Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:
And what did you expect the officers to do? As I pointed out, shots were not fired until an officer had been isolated, and the person started advancing on that officer.

There is no "whole issue" here. This was textbook. An officer has every responsibility to use as minimal force as possible, but they also have every responsibility to keep themselves as safe as reasonably possible.

Is the situation unfortunate, certainly. It happened though, and the police were not the ones at fault here, and only an unreasonable person would put them at fault.

The textbook is wrong, it has been wrong for a long time. In fact, people have been complaining about this for a long long time. You remember this situation?

If you are a cop, you are going to be put in to situations where there is danger. You may have to tackle a man with a knife in order to protect his life and the life of your coworkers. You signed up for this. Deal with it.

Edit: Hold on, "only an unreasonable person would put them at fault." Don't try that crap. You and I both know that the police have almost no training when it comes to dealing with the mentally ill. Yet they are often the first ones to deal with them.

Only an unreasonable person would disregard that fact then say it is okay for the police to use deadly force on a suicidal person. They literally gave them what they wanted, they didn't want to hurt anybody. They just wanted to die.

Did the police specifically know he was mentally ill or what medication he was on? Are they supposed to make that judgment on the scene?

Dreadwinter, police don't sign up to 'tackle' knife wielding nutters with their hands, they have families to go home to as well. It's not like the movies, one good stab and you're dead. Taking on a person with a knife is a very dangerous thing to do and while police have that option open to them, their lives and those of the public take priority.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Did the police specifically know he was mentally ill or what medication he was on? Are they supposed to make that judgment on the scene?

Dreadwinter, police don't sign up to 'tackle' knife wielding nutters with their hands, they have families to go home to as well. It's not like the movies, one good stab and you're dead. Taking on a person with a knife is a very dangerous thing to do and while police have that option open to them, their lives and those of the public take priority.

So, cops are not required to de-escalate a situation? It was very clear what was happening here. They are supposed to make that judgement on the scene. If a person is screaming and swinging a knife at people but intentionally not making contact, it is a clear sign. If they had wanted to hurt a person, they would have kept the knife concealed until they were close enough to land an easy blow. They wouldn't be walking around with it out.

C'mon now, really?

I've seen the video, this is another senseless murder committed by american cops.

It was not a matter of split second decision, the cop could have shot the student in a leg or use the taser.

Mental ill knife wielding dudes are common everywhere but only in the usa they usually end up with bullets. Just a few weeks ago in Italy a crazy african start stabbing people with a knife on a bus and he got stopped with a bullet in his leg.

But with the current laws american cops are justified to kill whoever they want. Even some slayings of children have been justified in that country, people who where at the phone, etc....

Just quickly chiming in on that "tackle the knife guy" line of thought - while I'm not with the police, I've been training with policemen and the local close-combat/self-defense trainer for our federal police for quite some time. Attempting to grapple or incapacitate a determined knife-wielder is extremely dangerous and bordering on being suicidal yourself. Even if you bring a tonfa or baton of your own, even if you're wearing a stab-protection vest of some kind.

A good, try-at-home experiment is getting old white t-shirts and give your friend a marker, then tell him it's a knife and he really wants to kill you. You try to stop and incapacitate him. See how many nice, long marker lines or fat black dots you'll have over vital arteries and organs in seconds. Next level, smear your hands with a bit of lotion or baby oil, because that's how slippery your hands will become after your first accidental parry of the knife with your own palms. Suddendly you can't even control the bastard's arms, even if you're theoretically stronger AND manage to get a hold of him. It's ridiculously dangerous, knives should not be underestimated.

While I also would've hoped for the officers at the scene to either have a tazer OR some more in-depth negotiation training (the one officer had some good attempts with his "Nodbody wants to hurt you", but some follow up, trying to engage him in conversation while they wait for more backup to arrive, would have been nice), I think the officers did what they could with the training and equipment and information they had at this point in time. While they're there to serve and protect, it's also not their job to play hero and do anything stupid.

@Blackie: You seem to have missed a few posts in this thread. They did not have a tazer at the scence, and a few people have already made good arguments while the "shoot them in nonvital body parts" tactic is really reserved for a very narrow spectrum of situation - healthy, armed man less than 20ft away from you, being irrational, is one of those situations where I can't fault the officer for going for a safe, secure hit instead of some sharpshooter trickshot.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Just quickly chiming in on that "tackle the knife guy" line of thought - while I'm not with the police, I've been training with policemen and the local close-combat/self-defense trainer for our federal police for quite some time. Attempting to grapple or incapacitate a determined knife-wielder is extremely dangerous and bordering on being suicidal yourself. Even if you bring a tonfa or baton of your own, even if you're wearing a stab-protection vest of some kind.

Horsegak. You are telling me a tackle from behind, landing the man on his chest and knocking the wind out of him would not disable him? You are also going to tell me that he would immediately be able to swing backwards at a really bad angle behind him, before he could be rushed by other officers or his hands could be secured by the tackling officer?

Also, the marker thing only works if the person is trying to harm you. He was not trying to harm anybody here. He was looking to get shot. So, no.

Lol

I love the "shoot them in the leg" crap. Anyone who has ever said that has obviously never fired a handgun before, let alone in a high stress situation.

My last mention of experience seems to have been ignored, but I will again point towards it. I have fired thousands of rounds through an M9 Berreta, and Springfield XD9. In the US Army's eyes, I am an expert shooter with a handgun.

I would not bet my life on making a shot to injure-incapacitate someone.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Just quickly chiming in on that "tackle the knife guy" line of thought - while I'm not with the police, I've been training with policemen and the local close-combat/self-defense trainer for our federal police for quite some time. Attempting to grapple or incapacitate a determined knife-wielder is extremely dangerous and bordering on being suicidal yourself. Even if you bring a tonfa or baton of your own, even if you're wearing a stab-protection vest of some kind.

Horsegak. You are telling me a tackle from behind, landing the man on his chest and knocking the wind out of him would not disable him? You are also going to tell me that he would immediately be able to swing backwards at a really bad angle behind him, before he could be rushed by other officers or his hands could be secured by the tackling officer?

Also, the marker thing only works if the person is trying to harm you. He was not trying to harm anybody here. He was looking to get shot. So, no.

Lol

Police did not know a 100% sure this was suicide-by-cop. That is hindsight, with all the guy's history. They were not sure he would not lash out. And yes, if your tackle WORKS, good job, problem probably solved. But police boots on asphalt don't make you a ninja, if he hears you coming and you impale yourself on the knife he's instinctively thrusting into your direction, you suddendly have a much worse situation.

It's not impossible to bring him down non-lethally, it's just that a one-man tackle seems one of the worst ways to pull it off.

 djones520 wrote:
I love the "shoot them in the leg" crap. Anyone who has ever said that has obviously never fired a handgun before, let alone in a high stress situation.

My last mention of experience seems to have been ignored, but I will again point towards it. I have fired thousands of rounds through an M9 Berreta, and Springfield XD9. In the US Army's eyes, I am an expert shooter with a handgun.

I would not bet my life on making a shot to injure-incapacitate someone.

Find another job then, a cop is not a vigilante with a licence to kill. You accept to put your life in danger if you want to be a policeman, to protect and to serve the community. In this specific case the knife wielder stared in front of the cop for a significan amount of time, he could have been neutralized without being killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:


@Blackie: You seem to have missed a few posts in this thread. They did not have a tazer at the scence.

I thought all american cops carry tasers, my bad then.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Just quickly chiming in on that "tackle the knife guy" line of thought - while I'm not with the police, I've been training with policemen and the local close-combat/self-defense trainer for our federal police for quite some time. Attempting to grapple or incapacitate a determined knife-wielder is extremely dangerous and bordering on being suicidal yourself. Even if you bring a tonfa or baton of your own, even if you're wearing a stab-protection vest of some kind.

Horsegak. You are telling me a tackle from behind, landing the man on his chest and knocking the wind out of him would not disable him? You are also going to tell me that he would immediately be able to swing backwards at a really bad angle behind him, before he could be rushed by other officers or his hands could be secured by the tackling officer?

Also, the marker thing only works if the person is trying to harm you. He was not trying to harm anybody here. He was looking to get shot. So, no.

Lol

Police did not know a 100% sure this was suicide-by-cop.

I stopped reading right here. Because if they did not know this was 100% suicide by cop, they should be removed from their positions because they clearly do not have the ability to make a reasonable judgement call. Regardless of if it was not 100% known, there is overwhelming evidence that this is what is happening in this situation just based on what is seen in the video.

Furthermore, who the feth taught them that screaming at a person is how you de-escalate a situation?

Can you point to where I said one man tackle?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Did the police specifically know he was mentally ill or what medication he was on? Are they supposed to make that judgment on the scene?

Dreadwinter, police don't sign up to 'tackle' knife wielding nutters with their hands, they have families to go home to as well. It's not like the movies, one good stab and you're dead. Taking on a person with a knife is a very dangerous thing to do and while police have that option open to them, their lives and those of the public take priority.

Funny it seems to be issue only in America in western countries. Elsewhere cops shooting is far from the norm unless there's serious reason to expect bullets are starting to fly to their way or some 3rd party person is in immediate danger.

I'm soooo glad I wasn't born in country where cops shooting isn't business as usual like in America.

Somebody mentioned "an officer tackling from behind", that is what I responded to. If they manage to pull off a synchronized attempt with multiple officers, stuff becomes more viable, sure. Just like those videos from UK, it can work.

I'm out for now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Just quickly chiming in on that "tackle the knife guy" line of thought - while I'm not with the police, I've been training with policemen and the local close-combat/self-defense trainer for our federal police for quite some time. Attempting to grapple or incapacitate a determined knife-wielder is extremely dangerous and bordering on being suicidal yourself. Even if you bring a tonfa or baton of your own, even if you're wearing a stab-protection vest of some kind.

Horsegak. You are telling me a tackle from behind, landing the man on his chest and knocking the wind out of him would not disable him? You are also going to tell me that he would immediately be able to swing backwards at a really bad angle behind him, before he could be rushed by other officers or his hands could be secured by the tackling officer?

Also, the marker thing only works if the person is trying to harm you. He was not trying to harm anybody here. He was looking to get shot. So, no.

Lol

Police did not know a 100% sure this was suicide-by-cop.

I stopped reading right here. Because if they did not know this was 100% suicide by cop, they should be removed from their positions because they clearly do not have the ability to make a reasonable judgement call. Regardless of if it was not 100% known, there is overwhelming evidence that this is what is happening in this situation just based on what is seen in the video.

Furthermore, who the feth taught them that screaming at a person is how you de-escalate a situation?

Can you point to where I said one man tackle?

There was two cops reacting.
One to cover suspect. Second to tackle... Umm tad dangerous. The UK one took some 20 officers and even then risky. A machete can take off limbs.

B. The first report that came in was a gun and a knife, so theres also the unconfirmed nature to add.

C, they did not know how far someone would go to make them kill them. Take a hostage. Stab someone. They did not know.

Public safety goes above the suspects.

Given the number of high profile incidents involving American police these days (the Utah nurse, the cop being acquitted in Missouri)

I don't blame people for not giving the American police the benefit of the doubt in situations like this.

In the past, I've had to encounter American authority myself in the form of customs officials at US airports, and they were the most rude and obnoxious people I've ever had the misfortune of encountering.

I only hope the police are not like that.

 djones520 wrote:
I love the "shoot them in the leg" crap. Anyone who has ever said that has obviously never fired a handgun before, let alone in a high stress situation.

My last mention of experience seems to have been ignored, but I will again point towards it. I have fired thousands of rounds through an M9 Berreta, and Springfield XD9. In the US Army's eyes, I am an expert shooter with a handgun.

I would not bet my life on making a shot to injure-incapacitate someone.

And of course, the average police officer has not had even a fraction of the range time or training. US police officers (as you know, but overseas people may not) are notoriously bad shots.

The idea that police should try for a leg shot is the stuff of fantasy. Again, a taser would have been ideal, and it should be explored why among there wasn't a responder so equipped - not to assign blame but because we always try to improve.

I just read part of a headline that said he was holding a "closed multi-tool". Can anyone from the US confirm that? Because that sounds like an at least slightly different threat scenario than an unsheathed proper blade.

 Witzkatz wrote:
I just read part of a headline that said he was holding a "closed multi-tool". Can anyone from the US confirm that? Because that sounds like an at least slightly different threat scenario than an unsheathed proper blade.

What has been reported:



It's hard to know definitively since in highly publicized cases like this there is a lot of media wheel-spinning, essentially, for 2 or 3 days. The 24 hour cycle beast has to be fed, and the first few days it gets fed a lot of bs and speculation.

Ah, thanks. In the end I guess it at least partially depends on whether that thing was actually open or closed at the time he was walking in front of those officers...we'll see if there's a definitive answer to that.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Did the police specifically know he was mentally ill or what medication he was on? Are they supposed to make that judgment on the scene?

Dreadwinter, police don't sign up to 'tackle' knife wielding nutters with their hands, they have families to go home to as well. It's not like the movies, one good stab and you're dead. Taking on a person with a knife is a very dangerous thing to do and while police have that option open to them, their lives and those of the public take priority.

No,( only guy with knife). Turns out he was the one that called it in, and had been on serious meds for 3 months. This is a mental health industry issue, not a police one.

Telling police they need to tackle someone with a knife is just jnsipidly stupid. You do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Did the police specifically know he was mentally ill or what medication he was on? Are they supposed to make that judgment on the scene?

Dreadwinter, police don't sign up to 'tackle' knife wielding nutters with their hands, they have families to go home to as well. It's not like the movies, one good stab and you're dead. Taking on a person with a knife is a very dangerous thing to do and while police have that option open to them, their lives and those of the public take priority.

Funny it seems to be issue only in America in western countries. Elsewhere cops shooting is far from the norm unless there's serious reason to expect bullets are starting to fly to their way or some 3rd party person is in immediate danger.

I'm soooo glad I wasn't born in country where cops shooting isn't business as usual like in America.

we are glad you are there and not here too. We hope every day you don't come here among as barbarians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
I just read part of a headline that said he was holding a "closed multi-tool". Can anyone from the US confirm that? Because that sounds like an at least slightly different threat scenario than an unsheathed proper blade.

In the video the blade s clearly out.

 Frazzled wrote:

Telling police they need to tackle someone with a knife is just jnsipidly stupid. You do it.

I'm not the one who signed up for public service ostensibly to be the one to handle difficult and dangerous situations. Unless, of course, the real purpose of the police corps is not in fact to protect and serve...

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Telling police they need to tackle someone with a knife is just jnsipidly stupid. You do it.

I'm not the one who signed up for public service ostensibly to be the one to handle difficult and dangerous situations. Unless, of course, the real purpose of the police corps is not in fact to protect and serve...

I'm as much in favour of more extensive deescalation training and nonlethal methods wherever possible. That's something that should be police culture everywhere, and something that's lacking in many departments, I think, and I don't want to single out the US here, although they do produce some of the more noteworthy cases the last years. - In this case, though, the officers in that situation, with the (probably limited) training they received and the (limited) equipment they had available and no surefire way to distinguish between somebody who is suicidal and someone who is drugged out of their mind and possibly hallucinating (just to give one possible situation)....they did what they could, and I don't fault them to improvise some nonlethal maneuver in that situation with what they had.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Telling police they need to tackle someone with a knife is just jnsipidly stupid. You do it.

I'm not the one who signed up for public service ostensibly to be the one to handle difficult and dangerous situations. Unless, of course, the real purpose of the police corps is not in fact to protect and serve...

Newsflash: the real purpose of the police is not to protect and serve. Thats been affirmed by SCOTUS.

Also, we should note the 911 that the person made himself alleged person with a knife AND gun.

 Frazzled wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Telling police they need to tackle someone with a knife is just jnsipidly stupid. You do it.

I'm not the one who signed up for public service ostensibly to be the one to handle difficult and dangerous situations. Unless, of course, the real purpose of the police corps is not in fact to protect and serve...

Newsflash: the real purpose of the police is not to protect and serve. Thats been affirmed by SCOTUS.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Something everyone should have tattooed on the backs of their eyelids. Police are not there to protect and serve, for them, their own safety is paramount and they're under no special requirements or obligations to put themselves at risk or to help anyone else that you or I are not.

"Protect and Serve" is a logo, nothing more. It's unfortunate, as are most of the legal realities around policing in the US today, but that's the simple reality.

 Frazzled wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Telling police they need to tackle someone with a knife is just jnsipidly stupid. You do it.

I'm not the one who signed up for public service ostensibly to be the one to handle difficult and dangerous situations. Unless, of course, the real purpose of the police corps is not in fact to protect and serve...

Newsflash: the real purpose of the police is not to protect and serve. Thats been affirmed by SCOTUS.

Also, we should note the 911 that the person made himself alleged person with a knife AND gun.

Are you telling me misinformation is bad? thats unpossible.

 Witzkatz wrote:
I'm as much in favour of more extensive deescalation training and nonlethal methods wherever possible. In this case, though, the officers in that situation, with the (probably limited) training they received and the (limited) equipment they had available and no surefire way to distinguish between somebody who is suicidal and someone who is drugged out of their mind and possibly hallucinating (just to give one possible situation)....they did what they could, and I don't fault them to improvise some nonlethal maneuver in that situation with what they had.

Agreed, even if I know our police probably would have tried a leg shot first - but any shot is a chance to kill. Officers with little training and experience shouldn't even try such a thing.

Spethulu how many instances do you know of where your police tried a leg shot and were successful? Is your average officer armed? This is a question not a criticism.

 Frazzled wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Telling police they need to tackle someone with a knife is just jnsipidly stupid. You do it.

I'm not the one who signed up for public service ostensibly to be the one to handle difficult and dangerous situations. Unless, of course, the real purpose of the police corps is not in fact to protect and serve...

Newsflash: the real purpose of the police is not to protect and serve. Thats been affirmed by SCOTUS.

The most notable cases that "affirm" this(Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez where a woman and her kids were murdered by her ex-husband who she had a restraining order against and Warren v. District of Columbia) had some pretty scathing dissenting opinions in there and a couple of very particular Justices making a mockery of what should have been open and shut cases.

The whole premise of the affirmation is based upon the "Duty to Rescue" doctrine, which is really intended for private citizens not police.

Also, we should note the 911 that the person made himself alleged person with a knife AND gun.

And the officer should have been able to tell that he only had a knife.

Putting it bluntly, when someone is trying to commit suicide by cop it's because they know that it's ridiculously easy to do.

This is how two months ago the Spanish Police reduced a Islamist "terrorist" that in the border with Melilla tried to harm them with a knive.




It sparked a good amounth of memes


But, if I'm sharing this here is basically to say that... theres more ways to reduce a guy with a knive than going into a meele with him. Thats suicidal, as others have pointed out. But I suppose that those police man didn't had anything at hand to reduce the guy, only their guns. And when you are trained to resolve all your problems in service with your gun...

Hmm.

While I lament any loss of life, blaming the police is just stupid. The guy was mentally unstable and was suicidal - he KNEW saying he had a 'gun and knife' would add gravitas to the situation.

I like how some people in this thread are 'armchair tactician' types, or simply dismiss the police as nothing more than murderers. Disgraceful. If YOU think you could do better, be my guest and sign up to the police academy. You'll think twice when your the one having to deal with this situation without getting hurt.

But what has happened, happened. The victim (which he was of the mental health service side of things) got what he wanted by essentially 'abusing' police protocols and his surroundings. However, instead of his family quietly mourning his passing, it becomes a massive media scrum and full of people pushing agendas etc.

Yeah, I think this is regrettable, but I think the cops did fine as individuals.

Like I said earlier, maybe a culture change is needed, or a training change, or a budgeting change, but as it stands, I would hold the individual cops acting in the moment rather blameless.