Video of police shooting man in St. Louis (near Ferguson, MO)

In My Humble Opinion
61

After everyone considers Richard Parker’s excellent question, I have one of my own. Consider the hypothetical that this scenario is set up as a training exercise, with a paid actor playing the roll of the depressed and suicidal suspect. The suspect steals 2 beverages at knife-point, sets them down on the sidewalk and waits for the cops to show up. When they do, he commands them to shoot him and then approaches them until they comply.

Some officers, throughout the course of this exercise, keep their distance, backing up quickly whenever the suspect gets close, relying on their partner to cover them. Maybe they put the police cruiser in between themselves and the suspect. Eventually the suspect manages to get close enough to one of the officers that they fire their simulated weapons.

Other officers get of the car, plant their feet, and open fire when the suspect gets too close.

Now I don’t begrudge either group for taking the shot, and my heart goes out to anyone who has to make the horrible decision to take a life. But as a training exercise, how would you grade those two approaches? Is one preferable to other? Do we give kudos to the officers who make an effort to difuse the situation, or do we chastise them for putting civilians at risk by not dealing with the threat?

62

I can only speak of police in my area. Yes, they have a rather long academy that they attend, then they are partnered with a training officer for some time.

The police were required to remove the threat. That’s what they are paid to do. If this guy was set on suicide by cop, it wasn’t going to end well for anyone. What if he decided to throw the knife? How far is safe from that?

63

That sounds more like the description of a soldier, and I think we’ve already addressed that. But your wording also illuminates the problem: while Powell was dangerous because he was an unstable person with a weapon, he was not an immediate threat to anyone until the police arrived. Before that a few people got close to him and he just told them to get away, which of course they did. Things escalated when the police showed up. That shouldn’t happen. Especially not in such a hurry.

It’s unsafe, for sure. But I don’t think a lot of people can kill by throwing a kitchen knife. Particularly if there had been more distance between Powell and the police, who also had the protection of their nearby SUV. And then we’d be talking about an unarmed man.

64

But don’t we need to keep in mind what the stakes are here? The issue in a lot of these situations is that police feel obligated to essentially impose a death sentence as a response to relatively minor crimes that get exacerbated because someone isn’t “cooperating”. Let’s step back a second to examine what happened here (AFAICT). This guy steals two sodas and is muttering and rambling with a knife. We see the videographer walk past him without being approached. The store owner is outside, and hasn’t been assaulted AFAICT. We are talking about theft of $2 or so. Is there really a need to approach this guy in an aggressive manner that you might escalate things?

I think we give the benefit of the doubt far too often to cops in these situations who are all too eager to avoid getting their hands dirty, or trying to diffuse situations peacefully. It’s why you see cops shooting people on the ground or tasering elderly people. How often to you see bouncers in nightclubs killing people, or even beating them up? The goal, especially when the stakes are this low, should be to diffuse the situation and move on. I personally will spot the store owner the sodas he lost if it would prevented this guy being killed or these officers having needed to be called. This is part of the reason many minority communities don’t ever call the cops because they know that as soon as you do, aggressive confrontation is favored over negotiation and talking. Just imagine this happened in a country where the cops don’t carry weapons. What do you think would have happened? Is there any chance this guy moves from stealing a soda to stabbing two cops to death?

It’s also important to note that race is a central aggravating factor in almost every one of these cases. And I don’t say that because I think all these cops are racist, but rather that most people seem to not see rationality or humanity in young Black men. If you doubt that, just look at the stark contrast between how the Cliven Bundy standoff was dealt with vs. how the Ferguson protests were. A bunch of ARMED White people confronted a government official demanding and later securing the release of cattle, and the government choose to deescalate the
situation rather than just calling for more man power with bigger guns. I think we can see why such a thing might have been prudent given the circumstances, but I think we can also agree that such a thing would never have happened if the people involved were minorities. The media didn’t call those Bundy protesters looters or rioters. They didn’t emphasize the bad things those people did in the past. They didn’t choose to engage with them, or confront them for not obeying orders or disrespecting the law. They went even further, acquiescing to their demands all in an effort to keep the peace given the small-ish stakes. Why do Black people not receive or deserve the same latitude? Those Bundy protesters were in the wrong as was (it seems) this guy, but being wrong, angry, uncooperative, etc. should not result in someone being shot dead.

I think we really need to start demanding more of people who are supposedly there to keep the peace. We give cops a ridiculous amount of power in part because they argue their jobs are so dangerous. Their jobs are not that dangerous, especially relative to a multitude of other (worse) jobs that pay less and are held in lower regard. LE doesn’t even make this top 10 list. Nobody cries for the construction workers or the cab drivers who get hurt and injured far more often. Do you ever see people willingly paying more for fish so that fisherman can improve workplace conditions? Doesn’t happen. If a cop feels shooting someone is preferable to them having to temporarily retreat, or talking someone down, or getting injured, then I don’t think they should be cops.

65

Fuck it you guys are right. They should just take some lumps, maybe get lightly stabbed before they use force. How dangerous is a knife really? It shouldn’t even be considered a weapon. Carry on.

66

You really did a number on that dude made of straw! That scarecrow ain’t gettin’ up anytime soon. He’s out cold.

67

Well, the first mistake this paragon of life that needed to be saved at all cost is that police need to be trained to try to save everyone no matter what, obey all orders … blah blah

Oh, yeah, the mistake… He brought a knife to a gun fight. ( And he did start this fight. Or has there been a revelation that he was indeed a poor deranged person or just an asshole drunk? And the the police knew it? )

Oh, they must always assume it. … Right, even for armed belligerents?
It looked like he advanced on the police.

Just watched it again & again.

He backed away from everyone, even those who just walked past him before the police arrived.

The by standers were telling him not to be doing that, that it would get him killed.

First thing the cops said was for him to take his hand ( right one was in his pocket ) out. I assume to see what might be in it. Good idea IMO.

What they should think first is that he must be excused from the fact that he started the whole thing. “He is just a sick cowboy, not a bad one.” ( points if you can name the song and singers this is from. )

At this point the cops still had time to run, even to behind their car. Yes, showing the perp that they were afraid of him does send to a drunk or a crazy just the message that should be sent. :rolleyes: Always a good idea.

Then they should start telling him it was all okay and they were just there to help & would he please stop advancing on them. ( with a deadly weapon )

Obviously their training said that this was the best approach when you THINK that the individual still might have a gun even if none was in his hand at the time but since they did not to get to frisk him, they should just assume he does not and run behind the car as to be farther away if he turned on the bystanders. ( At least they would be safer. ) Also made actually stopping him with well aimed shoots from farther away with innocents in the line of fire easier. ( I don’t think the average LEO is that good but I may be wrong on this. )

Okay, cops still have not advanced and the perp does, swinging wide until opposite the cop on the sidewalk within the door swing of the police car. Then he starts advancing all the while the police have not been saying anything about staying back or stopping so as to protect his ‘rights’ to act as he is.
He gets to a point that is slightly higher than the cop & then starts towards him.
He did not look to me at anytime in the video as a over weight out of shape guy who could not move quickly or even jump a fair distance with just one quick step and be well withing stabbing range. ( Of course the cop should have not paid any attention to this because he should have been behind the car. )

Underhanded is the best way to stab and slash from below and blade towards fingers sort of backhand is the best way to slash high in a swinging type fight and over hand is what silly women do on TV.

Of course the cops were not properly trained for that either.

I think the video I am watching is quite different from the one you all were watching. He was less than 1.5 seconds from being able to stab the cop when the cop started shooting. The cop still had not advanced much if any at all.

Statement should have been more accurate as to distances.
You all don’t know squat about knives and the perp just may have known a lot even if drunk or crazy or high on something that would make him hard to kill quickly.
I do not know the rules of engagement the police were operating under. Running away might have been against the rules when innocents are within 100 feet or something. ( Ask any vet about the great rules of engagement they have to hold to even when under fire with no escape available. )
Could he have been tazered? Probably, but what are the rules about an armed person with innocents within his ability to get to before they could stop him by having to get out of their protection and shot with innocents now in the line of fire?
I have always been taught & I believe in keeping shooting until all movement has stopped or I run out of ammo. ( How many shot guys still cause a lot of problems from the ground in movies? They never do if it in real life, a couple of bullets always kills and disables instantly.
They never cuff shot people on TV either. How could they get it so wrong? They didn’t get it wrong. If I was one of the LEO’s in this I would do it different if the ROE’s did not prevent me from doing it. Mostly it would just make it worse for the perp but safer for me & my partner and affording a more efficient kill zone.
Maybe have both a gun and a tazer out from the get go.
The cops did fine. Unless they are directed that they must tazer first unless active fire is coming towards them, then they get to make the choice.
They apparently showed up fairly quickly so that is on the plus side already… right? :wink:

I do encourage you to fuss about the inaccuracies but they in no way change anything in the incident itself IMO.

68

An unstable person can snap, call it what you may, in an instant. There’s no doubt he presented an emergency worthy of a 911 call. Can we really afford the luxury of allowing unstable people with weapons the opportunity to get near innocent bystanders?

Killed isn’t the only possibility. A cut, losing an eye, or some other injury short of death. If you have an unstable person intent on suicide by cop, then who really knows how far he’ll go to get what he’s after?

69

I’ve seen vids of guys off their meds who aren’t lucid and get shot for not following police orders even though they don’t seem particularly threatening. That’s pretty messed up. This guy seemed to know exactly what he wanted. I guess the cops could’ve gotten back in the car or something, but uh, yeah, one of the most obvious suicides by cop I’ve ever seen.

70

Bang bang! He shot him down… Here’s some more about this incident and why it is, and feels, wrong to a lot of people. Make sure you read page two, which includes a discussion of how the British police seem to be better at keeping these kinds of incidents non-lethal. Which suggests it can absolutely be done.

It’s being widely reported that he was mentally ill. I haven’t seen a lot of specifics, but he stole some food from a store, immediately threw the food on the ground when confronted, and then started wandering around with a knife. So it certainly sounds like he had an episode or was off his meds or something similar.

Here it comes. The action movie scenarios. Next we’ll hear that people who are crazy sometimes have superhuman strength and won’t go down even when Tasered and shot.

I’m more concerned about the “luxury” of not properly training police and emergency responders so people die when they don’t have to. This guy was not all that close to civilians, and even when he was, he did not attempt to harm anyone. He was first and foremost a danger to himself.

Do you think police should be able kill people to avoid even the risk of minor injuries? I’m guessing not. They should be able to protect themselves but they also do need to accept some risk. And had the police kept their distance a bit more, the risk of injury would’ve been that much lower.

And there comes a point where you say the police did everything they could. You cannot get to that point after 14 seconds.

71

Have you ever seen the door to the xray room at the hospital? It’s lead lined. Has 5 or 6 thick butt hinges on it. And it weighs about 500 pounds. At least the one I’m talking about did.

I know this because I was in the hospital for xrays the day after a crazy guy ripped it off it’s hinges and scared the crap out of 2 hospital security guards and 2 cops who were trying to subdue him. So, yes, movies or not, crazy people can do some strange shit.

ETA, yes, I believe police have a right to use whatever force is necessary to keep from suffering any injury that might require medical attention. I think the law supports that too.

72

not just the British, here is how Australia dealt with a disturbed man armed with a gun.

not living in the US, it’s kind of hard to understand some people’s casual acceptance of the frequency and eagerness of the police in America to shoot and kill. the “knife held high” remark might seem a small matter to them, but to the rest of us it indicates an easy willingness to lie and coverup something despite the facts. the worst criminals deserve a trial, not to be summarily executed with 10(?) bullets as a first resort.

73

Even assuming that dubious story is true, is your contention that these 4 officers/guards should have shot this guy rather than trying to subdue him physically? Additionally, do you think scenarios such as the one you describe would have played out differently depending on the race of the crazed door ripper? If so, do you have a problem with that?

First, the law doesn’t quite support your contention.

Second, why should that be the standard? How does that makes sense from a public policy point of view? It almost certainly costs more to deal with all the consequences of a cop killing someone than it does a cop being modestly injured. It almost certainly escalates and aggravates future interactions between the police and a given community, and it undermines the faith many people have in the police. Why should we prefer a dead soda thief to a bruised cop from a public policy standpoint?

For example, many police departments will not engage in high speed chases with fleeing suspects because of the danger it poses to cops and innocent bystanders. Would a cop be justified in shooting at a fleeing car in order to mitigate possible injury caused by a chase?

The fact is there are plenty of dangerous jobs where people must confront potential injury without the ability to legally kill people. Why should we tolerate LE personnel who immediately reach for their gun when many other people in those types of situations don’t feel the need to do so?

74

And if you assume rare and crazy stuff is going to happen every time, you get overreactions and overkill. Preparing for a possibility is smart. Assuming the improbably is a major risk is stupid.

I don’t think your belief makes any sense, mostly because it puts citizens in greater danger from the police and that’s not how things are supposed to work. If the law agrees with you, I would say the law doesn’t make sense either. Further, this supports my idea that staying a little farther away would have been a good idea. Absent evidence the guy was a retired circus knife thrower, he probably would not have been able to hurt anyone from 10 or 20 feet away by throwing a knife at them. And then he wouldn’t have had a weapon.

75

I do believe we have thread drift here.
I still do not think some here are really looking at & carefully watching the video.

I have watched a couple of more times.
He did not throw some stuff down, he carefully placed two cans of pop (?) at the curb.
He had no interest in the bystanders.
He backed away from the advancing car. ( I don’t think he was scared, he wanted to be shot, not run over.)
He started advancing pretty much when the car stopped and the first door opened.
He was thinking about the bystanders at that point in that he pulled his hand out of his pocket when asked. (Not wanting the police to start shooting towards the bystanders.) Maybe did have a gun or something in the pocket he might have wanted to use but needed to be closer to his target???
He did not want to get shot before he was ready.
He moved to put the apartments behind him. ( Safer overall for missed shots to not harm others. ) ???
He was careful to stay away from the closest officer.

He then advances straight at him. He does not move hesitantly, he moves purposely IMO.

He has a knife and when he gets into danger distance for sure, tat is when the cop shoots and keeps shooting until he quits moving. ( We have been over that it is the correct thing to do once you start shooting in other threads. )

I vote strongly for “suicide by cop” in this case.

Added comments.

What happens in the UK & AU means nothing because the people, the culture of the people and all kinds of things make the comparison invalid.

Better question or comment IMO is ‘would a beat cop from those places be willing or want to go unarmed when working the street here?’

Also, I read someplace that more Bobbies are armed now then ever before.

Also that aggravated assaults and robbery, burglary are all up substantially in both countries. I do not have a cite but have read this in more than one place. AU, it seems to have had a big jump right after their big weapon collection a few years ago.
Killings are inching up too IIRC.

76

I can’t get past why Tasers weren’t the first line of defense here. Truly puzzling.

How old are you?

77

This.

The smug and complacent “suicide by cop” is ugly enough, but worse it considers such cases as if they exist in a vacuum hermetically sealed from the rest of the world. They don’t. There will necessarily be effects to these causes.

These effects will include a (further) deterioration in community-police relations, the (further) loss of trust and respect and the (further) deepening of “us and them” attitudes. In turn these will almost certainly make the world a less safe place (probably for all of us, but more to the point here) for your typical cop.

This “must protect ouselves at all costs” attitude does not (and can not) work in the long run; it is self-defeating.

So next time some cop gets killed in a riot (or simply in a “run of the mill” shoot-out), are you going to forgive me when I call this “suicide by the inevitable consequences of protect-ourselves-at-all-costs policing”? In fact, now that I think of it, such deaths leading from such a cause could properly be called “suicide by cop” too.

78

Thanks for this link. Good for the Aussie cops who took extra efforts (which did not appear to put anyone at greater risk, but did take more people and more expenditure) to avoid shooting the handgun-armed disturbed man.

Some disturbed people will probably try “suicide by cop”. The cops should take extra efforts, as these Australian cops did, to make this as difficult as possible.

79

What has come to be standard procedure is that police fire the instant that they feel the least bit threatened, and they don’t stop firing until the victim stops twitching. They don’t feel compelled to accept the slightest risk or to use anything less than lethal force. A taser or pepper spray might have resulted in the situation not ending in death. Shooting seems to be the first and only option. Until the police start putting some value on the public’s lives, the chasm between police and public will only widen.

80

No you didn’t - you stopped to think if retreating was against department policy or not, and he charged you while you were thinking and stabbed you.

Regards,
Shodan