Cops kill Costco pizza lady....

[lionking]

Do you think that any trained cop anywhere shoots someone without the reasonable belief that they are in danger?

Sure, all facts are not available yet, but what is the more likely situation? That we have trigger-happy cops perfectly willing to kill someone who was no threat? Or that they were in fact under threat?

 

[Skibum]

You're serious? Really?

If you're serious about police being able to divine who is handy with a blade just by looking at them then yes.

 

[Nessie]

A few knocks with a knife?

There is nothing in a cop's job description that says it is acceptable for them to be assaulted on the job.

A few knocks? Seriously? From Mike Tyson? With a hammer? Rubbish.

The examples you have given are extremes. Being a police officer involves physical contact and that involves taking a few knocks. By that I mean not reacting to risk by killing to prevent any kind of knock.

It is not acceptable for the police to be assaulted. That is why AFAIK in most countries there is a specific crime to assault the police or resist arrest. That is the case in the UK. It is also the case in the UK that the police in the main deal with people with knives without guns. Instead they have batons, CS spray, stab proof vests, shields and access to armed officers and dogs trained to take out people with knives. The emphasis in the UK is on contain and negotiate.

That is where the US differs, as made clear here by many gun owner responses which is to shoot. Yet other armed police somehow manage to shoot only occasionally

In 2011 the armed police in Germany used 85 bullets between them with 36 being used to shoot at people. That is it.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/46907/us-police-fire-more-bullets-month-germans-use-year

In 2011 the armed police in England & Wales fired in three incidents, which meat the authorisation of use of guns to actually firing them was in 0.00017% of incidents.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/183401/police-firearms-use-2010-2011.pdf

For me the evidence suggests the US police are suspect trigger happy and too quick to resort to use of their gun compared to others.

I have had a look, maybe you can do better than me in finding out how many times the Australian police shot people in 2011.

 

[Nessie]

If you're serious about police being able to divine who is handy with a blade just by looking at them then yes.

In Scotland training as opposed to divinity is used to assess risks. Two police officers in Scotland have died from stab wounds since 1900 and we have a knife crime problem here. How does the police here have such a low death rate yet very few are armed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

 

[lionking]

I have had a look, maybe you can do better than me in finding out how many times the Australian police shot people in 2011.

One case:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/second-police-shooting-in-24-hours-20110502-1e54t.html

A very relevant quote:

'

'The safety of [police] members and also potentially people at Centrelink was only compromised because of the conduct of the suspect involved.''

As I said earlier, no cop goes out wanting to shoot. Sometimes it's inevitable.

Another case a few years earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cassidy

This was a 15 year old armed with a knife who threatened police and couldn't be restrained with capsicum spray. He was shot dead, and the Coroner found the police acted reasonably.

 

[Nessie]

One case:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/second-police-shooting-in-24-hours-20110502-1e54t.html

A very relevant quote:

'

As I said earlier, no cop goes out wanting to shoot. Sometimes it's inevitable.

Another case a few years earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cassidy

This was a 15 year old armed with a knife who threatened police and couldn't be restrained with capsicum spray. He was shot dead, and the Coroner found the police acted reasonably.

I agree no cop looks to go out to shoot, but if in 2011 the Australian police used guns twice and you add that to UK and German police gun use, it does appear US police are more inclined to shoot.

I am going to keep looking at this issue, Canada has an average of 12 police shootings a year, the article is from 2009.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...on-let’s-bite-the-bullet-on-police-shootings/

 

[aggle-rithm]

I agree no cop looks to go out to shoot, but if in 2011 the Australian police used guns twice and you add that to UK and German police gun use, it does appear US police are more inclined to shoot.

One consideration is that sometimes, when police try to manhandle the suspect, they end up getting shot with their own weapon. However, that wouldn't happen if they weren't carrying the weapon in the first place. Since they are, really the only way they can keep it out of the hands of someone who is out of control is to use it on them.

Another consideration is this...would the woman have attacked if the police hadn't come in and assumed an aggressive posture? Clearly, deadly force wasn't needed before the police got there. One could argue that they created the dangerous situation themselves.

 

[triforcharity]

A few knocks with a knife?

There is nothing in a cop's job description that says it is acceptable for them to be assaulted on the job.

A few knocks? Seriously? From Mike Tyson? With a hammer? Rubbish.

I'm in agreement here. Nobody should go to work and be expected to "take a few knocks" unless your job is a boxer or punching bag.

 

[Nessie]

I'm in agreement here. Nobody should go to work and be expected to "take a few knocks" unless your job is a boxer or punching bag.

Define a few knocks. Would you expect the police to shoot as opposed to risk any form of injury at all?

 

[lionking]

Define a few knocks. Would you expect the police to shoot as opposed to risk any form of injury at all?

What on earth has this to do with the OP? The woman had a knife for goodness sake. If you had a look at the link I posted about the 15 year old kid with a knife, the police were held to have acted readonably in shooting him. If I had to, I'd bet that this will be the case here.

You introduced this "a few knocks" red herring. It's of no relevance in this case.

 

[triforcharity]

I'd expect the police to defend themselves against an attack with a deadly weapon with whatever tool necessary and appropriate. If that means shooting a person, well, then so be it. Don't want to get shot? Don't attack the police with a weapon. Plain and simple.

Since I, as a civilian (not LEO) can use deadly force to protect myself against someone with a knife who is threatening me, I'd expect the police to be able to do the same.

Unarmed suspect, no weapons, that's another story, but blanket rules are flawed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

In Scotland training as opposed to divinity is used to assess risks. Two police officers in Scotland have died from stab wounds since 1900 and we have a knife crime problem here. How does the police here have such a low death rate yet very few are armed?

The mentality in the US is that if even ONE person dies, then something must be done to prevent that from ever happening again. The feeling is that if someone does something that may threaten the life of a police officer, then they deserve any consequence that action may bring, up to and including death. They chose to do something foolhardy, they paid the price.

However, this assumes that the person is in control of their own actions. This wasn't the case here, IMO. If I had to speculate, I would guess the woman was diabetic and was suffering from hypoglycemia (based on the suddenness of the onset of her weird behavior). It didn't seem to be a willful act or a psychological issue at any rate. These were the actions of someone with an acute medical condition.

Again, my speculation. I could be wrong.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'd expect the police to defend themselves against an attack with a deadly weapon with whatever tool necessary and appropriate. If that means shooting a person, well, then so be it. Don't want to get shot? Don't attack the police with a weapon. Plain and simple.

Again, this is not so simple if the person isn't in control of their own actions.

 

[squealpiggy]

So that's what I know about Costco break rooms. I still find it odd that at least 2, and maybe more officers are unable to deal non-lethally with a woman with a food knife and a scissors. Yes, I know knives can be lethal, to say the least, IN THE HANDS OF SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO HURT PEOPLE WITH THEM.

Generally speaking you stick them with the pointy end. Are there some people who don't know this?

 

[Nessie]

What on earth has this to do with the OP? The woman had a knife for goodness sake. If you had a look at the link I posted about the 15 year old kid with a knife, the police were held to have acted readonably in shooting him. If I had to, I'd bet that this will be the case here.

You introduced this "a few knocks" red herring. It's of no relevance in this case.

But the Scottish police manage without shooting anyone and we have a knife crime problem. I have found one case of a police officer being stabbed in the past 3 years in Scotland and he lived.

The few knocks is part of establishing how justified the police are in shooting as I agreed with an earlier post that to avoid being injured is not sufficient to justify killing another.

I'd expect the police to defend themselves against an attack with a deadly weapon with whatever tool necessary and appropriate. If that means shooting a person, well, then so be it. Don't want to get shot? Don't attack the police with a weapon. Plain and simple.

Since I, as a civilian (not LEO) can use deadly force to protect myself against someone with a knife who is threatening me, I'd expect the police to be able to do the same.

Unarmed suspect, no weapons, that's another story, but blanket rules are flawed.

That explains the difference between the UK, German and Australian police and the police in the USA. In the USA reaching for your gun and killing is acceptable at a lower level and to avoid injury than it is elsewhere. Hence many more die in the USA than elsewhere.

Applying that same lower level of use of deadly force to gun owners makes gun owners feel safer in using deadly force against others without repercussions and overall lowers the standard of responsibility gun owners should show with a deadly weapon. Hence again more people die than elsewhere.

 

[triforcharity]

Again, this is not so simple if the person isn't in control of their own actions.

I understand what you're saying, and it does add a twist of tragedy to it, but people who are targets (LEO's) should not have to put their lives unnecessarily in peril. A person with a knife, can be very dangerous, even deadly, with minimal training. It's a delicate situation, and if in fact she did have some acute medical condition like hypoglycemia, it becomes a tragedy as she didn't intend to attack someone.

 

[triforcharity]

But the Scottish police manage without shooting anyone and we have a knife crime problem. I have found one case of a police officer being stabbed in the past 3 years in Scotland and he lived.




The few knocks is part of establishing how justified the police are in shooting as I agreed with an earlier post that to avoid being injured is not sufficient to justify killing another.



That explains the difference between the UK, German and Australian police and the police in the USA. In the USA reaching for your gun and killing is acceptable at a lower level and to avoid injury than it is elsewhere. Hence many more die in the USA than elsewhere.

Applying that same lower level of use of deadly force to gun owners makes gun owners feel safer in using deadly force against others without repercussions and overall lowers the standard of responsibility gun owners should show with a deadly weapon. Hence again more people die than elsewhere.

Guess what Nessie? It's irrelevant how they do things in other countries. People wipe their ass with their hands in some countries, should we try that too?

You're comparing black and white. Officers here are attacked on a regular basis. It's a societal problem. Not a gun problem like you want to make everything out to be. Your bias.....it's showing still.

 

[WildCat]

What do you think? Would it make any difference? Should it make any difference?

Did the article in the OP say anything about the gender of the officers?

Should it matter? Why do you ask?

It matters because some are assuming that the woman with a knife was no threat to the police, who are assumed to be large fit males with billy clubs and such. For all we know the police were a pair of 50 year old women.

 

[WildCat]

And I know some people would say that even if she was just wandering around they shouldn't have to move out of the way and should be justified in shooting her but come on, that's pretty childish. If you moving out of the way prevents a death then you do it. Grow up. That's the kind of talk I expect of people under the age of twelve.

So "move out of the way" and let her run to where there's other employees and shoppers with children?

 

[Pup]

I'd expect the police to defend themselves against an attack with a deadly weapon with whatever tool necessary and appropriate. If that means shooting a person, well, then so be it. Don't want to get shot? Don't attack the police with a weapon. Plain and simple.

Since I, as a civilian (not LEO) can use deadly force to protect myself against someone with a knife who is threatening me, I'd expect the police to be able to do the same.

Unarmed suspect, no weapons, that's another story, but blanket rules are flawed.

The part I've bolded brings up an issue that hasn't been mentioned, and shows the difference in the roles of police and non-police.

Let's turn the situation around and say a citizen is approached by an armed policeman who is threatening him. The citizen tries to cooperate but the cop is still acting aggressively and the citizen makes a reasonable judgment that this is a rogue cop who isn't constrained by the law, so simply cooperating won't stop the harm. Would the citizen be justified in shooting the cop to avoid potential harm to himself?

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that the bar is higher for a citizen to justify subduing a cop, then for a cop to justify subduing a citizen. If so, then police aren't just like any other citizens out on the streets defending themselves. With special privileges come special responsibilities.