How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Giz]

who cannot subdue someone with a minimum of force, with the use of baton and or cuffs should be a police officer.

The guy was large, muscular and a member of the wrestling team.

Should all cops be able to subdue such people with a minimum of force and with a high enough confidence of success that we don't worry about them failing and the perp getting possession of the officer's sidearm?

Here's a hint... not every cop is somekind of Ninja trained ex-Navy Seal. (obviously if you live in Steven Seagal's jurisdiction then YMMV).

 

[Alt+F4]

Here's a hint... not every cop is some kind of Ninja trained ex-Navy Seal.

They don't need to be, all they need is a gun.

 

[LTC8K6]

Police officers who cannot handle a fight with a drugged or crazed man should not be police officers. Police who cannot protect their guns in a potential fight/arrest should not have guns.

The police should be prepared for and accept that their job can get physical and if they want to avoid that by using a gun as their only means of dealing with someone, they should not be in the police.

Do you favour escalation of threat or are you advocating going deadly straight away, no matter what, even to avoid a minor scuffle and maybe a slap?

Do the police only have guns? Do they not also have cuffs and batons?

Tazer, mace, what about calmness, patience, verbal skills or even in the case of a naked man a boot in the bollocks first?

Not sure what you mean.

A lone police officer will not even attempt to "handle" a crazed person. That's fiction, imo. That went out a long time ago when it was realized that police officers are just ordinary folks who can lose a fight and be killed.

They will either tase the person, use another "less than lethal" weapon on the person, or wait for backup so they can gang up on the person.

If the situation escalates to an attack before backup can be called or can arrive, and they have no "less than lethal" option...

At this point, I don't know what weapons the officer had.

I also don't know if a campus police department has the budget to train it's force in the use of LTL weapons or even to provide such weapons.

I also do not know what the policy of that department or state is regarding such weapons and such an encounter.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why should it even become a fight? Are American police not taught how to clam without pulling their gun out first? In the UK police are trained how to subdue and arrest with minimum force first.

The UK is not the USA.

 

[WildCat]

Police officers who cannot handle a fight with a drugged or crazed man should not be police officers.

So only large young males need apply for police jobs?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1urLh8Kh_9A

Had she had a little more warning, she could certainly have shot this unarmed man.

She got too close to him.

 

[Segnosaur]

From the University's press release

"The officer with weapon drawn ordered the individual to halt. The officer retreated numerous times in an attempt to calm the situation."

So the first thing he did was escalate the situation to one where deadly force was the most likely option. Then

"...rushing and chasing the officer..."

"...the officer’s repeated commands to stop, the officer fired one shot with his police sidearm, which struck the chest of the assailant."

so his idea of calming the situation is to point a gun and issue commands to stop whilst retreating.

So, the guy was chasing/rushing the officer, even as the officer was retreating and was facing a drawn gun...

Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you think the officer should have "reasoned" with an individual? Do you think a person who continues to chase someone after they've had a gun drawn on them will be thinking rationally/logically?

No chasing and attacking are different.
If you think the student was after a hug then you are as deluded to the situation as the officer was.

No, I don't think the student was "after a hug". And neither should the officer. That's the point.

Earlier I used the phrase "(more or less) attacking". If the officer was being chased by someone who was chasing them and willing to risk injury/death because of a drawn gun, wouldn't the officer be right to at least assume his well-being was in danger and the attack was at least forthcoming?

Why else would an individual rush an armed police officer?

I do not think someone who is incapable of using verbal skills, who lacks the patience needed when it comes to calming some people...

Verbal skills only work when the person doing the attacking/chasing/threatening is able to use at least a little bit of reasoning skills.

How long would it take for someone to run (lets say) 20 meters to cover the distance to the officer? Would that have been enough time to have a "calming dialog" with anyone?

[/quote]and who cannot subdue someone with a minimum of force, with the use of baton and or cuffs should be a police officer.[/quote]
As others pointed out, any sort of close-combat poses a certain risk to the officer. Is it fair to risk the lives of an officer on the off chance that some guy rushing towards him doesn't really mean him any harm?

Again, I want to stress that I'm assuming that the events (as outlined in the article) are accurate. (Its quite possible that the officer was lying and there should be a complete investigation.) But then that's not what people are complaining about.

 

[joesixpack]

The complaint is that such a situation should never have been dealt with by use of a gun. That is a grossly excessive use of force.

From the University's press release

"The officer with weapon drawn ordered the individual to halt. The officer retreated numerous times in an attempt to calm the situation."

So the first thing he did was escalate the situation to one where deadly force was the most likely option. Then

"...rushing and chasing the officer..."

"...the officer’s repeated commands to stop, the officer fired one shot with his police sidearm, which struck the chest of the assailant."

so his idea of calming the situation is to point a gun and issue commands to stop whilst retreating.

Yeah, it seems odd that the officer would have had his gun drawn. Most cops (at least genuine cops) are pretty skilled in hand-to-hand and grappling, and once you've drawn your weapon you really can't put it back easily as the situation changes. It seems like non-lethal means would have been more appropriate, but I'm not a cop and don't have to deal with situations like this. I hope someone with LE experience weighs in on this, 'cause I'm curious..

 

[malicus]

The UK is not the USA.

With regards policing, thank goodness (disclosure: wife is a police officer)

With regards MNF kickoff times? Meh

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, it seems odd that the officer would have had his gun drawn. Most cops (at least genuine cops) are pretty skilled in hand-to-hand and grappling, and once you've drawn your weapon you really can't put it back easily as the situation changes. It seems like non-lethal means would have been more appropriate, but I'm not a cop and don't have to deal with situations like this. I hope someone with LE experience weighs in on this, 'cause I'm curious..

He did not draw his weapon until the situation began to escalate, according to most reports.

Hopefully the video will clarify.

 

[Alt+F4]

The UK is not the USA.

I only have experience with London and Leeds (and yeah that crazy week in Manchester) but the UK police handle things better than most US police forces.

I'll leave out the Hillsborough Disaster, yeah that one they didn't do so good on.

 

[Nessie]

The guy was large, muscular and a member of the wrestling team.

Should all cops be able to subdue such people with a minimum of force and with a high enough confidence of success that we don't worry about them failing and the perp getting possession of the officer's sidearm?

Here's a hint... not every cop is somekind of Ninja trained ex-Navy Seal. (obviously if you live in Steven Seagal's jurisdiction then YMMV).

Yes and you do not have to be a Navy Seal to do that.

It seems that being armed is now a self fulfilling prophecy, whereby you shoot to stop people from getting your gun. The mere presence of a gun instantly escalates the situation to one where deadly force is used, without recourse to minimal use at first.

 

[LTC8K6]

So, the guy was chasing/rushing the officer, even as the officer was retreating and was facing a drawn gun...

Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you think the officer should have "reasoned" with an individual? Do you think a person who continues to chase someone after they've had a gun drawn on them will be thinking rationally/logically?


No, I don't think the student was "after a hug". And neither should the officer. That's the point.

Earlier I used the phrase "(more or less) attacking". If the officer was being chased by someone who was chasing them and willing to risk injury/death because of a drawn gun, wouldn't the officer be right to at least assume his well-being was in danger and the attack was at least forthcoming?

Why else would an individual rush an armed police officer?


Verbal skills only work when the person doing the attacking/chasing/threatening is able to use at least a little bit of reasoning skills.

How long would it take for someone to run (lets say) 20 meters to cover the distance to the officer? Would that have been enough time to have a "calming dialog" with anyone?

and who cannot subdue someone with a minimum of force, with the use of baton and or cuffs should be a police officer.[/quote]
As others pointed out, any sort of close-combat poses a certain risk to the officer. Is it fair to risk the lives of an officer on the off chance that some guy rushing towards him doesn't really mean him any harm?

Again, I want to stress that I'm assuming that the events (as outlined in the article) are accurate. (Its quite possible that the officer was lying and there should be a complete investigation.) But then that's not what people are complaining about.[/QUOTE]

**********

IIRC there is an informal distance rule of something like 20 feet.

An attacker can cover about 20 feet before a person can draw a gun from a holster.

That is, if your gun is in your holster, and a person attacks you from, say, 15 feet away, they will reach you before you can draw and fire.

It's usually used as a demo of why an aggressive person with a knife should be shot.

 

[Nessie]

So only large young males need apply for police jobs?

There was time when that was the case. Now all sizes and the ladies are expected to police front line and be able to handle themselves. IME size is no indicator of ability in a fight and ladies can fight like demons.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes and you do not have to be a Navy Seal to do that.

It seems that being armed is now a self fulfilling prophecy, whereby you shoot to stop people from getting your gun. The mere presence of a gun instantly escalates the situation to one where deadly force is used, without recourse to minimal use at first.

In the USA it's much more likely that a subject is armed.

In the UK, you can afford to assume people are unarmed.

For all we know, this guy was acting like he had a weapon, and in the dark it may have been hard tell what he was up to or if he was carrying something concealed in his hand.

Why don't we wait for a full report before condemning anyone?

 

[WildCat]

There was time when that was the case. Now all sizes and the ladies are expected to police front line and be able to handle themselves. IME size is no indicator of ability in a fight and ladies can fight like demons.

You think most female police can go toe to toe with a male perp?

 

[yodaluver28]

The guy was large, muscular and a member of the wrestling team.

The student was muscular and a member of the wrestling team but he was not particularly large. He was 5'7" and weighed 135lbs. That's below the American average of 5'9" and 175lbs. A cop who can't subdue without killing an unarmed person who is below average in both height and weight has no business being one.

Should all cops be able to subdue such people with a minimum of force and with a high enough confidence of success that we don't worry about them failing and the perp getting possession of the officer's sidearm?

Yes, they should. That's what the job is. They are supposed to keep the peace and protect people and property, not be trigger-happy dolts who can't handle a situation common on practically every college campus every Saturday night without killing. There is always a risk of a perp getting the sidearm and discretion is crucial in a confrontation but there is simply no excuse for shooting a drunk, naked and unarmed kid in the chest without trying anything else first.

The full description of what happened sounds far less threatening than the quoted blurb. The kid banged on the police station window and when the officer went outside, the student challenged the officer "in a fighting stance". The kid was a wrestler. This could easily have been a situation where the kid was drunk and decided it would be fun to mess with a cop by trying to wrestle him and when the cop wouldn't, he chased him around. Stupid? Sure.
A deadly threat that was worthy of death? Um...no.

This was a grossly excessive use of force. The kid was naked and thus had no weapon. He was 5'7" and weighed 135 lbs. There were other ways to subdue him. Even if he was on something, he could and should've been pepper sprayed or tased. If the officer didn't have those options at his disposal, he could/should've shot the kid in a leg, he didn't have to go straight to the chest on the first shot.

Here's a hint... not every cop is somekind of Ninja trained ex-Navy Seal. (obviously if you live in Steven Seagal's jurisdiction then YMMV).

They don't need to be ninjas or ex-SEALS, that's ridiculous. They simply need to be able to subdue everyday run-of-the-mill drunken perps and unstable suspects without immediately resorting to a kill shot without trying anything else first. Anyone who freaks out so badly in a situation with a drunk college kid that a kill shot is their first instinct has no business being a cop or security officer.

 

[Alt+F4]

You think most female police can go toe to toe with a male perp?

Nope but then in NYC it's the male cops that keep shooting folks, not the female officers.

 

[LTC8K6]

I only have experience with London and Leeds (and yeah that crazy week in Manchester) but the UK police handle things better than most US police forces.

I'll leave out the Hillsborough Disaster, yeah that one they didn't do so good on.

That's an opinion, and you are welcome to it.

The USA is not the same situation at all for a police officer.

I seem to recall multiple shots to the head for a guy trying to catch his train...

But again, police officers are ordinary human beings, not super heroes. They make mistakes, they can be beaten up, they can be outsmarted, and they can also save your life.

 

[commandlinegamer]

It is not just the police who shoot for lame reasons.

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

A Japanese student dressed as John Travolta for a Halloween party goes to the wrong house and is shot dead by someone who like that cop has panicked at the slightest of reasons and reached for their gun.

I recall vaguely reading something about ten years ago about a couple of businessmen over in the States. Drunk (unsurprisingly, for they were Scots) one of them blundered into someone's garden and got shot dead for his trouble.

(No, I'm not confusing it with a more recent case where 2 guys were killed in Florida.)

But maybe I imagined it, as I've been trying to find a source recently and come up blank.