Cops kill Costco pizza lady....

[triforcharity]

It's highly likely that he would be injured, but...the question is this: Is avoiding injury sufficient justification for using deadly force?

Yes. Someone coming at you with a knife can very well injure you and even kill you. Absolutely the officer was justified in using deadly force to protect himself. Someone pointing a gun at someone isn't going to kill them either (unless he pulls the trigger), though it is absolutely justifiable that the officer fire his weapon.

 

[joesixpack]

Yes. Someone coming at you with a knife can very well injure you and even kill you. Absolutely the officer was justified in using deadly force to protect himself. Someone pointing a gun at someone isn't going to kill them either (unless he pulls the trigger), though it is absolutely justifiable that the officer fire his weapon.

I'm not trying to single you out, but I have to ask why this statement ISN'T Monday morning quarterbacking? You are assuming quite a few things here. It is VERY likely, based only on the information available in the article, that the officer reacted very poorly and inappropriately to the situation.

Did the officer retreat? If not, why not? If so, why would he need to shoot the victim? Was the officer cornered? If so, why did he allow himself to be cornered? Your presumption is that the officer was competent, sober, and had no other obvious and reasonable options. There is no evidence that I have seen to demonstrate a single one of those three things. If a civilian had shot that woman, do you not think those questions would be brought up?

 

[lionking]

I'm not trying to single you out, but I have to ask why this statement ISN'T Monday morning quarterbacking? You are assuming quite a few things here. It is VERY likely, based only on the information available in the article, that the officer reacted very poorly and inappropriately to the situation.

Did the officer retreat? If not, why not? If so, why would he need to shoot the victim? Was the officer cornered? If so, why did he allow himself to be cornered? Your presumption is that the officer was competent, sober, and had no other obvious and reasonable options. There is no evidence that I have seen to demonstrate a single one of those three things. If a civilian had shot that woman, do you not think those questions would be brought up?

The evidence (which has to be tested, certainly) is that the woman moved toward the police holding a knife. If this is correct, it is very dangerous for the cop to simply turn and run. If the woman didn't stop or drop the knife, the police were quite within their rights to shoot.

 

[angrysoba]

Which will be determined in the coroner's inquest/grand jury investigation and the findings of the agencies shooting team, not on an internet forum.

No shortage of folks who have never been in a shoot/no shoot situation that can dissect with perfect 20/20 hindsight the events where the facts have yet to be determined.

Um...yea. Why wouldn't it be? It seems like several people here are under the impression that it a cops duty to put themselves in more danger than is necessary.


You don't know the details, I don't recall reading any details of the deputies involved, are you just assuming the deputies were men and physically larger and stronger? I know a few tiny ladies who are law enforcement.

Was she alone in the lounge? If so, she could have been locked in there until she calmed down.

Had she actually committed any crime?

It's my belief, maybe not shared by everyone, that when you shoot someone dead you have to have impeccable reasons for doing so. I don't see the need to give someone who shoots another person dead the benefit of the doubt; I think they need to demonstrate that they had absolutely no other options. From what we know of this incident that seems unlikely here.

 

[BStrong]

I'm not trying to single you out, but I have to ask why this statement ISN'T Monday morning quarterbacking? You are assuming quite a few things here. It is VERY likely, based only on the information available in the article, that the officer reacted very poorly and inappropriately to the situation.

Did the officer retreat? If not, why not? If so, why would he need to shoot the victim? Was the officer cornered? If so, why did he allow himself to be cornered? Your presumption is that the officer was competent, sober, and had no other obvious and reasonable options. There is no evidence that I have seen to demonstrate a single one of those three things. If a civilian had shot that woman, do you not think those questions would be brought up?

Nor is there evidence to the contrary.

If a lawfully armed civilian in California used lethal force in a similar situation he or she would actually face less criminal scrutiny than a LEO, but the LEO would have the benefit of being legally covered in the event that a civil suit was filed against them.

Just to get you up to speed, in general, an individual armed with a knife within 21' is considered to constitute a lethal threat, and if that individual advances and refuses to disarm, the use of force up to the lethal level is generally considered permissible. There is no legal requirement for LEO's or civilians to subject themselves to a lethal threat past escape and/or the use of force to stop the threat - although you can expect to be sued over any use of force incident no matter how well justified the use of force was under criminal law.

I want to know what the actual facts are before making up my mind.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm not trying to single you out, but I have to ask why this statement ISN'T Monday morning quarterbacking?

Context. I wasn't saying specifically this officer. Generally it is.

Your presumption is that the officer was competent, sober, and had no other obvious and reasonable options. There is no evidence that I have seen to demonstrate a single one of those three things.

1- An already deployed tazer didn't work. There's evidence that a less lethal option didn't work. Time is of the essence at that point, and a gun is the quickest option to defend the officers' lives. 2- Why would you assume that the officer was incompetent and/or under the influence? Is that usually what happens? Of course not. But one thing I can guarantee you, is that he will be tested, and every nook and cranny of this situation will be scrutinized by an outside agency not involved.

If a civilian had shot that woman, do you not think those questions would be brought up?

Of course they would. Why would you assume that they aren't being asked and scrutinized?

 

[BStrong]

Was she alone in the lounge? If so, she could have been locked in there until she calmed down.

Had she actually committed any crime?

It's my belief, maybe not shared by everyone, that when you shoot someone dead you have to have impeccable reasons for doing so. I don't see the need to give someone who shoots another person dead the benefit of the doubt; I think they need to demonstrate that they had absolutely no other options. From what we know of this incident that seems unlikely here.

I see this question in relation to all sorts of situations, and the reason this proposed solution isn't, is that until a room has been cleared by officers, ultimately the officers on the scene become responsible for future developments behind that closed door, from suicide to murder to arson, take your pick of three ugly possibilities, and I want you to think about this - the woman's co-workers called the police - they, who knew her better than any of the officers, did not or could not get her to disarm.

What, other than presumption, makes you believe that this incident was easily resolved through anything other than the use of force, and what level of injury do you believe is appropriate for an individual officer or citizen to suffer before the use of lethal force is justified?

 

[joesixpack]

The evidence (which has to be tested, certainly) is that the woman moved toward the police holding a knife. If this is correct, it is very dangerous for the cop to simply turn and run. If the woman didn't stop or drop the knife, the police were quite within their rights to shoot.

It is entirely possible to move away from a threat without turning and running.

ALL we know is that she moved in the direction of the officer and that she was holding a knife. For all we know she may have been holding the knife by the blade between thumb and forefinger in her outstretched arm and bringing it to the officer.

We know NOTHING about the situation. Just because you can imagine a scenario where the use of lethal force was justified does not in any way mean that the use of force was, in fact, justified.

 

[triforcharity]

Was she alone in the lounge? If so, she could have been locked in there until she calmed down.

Most doors lock from the inside for one. 2- She could have turned the knife on herself, and then the police would be chastised for not doing anything...

Had she actually committed any crime?

I don't know, but it's irrelevant.

It's my belief, maybe not shared by everyone, that when you shoot someone dead you have to have impeccable reasons for doing so. I don't see the need to give someone who shoots another person dead the benefit of the doubt; I think they need to demonstrate that they had absolutely no other options. From what we know of this incident that seems unlikely here.

A tazer had already been deployed unsuccessfully. But, yes, there should and is an investigation ongoing. He's not just cleared based on his word.

 

[joesixpack]

Just to get you up to speed, in general, an individual armed with a knife within 21' is considered to constitute a lethal threat, and if that individual advances and refuses to disarm, the use of force up to the lethal level is generally considered permissible.

No, I understand this. But I have to ask you if you would feel confident in your ability to kill or seriously injure an officer if you were facing two officers armed with batons?

I can tell you this, if I had a knife, and was facing two trained LEOs with batons, my chance of seriously wounding one of them would be pretty close to zero.

Now you have to also remember, the "knife at 21' rule" is for a bad guy to charge at the subject while his weapon is holstered. I'd like to see the same experiment done on just ONE trained officer with his baton at the ready. I guarantee the lethality of the encounter drops significantly for all attackers except highly trained knife fighters. Now put two officers in the mix. I doubt even a trained martial artist will score any sort of significant hit.

 

[angrysoba]

I see this question in relation to all sorts of situations, and the reason this proposed solution isn't, is that until a room has been cleared by officers, ultimately the officers on the scene become responsible for future developments behind that closed door, from suicide to murder to arson, take your pick of three ugly possibilities, and I want you to think about this - the woman's co-workers called the police - they, who knew her better than any of the officers, did not or could not get her to disarm.

What, other than presumption, makes you believe that this incident was easily resolved through anything other than the use of force, and what level of injury do you believe is appropriate for an individual officer or citizen to suffer before the use of lethal force is justified?

I didn't say the situation was easily resolved through anything other than the use of force.

However, I think we need to know whether the situation could have been resolved, even with a modicum of difficulty - resolving something "easily" should not be part of the criteria here! - without the use of deadly force. And I also reject questions which assume the default course of action is deadly force and all kinds of justifications have to be made to not use it.

I have seen equipment which is used for subduing armed attackers such as a pole with a U-shaped end, or extendable batons which could be used to sweep someone's legs out from under them. And, if she's alone in the lounge then locking her in or barricading the door doesn't seem unreasonable either.

 

[fuelair]

Nobody. It's not impossible to try and shoot someone in the arm. Just stupid and dangerous, and something trained police do not attempt.

And the key word there is try - I am pretty sure it is easier - in combat/stopping attack phase - to knife a leg than to shoot one. Especially if the attacker is armed and drawn. As opposed to drawn and quartered - which eliminates the need for defense.

 

[joesixpack]

What, other than presumption, makes you believe that this incident was easily resolved through anything other than the use of force, ...?

Oh I certainly think force was required, but there is an entire spectrum of force that could have been used. I would have been much happier to have seen the woman with a broken wrist and concussion and strapped into a hospital bed than closed up in a coffin, and I would venture to say that the officer on the scene feels the same right now as well. Drawing the pistol was the first mistake and I think it is a combination of poor departmental policy, poor training, and a poor mindset on the part of LEOs that led to this incident.

 

[BStrong]

Context. I wasn't saying specifically this officer. Generally it is.



1- An already deployed tazer didn't work. There's evidence that a less lethal option didn't work. Time is of the essence at that point, and a gun is the quickest option to defend the officers' lives. 2- Why would you assume that the officer was incompetent and/or under the influence? Is that usually what happens? Of course not. But one thing I can guarantee you, is that he will be tested, and every nook and cranny of this situation will be scrutinized by an outside agency not involved.


Of course they would. Why would you assume that they aren't being asked and scrutinized?

Actually, unless there is a very good reason to bring in the state's AG office or similar, an officer's actions will be reviewed by their departments shooting investigation team (or similar) the DA's office and the civilian grand jury.

Usually the internal review is more than enough to get the required evidence to the fact finders, but in some cases with serious civil rights overtones are better handled by outside agencies.

 

[joesixpack]

A tazer had already been deployed unsuccessfully. But, yes, there should and is an investigation ongoing. He's not just cleared based on his word.

Actually, this seems like a result of very poor policy. If you have two officers, one with a tazer drawn and the second holding a gun as the second line of defense, you are asking for trouble. Tazers don't have the greatest reliability in the field. Clothing makes their performance hit and miss.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There are a whole lot of unanswered questions - on both sides of this debate - and without those answers everything is speculation. If instead of saying "Well, if X, then certainly he's innocent/guilty", the real question is "What's the answer to X" (and "Y" and "Z" and more).

How big was this lounge? I worked in an A&P, a large one, and even in a union shop the "lounge" was a 15 x 10 converted store room with some chairs around a table. This is pertinent to just how threatened the LEOs would've felt as it'd be quite different to be seven feet away versus across a forty foot cafeteria.

Were there other civilians in the room who were in danger? Big question!

What, exactly, are we talking about when we say "knife". A Filippina with a machete is quite different from a Filippina with a bread knife.

How many officers were deployed in the confrontation? We know of at least one other because he/she got wounded by a ricochet. Again, see above questions, though. Two officers in a very tight space and a civilian being threatened is quite different from two or three or four officers in a large wide open space with no civilians nearby.

Was the ricochet a ricochet? We have only one account that it was. Was it or was it a wild shot?

What was the training/experience level of the officers?
What orders/instructions, if any, did they have from HQ/Command?

Without the answers to all of these (and other) questions, it's really impossible to make a call on this.

 

[BStrong]

No, I understand this. But I have to ask you if you would feel confident in your ability to kill or seriously injure an officer if you were facing two officers armed with batons?

I can tell you this, if I had a knife, and was facing two trained LEOs with batons, my chance of seriously wounding one of them would be pretty close to zero.

Now you have to also remember, the "knife at 21' rule" is for a bad guy to charge at the subject while his weapon is holstered. I'd like to see the same experiment done on just ONE trained officer with his baton at the ready. I guarantee the lethality of the encounter drops significantly for all attackers except highly trained knife fighters. Now put two officers in the mix. I doubt even a trained martial artist will score any sort of significant hit.

I am unable to put myself into an offender mindset, so let's put that aside.

WRT the bolded, you are incorrect. The 21' rule doesn't mean what you believe. Here's an actual incident that resulted in a civil suit after the officer was cleared by the GJ:

http://policelink.monster.com/train...ce-pre-shooting-conduct-and-the-21-foot-rule-

"In response to the plaintiff’s allegations that Officer Murr actions before the shooting contributed for deadly force, the court responded: “This may be true, but for purposes of this analysis, the Court does not determine whether Officer Murr’s response was the best or most desirable response under the circumstances, only whether Officer Murr’s belief and response was a reasonable one. Thus, the question is not whether Officer Murr could have used less-lethal alternatives, but whether it was reasonable for him to use lethal force under these circumstances.”

Thus, while the court considered Officer Murr’s pre-shooting conduct, the court judged this conduct against the objective reasonableness standard and reiterated the position taken by all federal courts which indicates that officers are not required to use the “least” amount of force necessary or the “best” alternative, they are required to do that which is objectively reasonable."

Where you go wrong in your assumptions is the belief that a given situation will have a given outcome based on what you believe is reasonable what you or I believe about a situation that we ourselves are not involved with is completely moot.

Here's my favorite example:

"Richard Gable Stevens, 21, was in critical condition at Valley Medical Center in San Jose last night after one of the National Shooting Club employees shot him twice with a handgun. Police also later shot Stevens with plastic bullets to subdue him."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...Wanted-to-Kill-Self-2920923.php#ixzz2V1cM46vW

Stevens took two Federal .45 caliber hydra shok JHP's bullets, one through his chest that required his lung to be removed, and one through the arm that opened it up from wrist to elbow - he still resisted being taken into custody, and SCPD had to shoot him with a beanbag round to get him to comply.

He survived and was sentenced to 50 years for attempted murder, kidnapping, etc. He also sued the young fella that shot him for negligent discharge of a firearm, and settled for 5K out of court, but that's another story.

Assuming what "should" happen in an encounter between individuals is strictly woo, and extrapolating from that assumption is even worse.

 

[BStrong]

There are a whole lot of unanswered questions - on both sides of this debate - and without those answers everything is speculation. If instead of saying "Well, if X, then certainly he's innocent/guilty", the real question is "What's the answer to X" (and "Y" and "Z" and more).

How big was this lounge? I worked in an A&P, a large one, and even in a union shop the "lounge" was a 15 x 10 converted store room with some chairs around a table. This is pertinent to just how threatened the LEOs would've felt as it'd be quite different to be seven feet away versus across a forty foot cafeteria.

Were there other civilians in the room who were in danger? Big question!

What, exactly, are we talking about when we say "knife". A Filippina with a machete is quite different from a Filippina with a bread knife.

How many officers were deployed in the confrontation? We know of at least one other because he/she got wounded by a ricochet. Again, see above questions, though. Two officers in a very tight space and a civilian being threatened is quite different from two or three or four officers in a large wide open space with no civilians nearby.

Was the ricochet a ricochet? We have only one account that it was. Was it or was it a wild shot?

What was the training/experience level of the officers?
What orders/instructions, if any, did they have from HQ/Command?

Without the answers to all of these (and other) questions, it's really impossible to make a call on this.

Good post, except for the "Filippina" qualifier.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Good post, except for the "Filippina" qualifier.

She just happens to be a Filippina but I included it because people seem to have derived some meaning from that or imparted some significance to it. But, yeah, it was an unnecessary qualifier. (As, actually, would be whether she's a she or a he. The fact is that it was a person with a knife and a person with a knife or any weapon can be dangerous.)

 

[joesixpack]

WRT the bolded, you are incorrect. The 21' rule doesn't mean what you believe.

I was using the term "rule" in a loose way. I don't actually believe that there is a law or rule regarding the distance between an attacker and officer.

ETA; Reading your link, it appears that the 21'rule means exactly what I believe it to mean.