another's. But I don't think anyone should expect them not to do everything to ensure their safety when attacked once they have given warning and it is ignored like in this case with the guy coming at them with the knife. That is asking too much.
Quote:
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
I think you're confusing secret service and a police officer, your life is on the line everyday but you don't put yourself in deadly situations without protecting yourself first. What should have the police officer done in your opinion.
And no one is saying that they shouldn't do what is authorized for them in situations like this. I just think that the argument that police officers also want to come home alive to their loved ones is a lame one that doesn't need to be used to justify the deadly force they may need to use...I mean, no shit they do...but so do steel workers, construction workers, and everyone else.
This situation seems justified as per my previous posts, so I'm not saying the police did anything wrong.
Quote:
In comment 11817557 Joeguido said:
Quote:
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
I think you're confusing secret service and a police officer, your life is on the line everyday but you don't put yourself in deadly situations without protecting yourself first. What should have the police officer done in your opinion.
Read my previous post to steve. I would say that the main thing is to serve your community in such profession, whether you are putting yourself in harms way or not.
I am simply pointing that out to people that appear to not be taking that into any real consideration and are placing unreasonable demands upon them. Why take exception to it?
Read my previous post to steve. I would say that the main thing is to serve your community in such profession, whether you are putting yourself in harms way or not. [/quote]
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
And who ever said it did?
I said if someone is attacking even after having been given warning from the officer then at that point the officer should be able to do everything in his power to defend himself without being criticized and told he shouldn't have. This shoot in the leg nonsense is simply naïve. Do you disagree with that?
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
I was making a general point, not one specific to this shooting, but I'll say this much. People here are awfully quick to dismiss the lying in the cop's statement. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
That's clearly bullshit. Powell's arms are at his sides, so why the lie? The only reason I can think of is, of course, that the cops in question were having second thoughts as to the menace Powell posed. "Hey, let's just say that he raised the knife in the air like he's going to stab us!"
Maybe this was all kosher by the laws of Missouri. I don't know that, so I can't say. All I know is what my eyes see, which is that there doesn't appear to be nearly the threat that those two cops claimed.
Quote:
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
Well said....I'm unsure of other tools at their disposal, i.e. Tasers which I think are a great weapon to deploy in a situation like this. I just can't imagine being in that situation and having to make a decision like that in a split second.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
Maybe this was all kosher by the laws of Missouri. I don't know that, so I can't say. All I know is what my eyes see, which is that there doesn't appear to be nearly the threat that those two cops claimed.
Reminds me of this police shooting in Dallas.
The video tells a different story. Although the police report says Bennett "lunged" at the officers with a knife, in the video he stands up from the chair but then doesn't appear to move at all until the gun is fired and he crumples to the ground.
The surveillance video doesn't include audio, and Spencer wrote in his report that Bennett yelled at them, "You all are gonna need more officers than this!" But it doesn't show that the incident "escalated, which led an officer to fire his weapon upon the individual," as police spokesman Warren Mitchell said in a statement a few hours after the shooting.
Chief Brown said in a statement Thursday night that Spencer has been placed on indefinite administrative leave pending a "thorough criminal investigation."
Dallas police said the man acted aggressively toward the officers, forcing them to shoot. But the video shows that he had his arms by his side and was yards away when officers started shooting.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
Ronnie, well maybe we just misunderstood each other. U didn't mean to imply a policeman should ever not follow procedure and infringe on anyone rights because he want to ensure his safety. My only point is that these are people that want to go home at the end of the day. Yes they are willing to risk that to protect society but to ask them not to properly defend themselves is crazy.
Quote:
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
You mistake me. I'm not saying that the police officer wanting to go home to his wife and children isn't important. But that shouldn't be his primary reason for killing someone if there are other options. One officer may view a situation different from another, and he may shoot first while another knows that there were other options. Maybe the first one's main priority was to go home safe to his family and it took precedence over all else (maybe due to poor training, poor decision making, lack of experience, etc.), while the second realized that although he also wants to go home to his family safe, he also knew better on what next step to take (better training, experience, decision making, etc.).
As I've stated, it isn't so clear and all situational dependent. However, as I've said multiple times, if your first priority is to be safe and you let that take precedence over all else, you're in the wrong line of work.
He obviously was the aggressor, had a knife and kept coming at them after repeated warnings all the while yelling shoot me which I would think would indicate they would have to shoot him in order to stop him.
My point is they were so obviously justified that they would have zero reason to lie. My thinking is in their mind holding it high maybe means high enough to be a threat. I don't automatically interpret it as they were trying to make up a reason because there simply is no reason for them to even consider doing that.
Quote:
In comment 11817581 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
You mistake me. I'm not saying that the police officer wanting to go home to his wife and children isn't important. But that shouldn't be his primary reason for killing someone if there are other options. One officer may view a situation different from another, and he may shoot first while another knows that there were other options. Maybe the first one's main priority was to go home safe to his family and it took precedence over all else (maybe due to poor training, poor decision making, lack of experience, etc.), while the second realized that although he also wants to go home to his family safe, he also knew better on what next step to take (better training, experience, decision making, etc.).
As I've stated, it isn't so clear and all situational dependent. However, as I've said multiple times, if your first priority is to be safe and you let that take precedence over all else, you're in the wrong line of work.
I think we both just misinterpreted what each other was trying to say. I never said it should be their first priority and didn't mean to imply that if I did.
So was that your thinking before you saw the video?
If not, you're doing nothing more than altering your theory to match the outcome you're seeking.
Yes, Marine with five years in an infantry battalion with three deployments to Iraq in various roles from platoon commander to advisor to an Iraqi Army battalion to battalion intelligence officer with my fair share of being in the shits. Then three more years working in the intelligence community as a liaison officer with a deployment to Afghanistan supporting conventional and task force elements.
And I was an EMP (Enhanced Marksmanship Program) and CMP (Combat Marksmanship Program) instructor for my infantry battalion focused on real world/stress fire training.
So I've seen my fair share of how weapons training is done at the combat unit level and just how many instance of waiver request have been submitted for Marines and sailors due to optempo constraints.
Unless your combat personnel are in the SOF community, I highly doubt that they spent four times a month at a range, which means that they probably don't have time for anything else.
Yeah, I realized that after your 10:18 post...:)
Pretty depressing, really.
And your blanket statement of fire arms training for 90% of the military wasn't necessarily correct either. No harm done.
And as said before in other threads, you can have the greatest shooting ability (which I freely admit I do not possess), but if you can't make proper decision when to apply those abilities, you are just as dangerous or even more so than those without same level of shooting ability. And no amount of range time is ever going to make up for that.
Did you watch the video? It is pretty clear that he was continuing towards them when shot.
Pretty depressing, really.
Sure.
You can think that the one piece of information where the police stated that he had the knife up and was coming at them was a lie and still believe after watching the video that they did nothing wrong.
Read for the nuance in people's posts instead of searching for "pro-cop" and "anti-cop" and you'll actually see it.
Likewise, rebel.
Yeah, 2005-2007 in al Anbar (including time in Ramadi) wasn't so much fun. And seeing all of it come to shit at this point is disappointing, but in the end, you can only do so much for them. Too much politics involved in talking about my own feelings about the ISIL so I'll spare you from it...:)
From the article in the OP:
"Certainly a Taser is an option that's available to the officers, but Tasers aren't 100 percent," Dotson said. "So you've got an individual with a knife who's moving towards you, not listening to any verbal commands, continues, says, 'shoot me now, kill me now.' Tasers aren't 100 percent. if that Taser misses, that [individual] continues on and hurts an officer."
"In a lethal situation, they used lethal force," he added.
Pretty depressing, really.
I was critical of the NYC police that choked that man and stood by and watched him die. So in that case I was on the opposite side of the argument and didn't use any preconceived point of view. Maybe it is hard for you but it is possible for people to use discernment and be objective.
Can't see how a person who is supposedly beaten almost unconscious, under stress and putting 6 shots on target..
9 shots? The 1st 7 were excessive enough, but I'll let it slide as it happens quickly. But the last two were clearly fired when the target was prone on the ground. Those were kill shots, as if the 1st 7 didn't already do the job.
Of course, the cries of police brutality and why did they taser him instead of just pepper spray him have been going on for a while.
In my opinion, when you are in a confrontation with an officer, being anything but compliant puts you at risk of serious injury and death.
Why put yourself in a position where you have to force a person with the ability to kill you to decide whether or not to use deadly force, or even other means of force that can still cause severe harm. Tasers and pepper spray can still kill you.
Or maybe he is saying to not attack a policeman.
while true, completely ignores the actual question at hand re: Lethal force.
Tasers and pepper spray are much less lethal than guns, no? Police are trained and expected to respond with the appropriate amount of force needed- and they should be held accountable when they go beyond the force necessary for the situation.
It's already known that the guy in this situation put himself in the situation where force was required to subdue him.
So the question is, did the police respond with appropriate force for the situation?
Other than the lie about him having the knife raised in a manner in which it looked like he would strike an officer, I don't think the police did anything wrong here. They were required to make a split second decision to protect themselves.