Don’t doubt that one bit. Except if you look at the video. Both officers had their guns drawn and where aiming at him.
Which is what they should do, and be prepared to fire if he moves. Which it appears, on a poor quality video, he didn’t.
I’m not claiming the police didn’t, at minimum, fuck up badly, but there often seems to be a lack of understanding of how dangerous someone with a knife can be, and why it makes sense for the police to have their weapons ready.
So you’re saying that in the right situation, cops can choose to deliberately shoot a guy in the hopes that the damage they inflict will be less than the potential damage he inflicts upon himself. But once the shooting starts, it’s no longer a calculated gamble - they’re shooting for their lives as many times as it takes to drop the guy.
Not that I disagree with your general point, but we did just have a local story about police making intelligent use of resources to resolve a situation without endangering anyone rather than charging in aggressively. Bit different situation, and of course just a few paragraphs in the local news.
Read my post again. I never said it was wrong that the police had their guns out.
You suggested that the guns where holstered, which would put the police in a very dangerous position against a person with a knife. I only pointed out that the guns where drawn and aimed. They should be IMHO.
No, I suggested that someone 20 feet away with a knife can be on you extremely quickly, with the implication that, should they start to move, you have maybe 2 seconds to decide how to defend yourself. This wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, least of all you.
To expand, whilst the police may very well have made the wrong decision, it needs to be remembered that they had to make it almost instantly, when there lives may have been at risk.
If he moved towards them at all, even slightly, they were justified in shooting. If he followed all their commands, and quickly, they were not. Anywhere in between is a grey area, and requires further investigation. Refusing to drop the knife is a threat, but whether serious enough to justify shooting is questionable, for example.
some questions:
Have you seen the video?
Are you talking about shootings in general or this one?
In this video, from what I’ve seen, the police move toward the person while he is standing still. He is not attempting to move toward them.
Knives are very dangerous things. However, by coming in closer to the suspect, the officers are putting themselves into greater risk.
The officers already have their guns drawn and pointed at the suspect. It is not going to take 2 seconds to respond had he suddenly started to move toward them, which he did not do.
I’m responding to the idea that is being put forward that the cops didn’t have reason to fear an unpredictable man with a knife. They did.
The problem with the video is that we can’t tell what has been said, and we don’t see the whole thing. It looks likely that they didn’t tell the truth about what happened, but without hearing what, if anything, was said it’s hard to tell if he’s a threat, or complying with their commands.
If he had a knife, refused to drop it or otherwise failed to comply, or made a verbal threat, it’s certainly possible the shooting was justified. It’s also possible that they shot him for no reason, or out of malice, but that’s a pretty unlikely situation, and would require some actual evidence for it.
Which raises the question of why nobody with that type of device was sent to deal with this situation.
Why don’t you watch the video before you decide to defend these guys?
Did watch it. There’s no sound, and it only shows part of what happened. Not enough to make a judgement from.
It’s pretty clear that the police lied, and for that they should be punished. It’s not at all clear that they were wrong to shoot him, so further investigation is needed there.
Who said that?
Here’s one.
There’s a continual theme running through the thread that the guy was no threat to the police. If he had a knife, that’s utterly false.
Doesn’t necessarily make their actions correct, that’s impossible to judge without some reliable report of what, if anything, was said. My guess is fault on both sides, the police for firing too soon, the guy with the knife for not dropping it.
I’ll say it. They were not in any danger. Even if he had a knife. He was standing still. His arms were at his side. He was not threatening them.
They shot him and lied about it. Why would you think anything they say is worth a damn?
That’s why I’ve been taking pains to say he wasn’t an immediate threat. It’s a nitpick in any case. They were a safe distance from him and had their guns drawn. He was much more of a danger to himself than he was to them - and of course they were much more of a danger to him than he was to them.
They were only not in any danger because they had their guns drawn, and were prepared to use them.
They should be punished for the lies. Those lies, however, have no bearing on whether the shooting was justified. From the video, it’s impossible to tell for sure.
My guess? The police overreacted, probably to a criminal degree. But, as that’s only a guess, all that’s required is to call for further investigation - which is already happening.
By the law of averages we would see videos of this happening. And I think it’s newsworthy enough that it would make it on the local news. Newsworthy by way of video and not the police doing “the right thing”.
they were in no danger because of the distance between them. The suspect was not advancing on them.
They should experience their own training first hand.
And here is probably the correct answer to the op’s question.
In the past we saw incidences where officers unloaded their weapons into a suspect and that was traced back to their fire-arms training. They repeated what they did in training at a range.
In this case, they were presented with someone holding a weapon. The person did not fully comply with their instructions and the trained response is to kill. The all important assessment step appears to be missing. Yes he had a weapon and he didn’t comply with instructions. But he still wasn’t a danger to the officers at the time they shot him.
We don’t know that he didn’t comply and we don’t know that he was holding the knife. The knife may have been on the ground when he stood up. He may have dropped the knife after he stood up. We don’t know (yet).
They were the ones who were closing the distance. I don’t understand that, and I’m not sure why it was felt that was critical to do under the circumstances.