A few things come to mind reading the comments here.
It appears to me (who wasn’t on the scene) that this guy should have been tasered rather than being shot, and if there were no tasers or similar non-lethal weaponry on hand (stupid if policy dictated such) they should have waited until one was available.
People who are crazed, whether on drugs or not, may well not be stopped by one, a few or ten rounds of gunfire. There are plenty of instances on record of people with no regard for their or others’ safety surviving incredible damage to inflict it on those trying to stop them.
Hearing people in this thread yapping about how we pay cops to show courage is nauseating. Their job description does not include subjecting themselves to the risk of serious and possibly fatal injury in order to satisfy Internet posters’ conception of “courage”.
Again, it sounds to me like deadly force was used prematurely. Probably the officers should have talked him down from whatever had him brandishing the knife. For instance, a roundtable discussion of Canadian parliamentary politics would have put him to sleep.
If you put it that way, I suppose frightening-without-unreasonable is the kind of man we can do business with, and unreasonable-but-not-frightening is the kind of man we don’t need to do business with. So: something something necessary, something something sufficient; agreeing to drop the knife isn’t a problem, and refusing to drop the potato chip isn’t a problem either – but the combination adds up to protect and serve people like me by doing your best to incapacitate people like him – from a safe distance, if that helps you avoid getting stabbed. And, if you can, please extend him a similar courtesy: give the guy plenty of chances to avoid getting shot, and only drop him if he persists in being unreasonable and frightening.
::shrugs:: He was a delivery system for something sharp and dangerous. He couldn’t follow a simple and reasonable instruction. For whatever reason, his behavior was therefore indistinguishable from that of an animal that hears blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah blah.
It’s been pointed out that I don’t know whether he was obstinate or a lunatic; his off-putting behavior is therefore all I can evaluate, and all the cops could evaluate; I stand by my evaluation, which apparently happens to have been theirs.
I believe what you mean when by “initiative” and “courage” would actually be termed by a review board as “reckless”, “foolhardy”, and “in contradiction to training and procedure.” Police officers are given some modest amount of hand to hand training which focuses primarily on restraint of an unarmed subject and release/escape from grapples. Most departments specifically prohibit direct striking moves except in response to immediate attack, and discourage officers from moving into grappling range with an armed or aggressive subject, not because officers lack courage but because a wounded, disabled, or immobilied officer is a liability to himself, his fellow officers, and the public at large; the suspect now has access to weapons on his duty belt, can use him as a human shield, and otherwise complicate the job of the rest of the officers in disarming and immobilizing the subject. An officer who allows himself to be injured by recklessness also puts an additional burden on fellow officers who have to carry his load while he is out on medical leave.
It is also apparent that you know very little about edged weapon combat. In any real conflict in which an opponent is wielding a knife or other edged weapon, there is a very high probability that even a well-armed and well-protected defender will become seriously injured. Even a small knife can do crippling, disfiguring, and even lethal damage, and the Class IIa soft body armor typically worn by patrol officers is of little benefit against a knife-wielding attacker in that it does not cover the neck, face, groin, or extremities; in fact, a small knife will will easily puncture through Kevlar body armor. My edged weapons instructure stated on the first day I started training with him that, “In a real knife ‘fight’, one guy goes to the hospital and the other guy goes to the morgue.” Again, an officer who recklessly charges in and allows himself to be wounded poses a health and safety risk to his fellow officers and the public at large.
It is a common misapprehension that the police are charged with protecting individual citizens. Police exists to enforce laws and ‘keep the peace’, i.e. deter crime and mediate disagreements before they become assaults. Police officers have no obligation to protect anyone–especially a violent subject–at the cost of their own health and safety, especially when such an act would provide a subject with access to the officer’s weapons. If is unfortunate that some mentally ill people act in violent fashion, but that doesn’t translate into an obligation for an officer to put himself at grave risk, any more than a private citizen should. I don’t know how much experience you have with violent mentally ill people but with someone in a delusional state and demonstrating aggressive behavior it is very difficult to remain as detached and heedless of one’s own safety.
Whether the shooting was justified or not depends upon the penal code and the police department use of force policy. I would expect that if officers are equipped with less lethal modes of disabling the subject they would use those first before resorting to a sidearm (as much to reduce any hazard of bystander injury as much as protection of the subject) but asserting that police should exhaust every means of non-lethal force even in peril to their own well-being is unreasonable to say the least.
Well then, there’s your problem right there. Maybe you should fire all your cops and replace them with someone else, like firemen - who actually *are *willing to risk their lives to protect others.
Joey P beat me to it, but yes, a person can close with you and stab you before you draw and fire your women.
Even if your gun is drawn, it’s still pretty difficult to insta-kill a determined attacker who is running at you brandishing a knife.
The point being, a mentally ill or drugged out person is still dangerous even though they have “just a knife”.
Except he was no imminent danger to anyone other than himself. Were he to make serious moves to rushing out of the trolley, the police would’ve been in imminent danger and have every right to shoot. Lacking imminent danger, and until said danger comes up, the number one priority should be to negotiate and talk them down, to resolve the case with minimal deaths/injuries, if at all possible. Do you disagree? If so, why? With absolutely nothing pressing, with no stakes hinging on whether or not this is resolved in the next five minutes, wouldn’t any option other than the most aggressive and deadly one available be better?
Indeed, I know nothing about “edged weapon combat”.
But I’d hazard a guess that a 110 pound kid wielding a three-inch knife stretches the notion of combatant by a tad. Especially when his counterpart weighs twice what he does and has had training in the matter (and, FWIW, is wearing a bullet-proof vest, and will be backed up in about two seconds by seven of his equally well trained and equipped colleagues).
All of the above, of course, is not minimize the other option that was available to the "serve and protect"ors. As I wrote, and has you neglected to address, one of officers (I would have hoped) could have tried to talk him down.
What ever happened to billy clubs? When my dad was a cop, he made sure he was handy with a stick. He once used it to disarm an unstable guy who had a knife in each hand, even though the other cop with him was prepared to shoot. He wasn’t afraid of hurting people, but he also didn’t want to kill anyone.
I was going to make this point as well, stab vests are very different from bulletproof vests. Bulletproof vest don’t offer much protection from knives and other stabbing objects, while stab vests don’t offer much protection from bullets.
Again, I think it’s a crying shame that tasers were in such short supply.
That sounds awfully nice, but the man seemed incapable of being talked down or negotiated with. I mean, if a group of police officers are pointing guns at you while repeatedly insisting you put down the knife…
…well, look, Human Action has aptly pointed out in this thread that an irrational knife-wielder might “have no conception that it is a weapon intended for stabbing or slashing”. Jimmy Chitwood observed that “often in these kinds of incidents the lunatic is an actual lunatic.” So flip the question around: judging by his response to imminent danger, I’d say the guy couldn’t be reasoned with; if he’s not going to react sensibly to that, if he’s confronted with the ultimate threat and treats it like a spelling book or a pair of galoshes, then what the heck are the odds of him reacting sensibly to anything else? So long as he’s exactly as unresponsive as a crazed and dangerous cornered animal that could rush out at any moment, why wait for him to rush out?
No offense, but you’ve watched way to many martial arts movies. Real life isn’t like that. In real life if you get into a fight with a guy with a knife he doesn’t thrust out his arm in an exaggerated move which allows you to grab the arm and disarm him.
As the OP’er, I will acknowledge that disarming someone with a knife, even a little guy with a ‘little’ knife, is very risky and is likely to cause some harm to anyone that tries it. So, I will answer part of my OP: No, the police should not have tried to play “hero”.
But, in the OP, I also said, "Or, failing that [trying to tackle or disarm him], have one of [the police] approach him and try to “talk him down”? Given the imminent danger the police must have felt they were in (or else why would they have shot the kid so quickly), that, too, might be considered an act of courage.
ETA:
I repeated it exactly once, and with the caveat “FWIW”.
To all of the people saying that there was no hurry, they could have just stood there waiting for other officers with more appropriate equipment to arrive… How do you know that? Maybe the guy would have charged them two minutes and seventeen seconds after the time when they shot him. Maybe it would have been seventeen seconds. Maybe it would have been three seconds. Maybe it would have been never.
Everyone’s correct in saying that the police should have waited until there was a clear and imminent danger before shooting. They did. Once the guy with the knife refused to drop it even with cops telling him to and pointing their guns at him, there was a clear and imminent danger, and they responded accordingly.