You’re rhetoric here merely begs the question. Did you notice that?
Yes, but stopping him how. Is shooting him the only way? Is it the best way? Is it the way that best suits the broader interests of society (or even those of the police themselves)?
I haven’t watched the video of the St. Louis shooting, but your linked video is really a poor example of an alternative strategy. The cop was writing a ticket to a driver when a passer-by pulls a knife on him from maybe eight feet away. The cop backed away to have time to draw his gun, and after his gun is drawn he shoots the guy less than three seconds later.
If the cop had tripped while backing up there’s a good chance he would have been stabbed. He could easily have tripped.
In the video the attacker was shot in the leg and went down immediately. I didn’t research the story and don’t know if the cop aimed for the leg, or why he didn’t keep shooting.
What broader interests to society are protected by using lesser means which could leave police officers dead?
If you (the general you) pull a knife, a gun, or a baseball bat on another human being, you have escalated a conflict to a very dangerous level. In the 900 years of English common law, you have left yourself open to be legally killed. You have also decided to incite great fear and terror in a fellow human being that he is going do die right then and there.
What public policy is served by bending over backwards, at risk to police safety, by looking for other means to deal with the situation? The lesson is very easy for anyone who wants to avoid a police bullet: don’t exhibit lethal weapons and walk toward another human being in a threatening manner.
There are methods, used by police departments in other countries (and referred to in multiple links in this thread), that apprehended armed and deranged men without shooting them and without any additional risks to the officers or to bystanders.
What? Really? Moving away is keeping him safe. Are you being intentionally obstinate here?
We’ve established already that bullets are a poor choice for personal safety, which is why officers are trained to aim for center mass and to keep shooting until the threat has stopped, because bullets are not magic bad-guy-stopping totems. An officer who opens fire when an attacker with a knife is within 10 feet is putting himself at extreme risk of not hitting any vital organs or arteries and still getting slashed up. Right? Frankly, it’s a defense of last resort. But if the officer is able to safely maintain distance without putting the public at increased risk, his chances of getting slashed are almost nil. I’m amazed that this is a point of contention, to be honest.
Nobody is suggesting that the officers retreat across the street if there are civilians in harms way.
One of the nice things about making attempts to de-escalate situations is that it actually results in fewer dead police officers. That’s what we want, right?
Yes, and if he’d stood there flat footed he could have easily been stabbed. The guy closed up on him very quickly and there’s no guarantee the first bullet or two would have stopped him. He did the wise thing by attempting to put space between himself and his attacker, even taking into account the risk of tripping.
So move back and shoot. But the idea that backing up makes someone safer than shooting their attacker is silly.
Moving back and shooting might be appropriate, like in the video I posted. Shooting puts bystanders at risk, though, and might make a mentally ill suspect more agitated, thus increasing the risk to both officers and civilians.
If a safe distance is able to be maintained and the risk to all involved is therefore minimal, are you still suggesting that shooting is wise?
How do you maintain a safe distance from someone who is coming at you with a knife? You, quite literally, cannot restrain someone whilst keeping a safe distance from them. At the point someone is threatening you with a knife, making them more agitated is pretty much irrelevant, and the safety of bystanders is best served by ending the situation as soon as possible.
Now, if that can be done with minimal risk to the police and public, and without shooting, then of course do that. But every single suggestion you’ve made significantly increases the risk to the police.
Did someone make the argument that it was never safer for a policeman to take a step back to avoid an unexpected attack? If not, then I’m not sure how your linked video demonstrated a “more sensible” (your words) approach.
What about mentally ill people, some of whom want the police to help them commit suicide? What lesson are they learning from this incident? And you don’t think there are adverse effects on the cops who find themselves used as suicide assistants?
I’m not arguing that this particular incident wasn’t a legal shoot. But I do think the police need more training and alternatives in their encounters with mentally ill people, who are a significant portion of the public they also protect and serve. Several years ago, I witnessed the police fatally shoot an elderly man waving a hammer (no other crime involved; he was simply agitated in front of his home, yelling at passersby). Again, it was considered a legal shoot, but I still can’t help thinking there were alternatives.
There is precedence for shooting an armed man in the leg:
Robert Pickett
Chris Rock on Robert Pickett(The Daily Show)
Posted after reading only 1st page. FYI.
I read thru only the first cite, but I didn’t see that shooting him in the leg was deliberately done in preference to shooting him anywhere else.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes; Steophan, over the last couple of pages, has argued that any rearward movement by an officer is “ridiculous.”
I can’t guarantee that everyone can always maintain a safe distance. In fact, in this example, it’s very probable that the suspect would have continued approaching, faster than the officer could move backward, and the outcome would have been largely the same, with a at least one key difference.
See, the first 3 or 4 shots (I’m not sure how many were fired) dropped the suspect. The last 2 were fired while the suspect was on the ground, still within arm’s reach of the officer and therefore still a threat. However, if the officer had been moving away from the suspect, there’d be space between him and the downed suspect, which means the last 2 shots might not have been necessary. That’s 2 fewer shots which could have ricocheted and hit another officer, the officer himself, a bystander. That’s 2 fewer shots that might have killed the suspect.
But you’re probably going to argue that when someone holding a knife is on the ground with 4 bullets in them, it’s safer to stand over them pulling the trigger than to move 10 feet away.
Why did he need to be restrained? Contained, yes, but if the bystanders were moved out of the area, he can stand there with a knife all day as long as he’s not within slashing distance of anyone. It doesn’t seem that the suspect had any interest in being contained, but you seem to think that the classic “armed standoff between a lunatic with a knife and police officers” that seems to happen from time to time should never happen, because officers should just open fire right away.
Nonsense. Pure, ignorant nonsense. The safety of bystanders is best assured by removing them from the area and not exposing them to stray bullets. The research shows that when officers are able to de-escalate interactions with the mentally ill, by (for example) refraining from agitating them, officer safety is improved.
OK great, cite?
I’m arguing, as your exciting string of multi-quotes showed rather well, that rearward movement will not make you significantly safer from someone coming at you with a knife. In situations where someone isn’t coming at you with a knife, but standing still or backing off, it might make sense - but we’re not talking about those situations. We’re talking about situations where a police officer is attacked or threatened, not those where they just happen to be in proximity to someone with a weapon.
It’s not like I’m just making this stuff up. There have been hundreds of police shootings investigated, and these are the conclusions that are drawn.
Upon rereading, it does say ‘struck’ instead of ‘deliberately shot’. But they tried to persuade for 14 minutes and then fired. And also it’s not clear how many shots were fired since ‘fired a shot’ in context could mean one shot or the shot that hit him. But I was mostly posting for the Chris Rock reaction. “Oh they shot him in the leg?! Musta been a white guy.”
It is not unusual for mentally ill people to be non-hostile for a very long time before the police show up on some other type of call about the person, but to suddenly become violent and hostile toward the police when they arrive. I don’t think anything in this video is inconsistent with that. And if I’m right about that being a somewhat common interaction, then I think it is a good reason to respond to virtually all calls–especially a call where there is no imminent violence reported-- by assessing the scene for a few moments before jumping out of your car a short distance from the suspect with guns drawn.
I am persuaded that asking these guys to assess alternative tactics once they were out of the car and this guy was within a couple of seconds of getting to them with a knife is asking too much of them.
But I am not persuaded that they needed to put themselves in that situation in the way they did. The right time to consider how to respond to this scene was before they pulled up near this guy and jumped out of the car with guns drawn. Taking 60 seconds to assess the scene from a little further away, and before exiting the car, may have led them to conclude that this guy wasn’t a threat to the other people standing near him, that he didn’t seem to be fleeing the scene (and indeed was being recorded), that he was behaving erratically, etc., and perhaps lead them to use slightly different tactics than they ultimately used.
Are we really confident that we know what happens if you require a tactic like that from the police. Do we know that you end up with more members of the public stabbed because of the delay? Or more cops shot in their cars? Do you end up with too many suspects who successfully flee? I don’t think we do know those things, so I think it is worth having this conversation about whether US police tactics in some areas of the country have become more aggressive than is warranted.
here is another example of police intentionally placing themselves in situations where they might feel threatened and so justify the use of lethal force.
what gets me is the righteous tone of the officer involved. he seemed to truly believe that zero tolerance to risk spiel shared by some posters in this thread.
You are so obviously wrong – the police aren’t smug and complacent trigger happy urban cowboys – the police are HEROS don’t you know, every single last one of them, ALL of the time! That dog was clearly trying to kill him by wagging its fucking tail in an aggressive manner, dog suicide by cop, stupid dog.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve been a cop in a large american city for about 10 years…
Seems like a good shoot to me, I’m not sure what some of you expect the cops to do here? Yeah, less than lethal alternatives are great if you got the guy isolated somewhere or if he ain’t walking around…Not so much if he is within 20 feet and walking toward you.
Just my 2 cents