When are police killings justified?

[Bikewer]

From the coroner's report posted, I'm not clear just what part of "operational procedure" the officer was supposed to have violated. As I read it, it was not the shooting itself; the coroner seemed to be more concerned that the officer's partner was left in the patrol car.

Perhaps we are not privy to the department's operational procedure in such cases....(though it's difficult to imagine a specific policy designed to deal with dual-wielding swordsmen...)

 

[tyr_13]

(though it's difficult to imagine a specific policy designed to deal with dual-wielding swordsmen...)

That's easy, you send in a pikeman, or circle him with mounted archers.

 

[Thunder]

Exactly.
Comes down to the judgment of the individual and all you can do is hope that the recruitment process has weeded out the wackos and that he/she has had the right training.

That being said - everybody is an armchair quarterback with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and all the time in the world to form an opinion.

a good police department will have a VERY THOROUGH psychological screening process, and regular psychological testing every year or so, to make sure the people on the force are sane and rational.

 

[Ryokan]

That's easy, you send in a pikeman, or circle him with mounted archers.

You need to brush up on your rock-scissors-paper of medieval warfare.

Pikemen < Swordsmen < Cavalry < Pikemen

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I can't find a link right now but I do recall reading about a small study that showed that in simulated encounters where police officers were instructed to shoot (with paintballs if I recall correctly) bad guys who drew guns, but not to shoot bad guys in the back, they often ended up hitting bad guys in the back if the bad guy went for a gun and then quickly turned away from the officer.

It seemed that there was a period after someone decides to pull the trigger and before they actually do so where it's not physically possible to call it off, even if the target thinks better of drawing their gun and does a U-turn instead.

The context was that of investigating a few police shootings where the suspects were shot in the back and the police officer's story was "he turned around really quick!". The conclusion the study came to was that such stories were plausible.

We don't have enough information from the linked story to see whether this is relevant to this case. It's at least conceivable that the deceased charged the police officer then spun around at the last minute, but nothing in the story hints that this might have been the case. It seems that what the officer is being criticised for is getting out of the car and confronting the deceased alone in the first place.

 

[tyr_13]

You need to brush up on your rock-scissors-paper of medieval warfare.

Pikemen < Swordsmen < Cavalry < Pikemen

That's just wrong. It's really difficult for a swordsman, even a good one, to gain ground on anyone worth his salt with a pole arm. Granted, a bill or glaive is better against a swordsman than a pike, but it still works. Swords were simply never the primary weapon for just about any organized professional warrior, and for good reason. Even as someone who tends to favor swords, it's really humbling to go up against a naginata-do practitioner.

These were samurai style blades, so I'm assuming he was emulating when these blades were most prominent for fighting. In that case the best tactic of the time to fight a swordsman was to shoot him with a gun.

EDIT: That is assuming 'short' (under ten feet) pikes of course as long pikes are fairly hard to use one on one against a foot soldier.

 

[Ryokan]

Don't come here with your logic and reason, I've played dozens of computer games and that's how it always works!!

 

[fuelair]

I'm glad I live in a civilized country where the police don't carry guns and are forced to find alternative ways to resolve issues..

I would never be stupid enough to join law enforcement there (or England) - though both are more-or-less otherwise lovely places to visit.

 

[fuelair]

All I can say there is IF I am in a country that does not allow reasonable arming of citizens but is not so depraved as to not arm police and I am walking peacefully down a street and run athwart a sword wielding crazy, I certainly would wish an armed officer to hot foot it to remove the danger. If such requires shooting it dead, I am for it. Fortunately, in the U.S, in Florida (or Texas) I do not have to depend on an armed officer being around to so aid me.

 

[fuelair]

That's just wrong. It's really difficult for a swordsman, even a good one, to gain ground on anyone worth his salt with a pole arm. Granted, a bill or glaive is better against a swordsman than a pike, but it still works. Swords were simply never the primary weapon for just about any organized professional warrior, and for good reason. Even as someone who tends to favor swords, it's really humbling to go up against a naginata-do practitioner.

These were samurai style blades, so I'm assuming he was emulating when these blades were most prominent for fighting. In that case the best tactic of the time to fight a swordsman was to shoot him with a gun.

EDIT: That is assuming 'short' (under ten feet) pikes of course as long pikes are fairly hard to use one on one against a foot soldier.

Naginata fans could do much worse than to look up Crawford Survival Staff (yes, that Crawford) on www.dogpile.com

 

[Ryokan]

I would never be stupid enough to join law enforcement there (or England) - though both are more-or-less otherwise lovely places to visit.

Yeah, you would absolutely be stupid to be a policeman in one the countries with the lowest crime rates and lowest murder rates in the world.

The murder of policemen is almost unheard of in Norway. One of the reasons is that since the police don't carry guns, there's no need for criminals to escalate. If they're robbing the corner store with a gun, and know that when the police show up they'll be armed, there's that greater chance that he'll fire first.

We have an easy country to compare ourselves to, Sweden. Same language, same culture, same politics - except their police carry guns. Not only are more criminals shot in Sweden, but more policemen are killed as well.

So I'd much rather be an unarmed policeman in Norway than an armed policeman in any other country - it seems safer.

Don't know about the UK, though. Are more policemen killed there than any other country in Europe, except Norway? How about policemen killed in UK compared to USA?

 

[staunch]

You have failed to show any evidence of this whatsoever.

All you have done is wave your hands and conjure up fairy stories about car crashes and thrown samurai swords.



You're the one who took things to an absurd level with your attempt to justify shooting someone because they might throw a samurai sword at you. I just pointed out your absurdity. Don't blame me.

It looks to me like you goofed in the first place trying to claim that a guy with a samurai sword twenty feet away was an immediate, deadly threat to an officer with their gun out and ready, whereas that rule of thumb only applies to officers whose guns are holstered. Then you tried to bluff your way out of it and just made yourself look silly. Now you're running away and trying to pretend that the absurdity of your bluff was my fault.

You misunderstand the 21 foot rule. A suspect with a sword/knife, broken bottle on the run can close in on a police officer in FOUR steps that’s 4 seconds. It doesn’t really matter if the officer has his weapon at the ready or not. Under those circumstances his reaction time is at a disadvantage. Of course he can always distance himself from the suspect.

 

[Region Rat]

I'm glad I live in a civilized country where the police don't carry guns and are forced to find alternative ways to resolve issues..

The only problem with that is that in a polite society like you describe, one unpolite person with a little determination can cause a lot of havoc.

All it would take is for you guys to get something that someone else wants, and you would have to start defending yourself from bad guys. But you're lucky. Bad guys don't seem to have a need for cross country skis.

 

[Ryokan]

The only problem with that is that in a polite society like you describe, one unpolite person with a little determination can cause a lot of havoc.

All it would take is for you guys to get something that someone else wants, and you would have to start defending yourself from bad guys. But you're lucky. Bad guys don't seem to have a need for cross country skis.

Like... oil?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You misunderstand the 21 foot rule. A suspect with a sword/knife, broken bottle on the run can close in on a police officer in FOUR steps that’s 4 seconds. It doesn’t really matter if the officer has his weapon at the ready or not. Under those circumstances his reaction time is at a disadvantage. Of course he can always distance himself from the suspect.

No, I think it's you that misunderstands it.

Human reaction time with a handgun is well under 0.5 seconds, and 3.5 seconds is ample time to empty a Victorian police officer's revolver if it's already aimed and already has the safety off. (People can and have continued to cause trouble even after being shot half a dozen times at close range, but it's not the way to bet).

The 20-foot rule of thumb is important because that's the distance within which a holstered handgun is useless against a knife (or whatever) if the guy with a knife initiates hostilities. It's all about how far someone with a knife can move in the time it takes their target to realise what's happening, get a gun out, take the safety off, aim the gun and fire.

It's got nothing to do with scenarios where the gun is already out and aimed.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

"Samurai-style swords"? If the bloke had two katanas or wakizashis, I wouldn't be surprised if they were crafted for display in the first place.

But anyway, the coroner's comments took me by surprise. I don't think they talk that way around here.

As to being shot in the back, I would prefer the coroner's comments on that, as in my armchair I could see that going either way.

 

[Drudgewire]

You misunderstand the 21 foot rule. A suspect with a sword/knife, broken bottle on the run can close in on a police officer in FOUR steps that’s 4 seconds.

It's actually a lot less time than that. Even after being mortally wounded a person can travel 20 feet in 1.6 seconds. It's one of the reasons for following the rule of three to center mass when using lethal force.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

They're idiots. If a police officer points a gun at you and tells you to do something, you do it. If you don't, you expect bullets.

Great idea. Pity it doesn't work with people who are mentally ill or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. You can't expect rational behavior from people who are simply incapable of exercising it.

Or with a person who is deaf, has severe hearing loss, has a mental disability, doesn't speak English or doesn't speak English well enough- or even with someone who is completely innocent and is totally confused about what is going on.

This goes double if the police officer is undercover and can't manage to communicate to the suspect that he/she is actually a cop. Then the suspect will think he's just some random thug pointing a gun at him/her and will act accordingly.

Just saying, you can't expect everyone to calmly co operate.

 

[lionking]

There still seems to be a rather chilling disregard to the safety of others in the area. Carlton is a heavily populated and busy inner city area.

 

[bluesjnr]

1. MISINTERPRETATION

"Unfortunately, some officers and apparently some trainers as well have 'streamlined' the 21-Foot Rule in a way that gravely distorts its meaning and exposes them to highly undesirable legal consequences," Lewinski says. Namely, they have come to believe that the Rule means that a subject brandishing an edged weapon when positioned at any distance less than 21 feet from an officer can justifiably be shot.

For example, an article on the 21-Foot Rule in a highly respected LE magazine states in its opening sentence that "a suspect armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat." The "common knowledge" that "deadly force against him is justified" has long been "accepted in police and court circles," the article continues.

Statements like that, Lewinski says, "have led officers to believe that no matter what position they're in, even with their gun on target and their finger on the trigger, they are in extreme danger at 21 feet. They believe they don't have a chance of surviving unless they preempt the suspect by shooting.

Looks like the 21 ft rule and what it actually constitutes is misunderstood by serving officers. This is US based research but I'm betting that it holds true worldwide seeing as wild speculation seems to be de rigeur on this thread.

I know, I know I'm guilty of it too (just as a head off, a 21 ft rule if you will)

Article here

And in the interests of balance:

Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them. "Certainly it is not safe to have your gun in your holster at this distance," Lewinski says, and firing in hopes of stopping an activated attack within this range may well be justified.