When are police killings justified?

bluesjnr said:
Coming from the UK originally, I would imagine this case would have been dealt with by way of evacuating the immediate area, calling back-up for containment then calming down the perp prior to arrest. That is not to say that the UK police don't get it very wrong on occasion.
Click to expand...
And just how do you evacuate the immediate area when there is a sword-wielding psycho in the area? Tell the psycho to sit tight while we evacuate everyone around?
 
rockinkt said:
I do know for a fact that "...a man armed with weapons in a busy residential area, acting in a dangerous, violent and irrational manner*". (*Direct quote from Coroner Audrey Jamieson's report)
is not one that can be let to wander too long without some sort of police intervention.

<sarcasm> I suggest that a test be conducted where Coroner Audrey Jamieson is confronted by a man armed with weapons in a busy residential area, acting in a dangerous, violent and irrational manner. If she is still alive at the hospital - maybe she could then give us her thoughts on how the situation should have been handled.<sarcasm>
Click to expand...

What the hell?

The coroner reported on how the man died. The policeman who killed him reported how he supposedly killed him. The coroner's report on the man's death contradicts the policeman's report on how he killed him.

This is a basic conflict of reality. Unfortunately, when reality contradicts anecdote, anecdote is always wrong.

Your sarcastic and stupid suggestion is just adding crazy to this discussion. The coroner reported on how the alleged assaulter died. That is fact. Are you suggesting that the coroner should have LIED?
 
Information Analyst said:
I recently r-ewatched a 1993 documentary about the South African police flying squad in Soweto in the last days of apartheid, in which one officer stated that if facing a hostile crowd brandishing anything other than firearms, they were suppose to shoot for the legs in the first instance. Whether they actual did might be another question, but that was what their guidelines were.

In relation to swords there was the similar case in the UK of Simon Murden, who - under the influence of drugs and sleep deprivation - drove his van the wrong way up a dual carriageway and eventually crashed. Armed police arrived on the scene, and when Murden was 14 metres from them, he brandished an African sword. He was shot twice with baton rounds (plastic bullets) to no effect. Another officer then shot Murden twice using a Heckler & Koch MP5 semi-automatic carbine. When Murden did not react, he shot him twice more, which caused him collapse to his knees. When he got up again, the officer fired twice more, and Murden collapsed to the ground. Officers claimed that he appeared to try to get up, whilst pointing the sword in their direction. He was shot three more time. At this point he was still 9 metres away from the officers. A coroner ruled it justifiable homicide, but to me it seems that under the circumstances only the first four live rounds were fully justified. Just because he got to his feet after that doesn't mean he was in a position to immediately harm anyone, given the distance between himself and the officers. This is even more pertinent with shots 7-9, when he was on the ground and merely pointing the sword at the officers.
Click to expand...
my bold

I guess you never heard of someone throwing a sword? :)
People under the influence of certain drugs - or even high levels of adrenaline - can do some pretty amazing things - even with numerous bullets in them.
 
The complexities of such incidents can be very difficult to understand even if one has access to all the facts, much more so if one is trying to glean them from often-inaccurate media accounts.

A post above questions the shooting of the suspect in the "upper back" if he were supposed to be advancing on the officer. One can easily envision a scenario where the individual was swinging the weapons back and forth in a threatening manner, with the upper torso twisting from side to side...

Police officers are inculcated with the "21-foot-rule" in which it is noted that a sufficiently-trained or motivated attacker can cover that distance in a very short time, often quicker than the officer can draw and fire his weapon.
Further, the general public's view of firearm effectiveness is conditioned by movies and TV, where individuals who are shot even with small-caliber firearms fall to the ground and die instantly.
Alas, in real life this is not often the case, and there are many instances of individuals absorbing a considerable amount of gunfire without noticeably incapacitating them.

There is a disturbing increase in the phenomenon of "suicide by cop" in recent years, with individuals deliberately confronting officers with deadly weapons to provoke a shooting.
The Taser has been effective in stopping some of these individuals, but for an officer confronting one of these people alone and without backup, the Taser is a poor choice of weapon.
 
Dave Rogers said:
If he was an immediate threat to the officer firing the shot, how did the shot hit him in the back?

Dave
Click to expand...
This happened in the middle of a large city, not in some desolate place in the outback. He had his back to the cop, but he was surely headed towards other people.
 
GreyICE said:
What the hell?

The coroner reported on how the man died. The policeman who killed him reported how he supposedly killed him. The coroner's report on the man's death contradicts the policeman's report on how he killed him.

This is a basic conflict of reality. Unfortunately, when reality contradicts anecdote, anecdote is always wrong.

Your sarcastic and stupid suggestion is just adding crazy to this discussion. The coroner reported on how the alleged assaulter died. That is fact. Are you suggesting that the coroner should have LIED?
Click to expand...

The coroner's report on the man's death contradicts the policeman's report on how he killed him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can link me to the evidence that the policeman gave and the coroner's report contradicting it?
I certainly did not find that information contained in the link that the OP gave.
 
Bikewer said:
The complexities of such incidents can be very difficult to understand even if one has access to all the facts, much more so if one is trying to glean them from often-inaccurate media accounts.

A post above questions the shooting of the suspect in the "upper back" if he were supposed to be advancing on the officer. One can easily envision a scenario where the individual was swinging the weapons back and forth in a threatening manner, with the upper torso twisting from side to side...

Police officers are inculcated with the "21-foot-rule" in which it is noted that a sufficiently-trained or motivated attacker can cover that distance in a very short time, often quicker than the officer can draw and fire his weapon.
Further, the general public's view of firearm effectiveness is conditioned by movies and TV, where individuals who are shot even with small-caliber firearms fall to the ground and die instantly.
Alas, in real life this is not often the case, and there are many instances of individuals absorbing a considerable amount of gunfire without noticeably incapacitating them.

There is a disturbing increase in the phenomenon of "suicide by cop" in recent years, with individuals deliberately confronting officers with deadly weapons to provoke a shooting.
The Taser has been effective in stopping some of these individuals, but for an officer confronting one of these people alone and without backup, the Taser is a poor choice of weapon.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
Here is when Police really ought to shoot someone:

Yet another maroon is on the San Diego/Coronado Bridge, or Golden Gate Bridge, threatening to jump and thus commit suicide. Officers ought to discharge their civic duty to aid a citizen in distress (life distresses jumper way too much, obviously) and unclog the ensuing traffic jam, buy discharging their weapons into the prospective jumper until jumper falls off bridge. This has the added benefit of feeding some of the marine life in the waters under the bridge. Very eco friendly, and in CA, you want to be eco friendly. As a bonus, many of the cars won't keep sitting there at idle, polluting the air and jacking up the carbon footprint.

There is no downside to this.

Would I offer you a downside?​


(One hopes the Colbertesque/SNL/Onionesque tone came across on the interwebz. I also wish Tragic Monkey has posted something along these lines, since it would have been funnier (or even funny in the first place)).
 
Last edited:
We had a similar incident here a few months ago, except in our case the perp was wielding a large knife. The cops didn't shoot until he grabbed an elderly man as a hostage, at which point the police killed him. In fact, one of the cops accidentally shot his partner in the melee. Fortunately his vest saved him.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/08/2-shot-outside-loop-tv-studio.html

There was certainly no talk here of charging the officers involved with manslaughter.
 
WildCat said:
And just how do you evacuate the immediate area when there is a sword-wielding psycho in the area? Tell the psycho to sit tight while we evacuate everyone around?
Click to expand...


I don't know - shoot at them maybe, if you have seen my other post you'll know that Victoria Police are pretty famed for that approach. :D

Why are you asking me? I work in forestry how the hell should I know? I tend to leave that to the police. Of course if you have any idea, do share.

Lets posit though. All the people in the area that he has passed through are evacuated in case he returns. All the people in the area that he is heading to are evacuated prior to him arriving. The people in the immediate area are advised via PA to stay indoors, lock doors and windows until told otherwise.

This would require back up of course - something that wasn't even considered by the officers concerned and very possibly an operational error.

So, how did I do?
 
Last edited:
bluesjnr said:
I don't know - shoot at them maybe, if you have seen my other post you'll know that Victoria Police are pretty famed for that approach. :D

Why are you asking me? I work in forestry how the hell should I know? I tend to leave that to the police. Of course if you have any idea, do share.

Lets posit though. All the people in the area that he has passed through are evacuated in case he returns. All the people in the area that he is heading to are evacuated prior to him arriving. The people in the immediate area are advised via PA to stay indoors, lock doors and windows until told otherwise.

This would require back up of course - something that wasn't even considered by the officers concerned and very possibly an operational error.

So, how did I do?
Click to expand...
You are making an assumption that no one is at risk right now, and that there is time to summon hundreds of backup officers to do the job you envision.
 
lionking said:
A coroner in Melbourne has just found that a police officer may have committed an offence when he shot dead a man wielding two swords in a busy Melbourne street.

I'm watching an Australian ABC Four Corners show analysing police killings like this aimed at showing the culpability of police when confronting violent, albeit psychotic, people. [/COLOR]

I'm afraid I have very little sympathy for people killed by police in these circumstances. What say you?
Click to expand...

So did want the cop to throw feathers at him or something?

The guy was probably nuts. Sometimes bad things happen when you are a nut with a sword.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
You are making an assumption that no one is at risk right now, and that there is time to summon hundreds of backup officers to do the job you envision.
Click to expand...

I wonder if I'm getting it wrong because I'm only opining and have no experience in of this kind of thing. I'm sure I stated categorically at the outset that there is not enough information to really give an informed opinion. I wonder what the point of this exchange is and regret giving you the opportunity to pick holes in my "here's what the UK police might have done" scenario. As I said, if you know better..............

You are making an assumption that other than the police officer who put himself in danger there were more people at risk and time was short. You don't know and neither do I.

ETA : Sorry if I come across as snarky, I don't mean to be. It's late here and I'm a little cranky with too much coffee
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5243767&postcount=41

I assumed you had been following the thread. My bad.
Click to expand...

I assumed you could read and understand plainly written English - my bad.

I also assumed that you understood what "contradicts" means.
Perhaps you could point out where the coroner states that the person was not advancing towards the police officer as the officer stated?
(Hint: That would be contradicting the officer's statement).

The fact that you and RPG Advocate do not understand that someone may advance and show his back to you while he is advancing due to weaving or over-reaching while swinging a large sword is obvious. Use your imagination.

The fact that RPG Advocate takes a hysterical stance is not reason enough for me or you or anyone else to assume anybody is lying - much less should be charged with murder
 
rockinkt said:
I assumed you could read and understand plainly written English - my bad.

I also assumed that you understood what "contradicts" means.
Perhaps you could point out where the coroner states that the person was not advancing towards the police officer as the officer stated?
(Hint: That would be contradicting the officer's statement).
Click to expand...
he was shot in the upper back
Click to expand...

Anatomy fail.
The fact that you and RPG Advocate do not understand that someone may advance and show his back to you while he is advancing due to weaving or over-reaching while swinging a large sword is obvious. Use your imagination.
Click to expand...
Uh... what? You are aware that if someone is close enough that he could swing a sword, there'd be powder burns from a gun discharge, right?

You're just making stuff up right now. The coroner says that the evidence on the body directly contradicts the story the policemen gave to everyone.

That's a science contradicting anecdote issue. Science always wins.

I will always take the report of a trained medical professional over the report of one witness with no small amount of bias, in a situation that was probably stressful.
The fact that RPG Advocate takes a hysterical stance is not reason enough for me or you or anyone else to assume anybody is lying - much less should be charged with murder
Click to expand...
No, that'd be the coroner's report. The coroner does not recommend internal review of an incident on the basis of 'evidence consistent with testimony.' The fact that you didn't read the article makes this an issue for you.
 
Last edited:
<snip>
You are making an assumption that other than the police officer who put himself in danger there were more people at risk and time was short. You don't know and neither do I.
<snip>
Click to expand...

The coroner wrote: "...a man armed with weapons in a busy residential area, acting in a dangerous, violent and irrational manner
"

That makes it pretty clear to me that there needed to be an immediate decision regarding the question the officer had to ask himself:
"Do I do something now in case an innocent person walks into this situation and is grievously injured or killed by this armed and violent, irrational man; Or, do I take the chance that I can call in for back-up - hope they get here in time, and then have the time to evacuate the area so no innocent member of the public gets hurt?"

Split second decision. Glad I did not have to make it.

I'm not ready to throw this poor police officer to the ravening mob just yet.:)
 
Last edited:
bluesjnr said:
Victoria Police - 11,100 personnel

London Met - 31,400 personnel

New York PD - 33,838 personnel

Chicago PD - 13,400 personnel

South African Police - 90,000+ personnel
Click to expand...

For goodness sake, I said "one of the largest". My point stands.
 
rockinkt said:
The coroner wrote: "...a man armed with weapons in a busy residential area, acting in a dangerous, violent and irrational manner
"
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm really surprised at the number of people here who would have been willing to put the public at risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom