A story you will NOT read in the paper - cops disarms man with knife

people often fail to account for selection bias. this was emphasized a couple of weeks ago when an (uninformed somebody) responded to a story about cops shooting a guy who (allegedly) tried to run them over during a pursuit. he/she said words to the effect "why are they always trying to run the cop over when the cop shoots?"

here's a hint. the VAST majority of pursuits whether taken to completion or called off by the cops (many pursuits are terminated by the police due to danger etc.) never involve any shots fired or any injuries.

the ones that make the news, and especially the national news and/or the ones WHERE shots are fired are usually of the (tried to run over the cop) type.

today, one of my coworkers had a guy with a knife charge him. he was EASILY justified in shooting the guy, but didn't and managed to disarm the guy.

my point?

this story will never make the press. if he HAD shot him, it would/. and the ignorati would exclaim "cops always shoot guys with knives" when in fact many cops take extra risk and DON'T shoot when they could (legally and safety wise).

a cop in seattle not too long ago was slashed by a guy with a knife cause he chose not to shoot and his partner tried a taser which didn't stop the guy.

could he have shot? of course. he didn't

this kind of stuff happens every day. but will not make the press. thus, it does not happen in the eyes of many who allow their view of reality to be "informed"/created by media.

just something to consider.

in the incident today. he charged the cop. the cop COULD have shot him. didn't/. disarmed the guy

this incident will NEVER be in the press.

if he HAD shot him, it would

this is how selection bias works.

many who allow their reality to be created by media, will then infer "cops always shoot guys with knives"

because guys with knives, even guys who CHARGE COPS holding the knife in their hand, who AREn'T shot, rarely if ever make the press

are enough of a disincentive that most cops would rather try to resolve a situation without shooting whenever possible.

Yes, the cop would have been 100% justified in this case. However, he was motivated to act differently and both men are alive to talk about it.

He should have shot him. If he would've been stabbed, then his heroism would've cost tax payers untold sums for his workers comp, etc.

cop would get 3-6 months of paid admin leave while the case was adjudicated, which costs the taxpayers about 40-50k (they have to pay others overtime to fill his slot, etc.)

then the detective costs to investigate a shooting (called out on overtime usually, and a lot of IT)

whether he was brave or stupid today is an arguable matter, certainly

That way when people are angry at the establishment they attack the protectors of the establishment rather then the people at the top that corrupt it.

feel free to check the polling data.

cops routinely rank amongst the top professions in this regard.

in general, the public loves us.

Sometimes he pulls her from the burning car.

Just something to consider.

But the cops portrayed in the film, 'Battle in Seattle' exist too. And the officer who beat the young girl in custody in Seattle exist too.

What gets to me; When a cop or firefighter dies doing his/her job - it's hero worship and all over the media. We are supposed to worship those in a position of authority and enforcement. However, when a single parent dies on the job it get ZERO mention in the media. When a worker dies, the only concern is how it will delay the job as a new one is hired.

and prosecuted.

it was a hung jury (11:1 to convict) and the prosecutor said he intends to prosecute again.

the point is that this stuff makes the papers.

good conduct, that is heroic is much more rarely reported.
i've witnessed dozens of such incidents that were never reported.
i pulled a half dozen people out of a burning building once. there was no report in the paper.

by the time the fire dept. got there, i had already cleared the building with my partner.

she and i were the only ones who would go into the building. none of the non-cops on scene would do so, and two of the cops on scene refused to do so as well

did it make the paper?

of course not.

again, police agencies are partly to blame, if they don't issue press releases for stuff like this. the reasons are, among other things, that the higher ups/PIO's don't even usually KNOW about this stuff. they get notified/called out when a cop shoots somebody or gets shot or hurt.

when the average cop does something extraordinary, they rarely even know about it

i did get a medal for it two years after the fact, though.

:patriot: Stack you in the 'wonderful' column for sure.
fwiw, I get no praise when I go beyond my requisite duty. I don't even know if they fear they'd have to pay me more, or they expect it. My job is life threatening too. We save profits when we do something extraordinary, though, not people.

I have a friend who is a cop. 100% true blue guy. Almost super-human too. Same with the Seals I've worked with in my job (even though they're pretty wild). Makes me feel pretty good knowing folks like that serve. And the term 'naval intelligence' is not an oxymoron. I've met those guys too and I'd be a moron to ever say that again.

Keep up the good work and fight the good fight. and Thanks.

I don't have a problem with law enforcement using necessary force. The question is defining the necessary force. Proper training comes into play which should involve not just how to disarm using weapons but also knowing how to talk a person down.

Too many times there are reports of LEOs using apparent excessive force. Are they considering other methods to subdue grannies, pre-teens, etc? They sure as hell didn't shoot them when they didn't have tasers.

Personally, I rather not hear about LEO's killing anyone or using excessive force. Meaning that it is not happening and therefore the media has nothing to report. I want all of my local LEO's doing their job properly. But I know it is not 100%

this guy (for whatever reason) chose NOT to shoot, even though he was legally justified , and placed himself at greater risk.

Prove me wrong.

If an armed man attacks a cop around my parts, it makes more than one newspaper.

My local paper loves nothing more than local cop is a hero story. Beat reporters pour over reports and sit by scanners for anything that may have a hint of violence.

My opinion of cops, as a group, is based on my reality, not what I see on TV or read in the news papers.

i've been a cop in three different states, and in none of those places did it happen

this is, to some extent, the fault of police agencies. they rarely issue press releases for stuff like this. the report just gets filed and goes into the memory hole.

You said that the guy had a knife so your buddy was OK to shoot him - how is that? Is there no need for some level of equality of force? On what planet is a knife equal to a gun?

if a guy has a knife, and he is within the reactive distance, a cop is 100% authorized to shoot

i teach firearms instruction and deadly force to cops (and on occasion civilians)

this is not a controversial fact.

cops are not (nor are non-cops) required to use EQUAL force. they are required to use REASONABLE force.

if a person is coming at you with a knife, and you are armed with both a knife and a gun, you are not required to choose your knife instead of your gun

similarly, if a guy starts punching me, i don't have to start boxing. i can use a baton (distinguishing between primary secondary and tertiary targets) etc.

it might behoove you to research "use of force continuum" and general laws and stuff regarding force.

cause you are WAY off

A knife can kill you just as dead as a gun, and quicker, in some cases.

Keep up the good work, Paulsby.

to comment on something they know nothing about, that a cop (or anybody else) needs to use "equal" force lol.

I'd never heard of Tueller. I think that's a pretty important piece of information for people to have, whether they're for allowing
carry (FL CCW here) or not.

I think, unless you've been in the situation, 21 feet sounds like a real comfortable distance for an attacker to be at. The problem for many (I'm unabashedly broad-brushing here, but I'm including myself) is that a paper target at 21 feet isn't threatening in the least. Nor is it moving toward you, screaming, while wielding a tire iron. (for instance)

If criminals moved like George Romero zombies there might be more use to static range shooting- but I guess this really put into perspective for me that all I'm doing at the range is building the basic usage skills; not really preparing in any way for what a real-life encounter might genuinely be like.

Looks like I need to do a little re-thinking.

Anybody want to take a Veritas class with me at Take Aim in Sarasota?? :evilgrin:

faster with a knife than you can draw and fire. So yes if you see a knife in an altercation you are legally justified to shoot the person with the knife. I could post pictures of a knife attack, but you get the idea. They kill people.

That about sums it up. Cops aren't trained to disarm knife wielders, only to neutralize threats.

Is it legally or morally imperative that a criminal should get met on equal terms?

If someone illegaly attacks me (a citizen) or a police officer there is absolutly no duty to meet the criminal with the same force they present. There is no requirement anywhere that I must take any more risk than I have to, to stop a criminal attack on myself.

I really don't understand how you can even think that. Please, explain...

P.S. A knife is a lethal weapon, but you knew that, right?

As far as the law is concerned, once the assailant is using a weapon capable of inflicting permanent injury or death--including any bladed or bludgeoning implement--you're justified in responding with lethal force. You're not legally or morally required to give someone who attacks you a "fair" fight.

in that way if I am attacked by a knife-wielder I will have the distinct advantage with a gun; in other words, I ain't interested in "fair play," proportionality, or "equality of force." I'm interested in surviving.

Why? Because nobody was injured or died. From a news perspective it's not that interesting a story, unless the knife-wielding person was threatening people in some place with a lot of innocent parties around.

Your point that media-hyped incidents are only a tiny fraction of what happens in policing is valid. Many of us know that most cops avoid using deadly force. It's the cops who don't try to avoid it or who abuse the power of their positions that deserve media scrutiny.

consider how many arrests and situations a cop deals with in 12 yrs and yet only fires once in that entire timeframe.

it speaks to REMARKABLE restraint.

in my silverware drawer.

When Mr pip was on the police force, he got a call to go to a pizza shop to break up a fight between two of the cooks.

One of the guys had TWO huge pizza knives... Mr pip could have shot him but he didn't. He somehow got the knives away from the guy.

One got lost, the other, like I said, resides in my silverware drawer.

I just measured it. The black handle is 6 inches long. The blade is 11 inches long and nearly 2 inches across.

The thing looks like a friggen machete.


You're right...nobody ever hears about this stuff. There are probably three times as many good cops as bad ones, but nobody ever hears about them. Just the bad apples.