Yes. It’s almost like we’re trying to use thought and reason to analyze the situation and try and come up with a better way to handle it!
No, you’re using thought and reason to second guess the guy who had a handful of seconds to deal with a knife wielding crazy person, that was bringing the knife wielding crazy right up to his face.
Five to seven feet is not typically described as “right up to” someone’s face. But you’re right that this second-guessing is cruel. If iiandyiii isn’t careful his second-guessing might kill someone.
I think it’s possible to maintain compassion for the cops who probably reacted as they thought best while still maintaining the possibility that they should have acted in a different way.
It seems reasonable to look at the video and talk about whether, just maybe, it could have been handled better and, just maybe, we could learn something from it.
OK, then give your evidence that it would have worked on a dangerous lunatic with a knife. Keep in mind that he was advancing on them yelling “Shoot me!” already.
Make up whatever you like.
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry, you weren’t fast enough - the crazy guy walked up to within a few feet of you, and then suddenly charged and stabbed you.
Regards,
Shodan
I wonder if part of the problem is that people have seen too many action movies where Bruce Willis or The Rock or somebody disarms gun/knife/etc-wielding attackers without breaking a sweat. In real life, a disturbed person walking towards you with a knife is dangerous.
I deliberately didn’t use the word “would.” I said it might have helped. Saying it would have worked would’ve been almost as ludicrous demanding a cite for a hypothetical situation. But there are times the police can talk dangerous people out of hurting themselves or others. It’ll never work all the time, but it should be the first option.
Hell of a lot easier to talk someone down when they’re not threatening YOU with their weapon.
I’d bet good money that this guy wouldn’t have been shot if he hadn’t acted threateningly to the police with his weapon.
No, silly, when iiandyiii went to the other side of the cruiser, the crazy man got in and drove off.
True - if there is enough petty sniping even after an obviously justified shooting, eventually a police officer might hesitate for a half second and get killed.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, much. This guy must’ve had one of those guns you can’t aim at someone else by turning your wrist a little bit. This is hair splitting, and it’s not even good hair splitting. They’re both very dangerous situations. The point is this: police are sometimes able to defuse situations like this. They did so in that Albuquerque case. They didn’t do it in the St. Louis case, and there’s no evidence they made an effort.
In the heat of the moment, police make decisions based on internet comments. That’s definitely a thing that happens in the real world. That’s why this doesn’t read as an incredibly weird attempt to stifle criticism of the police.
Absolutely.
And sometimes they can’t.
They had about 14 seconds total. There wasn’t a lot of time for discussion or strategery. Sometimes the other party takes the decision out of it.
If Clyde Barrow was in the middle of Times Square shooting off a BAR there will be people saying “But did you have to kill him? Maybe if you shot him in the leg…”
Maybe this question will be illuminating:
If there were a police tactic that kept the officers reasonably safe and presented at least some small possibility of defusing this situation without deadly force, would the police be obligated to try it–regardless of whether deadly force was justified?
Because I can’t quite tell if there’s just an empirical disagreement here over whether such tactics exist, or whether this is a matter of principles in which some people believe that if a person presents a deadly threat then they ought to be killed period.
Good, I think we’re both clear on what “sometimes” means.
They had about 14 seconds in part because of how and where they started. Unless you mean their decision to get very close to Powell and get out with their guns drawn was not the result of strategy and tactics. That proposal seems kind of insulting to the police.
You said I had 10 seconds. I would have gone to the other side of the cruiser as soon as I saw the guy had a knife.
Yes they had to get close. There was this guy with a knife that was walking around where there were innocent people. If stopped much further away and he stabbed someone there can you imagine the outrage?
Based on the video there doesn’t seem to have been anyone with 40 or 50 feet of him.
They might be surprised the cops couldn’t stop someone from running 40 or 50 feet and stabbing someone, yes. But in that situation I think people would understand why the police opened fire.
Marley, do you think 14 seconds was enough time for the officers to process the situation, analyse the exigency of the circumstances, determine the level of threat, and communicate with each other while postulating a appropriate plan of action? Or did the man’s failure to heed instructions lead to a point of no return for him and the officers?
Do you believe police are trained? Do you think they got close to the guy and drew their weapons based on their training?