Cops kill Costco pizza lady....

[BStrong]

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.)

I was just messin' with you - and I immediately though of my friend Mike who is now retired in the PI was his very lovely wife...who likes sharp tools - seriously - she wanted me to give her my Bill Bagwell Damascus Bowie as a wedding gift.

 

[triforcharity]

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 think that the problem with approaching a situation such as this in that way could be considered aggressive forcing the officers to act. Their goal is always peaceful resolution, and IMO this could just make a situation worse. Not to mention she wasn't armed at the beginning IIRC. She grabbed one at some point. Unless I'm recalling this incorrectly.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

So you're saying that the DA and a grand jury? In Florida the FDLE investigates officer involved shootings. Where is this shooting??

 

[triforcharity]

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.

1- do you know the policy? 2- do you know if the officers gun was drawn before the tazer was deployed? Seems you're assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[BStrong]

So you're saying that the DA and a grand jury? In Florida the FDLE investigates officer involved shootings. Where is this shooting??

Locally that's the way the OIS investigation works - different jurisdictions, different policies, but locally that's the way it works - two investigative bodies (departmental ST and DA's office) bring the evidence to the GJ - usually unless there is a major discrepancy between the two, the GJ will either indict or no-bill the officer(s) involved.

 

[squealpiggy]

That's a fascinating movie. I watched the whole thing. But one notable element is that almost all of the gruesome injuries officers sustained were from criminals whose concealed knives the officers never saw. They were attacked by suspects they thought were unarmed, and in some cases were already in custody. The film also depicts a number of successful nonlethal disarms with batons and plain brute force. In the Costco case, officers were responding to a 911 call about a disturbed employee with a knife (the call was made by her supervisor). They knew what to expect, and authorities might have dispatched a crisis intervention team or something similar. (I also noted how unfailingly polite those Canadian officers are: "Sir, would you please put your knife down, eh?")

"Oh yeah, eh, here's my license rayt aboot here, what are ye doin aboot it officer?"

Seems to me situations such as this were precisely the kind tasers were intended to handle. What is the failure rate for tasers? That is, how often do they fail to operate as designed when their use is initiated?

Tasers are good bits of tech but it's possible to miss with one or both prongs, it can fail to anchor in the skin, it can be foiled by some clothing and it has a high failure rate with very overweight subjects as the body fat is a poor conductor.

Where did I say they want to shoot anyone?

I stated the truth. Cops don't get much training trained in non-violent conflict diffusion.

Cops spend every day engaging in non-violent conflict resolution. They spend more time non-violently resolving conflicts than they do investigating crimes!

 

[lionking]

FWIW, I've known a lot of cops over the years, and my daughter's partner is one. Not one would wish to be in a position where lethal force was necessary. Those who I spoke to about this issue subscribed to the "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" philosophy.

 

[joesixpack]

1- do you know the policy? 2- do you know if the officers gun was drawn before the tazer was deployed? Seems you're assuming facts not in evidence.

1) No, I don't know the policy, but I am assuming that there is one for that department and that the officer were following it.

2) My assumptions of the scenario was that she had the knife in hand before the police arrived (the article wasn't so clear), and that one officer had his pistol drawn while the other had the tazer.

So yes, guilty as charged, I was talking out my ass-umptions.

Having said that, I still believe that batons should have been the choice of weapon, though Foolmewunz brings up some mitigating questions as to the closeness of quarters in the breakroom.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

She could have turned the knife on herself, and then the police would be chastised for not doing anything...

Quick, shoot her before she has a chance to commit suicide!

"We had to kill her in order to save her".

 

[Foolmewunz]

Quick, shoot her before she has a chance to commit suicide!

"We had to kill her in order to save her".

Ridiculous post. They would've been chastised, as you well know, for leaving her alone in the room, discombobulated and out of sorts and with a weapon that she turned on herself, when they could've made an effort to talk her down or tackle her from behind or keep her busy until the guy with the patented bean bag gun arrived.

 

[jj]

Breakrooms in every Costco I've been in are in the front of the store, between some of the service counters and the restrooms. They are typically reasonably large, enough to hold 5 or 6 picnic tables of substantial size, and a variety of low-priced vending machines for the employees. In all the Costco's I've seen, there is no door, you can look straight into the rooms, this includes NJ Costco's, various ones on the road, and all of the ones I've been to in Washingtoon state. No, I haven't been in any in Virginia, but they seem to have a very standard layout.

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.

So this still seems rather over the top. And, yes, I've done some time in security jobs, and have had to deal with a moron with a knife.

 

[Kahalachan]

Here's California's POST 832 pc training requirements.

http://www.post.ca.gov/training-and-testing-specifications-for-peace-officer-basic-courses.aspx

At various points in initial training, a trainee will spend about 40 hours on non violent/non lethal conflict resolution, with threat evaluation being in heavy emphasis.

Oh nice. I had no idea.

So alongside the training a "least amount of force possible" policy must be set in stone.

Training and accountability. That's what our cops need to be good cops.

 

[WildCat]

I notice many people in this thread are assuming the responding officers are males. Do we know this? Would it change your opinion if you find out the officers were female? Or older males close to retirement?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Ridiculous post. They would've been chastised, as you well know, for leaving her alone in the room,

Yes, of course they would. But if they shoot her then that's just normal police procedure and nothing to get upset about, right? When the only tool you have is a hammer...

when they could've made an effort to talk her down or tackle her from behind or keep her busy until the guy with the patented bean bag gun arrived.

Agreed, but this was not the alternative being offered.

 

[Skibum]

Yes, I know knives can be lethal, to say the least, IN THE HANDS OF SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO HURT PEOPLE WITH THEM.

So what do you propose? Do we make people who know how to use a knife wear some sort of clear identifier at all times? Last time I checked the only way to tell if someone knew how to use a knife was when they were actually in the process of using it. At that point its too late.

 

[jj]

So what do you propose? Do we make people who know how to use a knife wear some sort of clear identifier at all times? Last time I checked the only way to tell if someone knew how to use a knife was when they were actually in the process of using it. At that point its too late.

You're serious? Really?

 

[jj]

I notice many people in this thread are assuming the responding officers are males. Do we know this? Would it change your opinion if you find out the officers were female? Or older males close to retirement?

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?

 

[Nessie]

I wasn't there and don't know the details, but it's hard to believe that a man who is physically larger and stronger than the attacker AND has at least some rudimentary training in disarming an attacker was in danger of being mortally wounded in this situation. It's highly likely that he would be injured, but...the question is this: Is avoiding injury sufficient justification for using deadly force?

I say no it is not reasonable to kill to prevent injury. It is reasonable to kill to prevent death.

Now there will be a split between those who say any attack can result in death and we don't know what will happen so it is justifiable to shoot. Then there are those who will say that we know lots about assessing threat levels, its in our genes through to the training police should get. The police in Scotland have training based on assessing impact factors (age, size, infirmity, alcohol consumption, fighting skill etc) and the scale of threat from passive to openly aggressive.

I am on the side of those who say we are able to assess threat and risk and should act accordingly and use a gun as an absolute last resort and be prepared to take a few knocks.

 

[lionking]

I am on the side of those who say we are able to assess threat and risk and should act accordingly and use a gun as an absolute last resort and be prepared to take a few knocks.

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.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

The problem is that "approached" is a vague term. Did she run at them or was she just wandering around the room talking to herself and ended up quite close to them? Did she have the blades raised or at her sides? Saying she ran at them wouldn't make a report emotional, it would make it accurate. "Ran" isn't an emotional word.

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.

And no one here seems to be saying that even if she lunged at them they should have still stood there, turned their backs (apparently the only way to leave a room?), etc. If she had a high likelihood of killing them then fair enough. It seems more likely that we would be looking at an officer with stitches. Which is what happened anyway. The only difference being that no one would be dead.

Avoiding injury by killing someone is extreme. Any officer who thought "crap, I might get some cuts and bruises. Better kill the person than go through that!" is a piss poor excuse of an officer, and human being for that matter.

I'm not saying that's what these officer thought. I'm addressing the comments that say killing someone to avoid injury is perfectly reasonable. The police take risks. That's their job. Obviously we want them to protect themselves but their main job is to protect the public. And that's a noble pursuit worthy of respect. Deciding that it's better to kill someone than run the chance of getting injured cheapens that and makes me wonder what kind of people police forces are letting in these days.

This case is probably going to boil down to three things.

If the taser was deployed correctly.
If she ran at them.
If it was possible to subdue her without fatal injuries to the officers.