Is Police Use of Force Justified in Shooting a Man 46 Times?

[Hurkyl]

The main gist of what I was trying to get out there is that bean bags are a viable option as well as tasers. More of an indication that they exist and could be used.

Less lethal options have come up in the thread. We know they exist and can be used.

What, exactly do you think they are a viable option for? That's the thing you seem to be completely oblivious to. There are situations where less lethal force is a viable option -- but your argument and especially your choice of examples suggest that you are failing entirely to acknowledge that different situations can call for different tactics.Roughly speaking, you have been arguing that bean bag rounds are good for stopping people trying to commit suicide, so you should use them on credible lethal threats within attack range too.

 

[Drakkith]

I'd be interested to see if there were any stats on the number of "failures" of non-lethal weapons. If the weapon doesn't stop someone, and they end up hurting or killing someone, it's a bad day...

 

[Mentalist]

Less lethal options have come up in the thread. We know they exist and can be used.

What, exactly do you think they are a viable option for? That's the thing you seem to be completely oblivious to. There are situations where less lethal force is a viable option -- but your argument and especially your choice of examples suggest that you are failing entirely to acknowledge that different situations can call for different tactics.


Roughly speaking, you have been arguing that bean bag rounds are good for stopping people trying to commit suicide, so you should use them on credible lethal threats within attack range too.

(1) links not read by you.

(2) misinterpreted my post and the quotation

(3) i am addressing the video and the context of the thread. your point about "different situations" is irrelevant here not only to my posts, but to my obvious clarification.

 

[lisab]

Mentalist, have you had any firearms training?

The fact that the guy had a weapon changes the equation. Using non-lethal weapons against someone who has a weapon...yeah, cops generally aren't going to do that. Even cops with 4-year degrees.

 

[Mentalist]

I haven't had any fire-weapons training but that doesn't make my argument invalid.

But to your 2nd point, that isn't the standard as I have posted a link telling a story of a katana wielding individual being taken down by police officers utilizing bean-bags.

Here is some more information on non-lethal ways individuals have been rendered suppressed. The first link specifically detailing that an individual within a confined area after having made an officers stun-gun inoperable, inside a police station mind you, was taken down by another officers stun-gun. The second link is a study that was conducted on the use of stun-guns.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-10-05/news/os-machete-attack-taser-stun-guns-20121005_1_stun-guns-machete-officers

note-worthy point here:

A 20-year-old Fort Myers man was shot twice with stun guns and eventually subdued after swinging a machete at officers inside the Fort Myers Police Department this week.

http://www.nij.gov/journals/267/use-of-force.htm

That is an interesting study, and a note-worthy point from the research:

In nine incidents (out of 109), officers in the RCSD reported that a Taser did not work properly or did not have the desired effect. Researchers received reports of multiple Taser hits on a suspect (i.e., more than one officer using a Taser on a single suspect) and multiple uses of the Taser in drive stun mode (when the Taser is pressed against a suspect rather than firing darts).

......................................................

It isn't, it is a fundamental safety requirement. You do NOT want officers starting to try to use their weapons in an attempt to "wound" someone. A gun is a LETHAL weapon. Consider the following points.

Police officers have done it before, so I don't see why it is wrong to try and use a weapon to not kill someone. Why kill a human if you can just incapacitate the person?


http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/179776/13/Buffalo-Police-Officer-Fires-Gun
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2018462322_apwaspokanepoliceshooting.html

1. It is extremely difficult to hit a non-stationary target, especially something like someones leg. Even if they are merely pacing back and forth slowly this is still very challenging, especially for someone with a handgun. This leads to issues such as officers missing and the suspect now forced into a violent situation where they are fighting for their own lives now and bullets bouncing around possible hitting bystanders.

This is dependent upon the circumstances of said person mentality. I was recently reading some articles where officers responded to a rather manic lady. She was screaming and had a gun in her hand at the time, they were able to talk her into putting the gun down and but she was still erratic, to which they proceeded to tase her. To me, it depends upon the situation and attempting to talk the suspect down rather than just outright killing him/her. Shooting the suspect should be the last remaining option on the table.

2. Wounding someone who has a weapon of their own, even a knife, is almost guaranteed to lead to a bad situation. Consider that shooting someone in the leg now makes them VERY scared, angry, violent, etc when they probably weren't nearly that bad to begin with. And now you have a bleeding suspect that you are liable for that you have to get medical attention for. And he's still armed. NOT a good turn of events.

An individual with a knife that has been shot in the leg could not move easily to wound another person. Most situations an individual would drop the knife, and if that individual did not, tase him/her. Medical attention is much better than having to write a report on the need to kill the human.

3. If officers have the option to use their gun for non-lethal purposes, they WILL use it. Even when they probably shouldn't. This is not something that can be trained out, it is an inevitability. People WILL be shot and WILL be killed on accident because an officer was "just trying to wound them".

Within the case of the thread, the police should have either used the dog as was mentioned, or tased him. They had enough time for both, to tase and use the dog to attack the individual. They did not have to shoot him.

Not being a trained police officer I try not to judge cases like this because I feel that I have very little idea of what it's like to be there. However I support the investigation into unfortunate incidents such as this to determine what happened and to take appropriate actions to prevent them from happening in the future.

I am for increasing taxes to get the best men and women for the job, and to undergo the necessary training. I can judge easily as I am not within the same situation, but I know my limits. If I had the gun, more than likely I would have shot because I'd be in fear of my own life, but then again, I am not a police officer. A police officer should not have the same reaction of a civilian.

 

[Hurkyl]

But to your 2nd point, that isn't the standard as I have posted a link telling a story of a katana wielding individual being taken down by police officers utilizing bean-bags.

The content of your article describe a man who was attempting to commit "suicide by police", and suggest a situation that had not yet escalated to the point where he was an imminent threat.

 

[Mentalist]

What is note-worthy within that article is that police officers, from what I am assuming, had only the bean-bag shotguns drawn. They did not have their hand-guns drawn.

In addition, the officers did not know whether the individual would attack, so he could still be considered an "imminent threat", even more-so seeing that he wanted to be killed and was wielding dangerous weapons that could instantly kill an officer if connected with enough force.

 

[Drakkith]

Police officers have done it before, so I don't see why it is wrong to try and use a weapon to not kill someone. Why kill a human if you can just incapacitate the person?

What did you not understand about my post? It is irrelevant whether someone has done it before. It is a bad idea overall for at least those 3 reasons I posted. Your attitude is the primary reason I generally hate trying to talk to people about this. You THINK you actually know an inkling about what should or shouldn't be done with a LETHAL weapon. You do not.

This is dependent upon the circumstances of said person mentality. I was recently reading some articles where officers responded to a rather manic lady. She was screaming and had a gun in her hand at the time, they were able to talk her into putting the gun down and but she was still erratic, to which they proceeded to tase her. To me, it depends upon the situation and attempting to talk the suspect down rather than just outright killing him/her. Shooting the suspect should be the last remaining option on the table.

Not everyone can be talked down, NOR can every officer be the shining beacon of negotiation that you seem to expect.

An individual with a knife that has been shot in the leg could not move easily to wound another person. Most situations an individual would drop the knife, and if that individual did not, tase him/her. Medical attention is much better than having to write a report on the need to kill the human.

Complete BS. You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about. You have NOT been out there and you don't understand that you cannot predict how a situation will evolve.

Within the case of the thread, the police should have either used the dog as was mentioned, or tased him. They had enough time for both, to tase and use the dog to attack the individual. They did not have to shoot him.

It's easy to look backwards and say what SHOULD have happened. I'm not saying the officers were right or wrong, but I know for a fact that you don't know the slightest thing about being a police officer and you shouldn't even attempt to say what should or shouldn't happen as you've shown nothing but close-mindedness and your lack of understanding the bigger picture this whole thread.

I am for increasing taxes to get the best men and women for the job, and to undergo the necessary training. I can judge easily as I am not within the same situation, but I know my limits. If I had the gun, more than likely I would have shot because I'd be in fear of my own life, but then again, I am not a police officer. A police officer should not have the same reaction of a civilian.

More BS. Police officers are people. They judge situations differently, they even make mistakes, regardless of how much training they have had. Period. End of story.

Evo, someone, lock this thread before I get myself banned by going on off this person.

 

[Mentalist]

And you have more knowledge about the subject as I do?

(1) You asserted that it is a bad idea? Are you a police officer?

(2) I said "dependent upon the circumstances", I am not making blanket statements in my argument.

(3) Ad-hominmem. You have little credibility on the subject either, so what makes your argument more credible than my own argument?

(4) I am looking back as it pertains to this thread. I can post my own opinions at will seeing as that was the intention of the OP, so I am not in the wrong here.

(5) I know, but my main gist throughout has been to limit killings in general.

(6) If you do not have the emotional aptitude to handle another person's opinion maybe this isn't the forum or topic for you, and maybe discussing ideas with civility isn't something you should try to undertake.

You are very rude.

 

[Hurkyl]

(6) If you do not have the emotional aptitude to handle another person's opinion maybe this isn't the forum or topic for you, and maybe discussing ideas with civility isn't something you should try to undertake.

I do think he is giving your posts more respect they deserve, possibly much more.

And besides, this ceased to be a civil discussion the moment you decided to resurrect an expired discussion by making bold assertions without any regard to any of the prior content (and appear to continue to ignore anything conflicting with your desired claims).

 

[Mentalist]

"...ceased to be civil", yet you kept responding. Having your own points made moot and now resorting to a rather petty attack of my post.

To the first point. He's made more anecdotal evidence, failed to establish his positions, and has not posted 1 fact. I, on the other-hand, have posted articles backing my posts, actual evidence. I don't feign first hand knowledge, rather I have an opinion and see whether it is supported.

Both of your posts have been riddled in petty attacks, ad-hominems, and just overall rudeness. This is supposed to be an adult discussion, yet you've resorted to rather juvenile replies based on your disdain for what is said. You did not even argue the links with your own information, instead you just attacked me, the person, and you honestly believe that is a good route?

You're in over your head if you think attacking me makes your arguments credible.

(and appear to continue to ignore anything conflicting with your desired claims).

This is getting out of hand. Please re-read my posts and understand the context of each post and statement made. You are conflicting posts and drawing conclusions based off some assumption you have made. This is not factual given my posts.

"..ignored anything conflicting"?

Post conflicting evidence, not evidence about what you "think". My posts don't just rely on what I think rather they are backed. Do the same please and stop attacking me.

I posted a study for goodness sake on the use of non-lethal weapons, something no one has posted, yet I am wrong because I am "uncivil". Apparently, I am uncivil to resurrect a thread on the first page and apparently uncivil because I try to support my arguments. Lol