280PLUS
Member
interesting point zahc,,,
interesting point...
interesting point...
Police shoot man stabbing self, justified or not?
- Thread starter Holly76201
- Start date
- Status
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Sarge, I don't think you read the description of the events that took place. There was NO knife fight. No aggression was made on the officers. As I said, they had any number of options at their disposal to use against the guy after the pepper spray failed to gain the proper response. Being as there was two officers present, one could still remain covering the nut with a gun while the other attempts to use any of the alternate options.
Sarge, I think the statement you made says it all, "The officers chose to deprive Mr. Whack of the ability to inflict fatal wounds (on himself as well as the officers) by shooting him where it would be less likely to kill him than, say, right between the running lights." Yes, a shoulder shot may be less likely to cause death, but that is still lethal force.
Quartus, shooting a person in the real world is still lethal force and is not just legal lethal force. The man was shot twice by the officers and neither officer had the ability to control their slugs once the slugs left the barrel, nor could they control the tissue damage inflicted on the guy.
Contrary to your statement that, "He had a knife - you don't get close to a knife - you shoot" does not apply here since the guy apparently attempted no harm to the cops.
So if shooting a person isn't lethal force, then what is?
Sarge, I think the statement you made says it all, "The officers chose to deprive Mr. Whack of the ability to inflict fatal wounds (on himself as well as the officers) by shooting him where it would be less likely to kill him than, say, right between the running lights." Yes, a shoulder shot may be less likely to cause death, but that is still lethal force.
Quartus, shooting a person in the real world is still lethal force and is not just legal lethal force. The man was shot twice by the officers and neither officer had the ability to control their slugs once the slugs left the barrel, nor could they control the tissue damage inflicted on the guy.
Contrary to your statement that, "He had a knife - you don't get close to a knife - you shoot" does not apply here since the guy apparently attempted no harm to the cops.
So if shooting a person isn't lethal force, then what is?
tetleyb
Member
Ask yourself this question:
How long would it have taken for the man to attack one or both of the officers, with the knife? Does an officer have to wait to be attacked, before using deadly force, or does the circumstances of each incident dictate what should be done?
Without getting into in depth specifics, action vs reaction, OODA Loop, etc. I believe the officers acted properly. In fact, I would have reamed them for shooting the guy in the shoulder. Wounded people can still cause great bodily injury.
If they were to fire, they should have shot center of mass on the suspect (yep, like it or not, he is a suspect) and taken head shots, there after, as appropriate.
How long would it have taken for the man to attack one or both of the officers, with the knife? Does an officer have to wait to be attacked, before using deadly force, or does the circumstances of each incident dictate what should be done?
Without getting into in depth specifics, action vs reaction, OODA Loop, etc. I believe the officers acted properly. In fact, I would have reamed them for shooting the guy in the shoulder. Wounded people can still cause great bodily injury.
If they were to fire, they should have shot center of mass on the suspect (yep, like it or not, he is a suspect) and taken head shots, there after, as appropriate.
DNS, I was referring to their training. I think most current police doctrine is somewhat like that line from the old cop move (set in the time of the Watts riots) where the senior cop tells the rookie something like "If he uses a fist, you use a club, if he uses a knife, you use a gun."
Cops sure aren't trained to shoot to wound, and they aren't trained to try to walk up to someone with a knife and take it away.
Cops sure aren't trained to shoot to wound, and they aren't trained to try to walk up to someone with a knife and take it away.
Andrew Rothman
Member
This is The High Road, so I won't call you names, but that is the most idiotic statement I've ever read, and I read a lot!
You DON'T get close to a knife -- period!
This poor crazy guy refused to drop the knife when two cops with guns ordered him to. He didn't stop after being sprayed with OC.
How do you figure he'll calmly hand it over when the cops get within stabbing distance?
Cops are trained NOT to place themselves in harm's way like that. He wanted to keep the knife. How can you imagine he wouldn't take a swipe at an officer trying to disarm him?
These cops made the best of a bad situation. They used their heads and made a good call. If this suicide attempter ever sanes up, he'll be thanking them.
Matt
Crimper-D
Member
A couple of different things come to mind...
Anyone ever hear the phrase "Suicide by Police" Since the guy had a past history of self- mutilation and getting 'shot' by nonlethal means to prevent him from further self destruction, maybe _this_ time he decided to up the anti.
Reading stuff like this makes me yearn for more 'realistic' times... when attempted suicide was a hanging offense
Anyone ever hear the phrase "Suicide by Police" Since the guy had a past history of self- mutilation and getting 'shot' by nonlethal means to prevent him from further self destruction, maybe _this_ time he decided to up the anti.
Reading stuff like this makes me yearn for more 'realistic' times... when attempted suicide was a hanging offense
Fact: The cops needed to respond ASAP, in case he decided to hurt someone else in addition to himself.
Fact: A man with a knife can cross 16 feet of ground in less than 2 seconds, even after being shot multiple times.
Opinion: Respond, clear the area of innocents, root him on and enrourage darwinism.
Fact: A man with a knife can cross 16 feet of ground in less than 2 seconds, even after being shot multiple times.
Opinion: Respond, clear the area of innocents, root him on and enrourage darwinism.
DNS...
"Sarge, I think the statement you made says it all, "The officers chose to deprive Mr. Whack of the ability to inflict fatal wounds (on himself as well as the officers) by shooting him where it would be less likely to kill him than, say, right between the running lights." Yes, a shoulder shot may be less likely to cause death, but that is still lethal force."
Well, then I guess the only question left to ask is "Where would you rather be shot?" It's a no-brainer for me- but that's just me.
The justification of force used in law enforcement must meet one of two, and only two, requirements. Force can be used by the police for defense, or lawful control. Control can include preventing any course of conduct likely to result in the death or serious physical injury of another person. The character involved was a credible threat to himself and the officers whose duty was to take him into custody for mental evaluation. Both use of force requirements are met by this situation.
Once that decision to use force is made, the amount of force to be used must be decided. The use of force must be reasonable and necessary to accomplish either, or both, of the above justifications. Sound training doctrines generally teach an escalating scale, starting at the lowest points on the scale (officer presence, verbal commands) that are likely to effect the desired result. There is no requirement to start at the lowest point on that scale, or return to a lower point, if the actions of the person who initiated the use of force make it likely that the lower degree of force will be ineffective. Compliance or surrender are the two common actions that allow officers to de-escalate the amount of force being used.
The officers' decision to escalate or de-escalate rests soley on the individual upon whom the justifiable force is being used. You do not generally drop back three levels, because something in the middle of the scale didn't work. You turn up the heat until something works, the bad guy stops doing what made you apply force in the first place, and the situation is resolved. Unfortunately, it isn't always a happy, or "textbook perfect" outcome. This was one of those times.
I have decades first-hand experience with these sorts of situations, and I have helped to write use-of-force policies myself. I have a pretty good idea of how this will probably sort out. You can 'armchair quarterback' this situation to death if you want to, but neither of our opinions really amount to squat.
In the end a district attorney or grand jury will look at the facts, and determine whether the officers acted within the law- that's it. If they're lucky, external politics won't play any part in that decision.
The issue of whether they acted within policy will be decided by their department. If they're lucky, internal politics won't play any part in that decision.
The civil liability issues will be decided in (or settled out of) the court of appropriate jurisdiction- if there are any.
Yes, I read the original post. The police reports and witness statements will be the telling factor here, and I'd be shocked if any second-hand account, media or otherwise- were even remotely accurate.
"Sarge, I think the statement you made says it all, "The officers chose to deprive Mr. Whack of the ability to inflict fatal wounds (on himself as well as the officers) by shooting him where it would be less likely to kill him than, say, right between the running lights." Yes, a shoulder shot may be less likely to cause death, but that is still lethal force."
Well, then I guess the only question left to ask is "Where would you rather be shot?" It's a no-brainer for me- but that's just me.
The justification of force used in law enforcement must meet one of two, and only two, requirements. Force can be used by the police for defense, or lawful control. Control can include preventing any course of conduct likely to result in the death or serious physical injury of another person. The character involved was a credible threat to himself and the officers whose duty was to take him into custody for mental evaluation. Both use of force requirements are met by this situation.
Once that decision to use force is made, the amount of force to be used must be decided. The use of force must be reasonable and necessary to accomplish either, or both, of the above justifications. Sound training doctrines generally teach an escalating scale, starting at the lowest points on the scale (officer presence, verbal commands) that are likely to effect the desired result. There is no requirement to start at the lowest point on that scale, or return to a lower point, if the actions of the person who initiated the use of force make it likely that the lower degree of force will be ineffective. Compliance or surrender are the two common actions that allow officers to de-escalate the amount of force being used.
The officers' decision to escalate or de-escalate rests soley on the individual upon whom the justifiable force is being used. You do not generally drop back three levels, because something in the middle of the scale didn't work. You turn up the heat until something works, the bad guy stops doing what made you apply force in the first place, and the situation is resolved. Unfortunately, it isn't always a happy, or "textbook perfect" outcome. This was one of those times.
I have decades first-hand experience with these sorts of situations, and I have helped to write use-of-force policies myself. I have a pretty good idea of how this will probably sort out. You can 'armchair quarterback' this situation to death if you want to, but neither of our opinions really amount to squat.
In the end a district attorney or grand jury will look at the facts, and determine whether the officers acted within the law- that's it. If they're lucky, external politics won't play any part in that decision.
The issue of whether they acted within policy will be decided by their department. If they're lucky, internal politics won't play any part in that decision.
The civil liability issues will be decided in (or settled out of) the court of appropriate jurisdiction- if there are any.
Yes, I read the original post. The police reports and witness statements will be the telling factor here, and I'd be shocked if any second-hand account, media or otherwise- were even remotely accurate.
FPrice
Member
Kinda reminds me of the scene from "Crocodile Dundee II". Dundee and his girl are in the rocks, the bad guys have Dundee's friend and are threatening to kill him if Mick does not surrender, so Dundee shoots at his friend, grazing him in the head.
"You shot Walter!"
"Yeah, it was the only way I could think of to save his life."
"You shot Walter!"
"Yeah, it was the only way I could think of to save his life."
Oh I can IMAGINE it. I can even imagine it's a good possibility. He might not.
But he might. And I'm not going to be the one to ask a cop to take the chance.
If they HAD taken that chance, and gotten killed for their trouble, how many of us would have called them stupid for doing so?
Legalities aside, I think they did good. This guy is obviously troubled, and he may very well succeed next time he tries to kill himself, but he just might get help and go on to live a happy and productive life. If it were my Dad or brother, I'd be grateful that they didn't kill him.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Play it how you like, but there is no way in hell that the officers are going to be able to justify in court shooting a person who is trying to commit suicide, and certainly not shooting that person twice....as noted by what constitutes deadly force. The suicidal guy is going to be able to live for quite some time on the money he gets from the PD and the city.
Holly76201
Member
I started this thread and I've really enjoyed reading everyone's responses. One thing I neglected to put in the original post was that while the man was stabbing himself in the chest and abdomen he was yelling at the officers, "Shoot me, Shoot me! "
Knowing the populace in the area I doubt a grand jury will indict the officers and I hope FWPD doesn't take any Internal measures against these officers.
I think this is a justified shoot. As the officers stated, they feared the guy was about to spill his guts all over the floor. That is messy and leads to really gross secondary infections and would be more likely to kill him than 2 clean GSWs thru the shoulder. Not to mention, any of those chest stabs could have knicked a lung, his heart or a major blood vessel causing him to bleed out before he reached EMS right outside the house. So there's my logic for my opinion.
Knowing the populace in the area I doubt a grand jury will indict the officers and I hope FWPD doesn't take any Internal measures against these officers.
I think this is a justified shoot. As the officers stated, they feared the guy was about to spill his guts all over the floor. That is messy and leads to really gross secondary infections and would be more likely to kill him than 2 clean GSWs thru the shoulder. Not to mention, any of those chest stabs could have knicked a lung, his heart or a major blood vessel causing him to bleed out before he reached EMS right outside the house. So there's my logic for my opinion.
tetleyb
Member
DoubleNaughtSpy,
Are you a police officer or another law enforcement official? I don't believe you are, based upon your previous posts here and elsewhere. And, of course, I have no clue of your background, experience, and training. However, I would like to say I personally find your comments quite nieve.
Sarge, and all the others here have hit the hammer on the head. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. It doesn't matter if the guy was pointing the knife at the police or himself. It can be turned on those officers in a fraction of a second, killing and/or injuring them. Its not what the suspect is doing, its the circumstances surrounding what the suspect is doing.
I, like Sarge, have to train police officers, write policies, and defend said police officers and policies in court. Simple, plain facts and common sense is what matters here. Written laws, policies, and procedures, are just that; written. They CANNOT cover every possible scenario out there.
There are two points to the "law." The letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Your correct in your assertation the "letter of the law" was violated. However, was that the spirit of the law? The law said you can't use deadly force on a suicidal person. Ok, fine. TECHNICALLY, fine. However, these officers used the "spirit of the law" to get their job done.
Under extreme stress, in a fast paced, moving, fluid situation, these two officers made a decision. Based upon their own training and experience. They ended the standoff without killing someone and, more importantly in my book, without injuring themselves. For that I applaud them.
At the sametime, if they were MY officers, I would have my foot up where the sun doesn't shine. You don't shoot to wound. Wounded people and animals, are still a threat. I don't train my officers that way and I wouldn't expect them to react that way.
At the end of the day, my job is to go home, with my uniform, skin, blood, etc all intact. No matter WHAT gets thrown at me. And, I will take whatever means necessary to that end. I expect every police officer in this country to do the same.
Are you a police officer or another law enforcement official? I don't believe you are, based upon your previous posts here and elsewhere. And, of course, I have no clue of your background, experience, and training. However, I would like to say I personally find your comments quite nieve.
Sarge, and all the others here have hit the hammer on the head. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. It doesn't matter if the guy was pointing the knife at the police or himself. It can be turned on those officers in a fraction of a second, killing and/or injuring them. Its not what the suspect is doing, its the circumstances surrounding what the suspect is doing.
I, like Sarge, have to train police officers, write policies, and defend said police officers and policies in court. Simple, plain facts and common sense is what matters here. Written laws, policies, and procedures, are just that; written. They CANNOT cover every possible scenario out there.
There are two points to the "law." The letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Your correct in your assertation the "letter of the law" was violated. However, was that the spirit of the law? The law said you can't use deadly force on a suicidal person. Ok, fine. TECHNICALLY, fine. However, these officers used the "spirit of the law" to get their job done.
Under extreme stress, in a fast paced, moving, fluid situation, these two officers made a decision. Based upon their own training and experience. They ended the standoff without killing someone and, more importantly in my book, without injuring themselves. For that I applaud them.
At the sametime, if they were MY officers, I would have my foot up where the sun doesn't shine. You don't shoot to wound. Wounded people and animals, are still a threat. I don't train my officers that way and I wouldn't expect them to react that way.
At the end of the day, my job is to go home, with my uniform, skin, blood, etc all intact. No matter WHAT gets thrown at me. And, I will take whatever means necessary to that end. I expect every police officer in this country to do the same.
Johnny Guest
Moderator In Memoriam
Pretty interesting topic - - -
Wide variance of opinion here, and well expressed. Some initial thoughts, and some second thoughts, and all of much value. for certain.
Double Naught - - You are well on record with your thoughts: THE COPS DID WRONG. THEY'RE IN A HEAPA TROUBLE FOR WHAT THEY DID!!!. Four times, I think. We understand your feelings. I, for one, hope you'll not be sitting on the Tarrant County Grand Jury or the Citizens' Review Board, but that's MY opinion.
The matter will be resolved by FWPD and the DA's Office, and, possibly, the Grand Jury - - - I hope the Fort Worth Star-Telegram prints follow-up stories and that Holly76201 will bring this thread up to date.
And yes, I agree, there will most likely be civil litigation to follow. There always is, huh?
Best,
Johnny
Wide variance of opinion here, and well expressed. Some initial thoughts, and some second thoughts, and all of much value. for certain.
Double Naught - - You are well on record with your thoughts: THE COPS DID WRONG. THEY'RE IN A HEAPA TROUBLE FOR WHAT THEY DID!!!. Four times, I think.
We understand your feelings. I, for one, hope you'll not be sitting on the Tarrant County Grand Jury or the Citizens' Review Board, but that's MY opinion. The matter will be resolved by FWPD and the DA's Office, and, possibly, the Grand Jury - - - I hope the Fort Worth Star-Telegram prints follow-up stories and that Holly76201 will bring this thread up to date.
And yes, I agree, there will most likely be civil litigation to follow. There always is, huh?
Best,
Johnny
I'm with Sarge on this one. Nobody has brought this into the mix yet, but everytime I've come upon a bloodied individual I have to deal with, my first thought is "Damn, now where the hell did I put those gloves..."!
He coulda been ripe with HIV, hep-B, herpes, syphillis, malaria... any number of wonderful little bugs that just stay, and stay...
I'd think a time or two before I'd commit myself to hand-to-hand defensive tactics... especially against a glove-cutting implement.
He coulda been ripe with HIV, hep-B, herpes, syphillis, malaria... any number of wonderful little bugs that just stay, and stay...
I'd think a time or two before I'd commit myself to hand-to-hand defensive tactics... especially against a glove-cutting implement.
- Status
