I watched the video of the shooting. The Officers kept backing up, telling him to drop the knife. But they eventually shot him as he kept approaching. So on one hand, I think there has to be a non-lethal way to deal with situations like this. A big cannister of pepper spray, a tazer, a tranquilizer...especially when you've got someone double teamed like that. It's almost like they didn't know what to do so they were like, "we'll shoot you so that'll be the end of that". But on the other hand, being charged with a knife is a deadly situation. If you engage in that kind of behavior you can't really play the victim card. It's like some people don't even want to consider the situation from the officer's point of view. They make up stories about how evil cops are out to commit genocide against black men. But oh wait, the person here was white. http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/us/georgia-tech-student-killed/index.html
Dude wasn't charging anyone. Hands were down, "knife" was not drawn, movements were slow. There was absolutely no threat to the officer's life. I have no doubt that the officer operated within the constraints of his training and departmental policy, but that just tells me that said training/policy is crap.
He had that "multipurpose tool" in his hand. The officers were justified in assuming it was a knife. It's the same thing as if you've got a toy gun that looks real. This guy was trying to get the officers to shoot him. And no, he wasn't charging at the time he was shot, but he was moving closer with a weapon in hand. I agree with you that lethal force was not necessary in this case. But still, an officer doesn't know what kind of drugs someone is on, the guy was acting insane. Some drugs give people super human strength. So when you're being approached by someone like that the officer is justified in feeling endangered.
Now it's coming out, that Schultz himself called 911, and reported a guy with his description was carrying a knife and possibly a gun.
The multi-tool wasn't open (they showed the photo of it on the ground), no blade was extended, so there is no justification for assuming it's a knife. To use your analogy, it'd be more like seeing the outline of a toy gun in someone's pocket--even if they did believe it to be a real gun, there is nothing they could see that would demonstrate imminent threat. The "knife" is nothing more than a red herring. A ball-point pen or a car key would be more dangerous than what he was holding. And yeah, the guy wanted to be shot, but with no legitimate brandished weapon, him moving closer should be irrelevant. And considering there were two cops, the theoretical possibility of a guy maybe being on drugs and maybe having super-human strength are not justification for a shooting a guy who was doing no more than walking.
Yeah. Looks unnecessary. The problem is what more would make it necessary. Jumping up and down in a more animated fashion? Swinging the Leatherman type tool? Cops are being paid to do a job, not risk their life. Tough situation. I can't say the cop should be charged but I can't say I'd encourage other cops to shoot in this situation.
As a Military Policeman in the Army, we were trained to shoot them in the knees. Wish civilian police would try doing this sometime.
The poor dude was overly impressed with his ability to do good. A completely rational man does not put himself in harms way like this. But here we have it again. Cops trained to enforce compliance with their commands. Big flaw in this is; It is irrational to expect rational behavior from a person acting irrationally. Does anyone have any idea how to change this policy/training? We need a plan more effective than burning shit and dancing on police cars.
Different training is easy to come up with, since the guy is not immediately presenting a harm to anyone, shoot hiim with a camera and call in the guys in whites and take him with a net or what ever. It is the policy that is difficult, How to bring about that change. This stuff has been going down for years, and I fully expect we have more than few cops of the character type that live for the opportunity. Not most but enough that the policy must be changed.
Wow. Well, that's changed, at least in the Navy. "Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to kill. Two to the chest, one to the head or hips." Used to be "then one to the head" but a moving smaller target is harder to hit than a pelvis, which will immediately fuck up someone's world and likely doesn't have armor on. How did you train to hit a moving knee? No knock on you, but the average MP isn't close to good enough to hit that target.
>>> In the Navy, we use to only get the baton to deal with our own. Probably ought to keep it that way too. Ha! I remember the short training session for Shore Patrol duty, the old Chief said, referring to the Baton; Now remember, when you use this thing you don't have to kill him! That same training will not work with a gun.
Post-9/11, force protection rules changed. Basically, everyone on board needs to qualify with a firearm and there are multiple armed watchstanders.
You posted that yesterday. It is still horse shit. This crap has been going on far longer than Trump " President Trump's administration plans to use the power of the federal government to escalate police violence and incarceration in our communities."
Not quite the same idea though. Back in the old days, we have armed watch standers at times, But that is different than Shore Patrol keep order among your guys in ports. Specifically not caring anything but a baton. I can't say the baton in not a lethal weapon, but it can be used that way and training was such to encourage that use. I'd never suggest that use of a fire arm. I guess I differentiate between Security watch standers and Policing your people to keep them civil. Two different missions.
