andrew_ Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 ] I just saw the video, and these are minor. The bottom line is the man was screaming "shoot me" to the cops while carrying a knife and then lunged for one of them. I hate that this happened, but this is completely a justifiable case of using lethal force.[. did we watch the same video? at what point did the victim lunge? and when I say lunge I mean charge and jump at the officers with his hands raised. The evidence is right in front of your eyes, you're just refusing to see it. Edit: you're Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 did we watch the same video? at what point did the victim lunge? and when I say lunge I mean charge and jump at the officers with his hands raised. The evidence is right in front of your eyes, you're just refusing to see it. Edit: you're The guy is walking towards the police, and then walks to the side of them. he then quickly changes direction coming right for the policeman who shot him. That is the video I just watched. Which one did you see? Is there one where he is rolling in flowers and playing with puppies that I missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa's Bad Memory Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The minimum safe distance to stop someone attacking you with a knife is about 30 feet. If he is threatening with a knife inside that distance, a shooting would be considered reasonable force. And by threat, I mean verbal or physical. You don't have to raise a knife Psycho style to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa's Bad Memory Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 In those circumstances, I agree. Still can't really see if he had a knife, though. And at the start of the video, when he was just stood there/moving slowly the officers already had their guns out, long before it was implied In this instance it seems like a taser would have been ideal. The guy was definitely not within 3-4 feet of them (until he fell forwards), but if a police officer is expected to be able to hit someone with a gun at that range, surely he/she can do the same with a taser? In any case, since cops are partnered (right?) why not give one or both cops tasers as well as their guns, thus ensuring that when an officer attempts a non-lethal method of downing a threat, he/she can still count on their partner having a gun pointed at the threat should the first attempt fail.You do not meet deadly force with a lesser force. Tasers are lower than firearms on the force continuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 You do not meet deadly force with a lesser force. Tasers are lower than firearms on the force continuum. Why the fuck not? The point is to use force to protect yourself or others, the 'force continuum' it totally irrelevant. If you're able to use non-lethal force to protect yourself, then why would it be OK to kill someone just because their threath level was higher on your force continuum? If someone was threatening to press a button launching a nuclear bomb and you'd be able to prevent that by simply pushing him away, why would you call in a tactical nuclear attacak on your position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex. Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Haha force continuum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Seems completely rational that one would have a tazer and the other would have a gun. Taze first, try to disarm and if unsuccessful you have backup. Seems like common sense, but no, in our country apparently if you're 30 feet away with a knife you need to be killed. It's messed up. And BTW, people can be lethal with their fists as well, maybe we need to just shoot everyone. Oh wait, we apparently already do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa's Bad Memory Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The force continuum is very relevant. That is what will be and has been used to determine reasonableness. Although, I will grant that a ladder style that is widely used today has problems, but they aren't the type to which you are referring. Back to point, let me ask why is it okay for the officer to be killed by a knife rather than the civilian by a gun? And non-lethal force would be better termed "less than lethal" because we've all seen stories where people have died as a result of a fist fight, use of OC spray and the taser. They are less than lethal because the chances are significantly lower for death resulting from that than the use of a firearm. And many departments won't use tasers because of public opinion believing tasers are considered deadly force. Actually, the 9th circuit court of appeals believed they were deadly force also. So, since the officer would be justified in using a taser, they are also just as justified in using a firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Ace,And BTW, people can be lethal with their fists as well, maybe we need to just shoot everyone. Oh wait, we apparently already do that.You hit the nail on the head. This seems to be an outgrowth of the idea that an officer should never, ever put their physical safty at risk in the furtherance of protecting the public and the people they are supposed to be serving.I do not want police officers to be hurt or killed but this attitude that they're lives are worth more than everyone elses is a complete contradiction of the ethos of "protect and serve". They do a dangerous job and if they unwilling to take risks to help people perhaps they should find another profession?Azabill,Why did the officers not even try something "less than lethal"? This guy was pretty clearly disturbed and it does look like suicide by proxy. That said why go to firearms first? Why not try something less than lethal before shooting the guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa's Bad Memory Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Haha force continuumYou're mocking that, but that is a legal term. Not mine. Study it to know your rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa's Bad Memory Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Ace,You hit the nail on the head. This seems to be an outgrowth of the idea that an officer should never, ever put their physical safty at risk in the furtherance of protecting the public and the people they are supposed to be serving.I do not want police officers to be hurt or killed but this attitude that they're lives are worth more than everyone elses is a complete contradiction of the ethos of "protect and serve". They do a dangerous job and if they unwilling to take risks to help people perhaps they should find another profession?Azabill,Why did the officers not even try something "less than lethal"? This guy was pretty clearly disturbed and it does look like suicide by proxy. That said why go to firearms first? Why not try something less than lethal before shooting the guy?Do we know what they have issued for their use? And also, if someone came at you the way that man did with those officers, would you use a taser (one chance shot that has two prongs tethered together that spreads out as it travels... Both prongs have to penetrate the skin to work, then may or may not be affective depending on where the prongs enter, the persons ability to overcome any pain) or would you use something you know can stop him from hurting you, your partner, the public? Also, it is a known fact that people with knives generally land on them when hit with the taser. If there is a true hit, the hands are drawn inward, making the person stab himself. That seems like fairly lethal force to he, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solmyr Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 If someone was threatening to press a button launching a nuclear bomb and you'd be able to prevent that by simply pushing him away, why would you call in a tactical nuclear attacak on your position? Of course you wouldn't call a tactical nuclear attack on your position - that would put you merely on par with the attacker on the force-continuum scale. Negating a nuclear threat with a nuclear strike is for pussies and soft-hearted pacifists. The correct response is to detonate an antimatter bomb, annihilating everything in a radius larger than the blast range of the would-be nuclear strike the attacker was threatening you with. That sends a strong message to future assailants that you're not fucking around! ETA: The force-continuum explains so much. No wonder that despite their liberal gun policy, the US has been unable to decrease the level of violence in society - guns are not enough to protect citizens nowadays. Their assailants have guns too, so that means citizens lack a desperately-needed advantage in the force-continuum. Solution is to begin arming citizens with weapons deadlier than guns - grenades, rocket launchers, assault drones, ICBM missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa's Bad Memory Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 They might be equally justified from a legal perspective in using a taser or a gun, but from an ethical perspective, no. It is not okay for an officer to be killed by a knife, I have no idea how you're getting that from what I said. Reducing (marginally) the survivability rate for an officer as a trade off for saving the life of the subject seems perfectly reasonable to me, it is their fucking job to work in dangerous situations. Insofar as ''less lethal'' goes, I think it's a hell of lot closer to ''non lethal'' than ''lethal'', especially when an officer with a more than deadly weapon is trained to shoot for the area that will be most likely to kill, and trained to shoot multiple times. As Sturn said, you shoot until the threat has stopped. How many times can you shoot in the space of time before a suspect collapses from being shot? Not to mention that in such an adrenaline-fuelled state, you might have fired 2 or 3 times more before you think to stop. So yes, there might be the odd case where a taser victim dies, but that seems like a drastic improvement over shooting and possibly killing the thousands of other people who would otherwise fall in the ''taser them'' category. I'm also curious as to why tasers fall below firearms on the ''Force continuum'', but are otherwise legally considered the same.The 9th circuit court of appeals(California and the West Coast) branded them as such. Most of the rest of the country has them lower because they would be less than lethal in most cases. And I think you and I will never agree that an officer's life should be put at risk even marginally. Is you life worth marginally more than mine for some reason? Are doctors more worthy of life than teachers? Accountants and lawyers? A job does not make your life worth less or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 And I think you and I will never agree that an officer's life should be put at risk even marginally. But I thought police were putting their lives at risk every time they put on their uniform and walk out the door? Isn't that the major excuse I hear for why cops can be so quick to violence? They need to be, because they're always in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sansa's Bad Memory Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 It's been a nice debate, Leap, but I have to go. Life awaits away from the iPad. I hope to read more and get more of your views later. Take care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Do we know what they have issued for their use? And also, if someone came at you the way that man did with those officers, would you use a taser (one chance shot that has two prongs tethered together that spreads out as it travels... Both prongs have to penetrate the skin to work, then may or may not be affective depending on where the prongs enter, the persons ability to overcome any pain) or would you use something you know can stop him from hurting you, your partner, the public? Also, it is a known fact that people with knives generally land on them when hit with the taser. If there is a true hit, the hands are drawn inward, making the person stab himself. That seems like fairly lethal force to he, too. A 'known fact'? Care to back that up with, I don't know... anything? ETA: Also, we're talking about using it instead of a gun, which actually is a known fact that it's primary use is to kill. So because there's a chance that a tazer might hurt the assailant with a gun the better solution is just to get it over with and shoot to kill right away? That's some logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The guy was five feet away from the officer and advancing with a weapon that would have killed the officer. There isn't enough time for one officer to try to tase and have the other officer shoot if that doesn't work. People often aren't stopped by tasers. In this scenario, you more than likely wind up with a dead officer and a dead attacker. I wish that something else could have been done as well, but until we have actual methods to accomplish this, what happened was completely justifiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Police risk their lives by confronting dangerous individuals while everyone else flees. At some point, though, cops face an unreasonable risk and should be entitled to use lethal force to protect themselves. We may all disagree on when a cop should be allowed to use lethal force but please stop denigrating officers and insinuating that they are cowards for using a gun to stop a man charging at them with a knife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The guy was a good 20 feet away (and that's from what we could tell with the camera perspective) when the officers first drew their guns. Obviously they wouldn't have to wait until he had advanced to within five feet to tase him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU Examining gun vs knife by the Mythbusters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU Examining gun vs knife by the Mythbusters... That's hardly relevant in a situation were the guns were already drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.