The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Bringing a Gun to a Knife Fight
Evander
Disappointed FatherRegistered User regular
Disappointed FatherRegistered User regular
http://www.gazette.net/stories/061208/newmnew170244_32365.shtml‘‘A knife is considered a lethal weapon ... and we need to match that force with the same force,” [Cpl. Jennifer Bailey] said. ‘‘You are dealing with a suspect who has already fired two shots and exits with a knife. Law enforcement across the nation considers a knife as lethal force, as they can go through the deputies’ ballistic vest.”
Recently, a friend of a friend of mine died. He was shot by police officers after waving a knife at them. They did not shoot him with a stun-gun, or other non-lethal weapon. They shot to kill.
Don Garrett had no criminal record; the only experience that the police had previously had with him was as a witness in a theft case.
What he did have a history of was depression. The police were at his home that evening because of a report of shots fired and a possible domestic situation (worth noting that they had never been called to that home for a domestic situation before.) He had indeed fired his gun. He had fired in to the air, while making threats to his girlfriend that he was going to kill himself.
He barricaded his home after his girlfriend went outside with his two sons. The police attempted to negotiate with him by phone for two hours, attempting to talk him in to exiting the home, but he eventually hung up on them. During that two hour period the police had been talking with his girlfriend, who no doubt told them about his condition, and the reason shots had been fired.
Despite whatever information they may have been given, when he exited his home and began waving a knife at them, they shot to kill, rather than attempting to disable him. Before shooting him, they had long enough to urge him numerous times to drop his weapon, according to Cpl. Jennifer Bailey.
The involved officers have been suspended with pay, pending an investigation of the incident. The Police Department has neglected to release the number of rounds fired at the man, which may not be a good sign.
While searching for a news article to post, I came across an upsetting number of similar cases, across the country, and the globe.
I have nothing but respect for the job that Police Officers do. They put their own safety on the line every day to ensure all of our safety. Incidents like this one tend to worry me, though, that the policies and procedures being created for them do not pay enough attention to the safety of individuals that they might be dealing with. The quote at the top of my post is directly from the article that I have linked. The message there seems to be that the standard response to a threat of lethal force is to strike first with lethal force. The severity of that response, specifically, is what worries me. I'm not saying that police should willingly allow themselves to be shot, or anything of that sort, but when an individual has a close quarters weapon, or, as in some of the cases I've seen, is unarmed (or holding a wallet, or a cell phone, or a PS3 controller) the "shoot to kill" response seems to be skipping a step of incapacitating the individual. In the above linked article, the individual quoted above also states that she did not know whether or not the officers had access to stun guns. Considering that the police had been urging him to exit the entire time, being prepared for him with ONLY lethal force seems unlikely, which begs the question why they neglected to use that non-lethal force. However, if they indeed did not have stun guns, then that shows a severe lack of consideration of the situation. On top of that, the fact that the police had long enough to urge him many times over to drop the knife, and then shot him as he began moving towards them, seems to suggest that they might have better used that time to incapacitate him, as when he first exited he was not yet approaching them with the knife, but merely brandishing it. Due to their policy, though, responding to the threat with lethal force was the only appropriate response, and so they ignored this opportunity, and instead waited for him to make a move, and then killed him.
Because police policy dictates that a knife is equivalent to gun, regardless of range, a man is dead and two little boys are without a father. Instead of Don Garrett receiving help for his depression and suicidal urges, his funeral is being held this evening. I don't know that he was waving his knife at the cops with the intent to have them shoot him, but after speaking with his girlfriend, the cops must have been aware of the suicidal state he was in, and should have been prepared to incapacitate him when he exited the house, not to kill him. As there were no hostages, the purpose of the negotiation had been to convince him to leave the house in the first place. Again, having been urging him to leave the house for two hours, they should have been prepared to incapacitate him if necessary when he exited, rather than immediately going for lethal force.
I know that not everyone will agree with me. After all, he DID have a weapon. The idea that a lethal gunshot is equivalent to brandishing a knife, though, seems to me to be too far of a stretch. We are talking about a man with no prior record who may have exhibited some violent behavior earlier that evening, but who had not harmed anyone. There had been shots fired earlier in the evening, but not in the past two hours in which the police had been present. Upon exiting the house he brandished a knife, but did not yet approach the police with it, and waited long enough for them to urge him to drop it many times. That period of time, while he was just standing there waving the knife, would have been the time to attack with a stun gun, or even shoot him in the leg, but instead they considered lethal force as the only possible response.
Again, I mean no disrespect to Police Officers, and the great work that they do, my fear is that the policies that they are being given seem to see the life of a suspect as being more expendable than I believe it should be.
Evander on
0
Posts
I'd wish for police officer to be competent enough and for rules to specify you must try and disarm the suspect(even with the risk of an injury) or at the very least to mandate the use of non lethal force. Will never happen. Laws have long stopped trying to minimize the risk for civilians and are instead trying to minimize the risk for law enforcement.
Edit: And I believe many people agree with your general feeling, check out the shooting @ bachelors thread from a while ago.
Ugly situation regardless, for all involved.
I understand; it was a long post.
The part you missed is that after coming outside with the knife, but before making a move towards the police, he just stood there for a bit while the police kept urging him to drop the knife. Instead of using that time to make threats against a suicidal man, that period of time could have been used to attack him with non-lethal force in order to incompacitate him.
A knife is a deadly threat, and no one has to wait to get stabbed in order to stop that threat. If someone gets near... and you don't have a choice at that point. You can be across an area with a knife a lot faster than you'd think, even if someone has a gun drawn on you. If you aren't shot in the right spot, you still have more than enough momentum and motor control to do some damage. Moreover, then that guy is on you or another officer, and it's very risky/stupid to try to "shoot someone off" of someone else.
I don't necessarily disagree with this part. But, not all departments are equipped with tasers. Additionally, you do have to get within a certain range to tase someone... that range happens to be just about the range where someone can charge at you and stab you even if you manage to shoot them in the process.
I have to disagree a bit with you there. If a person is running at a cop with a knife and appears to mean them harm, I have zero problem with that person being shot. However, if it's some nut threatening to kill himself and he's a good distance away, there's not need to shoot him. Remember that video of the dude with the damn sword? They eventually got a fire hose on him and got him disarmed.
I'm going with Needs More Information, but this seems like a case of suicide by cop? Depression usually doesn't lead to making armed threats at officers, was there another mental issue going on with this person at the time?
Well, "shoot to kill" is a bit dramatic. You shoot to incapacitate as quickly and surely as possible. Unfortunately, with a gun, that's often lethal.
Yeah, I remember that thread, but a lot fo people in there seemed to be blaming the police.
I'm not blaming the police here (although if the investigation finds that they could have handled the situation better I feel they should be held accountable), but rather, my issue is with the policies. Don is already dead, and regardless of what comes out in the investigation, he'll still be dead. My thoughts are towards preventing this from happening to some one else.
Where it gets muddy is whether or not lethal force is called for. By my armchair judgment and the description given, I'd say that it wasn't called for here, particularly since they didn't give him a chance to drop his weapon. Making the decision of whether or not lethal force is necessary on the fly is a tough one, and I think there are a lot of policemen who overreact. I'd like to see a tool that could deliver effective and reliable force that could temporarily disable, which I think would remove a lot of cases like this. Tasers are a step in the right direction, but I guess they're not always reliable. Plus there are the cases (similar to this one) where police officers use a weapon one step too high for the situation - shooting a guy holding a knife or a guy who mentions a gun, tasering a kid for skateboarding.
Edit: OK, didn't notice they had asked him to drop the knife. I still think it was a bit excessive, but not quite as bad. Is it possible he was trying to commit suicide by police?
Indeed, according to some experiments done in the early 80's, 21 feet is the average distance someone can close and stab you before you can draw and fire.
And non lethal solutions don't always work. Tasers aren't even completely reliable; some people can just shrug that off, especially if they're filled with adrenaline.
You don't wave a knife at a police officer. If you do, you deserve to be shot. I don't care how depressed you are or what the situation is. You don't under any circumstances brandish a weapon of any kind at a police officer.
That's only for holstered guns, these guys already had their guns out.
Shooting to disarm would be the desired choice but most of the time it's not the right one.
Yeah, 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, I believe.
They waited for him to make a move before firing, though, and in that time while they were waiting they could have used a stun gun, or bean bag gun, or pepper foam, or some other form of incapacitation.
As I said, they had been there for two hours, and had spent it urging him to leave the house. They definitely had the time for some one to get go non-lethal weaponry, even if they did not have it with them when they arrived. When they were urging him to leavethe house, they should have had non-lethal force at the ready to begin with.
The fact that there were multiple officers present means that one of them could have attempted to tase him, and if it did not take him down, the others could have THEN shot him.
This I agree with two hours is plenty to bust out the bean bag guns. They sure as hell don't have trouble getting them out fo fire at protesters.
Suicide, probably.
It's not that simple. The officer attempting the tase would have been in the line of fire. It's hard to hit a running target if it's not running right at you. There'd be a lot of room there for stray shots. However, a beanbag shotgun would have been the thing to use in this instance.
So which is it?
They definitely didn't have one of those, though.
But by the time they realize the taser doesn't work, one of the officers is dead because the guy had enough time to run up and stab them.
The taser argument is unnecessary, beanbag shotgun would be the way to go. Much better range.
Did they have time to locate non lethal takedown items? Yes.
Was the guy trying to get the cops to kill him? I'm leaning towards yes, barring any outside influences (drugs, mental problems, booze, etc). He was threatening suicide and firing shots into the air (buhwhat?) before the cops showed up, then when he decided to come out to the cops he did it armed. That sounds a lot like he was trying to provoke them into killing him.
They didn't murder him. They acted to defend themselves and others from a potentially lethal situation. They were risking their lives just by being there. They're not obliged to raise that risk level to suicidal levels just because you have an obsession with the police being evil.
Suicide by cop is a well known phenomenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop
Yeah, I'm sold on the idea, I just don't want to claim it as fact without more information (the approaching part needs info, did he rush them with a knife? Did he just shamble forward? Did he say anything?)
They are trained AND authorized to use lethal force if you don't comply. They did not overstep their boundaries. They were well within them.
Staying close enough to the house to be within range of firing a taser would have been stupid. The guy HAD A GUN and had fired a shot already.
So basically, if the sock round (beanbag rounds can actually be quite dangerous) or tazer fails to connect properly, that person may now be pushed over the edge and attack, and you have possibly less than 1.5 seconds to either try another tactic, draw and fire a lethal weapon, or risk injury/death yourself.
Less lethal alternatives are prime for cases where a person is unarmed but where it is the officer's opinion that a physical takedown could result in injury to the subject or themselves. A man holding a knife is capable of lethal force, and that is met with lethal force. Meeting it with less than lethal force puts them in danger.
I am truly sorry that your friend of a friend died, but from what limited understanding I have of Canadian/U.S. police training and tactics, they behaved according to policy. As noted above, you do not just wave a knife around at the police, especially not after discharging a weapon repeatedly, thus giving evidence of being a possible risk to others.
Edit: also, the lack of a prior conviction for violent crime is no defense. Why should anyone have to risk that his first incident happens to end up with a permanent injury or fatality?
That didn't happen in this case, and it's unfortunate for all involved.
Pretty much. The details are muddy in this situation, but police officers aren't supposed to take foolish risks for the sake of apprehending someone non-lethally. If he was distant with the knife, and he wasn't dropping it, but wasn't making any threatening moves, it would be going too far to shoot him, but if he started closing in with the weapon, at any speed, I see no problem with the cops shooting him.
Ideally, there would have been other non-lethal approaches - rubber bullets, a firehose, tasers - but that's a difficult thing to judge without more details. I know that I sure as hell wouldn't advise closing within twenty feet of a potentially violent man with a knife, even if I had a taser.