Yes, we pay them to protect and serve. That doesn’t mean we should always look to protect suspects at the cost of increasing risk to the police. If a guy is armed with a knife, their obligation is to ensure he is not a threat to others. Ensuring he doesn’t get injured is secondary.
I agree with your general point, but he was inside the trolley by himself. The police and everyone else were outside. It looks like he was not a threat to anyone else when they shot him.
Often in these sorts of incidents the person turns out to be mentally ill, impaired by drugs, or both, not just obstinate. Lethal force should only be used in response to an immediate threat (such as charging the officers), never for mere non-compliance.
He should have, but shooting him purely for failing to do so is wildly inappropriate.
That in itself may have been a factor; in Blink, Malcolm Gladwell noted how police shootings are more common when multiple officers are involved than when a single officer is.
Yes, you are being a bit naïve on the subject.
-
Within 20 feet or so, a knife is just as effective a weapon as a pistol. Often more so. That is to say, a suspect can close that distance and stab you before you can draw and fire your weapon.
-
The police are not obligated to turn a gunfight into a knife fight just because the suspect brought a knife.
-
Disarming someone brandishing a knife isn’t that easy. Especially if they are crazy or drugged up.
-
Bullet-proof vests aren’t necessarily knife-proof. A bullet proof vest is typically designed to use layers of fabric (typically Kevlar) to distribute the force of a bullet impact over a wider area. A knife can often penetrate between and sever the threads in that fabric fairly easily.
-
Pistol rounds, even lethal ones, do not put people down instantly or make them fly backward 20 feet like something out of a Robert Rodriguez film.
-
Unless your last name is “Oakley” or “Hickok”, it’s generally impossible to shoot a knife out of someone’s hand (just in case that were to come up).
I haven’t watched the video, so I can’t comment on the specifics of this case. In general, police should show as much restraint as possible. However, I don’t think they should have to take unnecessary risks to neutralize a knife-wielding maniac.
I don’t think people should expect these scenarios to go down like on TV. You know, where the police surround the suspect. Then Mathesar, Pink Power Ranger and the rest of the gang from Flashpoint show up in their Toronto SWAT truck and set up a perimeter. Then the suspects girlfriend or whoever is rushed to the scene to talk him down. Then after much deliberation and soul searching, the Captain offers himself up as a hostage until he can Krav Maga the knife out of the sobbing suspects hands.
Often in these sorts of incidents the person turns out to be mentally ill, impaired by drugs, or both, not just obstinate.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, a knife-wielding man who happens to be “mentally ill, impaired by drugs, or both” is a heck of a lot more frightening to me than one who’s “just obstinate.”
Horse shit, unless you can throw a knife at 800 fps. Or run that fast.
Their guns were already drawn.
I hope it is, or they are just doing for fun.
This is exactly how I believe police will act almost every time.
He’s right- if you’re trying to draw and aim your gun while a guy with a knife is coming for you. None of which applies here. The police had their guns trained on the guy and he wasn’t moving toward them anyway.
Really? You find a conscious choice to disobey the officers more comforting than someone being incapable of making a reasoned choice? Fair enough, but I certainly disagree. The former implies malice, the latter does not.
I haven’t seen the video but if its being described accurately then clearly the police where wrong to shoot him and it’s quite disturbing to hear people say that people who refuse to put down a knife when told to need to be “put down.”
At the same time, I think all the people arguing the police should have shown the “initiative and courage” to physically disarm him have seen way too many martial arts movies. In real life, when you get into a fight with a guy with a knife whether you win or lose you’re going to get cut up.
That’s why I said they shouldn’t have shot him in my first post.
Right you are. Sorry.
The latter implies crazy. Change the scenario a little: imagine a knife-wielding man who obstinately responds with a calm “no” when you tell him to drop the weapon or leave your house or whatever. And now imagine a knife-wielding man who replies instead with, oh, say, “LUNCH NO GANGRENE LUNCH.”
Sure, I’ll admit the former is troubling. But do you truly find the latter less troubling?
Yes. Crazy has some percentage chance of being dangerous. Malice has a higher chance.
I was going to mention this, but their guns were already drawn, so changes this.
When I was taught some gun handling by a person that trains police officers he mentioned this to me and did a little mini demo. I didn’t believe it, but nodded and agreed in the name of moving forward. I believe, one of the first things he said to me is “You should always bring a knife to a gun fight.”
Wisconsin also states that in order to shoot someone in self defense, you must be less then 21 feet (IIRC) from them, otherwise they’ll state that you could have run away, ducked for cover etc
There’s that number again, I thought that was odd, but didn’t think too much of it.
Then, mythbusters decided to see how far away you needed to be from someone with a knife in order to draw your gun and shoot them. IIRC, you need to be about 21 feet.
Here’s the mythbusters clip, FTR, I didn’t watch it, just skipped around to make sure it’s the right clip. I should note that I did notice that Adam was racking the gun which means he wasn’t keeping ‘one in the chamber’, at least not in the few seconds of it that I saw.
I read the article, and I watched the video and I wanted to correct something you wrote (bolded): the police were not on or in the bus. They fired from outside the bus. The only person on the bus was Yatim.
ETA: Just saw post #22 so [Emily Litella]nevermind[/Emily Litella].
Then thank god they stopped him before he started cutting up the upholstery.
I think you’re glossing over a bit, though: you said obstinate implies malice, and I said mentally ill or on drugs or both implies crazy – and, okay, for the sake of argument, maybe malice beats crazy with regard to dangerous. But does that mean obstinate beats mentally-ill-or-on-drugs-or-both with regard to dangerous?
If you tell me you were in a small room with someone who seemed to be obstinate, I’d say “So what?” If you tell me he seemed to be mentally ill or on drugs or both, I’d say “So what did you do?”
To follow up on this, you are correct.
That article is about another disturbed man shot by Toronto police in April; he was holding scissors.
It’s not just Toronto and it’s not a new thing. Here’s a thread from 2009 about police Tasering a deaf mentally ill man who was behind a closed, locked door (and thus presented no danger to anyone). Consensus in the thread was the police did nothing wrong.
So, ISTM, people do not want police officers to show courage; most of society would rather just let police shoot (or tase) willy-nilly. Hey, at least be glad that not every officer walking around Toronto has a Taser, eh.