When are police killings justified?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think you may be confusing the range at which a guy with a samurai sword can close with a police officer and strike before the police officer can shoot them with a currently holstered weapon, with the range at which a guy with a samurai sword can do that to someone who already has their firearm out, ready and aimed.

A guy with a samurai sword is a deadly threat if they are within 20 feet and your firearm is in its holster with the safety on because they could well kill you before you can fire a shot.

If your gun is already out, a guy with a samurai sword at 20 feet away is going to get shot if they try anything and if you can shoot straight.

Of course, given that you would be filling your underwear with fecal matter no matter how far away the sword guy was, do you really think it is fair for you to be the judge as to how far away sword boy needs to be before he can be shot?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

One of the first things that I taught to law enforcement officers while I was a firearms instructor is that real life conditions are not like prepared conditions at the range.
Your footing, unexpected distractions, how you react under extreme stress, are all unknowns.

The incident took place in an intersection. Try having your concentration broken by a car crash (looking at the the police incident instead of where they are going) and then dodging a projectile.
What about a woman off to one side suddenly screaming to her child to get back away from the crazed swordsman?
Missteps and falling due to poor footing, or stepping off a curb, or slipping on a rock when you place your feet for your optimum position can and have occurred. Try dodging a thrown sword when you are trying to keep your balance.

The trouble is - many people's imaginations are stifled by the need to try and put everything into controlled situations for analysis. The real world is an uncontrolled and wildly variable place.

That is why a fly ball has to be caught by the outfielder in a game of baseball instead of just calling the batter out. One cannot assume that a highly paid professional all-star athlete is not going to slip, get distracted, or fall over his own two feet and get hit between the eyes by the routine fly-ball that a 10 year-old could easily catch.

100% correct.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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...)

It's simple: you negotiate with him before the commercial break, then when the show returns, he's in handcuffs.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There are more detailed versions of the story here and here.

The important facts as I see them that are relevant to the ongoing discussion:

1. The deceased can't have been more than a car length from the officer at the time of the shooting and according to the story was holding his samurai swords ready to attack. Since he had already ignored orders to drop the weapons and had attacked the police car it seems sound to conclude that at that point shooting him was justified.

2. One major criticism of the shooting officer was that he let things get to that point, by jumping out of the car to confront the man himself.

3. The deceased was shot in the back, ran away, and was found dead an hour later. If the police had followed him into the park his life could probably have been saved. Also presumably if this guy presented a threat to the public in the first place then he still presented a threat to the public wounded and running away, so I'm really curious as to how not pursuing him can be justified.

4. He was a long-term methamphetamine abuser with a record of criminal violence and obviously in his last days he was suffering from mental illness to boot. He was a danger to society in the state he was in, but also he was not in his right mind and so arguing that "he didn't obey a police order so he deserves what he got" ignores the fact he probably wasn't capable of acting rationally at that time.

 

[bluesjnr]

3. The deceased was shot in the back, ran away, and was found dead an hour later. If the police had followed him into the park his life could probably have been saved. Also presumably if this guy presented a threat to the public in the first place then he still presented a threat to the public wounded and running away ¹, so I'm really curious as to how not pursuing him can be justified.

4. He was a long-term methamphetamine abuser with a record of criminal violence² and obviously in his last days he was suffering from mental illness to boot. He was a danger to society in the state he was in, but also he was not in his right mind and so arguing that "he didn't obey a police order so he deserves what he got" ignores the fact he probably wasn't capable of acting rationally at that time.

My bold (obviously) I concur given ² then surely ¹ would apply and leaving him to own devices still at large seems an extremely strange decision.

 

[AdinDraco]

My 2 cents. I'm not a cop, don't know any cops but I realise that they must have one of the crappiest jobs in the world. All they do all day, every day is deal with the worst that society can deliver and if they do their job properly, then they're hated for it. Damn if I'd know how I'd react to a crazy with a sword in a public place. Do the police do everything perfectly by-the-book? Probably not, but in hindsight who does? Who is ultimately responsible for the guy with the sword being out in public threating people with a weapon? I'll bet it wasn't the cops.

rockinkt, I love your summing up, it was well said. Decisions and/or outcomes in real-life, dynamic situations can really suck in hindsight.

 

[Careyp74]

OK, what is the correct approach when driving up to a scene like this? We have a guy with a sword, out in public, and you just drove up with your partner. You call it in, and now what?

 

[Region Rat]

Like... oil?

Yeah, sure. That's why the cops in the uncivilized US are armed. They need to be ready for all of those bad guys running around the cities stealing oil.

 

[WildCat]

OK, what is the correct approach when driving up to a scene like this? We have a guy with a sword, out in public, and you just drove up with your partner. You call it in, and now what?

Apparently you let him be swinging his swords around in a crowded city street. Sure, he might lop off the head of a child or elderly person but the important thing is the safety of the sword-wielding lunatic.

 

[tyr_13]

OK, what is the correct approach when driving up to a scene like this? We have a guy with a sword, out in public, and you just drove up with your partner. You call it in, and now what?

Run him over.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Apparently you let him be swinging his swords around in a crowded city street. Sure, he might lop off the head of a child or elderly person but the important thing is the safety of the sword-wielding lunatic.

If you are a sensitive cop, you also try to figure out why he is swinging the swords. Was he abused as a child? Does he take drugs? What led him to this? You hand him a list of mental health professionals in his area.

 

[Darat]

OK, what is the correct approach when driving up to a scene like this? We have a guy with a sword, out in public, and you just drove up with your partner. You call it in, and now what?

From what the coroner has stated the police are supposed to follow the procedures they have for dealing with such a situation, which isn't what the police man in question did.

I don't know if the Victorian police force has their procedures on-line or not.

 

[Darat]

Apparently you let him be swinging his swords around in a crowded city street. Sure, he might lop off the head of a child or elderly person but the important thing is the safety of the sword-wielding lunatic.

If you are a sensitive cop, you also try to figure out why he is swinging the swords. Was he abused as a child? Does he take drugs? What led him to this? You hand him a list of mental health professionals in his area.

Ah right - as I said above I didn't know if the Victorian police had their procedures online, can you point me to where you were able to read up on their procedures?

 

[shemp]

There are more detailed versions of the story here and here.

The important facts as I see them that are relevant to the ongoing discussion:

1. The deceased can't have been more than a car length from the officer at the time of the shooting and according to the story was holding his samurai swords ready to attack. Since he had already ignored orders to drop the weapons and had attacked the police car it seems sound to conclude that at that point shooting him was justified.

2. One major criticism of the shooting officer was that he let things get to that point, by jumping out of the car to confront the man himself.

3. The deceased was shot in the back, ran away, and was found dead an hour later. If the police had followed him into the park his life could probably have been saved. Also presumably if this guy presented a threat to the public in the first place then he still presented a threat to the public wounded and running away, so I'm really curious as to how not pursuing him can be justified.

4. He was a long-term methamphetamine abuser with a record of criminal violence and obviously in his last days he was suffering from mental illness to boot. He was a danger to society in the state he was in, but also he was not in his right mind and so arguing that "he didn't obey a police order so he deserves what he got" ignores the fact he probably wasn't capable of acting rationally at that time.

This is from your second link:

Leaving his patrol partner, Leading Senior Constable John Hawkins, in the police car, the sergeant issued a warning to drop the weapon, but Mr Biggs did not. With the police car separating Sergeant Cahir from Mr Biggs, he then moved forward with one sword above his head and another held in a thrusting manner.

After Mr Biggs smashed the car's back window, Leading Senior Constable Hawkins drove around the corner, leaving the sergeant exposed. Mr Biggs continued to come towards him, and Sergeant Cahir fired his gun, hitting him in the upper back. Mr Biggs stopped, then ran away, and was found dead one hour later in a nearby park.

Two questions come to mind: First, why did Sergeant Cahir drive away and leave his partner exposed? This seems like an incredible disregard for your partner's safety. Second, after Mr. Biggs was shot he ran away. Why wasn't he pursued? Was he able to run faster than the officers? Was their car disabled? Was it time to go on break?

It just seems to me that these two officers did a very poor job of handling this situation, regardless of whether or not Mr. Biggs should have been shot.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

It just seems to me that these two officers did a very poor job of handling this situation, regardless of whether or not Mr. Biggs should have been shot.

Which is probably (at least part of) the reason why the coroner concluded that:

"Sgt Cahir created the scenario which led to Mr Biggs' death when he single-handedly confronted Mr Biggs, a man armed with weapons in a busy residential area, acting in a dangerous, violent and irrational manner," she said.
Ms Jamieson said that while Sgt Cahir and Leading Sen Const Hawkins were up to date with operations training, they "appear to have lacked the capacity to implement it".​

 

[tyr_13]

It just seems to me that these two officers did a very poor job of handling this situation, regardless of whether or not Mr. Biggs should have been shot.

I didn't see that part. Agreed.

 

[Darat]

I didn't see that part. Agreed.

I think this is at the heart of the matter - I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that in extreme circumstances the police shouldn't kill someone but in this particular instance the police helped create those extreme circumstances by not following their training.

 

[WildCat]

Ah right - as I said above I didn't know if the Victorian police had their procedures online, can you point me to where you were able to read up on their procedures?

There's procedures, and then there's common sense. I really doubt the Victoria police have a procedure in place for a lunatic wielding swords on a crowded city street. To have a "one size fits all" procedure for such an aberration is not good policy.

You don't stand by until it gets to this point.

 

[Darat]

There's procedures, and then there's common sense. I really doubt the Victoria police have a procedure in place for a lunatic wielding swords on a crowded city street. To have a "one size fits all" procedure for such an aberration is not good policy.

...snip...

According to the police force and the coroner they do:

Coroner:
She said the incident demonstrated the tragic results when police relied too much on bravado and spontaneity at the expense of policy and training when dealing with mentally ill and drug-affected people.

Police force
Mr Walshe said Victoria Police was reviewing its training to include more emphasis on communication and how to better defuse situations involving mentally-ill and drug- and alcohol-affected people.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

You don't stand by until it gets to this point.

In the report you linked to the victims were killed before the police arrived...