How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Andy_Ross]

A unarmed man is shot in his car after a road rage incident with an unmarked police car in NY. "A spokesperson for the department told the New York Times that there were reports of movement inside Polanco’s car, which may have caused concern that the driver may have been armed.

“We looked for a weapon, we didn’t find any; we found a drill,” chief spokesman Paul J. Browne said in a news briefing. “I’m not saying it played a role. I’m just saying we looked for a weapon. We did not find a weapon. The only thing we found was that drill.”"

http://rt.com/usa/news/shot-police-car-polanco-776/

Highly trained British Firearms team shoot Stephen Waldorf 5 times in car at traffic lights. They were following the wrong car. He was unconnected with the man they were looking for.

"Detective Constable Peter Finch approached the car along the pavement on foot with his revolver already drawn.
Finch opened fire, shooting twice at the passenger-side rear wheel of the Mini, then four times at Waldorf himself. Detective Constable John Jardine then ran up to the back of the Mini, and fired five shots at Waldorf through the rear window. Detective Constable John Jardine then fired twice at Waldorf through the open driver's door. Finch, meanwhile, had made his way round to the driver's side, where he leaned into the car, aimed his revolver between Waldorf's eyes and said, "OK, **********," before pulling the trigger, but the gun did not fire. Finding that he had already used all his ammunition, Finch then pistol whipped Waldorf until he lost consciousness.
Hit five times and severely wounded in his head, abdomen, and liver, the handcuffed and unconscious Waldorf was then hauled by his arms onto the pavement"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm not sure that's a valid reson not to try to wound. With a shattered thigh bone or pelvis you're not going any further, no matter the drug. The police where I live have several times stopped perps by wounding them. An example is the guy who tried to kill Kurt Westergaard (Mohammed Drawings). He came at the cops with an axe and was shot in the arm and leg.

The pro-cop side actually have reality on their side on this particular issue. Guns aren't magic wands that switch off the limb they hit. You can't set them to stun the way you can a phaser in Star Trek. They either hit the central nervous system and drop people that way, or they just punch holes in you so that you bleed out.

If you shoot someone in the leg, especially someone high as a kite, they'll fall over and die eventually but in the short and possibly medium term they're still capable of beating you up.

That's why security guards who don't need guns shouldn't be carrying them.

I would have thought it's the very point of having enforcement that was better armed than most of the troublemakers they'll encounter. Just like in a war, the better-armed side doesn't say "let's make this fair, and only use weapons on the enemy's level". The point is to stop the threat, not play a sport with everything equal between opponents.

I find it strange that so many are saying "if only the cop hadn't had a gun!" or "if only he had tased him/pepper sprayed him/done something different!" instead of "if only that stupid kid hadn't taken a bunch of drugs and run amok!" If you're going to do wishful rewrites of history, why not rewrite the actual irrefragable mistake in the situation?

This is a rather stupid question. You are treating this as a blame game, rather than a discussion of which public policy results in the least harm.

We can't pass a law that will actually stop university students being idiots occasionally. We can pass a law that makes sure campus cops aren't put into positions where the rational move is to turn a silly-naked-guy situation into a lethal force situation.

 

[hodgy]

We can't pass a law that will actually stop university students being idiots occasionally.

This is not about 'students being idiots occasionally', its about an individual attacking and injuring multiple people then attacking a police station / officer with very violent intent. The 'law' is directed against the latter.

 

[hodgy]

@Nessie you are / were apparently a police officer in the UK.

I understand your arguments but I think they are couched too much in your own experience versus what the chap had to deal with on that particular night. I don't think that you are cutting the officer enough tactical slack. I think you are letting your opinion on US policing in general inform your opinion on this specific incident.

My Dad was a policeman in England in the 80's and had the **** (and nearly the life) kicked out of him in a riot. It put him out of action for a year and affected his mobility for the rest of his life. I still remember as a young child (9) hearing my Mom answer the door (in the middle of the night - 3 AM ish) and crying as she got told he was in hospital in a serious state.

If somebody could have shot those that inflicted that on him (they couldn't because they had no firearms) then I would've been all for it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There IS video - and people who are far more qualified to review it already have, and will continue to do so.

I don't know how one gets expertise from "watching a number of videos", but do keep in mind that firing ranges have non-moving targets that have no interest in kicking your ass.

I didn't suggest it was "expertise", it was what I've seen on the videos.

For example the Seattle police a while back shot a mentally ill man with a knife. The interaction goes on for quite some time when one of the officer's guns discharges. It looks very clearly accidental including the officer's action after the shot. People are welcome to draw their own conclusions, it is the one I draw.

Here's a news account of the case. There is a video of the shooting but I can't find it. It was in 2000. After the gun went off the officer turns away, not something one would do if one had intentionally aimed and shot. And there was nothing in the victim/suspect's actions that were different at the time the gun goes off. He's surrounded by police on all sides and had been making his way down the street with the police all around him.

Anyway, it's my opinion, not my claim of expertise.

As for the video of the OP incident, I'll take a look. I thought it was said the officer's button cam was on the charger.

 

[Bikewer]

Just a couple of things more.... First, as some have noted, individuals who are "on" various sorts of chemicals can be damnably hard to control. They frequently feel no pain at all, and so the police baton tends to be ineffective. In fact, until the fairly widespread use of the Taser, the normal method of trying to subdue PCP heads was to strangle them.
Oh, we don't call it that... The trainers make up names like "vascular neck clamp" or somesuch.
Quite effective, properly applied. Cut off blood flow to the brain, unconsciousness results. Unfortunately, improper application can crush the larynx... Or held too long can cause brain damage... Also getting into position is not exactly easy, especially for a single officer.
The Taser can be quite effective. Doesn't matter if the fellow is on drugs or not; ties up the voluntary muscles and hurts too.
However... With most models you get the one shot. In order to work well, you need to fire the thing at an optimum distance. Too far, you don't hit at all. Or, one dart hits and the other misses, as the darts diverge at 17 degrees.
Also, for optimum effect, both darts need to be in muscle-mass. The ideal target is the back at about ten feet.
From the front, you need to keep the point of impact of the primary dart below heart level, which means a good chance of the other dart missing a leg...
(We just went through our re-certification)
Another bit.... The major contributing factor to deaths that have been "associated" with the Taser are the result of "cocaine intoxication syndrome" or the similar "excited cardiac" syndrome which amounts to the same thing....
People who are drug users are much more likely to go into arrhythmia than are nice sober folks you wouldn't want to Taser anyway...
Mind, the Taser is vastly superior to the alternatives, which include shooting or beating into submission or strangulation. But it is not free of risk and it's use is hardly a sure thing.

 

[WildCat]

As for the video of the OP incident, I'll take a look. I thought it was said the officer's button cam was on the charger.

I don't think the video has been made public yet. And it's from the closed circuit surveillance camera video.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think the video has been made public yet. And it's from the closed circuit surveillance camera video.

Thanks, I was just about to ask after finding news accounts only that the video exists.

 

[hodgy]

Just a couple of things more.... First, as some have noted, individuals who are "on" various sorts of chemicals can be damnably hard to control. They frequently feel no pain at all, and so the police baton tends to be ineffective. In fact, until the fairly widespread use of the Taser, the normal method of trying to subdue PCP heads was to strangle them.
Oh, we don't call it that... The trainers make up names like "vascular neck clamp" or somesuch.
Quite effective, properly applied. Cut off blood flow to the brain, unconsciousness results. Unfortunately, improper application can crush the larynx... Or held too long can cause brain damage... Also getting into position is not exactly easy, especially for a single officer.
The Taser can be quite effective. Doesn't matter if the fellow is on drugs or not; ties up the voluntary muscles and hurts too.
However... With most models you get the one shot. In order to work well, you need to fire the thing at an optimum distance. Too far, you don't hit at all. Or, one dart hits and the other misses, as the darts diverge at 17 degrees.
Also, for optimum effect, both darts need to be in muscle-mass. The ideal target is the back at about ten feet.
From the front, you need to keep the point of impact of the primary dart below heart level, which means a good chance of the other dart missing a leg...
(We just went through our re-certification)
Another bit.... The major contributing factor to deaths that have been "associated" with the Taser are the result of "cocaine intoxication syndrome" or the similar "excited cardiac" syndrome which amounts to the same thing....
People who are drug users are much more likely to go into arrhythmia than are nice sober folks you wouldn't want to Taser anyway...
Mind, the Taser is vastly superior to the alternatives, which include shooting or beating into submission or strangulation. But it is not free of risk and it's use is hardly a sure thing.

I am a fan of the batton round though that, too, has its detractors.

 

[triforcharity]

Nope, I would expect a police officer worth their uniform to get right up to that man to try and establish better verbal contact

Thereby putting himself in grave danger, and if injured, unable to assist the kids who are now in danger. A rescuer is useless if he's injured.

and they to use baton and cuffs to stop him from driving off before as a final last resort shooting at him.

As he drives off, running your ass over, now what? Now he's a maniac on the loose with a 4,000 lb weapon with wheels, thereby putting others on the road, and the kids, in grave danger.

Good call....

An option we do not have, so we are more inclined to get up close and use non lethal physical force.

And your patients don't have 4,000 lb weapons with wheels, do they? Do they also have access to guns, knives, and the like? Oh, right. Good call....

 

[triforcharity]

Hey Nessie, this is why officers keep their distance from a suspect, and carry leathal weapons at all times.


This woman was beaten so severely that (IIRC) she spent quite some time in the hospital, and months recovering.

THIS is the biggest reason why police officers should not willingly place themselves too close to a suspect. All it takes is one punch.

Yes, I know this is a woman, and I know the suspect is quite large, but this matters none.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, I know this is a woman, and I know the suspect is quite large, but this matters none.

All the female cops in the UK could go toe to toe with that guy, according to Nessie. That video just proves that she is incompetent and should never have been a police officer.

 

[triforcharity]

All the female cops in the UK could go toe to toe with that guy, according to Nessie. That video just proves that she is incompetent and should never have been a police officer.

I'm waiting for that.....

Obviously an incompetent officer. Demand her badge and gun immediately!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have no issue with the concept, cops have a hard job. Nor do I have an issue with, sometimes they have to make tough decisions.

What I do have an issue with are the knee-jerk thread posters who insist there is no such thing as incompetent police, no cops who do a poor job, and no officers who over-react or pull their guns and then in the excitement of the moment squeeze too hard on the trigger.

The victim killed in this case was a kid, probably intoxicated, highly unlikely to have been a lethal threat to any police person given he was small in stature and unarmed.

Is the university to blame for putting an undertrained, understaffed officer in the position he was in? Maybe. Was the cop too gung-ho, unable to handle any challenge to his authority? Maybe. Was the kid really so intoxicated or too [whatever the underlying issue was] that the unfortunate outcome was inevitable? Doesn't seem as likely as options 1 &/or 2.

That's fine to say, we don't know. But the knee-jerk defense of this cop on the premise they have to protect themselves is, IMO, very shortsighted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Yes, I know this is a woman, and I know the suspect is quite large, but this matters none.

How is this relevant to every situation any cop is in ever? How is it relevant to the thread situation?

 

[RedRatSnake]

Good Post SG ~ I agree 100% Training is a key issue and selecting the right people for the job is crucial. In this case a kick in the nuts might have done the trick, naked guys already have a built in target.

Tim

 

[triforcharity]

How is this relevant to every situation any cop is in ever? How is it relevant to the thread situation?

This was a "routine" traffic stop. All it took was one sucker punch from a suspect, and the officer damn near lost her life. Just as common as a drunk college student.

Nessie has claimed that a fight should be considered part of the job, and a risk you take, and one you should take before using deadly force.

Sorry, but I disagree, 100%.

WRT your previous post, yes, there are bad shootings. Are they often? No. Common? Not even close. Rare? Yes. In fact, I cannot think of an officer involved shooting in Florida where it was determined that the officer was not justified in shooting.

 

[triforcharity]

Good Post SG ~ I agree 100% Training is a key issue and selecting the right people for the job is crucial. In this case a kick in the nuts might have done the trick, naked guys already have a built in target.

Tim

IF it worked. Remember, people who are high are often unaffected by pain.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is a rather stupid question. You are treating this as a blame game, rather than a discussion of which public policy results in the least harm.

This is a rather stupid thread, for that matter. As for blame, I'm not the one sitting around declaring "that man is a coward!" based on third-hand (at best) accounts in the news.

And this thread was never a "discussion of which public policy results in the least harm", it's always been a "guns bad, Americans bad" thread.

 

[RedRatSnake]

IF it worked. Remember, people who are high are often unaffected by pain.

I got ya on that . Training ( the right kind ) will help with that and of course the right people. I see the problem in most cases is not hiring the right folks. Like in any job, there are always people that think they are qualified but never really are and may BS their way through it only to screw up latter on.

Tim