When are police killings justified?

[rockinkt]

Anatomy fail.
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.

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.

This is the report that the OP linked to:

Coroner slams police over fatal shooting
MELISSA IARIA, JON PIERIK AND MELISSA JENKINS
October 23, 2009
Ads by Google
StatoilHydro

A leading Oil & Gas Companyon the Norwegian Continental Shelf

StatoilHydro.com

AAP

A Victorian coroner has found police failed to follow proper training procedures when an officer fatally shot a man wielding two swords in a Melbourne street.

The Victorian police union seized on the finding, saying Taser stun guns could have prevented the death of 27-year-old Gregory Biggs in May 2004.

...snip...

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?

No - I am not aware of that. Perhaps you mean gunshot residue?
Only contact or near contact of the barrel with the skin or clothing would leave powder burns.
Fail for you.

A samurai sword can be easily put into deadly action from a distance of over 20 feet.

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.

I copied the Coroner's report that the OP link provided above. Perhaps you can point out your medical examiner's report and evidence in that report? Are you getting your information from some other link?

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

See above. You are obviously getting your information from a source other than what I and the OP are referring to.

According to the OP linked article: The coroner said that once Sgt Cahir decided to go it alone, he was left with only enough time to defend his own life and had no choice but to fire.

An internal review is recommended because the Coroner believes that the officer acted contrary to policy and training.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A samurai sword can be easily put into deadly action from a distance of over 20 feet.

I think you may be confusing the range at which a guy with a samurai sword can close with a police officer and strike before the police officer can shoot them with a currently holstered weapon, with the range at which a guy with a samurai sword can do that to someone who already has their firearm out, ready and aimed.

A guy with a samurai sword is a deadly threat if they are within 20 feet and your firearm is in its holster with the safety on because they could well kill you before you can fire a shot.

If your gun is already out, a guy with a samurai sword at 20 feet away is going to get shot if they try anything and if you can shoot straight.

 

[rockinkt]

I think you may be confusing the range at which a guy with a samurai sword can close with a police officer and strike before the police officer can shoot them with a currently holstered weapon, with the range at which a guy with a samurai sword can do that to someone who already has their firearm out, ready and aimed.

A guy with a samurai sword is a deadly threat if they are within 20 feet and your firearm is in its holster with the safety on because they could well kill you before you can fire a shot.

If your gun is already out, a guy with a samurai sword at 20 feet away is going to get shot if they try anything and if you can shoot straight.

Nope - A samurai sword can be thrown.

 

[tyr_13]

Anatomy fail.
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.

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.

It would be relatively easy to shoot someone in the upper back when swinging a 'samurai style' sword while advancing. This is especially true if the subject was 'unbalanced' and swinging each sword in one hand. Look at the picture I've posted. If the officer was in the direction of my swing on that strike, he would have been able to shoot me in the upper back.

I can't say that the coroner's report is correct or incorrect. Just because she's the 'scientist' doesn't mean she's right. I can't say the cop is correct or honest about the events either. Right now, based off of what I've read and in my opinion, both scenarios are possible.

Perhaps someone who has more medical experience could support the coroner's findings however.

 

[Eyeron]

Oh, this could be a good myth for Mythbusters to explore!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nope - A samurai sword can be thrown.

That sounds hilariously implausible to me, but I'm willing to look at the evidence. What's the evidence that a thrown samurai sword is a credible threat to an alert adult twenty feet away, to the extent that it merits the use of lethal force?

 

[WildCat]

Why is the coroner judging police procedures anyway? Don't you have police review boards or something similar that specialize in this sort of thing? Or even a police internal review board?

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Reminds me of this police killing, in Copenhagen earlier this year.

That may regrettably have been necessary and inevitable once the situation arose. But I still have this feeling of uneasiness in the presence of police, especially since earlier this year, the state legal department tasked with prosecuting these matters basically stated that they might as well stop - not a single police officer had been found guilty in recent history. Including this case, which disturbs me greatly, since it has since come to light that the deceased individual was on the floor at the time he was shot, with a police dog subduing him and armed with a Swiss Army knife which wasn't even fully opened.

I apologise for the quality of the links, best references I could find in English.

So, cases like this cause me to think, whenever I see a police officer: "There's someone who could kill me right now if he / she wanted - and get away with it."

Sad state of affairs. IMO more resources should be allocated to the training and pay checks for these people. That, coupled with more accountability when it does go wrong.

 

[tyr_13]

That sounds hilariously implausible to me, but I'm willing to look at the evidence. What's the evidence that a thrown samurai sword is a credible threat to an alert adult twenty feet away, to the extent that it merits the use of lethal force?

It's possible. While twenty feet isn't very far to close and swing, it's a bitch to throw even a well balanced sword that far. For the curious, end over end doesn't work as well as javelin style.

It's a conversation that has come up before. The only sword I've been able to throw with any power is my ko katana. That said, you'd have to be the one on drugs to consider it a credible threat. I'd consider a rock a better thrown weapon.

On that note, rocks really are rather deadly thrown weapons.

 

[rockinkt]

That sounds hilariously implausible to me, but I'm willing to look at the evidence. What's the evidence that a thrown samurai sword is a credible threat to an alert adult twenty feet away, to the extent that it merits the use of lethal force?

One of the first things that I taught to law enforcement officers while I was a firearms instructor is that real life conditions are not like prepared conditions at the range.
Your footing, unexpected distractions, how you react under extreme stress, are all unknowns.

The incident took place in an intersection. Try having your concentration broken by a car crash (looking at the the police incident instead of where they are going) and then dodging a projectile.
What about a woman off to one side suddenly screaming to her child to get back away from the crazed swordsman?
Missteps and falling due to poor footing, or stepping off a curb, or slipping on a rock when you place your feet for your optimum position can and have occurred. Try dodging a thrown sword when you are trying to keep your balance.

The trouble is - many people's imaginations are stifled by the need to try and put everything into controlled situations for analysis. The real world is an uncontrolled and wildly variable place.

That is why a fly ball has to be caught by the outfielder in a game of baseball instead of just calling the batter out. One cannot assume that a highly paid professional all-star athlete is not going to slip, get distracted, or fall over his own two feet and get hit between the eyes by the routine fly-ball that a 10 year-old could easily catch.

 

[rockinkt]

It's possible. While twenty feet isn't very far to close and swing, it's a bitch to throw even a well balanced sword that far. For the curious, end over end doesn't work as well as javelin style.

It's a conversation that has come up before. The only sword I've been able to throw with any power is my ko katana. That said, you'd have to be the one on drugs to consider it a credible threat. I'd consider a rock a better thrown weapon.

On that note, rocks really are rather deadly thrown weapons.

What you consider a credible threat may be different to someone without your knowledge/experience.
I know of a case where a person was killed by a thrown piece of metal pipe at about 28 feet.
It all depends on the individual (ETA: and the situation) and what they consider their own life is worth gambling on.

That being said - I survived guns pointed at me, fought people who had knives and broken bottles - all without shooting anybody.
I never was too bright.

 

[Thunder]

A policeman is justified in killing a suspect when his or someone else's life is in danger.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

One of the first things that I taught to law enforcement officers while I was a firearms instructor is that real life conditions are not like prepared conditions at the range.
Your footing, unexpected distractions, how you react under extreme stress, are all unknowns.

The incident took place in an intersection. Try having your concentration broken by a car crash (looking at the the police incident instead of where they are going) and then dodging a projectile.
What about a woman off to one side suddenly screaming to her child to get back away from the crazed swordsman?
Missteps and falling due to poor footing, or stepping off a curb, or slipping on a rock when you place your feet for your optimum position can and have occurred. Try dodging a thrown sword when you are trying to keep your balance.

It seems to me that if you're willing to use such an incredibly strained standard for a credible threat then everyone and everything is a credible threat to your life. As a previous poster pointed out a rock is a much more dangerous projectile weapon than a samurai sword, and anyone could have a concealed rock. At that point you can justify shooting anyone anytime, because who knows whether a sudden car crash will give them the opening they need to kill you with a rock?

The trouble is - many people's imaginations are stifled by the need to try and put everything into controlled situations for analysis. The real world is an uncontrolled and wildly variable place.

That is why a fly ball has to be caught by the outfielder in a game of baseball instead of just calling the batter out. One cannot assume that a highly paid professional all-star athlete is not going to slip, get distracted, or fall over his own two feet and get hit between the eyes by the routine fly-ball that a 10 yhear could easily catch.

I get the feeling that Lionking's straw man from page one is about to make a repeat appearance.

There have to be reasonable limits on the extent to which police officers are allowed to kill citizens in order to ensure their own safety. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to say "I had no choice but to kill that guy - if I didn't kill him, there was at least a one in a million chance he could have killed me if he wanted to! It could even have been higher than one in a million - can you prove otherwise?".

 

[rockinkt]

A policeman is justified in killing a suspect when his or someone else's life is in danger.

Exactly.
Comes down to the judgment of the individual and all you can do is hope that the recruitment process has weeded out the wackos and that he/she has had the right training.

That being said - everybody is an armchair quarterback with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and all the time in the world to form an opinion.

 

[rockinkt]

It seems to me that if you're willing to use such an incredibly strained standard for a credible threat then everyone and everything is a credible threat to your life. As a previous poster pointed out a rock is a much more dangerous projectile weapon than a samurai sword, and anyone could have a concealed rock. At that point you can justify shooting anyone anytime, because who knows whether a sudden car crash will give them the opening they need to kill you with a rock?

Nope - you are the one taking it to an extreme. I am only pointing out that a law enforcement officer in a crowded intersection faced with a crazy individual wielding two samurai swords is justified in considering the man a deadly threat at a distance of twenty feet.

I get the feeling that Lionking's straw man from page one is about to make a repeat appearance.

There have to be reasonable limits on the extent to which police officers are allowed to kill citizens in order to ensure their own safety. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to say "I had no choice but to kill that guy - if I didn't kill him, there was at least a one in a million chance he could have killed me if he wanted to! It could even have been higher than one in a million - can you prove otherwise?".

I have noticed your propensity to argue by taking things to the absurd level without any regard to what is actually being said by the poster you are taking issue with.
For that reason - I am not going to engage you further.

 

[WildCat]

That is why a fly ball has to be caught by the outfielder in a game of baseball instead of just calling the batter out. One cannot assume that a highly paid professional all-star athlete is not going to slip, get distracted, or fall over his own two feet and get hit between the eyes by the routine fly-ball that a 10 year-old could easily catch.

Allow me to illustrate:

 

[gtc]

Why is the coroner judging police procedures anyway? Don't you have police review boards or something similar that specialize in this sort of thing? Or even a police internal review board?

We do have the likes of review boards but coroners here are able to look into all sorts of things in examining the circumstances of someone's death.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nope - you are the one taking it to an extreme. I am only pointing out that a law enforcement officer in a crowded intersection faced with a crazy individual wielding two samurai swords is justified in considering the man a deadly threat at a distance of twenty feet.

You have failed to show any evidence of this whatsoever.

All you have done is wave your hands and conjure up fairy stories about car crashes and thrown samurai swords.

I have noticed your propensity to argue by taking things to the absurd level without any regard to what is actually being said by the poster you are taking issue with.
For that reason - I am not going to engage you further.

You're the one who took things to an absurd level with your attempt to justify shooting someone because they might throw a samurai sword at you. I just pointed out your absurdity. Don't blame me.

It looks to me like you goofed in the first place trying to claim that a guy with a samurai sword twenty feet away was an immediate, deadly threat to an officer with their gun out and ready, whereas that rule of thumb only applies to officers whose guns are holstered. Then you tried to bluff your way out of it and just made yourself look silly. Now you're running away and trying to pretend that the absurdity of your bluff was my fault.

 

[Ryokan]

So, cases like this cause me to think, whenever I see a police officer: "There's someone who could kill me right now if he / she wanted - and get away with it."

I'm glad I live in a civilized country where the police don't carry guns and are forced to find alternative ways to resolve issues..

 

[Region Rat]

Allow me to illustrate:

Hey, thats not fair.

How can anyone, especially a millionaire, be expected to play baseball in the daytime, with the sun in his eyes, and the wind blowing out onto Waveland Avenue?