a schizophrenic with a knife...

Why is it "acceptable police protocol" to aim for the trunk to bring him down? Was anyone else here disturbed by the video of one knife wielding, sick individual surrounded by a dozen screaming policemen with their guns pointed directly at him?

Didn't anyone have a taser? Was no one's aim good enough to get him in the leg?

Hearing this described as acceptable is disturbing to me.

I haven't. I'm just sayin' :shrug:

I believe it was in Boston.

That's why.

Unless they also have a gun. If you draw a gun on a police officer, you get what you get. But a freaking knife?

... then the cop will use a gun to defend against a knife. Period.
This is 100% acceptable.

As far as tasers go, they are:
1) no where near as accurate as a gun - and can miss at point blank range.
2) can misfire/not fire/not implant properly
3) the subject can simply be immune to the discharge

When an officers life is threatened, they have the same right to self defense as you or me.
You attack someone with ANY deadly weapon, be prepared to die. Period.

I will not sit here and have an arguement over the relative "deadliness" of a knife vs. a gun. That is just nonsense.

But why shoot in the trunk? Why not shoot at a limb to disable him?

And where do you get your info on taser accuracy? That isn't how they were promoted.

I'm not a gun guy so please correct me if I'm wrong. However if I was doing the shooting my adrenaline would be so high I would be shaking like crazy.

Don't shake until after:)

Actually I shot a gun for the second time in my life last week. Even got to shoot a machine gun.

Because they are in our lives everyday, all people should know more about them, imho.

I can't bring myself to hunt like my family does, but I know if I needed to eat and there was a deer, I could probably bring myself do it. I killed a crow in flight when I was seven. I just got my first gun; a single-shot .22 Winchester. I never thought I could hit that bird, but I did. With a freakin' .22! I stuck to paper, glass and clay targets after that. I do have a cool railroad bell that is fun to ring! Painted red, it looks like a little red dot when you get it far enough away, but there is no mistaking the sound of it being hit.

Just one more winsome juxtaposition in my life. I'm a pacifist who is a crack shot. Jeez.

They just keep moving and stab you.

A bullet isn't used to "kill" the attacker, its purpose is to "stop" them. You hear the term "stopping power" used often.
The point is to shoot for the torso and literally stop the forward advance of the assailant, and knock them to the ground. Of course, the person often dies as a result, but not always.

And as was mentioned, a person moving at combat speed is near impossible to hit in a limb, and your miss can hit a bystander blocks away. Procedure dictates enforcement aims for the torso to minimize that risk.

he's close enough to shoot in a limb.

I'm a damn good shot, good as my buddy who is SWAT. There is no way I could miss the arm that is wielding a knife in my direction. Any bullet with stopping power, at that range, can go straight through a person and hit something/someone else.

Don't get me wrong. I support the police. I just think that there are times and events that point to a need for better training and use of other options.

.... being such a good shot that you can reliably and accurately go for the arm of someone charging you at combat speed...

and...

.... being told you have to by law.

If he was that good of a shot, and did shoot for the arm, and did manage to hit it, and the guy dropped the knife, then cool.

But I will not sit here and say that was what he SHOULD have done. Bullshit. What he should have done was drop the guy. And he dropped the guy. Period.

Perhaps the law should be changed if that is the case. I hardly think being able to hit an arm attached to a hand that is holding a knife at 20 ft. is sharpshooting. If they can't shoot that good, maybe they shouldn't carry a gun.

Let me know how your "mandatory limb shooting" law goes.
I think you'll find very little support for it, by the way.

...a running man? I doubt it. Probably stationary targets on a range. And you only have two seconds, maximum, to get that shot off if he is charging you. Miss, and you are stabbed.

In the real world, trying to shoot somebody in the arm is suicidal.

You have been watching too many old westerns where the good guy shoots the gun out of the bad guys hand and then puts his own gun up and fist fights him.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...joined Army, Vietnam, expert with .45. Later was an investigator in the Navy (Dual service Army, college, graduated and went into the Navy as an officer.)and in civilian life I have been a Private Investigator. Now I am retired.

I know that hitting a moving arm on a moving person is damn hard to do and the penalty for missing is rather sevre.

I am confident that any police force in the nation would refuse to adopt a "just wing 'em" policy.

They wouldn't, I'm sure. Pity, that. I support the police, but there must be a better way than shooting an obviously mentall ill man with a damn box cutter. One they've arrested before... they knew the deal. And I'm sure all those agencies wouldn't support shooting a guy who is surrounded with cops. This could have easily caused harm or death to other cops.

In a small town like mine, where the police know all of us who live here, one might expect the officers on the scene to know whom they have dealt with before. But in New Orleans, the cops would almost certainly have been strangers.

Still, one does wish they could have had tasers available. I wonder what a blast in the face with PKP fire extinguisher would do? All police cars have them - I think.

Still, I wasn't there and am hesitant to "armchair quarterback".

First off assuming that the police actually manage to acheive the near impossible and shoot a swinging arm....

That bullet will pass through the arm/hand and keep on going. Who or what it hits is anybodys guess. I sure hope it isnt me or you.

Of course the more likely scenerio is that the cop, not being robocop will simply miss, the bullet goes on its merry way, and the cop gets stabbed.

I am not.

I am aware that most departments do not allow officers to shoot to wound.

I have seen animals react to being shot with rifle rounds by running away. Recovered them to find they were dead on their feet. People can react and cause injury after being shot.

My friends who were in the first gw describe shooting at targets around 60m and seeing them duck and run. Once they moved up they found the guys dead behind cover after bleeding out. This from a high velocity rifle round. A knife will kill, shooting someone in the leg is not a instant off.

Take a small balloon to the target range on a windy day for a humbling experience. Center mass is the only way to train patrolmen to shoot.

A tazer would have been great, they did not have one. They didn't have a shrink, or a net. They had a short amount of time to make a decision.

He could have dropped the knife at ANY time. You could miss if your heartbeat was 160 a min and people were screaming and you were afraid.

That is why everyone trains to shoot center mass.

In real life, when a cop pulls his piece, he is trained to fire into the largest area of body mass, not the head, not the limbs, but in the kill zone of the largest available part of the target.

When a cop squeezes off a round, the intent is to ]KILL! There can be no other intention or else the cop endangers himself, his fellow cops, and every civilian in the immediate area.

Your tone is offensive here; your condescension is rude and uncalled for.

If you know more than the rest of us, fine. Or, should I say, FUCKING FINE so you understand me.

I was raised with guns, hunters and cops. I've shot with the best of them. Don't pull your ignorant "this ain't the movies" rant with me.

If you have something you think will help others to understand your point of view, fine, please do share it. But condescension, rudeness and over-the-top holier/smarter-than-thou rants are not only unwarranted in this situation, but downright counterproductive.

and will respond accordingly every time somebody asks it.

So the rest of the world gets to hear your foul and ignorant response every time because you are sick of it? Nice.

I don't know how familiar you are with guns or shooting, but it damn well could have turned out differently from the perspective of a life long shooter.

I still think your response was condescending and rude and I thank god for ignore buttons. Pity that, because I've found your political discussions enlightening on occasion. I don't like bullies, and that is how you are behaving. I don't like Bush because he is a bully. You guys should get together sometime.

Qualified expert with the M-16, M-60, and M1911ACP.

What you propose is putting the lives of civilians in danger.

And I consistently out shoot my SWAT team buddy and his buddies. And I have another opinion. Deal, smartypants.

marksmanship.

Deal.

You can either do it, or you don't even try. Try to keep your own ego out of this.

you'd put civilian lives in danger because you arrogantly believe you'd hit the leg or hand.

And you know what? I think you probably COULD.

The problem is, there is not enough body mass there to stop the round, which fully penetrates the flesh and continues on to strike your buddy on the police force, killing him, too.

As far as I'm concerned, any time any human being pulls a piece on another human bejng, they'd damned well better intend to kill.

Or any other weapon. You are asking for it and you get what you get. I'm not talking stopping power here!! I'm talking shooting the arm that holds the freaking knife! If a cop can't do that at 20 feet he/she has no fucking business carrying a gun in the first place! And like I said, at that close range, a 38 or 45 could go right through a person and hit another! That is a freaking close range!

the fact that it'd go right through the arm is why they wouldn't do it.

I think this episode does indicate that tasres are a warranted tool for law enforcement because had there been one on the scene, the guy might be alive today. One interesting suggestion I heard last night is to have the suprvisors be armed with the tasers. In this specific case, that would have meant a couple of tasers would have been on site and this guy would probably be alive today.

It could go through the torso as well. Mark off 20 ft and think about it. It's called creating an exit wound.

Have you asked your SWAT team buddies what they think? My understanding is that, as Walt has suggested, they're trained to shoot at the trunk, not at limbs. I'd be interested in what your SWAT team pals say and what they are trained to do.

onenote

Their training is different than that of a street cop, as it should be. They are trained to "take 'em down" because by the time SWAT is called, it is clear that the person in question is a danger to himself or others. The street cop in him says use common sense and compassion for human life. And being the diplomat he is, he refused to comment further until he himself views the tape and gets the facts.

if anything, it would expand better at close range, and would stop inside the torso.

Hunting ammunition is often designed for slow expansion, but defensive ammunition (including police handgun ammunition) is designed to stop inside the target, regardless of range. Anything else would expose the department to major civil liability, not to mention the moral aspect of needlessly endangering bystanders.

a bully and is condescending--look at the names you have been calling him: "Mr. High and Mighty", "Smarty Pants", "Keep your ego out of it." I don't see Walt doing that kind of name calling.

the same things by virtue of his calling our words ignorant and stupid?

You "consistently out shoot <your> SWAT buddy..." Okay, what does that tell you about the markmanship of the AVERAGE, non-SWAT cop? You're shooting at a range and not with someone lunging at you with a knife that can cut through your vest. Think you'd be able to hit the 10 ring under those circumstances? Think those cops you "out shoot" can?

untreated mental illness as we do in this fucked up country, life is dangerous. That doesn't add up to killing people -- because we have the tech to do so much better. There is no excuse for the murder of this man.

None.

by cop.

This person obviously wasn't.

dangerous. Yes, he is mentally ill. Does it mean he is harmless? Of course not.

lizzy, it is very simple.

When people go off like this, it is nine times out of ten because they are in a paranoid episode.

That means, they are afraid for their lives.

That's it. That's the whole deal.

So, that's why there is a national movement in our cop community to handle these situations differently because cops are finally realizing that they are just offing really scared people.

Because our cops have a clue.


On edit: If you advocate for the murder of mentally ill people, consider becoming part of the solution.

and yes they are a good tool to have avalible, but, to outfit and officer with a taser costs the department approximately 1,200.00 per man. put that into a big department 700-800 officers and you're talking some real money. many of the politicians that run cities are reluctant to give police any more money than they have to. many depts have a hard time just replacing necessary equipment not to mention a multi million dollar taser purchase. and we haven't even covered the cost of training for tasers. there are federal grants avalible for equpiment but, the gov. excludes the purchase of items like tasers and other lees leathal weapons from grant purchase.

Procedure is flawed. Training is lacking. Now I'll add #3, poorly outfitted officers.

My partner could have been any of these murdered mentally ill people.

And, in the last 12 months, he (and I) did a just about a half a million dollars worth of community service ON THIS ISSUE.

The math isn't very hard. It costs more to kill people than it does to provide adequate services.

Follow the money. That's what this is about. Follow the money. In CA, for example, the prison guard union is top cat. So, what are we in for? Many more "prisoners" and not better mental health services.

It is that simple.

many time the govt is NOT willing to pay for equipment just as they are not willing to pay for mental health services.

we could NOT get tasers on the homland security grant my dep got. belive me we wanted them.

but you are correct that they should have had a choice. Hitting an arm or leg with a gun is out of the question because of reasons already discussed: 1) a stray bullet could harm a bystander and 2) stopping power. There should, however, be something besides a taser that would disable a suspect in a situation like this. The technology most likely exists. It just needs to be applied.

How about tranquilizers? Are there trank guns that could immediately drop a suspect without overdosing him? This question could only be answered by someone who is familiar with the range of tranquilizers available today. Things change.

Perhaps some of the money spent on prisons would be better spent coming up with a solution to this problem? Non-lethal weapons with the power to drop someone almost instantly...how hard is it? Is it realistic? These are the kinds of questions that should be asked.

So, that "no excuse" business is baloney.
The police men have a right to defend themselves, in fact it's their job to defend the public too.
This guy has already assaulted a store clerk and was clearly very dangerous. Had he attacked and kill some innocent bystander or a police officer-would that be more acceptable than him being killed? At least he didn't get a chance to hurt anyone else.

No police officer is trained to "shoot to kill." You shoot to stop a threat, and you do it by aiming for center of mass.

I am a police officer and all our training is to shoot center mass...We are taught to shoot to stop the threat, no to kill. Shooting somebody in the leg or arm is not only extremely difficult, it also does not necessarily stop the threat. I have heard many stories of suspects continuing to shoot after being shot in the arms, legs, even the chest. Plus, actually aiming for a leg or arm puts anything or anyone behind the suspect at an even greater danger...

I encourage everyone to go to your local police station and ask to go on a ride-along with an officer. Granted, odds are you'll never get to see anything life-threatening on one shift, but you might get to see how we have to think in order to protect our safety in order to protect the public safety.

And thanks for not completely humiliating the "just shoot their arm" crowd. They're delicate, you know.

People kill people.

How would a non-schizophrenic person react to a bunch of cops with guns drawn? I'd freak!!

Yeah, where are the tazers? It's a knife fcol! You tazer, he drops! End of incident! I would be hesitant in using a tazer against someone armed with a gun, but a freaking knife?

Bottom line though, is that there should be no schizophrenics on the streets. We need to treat our people better. Then, we need to have better police protocol. Those guys put their lives on the line everyday and better training and procedures would help them as well as the public. We need to treat our police and our people better.

but what do the police have to do with schizophrenics on the streets? Training and procedures? Is their mission not to protect and serve? I don't believe it is a police officers job to minister to or offer medical assistance to a knife wielding suspect who has already harmed one citizen. Police protocol? How about citizen protocol? I support the police by not committing crime. I have a hard time taking the side of those who disrupt society against those who are employed to stop those disrupters from fucking up our lives. The man's mental state was totally irrelevant during his last minutes.

It's the system, man, the system.

The man's mental state is what got him in the situation in the first place! Damn relevant.

the police doing their job. His mental state may have caused him to assault a fellow citizen (something lost in most translations of this evolution) and then end up on a public street with a knife in his hand but I have yet to find any evidence that the police acted incorrectly in this situation. The "system" attempts to protect me from knife wielding thugs. Where did it fail?

It's like telling the RWers that they need to watch F 9/11 before condeming it.

with a knife. I am sure if you saw such a man, you would run to him and disarm him without any problems.
Yea, right.

Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

riley said it was 3 cops firing 9 times

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tpupdates/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tpupdates/archives/2005_12_28.html#101966

the story seems to have gotten way exaggerated on this site

nonlethal method was used (pepperspray), dude didn't respond, he didn't put down the knife, how long as you going to be willing to discuss it nicely w a knife-wielding 250 pound 6 foot 2 man

i have plenty to get upset about, i'm afraid a dude who won't put his knife down and makes threatening gestures at police brings me to the limit of compassion fatigue

this reminds me a bit of jerks who used to say that if his girlfriend claimed she was raped, she had better have a knife or bullet wound, why do you have to get seriously hurt before it's okay to take action or before anyone believes it's a threat?

bottom line, someone waving a knife, we gotta assume this is one of the bad guys who intends to hurt somebody

I counted six, and it seemed as though there were more just out of frame...

"A preliminary review of witness statements indicates that 16 or more officers who closed in on Hayes at St. Charles Avenue near Felicity Street. . ."

Oops I was wrong, there were at least 16 cops!!

incessantly? Is the screaming itself a tactic that's supposed to unnerve a suspect or to force him to do something especially stupid which would justify any response?

"graduated response" -- first they holler an order, then if that order isn't complied with they draw their weapons and start the screaming noise and if that doesn't get the required response (which by the way is total and complete compliance with the shouted orders) then it's a "take down" situation and they'll either pile on and beat the hell out of the "perp" with night-sticks until he stops fighting (okay, sometimes they manage to "subdue" him with physical restraints which lessens the beating part, thank god) OR they shoot the menacing thug.

personally i don't believe any of it is meant to do anything except pump the police officers up, get them into a frame of mind where they can actually justify a killing if it occurs.

why do i believe this? because just as you point out, their whole tactic does just unnerve, frighten and produce in many something called a "fight or flight" response. in such a state, people just DON'T think well. they sometimes don't think at all and act purely on instinct. but, you know, the police MUST be feared or what's the point of having them? and, they MUST be safe, or who will keep you safe? so, you know, they're like totally justified in everything they do because sort of like our great pResident, they are just keeping US safe.

Any person who is twenty feet away from you with a cutting instrument that can be inserted in your flesh a quarter inch that lunges at you is an imminent threat to your life.

Any human being put into that situation, regardless of being a cop or not, is 100% justified in taking the knife wielding persons life. No ifs. No ands. No buts.

What the cops did was 100% within the bounds of the law.

kill somebody.

They react within their training and the bounds of the law.

good luck in court if you're not a cop.

was taken first. Surely there are other options available to police in this type of situation.

They tried to pepperspray the guy.

They tried to get him to put the knife down.

Nothing they tried worked.

The reports are, he finally lunged at the cops.

They had no choice. The man was an imminent threat to the lives of the cops.

Aren't we told exactly that, incessantly, by police here on DU?

Why, YES! We *are* told that, over and over again, and have been, numerous times, on many threads in the past. Curious, that the DU officers aren't saying that in this case. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it repeated here, on this very board, that "police risk their lives every single day to keep society safe, so don't judge them yadda yadda yadda."

BUT, in this case, they simply couldn't be bothered to properly do their jobs. Far easier- and "safer", for them- to simply open fire.

Totally unacceptable.

I can speak as someone who was certified by the NYS DCJS/BFMP/OMH to train state, county, and municipal police in dealing with the mentally ill in community crisis settings; as such, I have witnessed police officers handle difficult cases, including those with people who were armed and dangerous, and in psychotic states where there was little chance of their being able to understand -- much less obey -- police instructions. I appreciate fully the difficulties involved. I have also seen very difficult cases handled without anyone being killed.

experience with firearms is relevant to this issue?

What about "Containment"?

Why could the cops have not just backed off, evacuated civillians, and waited the guy out? Why confront him directly at short range?

The answer is simple - most cops are on a power trip and (in the words or Eric Cartman) demand that you respect their authority. Failure to do so, not only pisses them off, but gives them justification to kill you.

Did you know that in New Zealand, police officers don't ordinarily carry sidearms, and yet they confront the same types of incidents as American police. The difference in outcome is rather astounding. The NZ police vary rarely shoot anyone, and even more rarely kill them, yet police officers here are no more likely (and probably less likely) to be killed or wounded in the line of duty as American officers.

Want to know why? Because they recognise that ANY life is worth more than a few hours of inconvenience and are willing to back off and cordon a dangerous person in order to give negotiations a chance. Direct confrontation, with screaming and pointed guns is more likely to cause someone to die than to peacefully end a situtation.

In my opinion police officers carrying sidearms is the worst thing that can be done. It makes them reach for the gun first and the calming voice last. In NZ police officers have weapons loocked in the trunk of their car, this means when confronted by an armed suspect they automatically take a different posture to American police - calming voice, back off, cordon and protect. They HAVE to! In America tha cop can just pull his gun and it is highly likely someone will get shot. In NZ to get the gun the cops HAVE to back off.

From agression to defence. a vastly different stance that has vastly different results.

because the suspect had assaulted an area merchant. No big deal I guess, unless you are the merchant or his coworkers or his customers. I share this info lest anyone get the notion that NOLA police just wander around town looking for knife wielding citizens to shoot dead in the street.

While we trouble ourselves about "acceptable police protocol" may we spend a moment contemplating "acceptable citizen protocol." I don't want to do business with the police, ergo, I don't assault local merchants.

and let my attorney sort it out in a court of law.

I don't refuse to put down a lethal weapon and surrender, putting the lives of the cops and my own life in jeopardy.

If you do what you are told then all is fine. I've yet to read that the police officers involved knew anything about this suspects mental state. I worked auxiliary security in the Navy. One way communication is an essential tool and keeps alot of people alive.

That poor bastard was completely batshit crazy. Cops are trained to command a situation and control rational psychopaths, not deal with terrified paranoiacs. Since mental health care was the first of the social systems scrapped hin this country, maybe it's time to give the cops that training.

1) suspect armed with a lethal weapon
2) Suspect already has attacked one civilian
3) suspect refuses to comply with order to disarm himself
4) suspect lunges
5) BANG

It was really a simple scenario.

I had this mental image of Bush cowering in the Oval Office after being impeached and convicted.

school age children?

By the time you got close enough to use the taser on the guy, he could have that knife buried in your neck. But I agree, there should be other non-lethal methods for taking someone down. Rubber bullets, for instance. Tear gas, while highly unpleasant, is usually pretty effective also.

they went about 10 feet..

Ten feet isn't really that far, a person with a knife can cover that distance very quickly. Plus, tasers don't always have an effect on people - I've seen cases where someone on PCP simply ripped the wires off.

Like I said, there are other effective non-lethal methods available. Rubber bullets, 'bean-bags', etc. At the same time, I always hesitate to second-guess policemen, since I have no idea what it's like to put my life on the line every single day, dealing with people who are truly crazed.

Only their S.W.A.T. team has tasers. This took about three minutes total. There were no tasers on scene.

options for subduing an agitated and disturbed subject. Unless the person has a gun they should opt to take him down in a non-lethal manner.

Lethal force is necessary when dealing with a suspect armed with a lethal weapon who threatens to kill your ass.

A few years back a homelss man, who had schizo issues was acting strangely in front of a San Diego
Mc Donalds. SDPD came and tried to subdue him. The guy pulled a small branch from a bush and flailed it at the cops. they capped him with 8 rounds in front of dozens of horrified onlookers. Killed him.
Tasers?
Nets?
Chemical darts?

Cops use something called like one up level of force...if a perp attacks a cop with his fists, a baton, mace or taser is called for...the next step up from a knife is a gun.

Also, NOPD cops apparently dont carry tasers as they are expensive and they have money problems as it is.

Shooting someone in the leg is dangerous because the person could be on drugs and the leg shot wouldnt affect him and there is the stray bullet thing like the previous poster said.

would fall too.

OR - they attack him from behind.

I am not even a cop and I can think of a bunch of ways to disarm this guy without shooting him.

Cops NEVER NEVER EVER "shoot in the leg".

If a cop has his piece pulled, the only force to use is lethal force. If a cop squeezes off a round, that round is designed to KILL.

Much more likelihood of hitting your target than if you aim for the arms or legs.

and strike something or somebody else.

with one small difference cops are taught to shoot center mass because thats the largest target and where the vital organs are.
You are tought to shoot to "stop the action" of the suspect. usually incapicated or killed. The words "shoot to kill" were not used in the police academy i attended.

although we we tought the international mozambique method at 7 yards (2 shots to the chest and on to the head in quick succession)

Attack from behind? The guy has a knife. He can stab behind him or spin around, or slice up the arms that are grabbing around him. Have you ever scratched your butt when it itched? Now imagine a knife in your hands and someone behind you.

Shoot in the leg? Hard to hit, (Leg is in motion) a miss can kill a innocent blocks away, and people don't always drop like in the movies. And, depending on where in the leg the bullet hits, the damage can range from trivial to fatal. Yes, a leg shot can kill by severing the femoral artery.

but your suggestion (shooting in the leg, causing the suspect to fall down and drop his knife) is a poor one, for three reasons:

1. LEGAL: Anytime a police officer fires his weapon, he is using "deadly force". No matter his intent: to "stop", to "kill", to "wound", to "disable", to "scare", or "to make him keep his head down" (all of which I have heard or read over the years)- when the hammer drops, that officer is using deadly force. Laws and department policies limit the use of deadly force to specific circumstances, in which the officer shall reasonably conclude that the death of the suspect may be the ultimate result. If an officer shot a suspect under circumstances outside those described by law or department policy, the officer committed a crime.

If an officer shot a suspect in the arm or leg (with the expected ovepenetration of the bullet), or missed while trying to shoot an arm or leg, an innocent bystander may be hit. That is an undesirable outcome, by any measure.

If an officer shot a suspect in the arm or leg, and that suspect killed or injured a bystander after being shot (which can certainly happen), the bystander or his survivors would probably sue the department and the officer, and the officer would have to live with the consequences of failing to protect a citizen from a dangerous, armed suspect.

2. PHYSIOLOGICAL: Pistols are really not very powerful ("For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" means a bullet that will knock down a suspect will also knock down the shooter). In the real world, people do not react to being shot as they do in the movies. When you watch Bruce Willis or Steven Segal "shoot" someone, the shootee flies through the air, or spins around, or does a John Woo triple-sowcow and lands asplay on the ground. Out here in meatspace, the human body does not act that way when hit by a bullet. Hollowpoint pistol ammunition used by most law enforcement agencies is designed to expand while entering the human body to a depth of about 12". Those bullets bore through arms and legs without expanding (and without giving off their energy). The result: a small hole that doesn't bleed much. Shooting someone in the leg won't reliably cause him to fall down, drop his own weapon, or surrender. Many people have been shot in the legs, and did not fall down- in fact, sometimes a wounded suspect runs like a deer, or presses his attack after being shot (continuing to be a danger to citizens or officers).

Of course, people die from gunshot wounds, and some of them die when shot in the legs. A bullet may tear the femoral artery, and cause exsanguination. Despite what you have seen in old movies, "a flesh wound" or "shot in the shoulder" are potentially life-threatening wounds, as are most wounds between hip and knee. However, that dying process takes time, and the suspect can do a great deal of damage to officers or citizens while he is bleeding to death.

3. TACTICAL: Police officers follow a "use of force continuum". Because the job of the police is to stop, subdue, and control suspects and dangerous persons, the officers are trained to use more force against force (or threat of force) on a spectrum of available options. In most juridsictions, officers are directed to use "the minimum amount of force necessary to effectively stop, subdue, or control the suspect". Sometimes that is deadly force (as in this case).

The standard use of force continuum looks like this:
Verbal->hands->chemical/impact/electric->deadly force

Note that chemical (pepper spray), impact (baton or PR-24), and electric (Taser or stun gun) are on the same level on the continuum.

Officers are not required to move "step by step" on the continuum. In this case, the officers used "verbal" and "chemical" against a suspect who was at the "deadly force" level himself, before using deadly force against him.

In this case, far from being the reckless bloodbath you have described, the New Orleans officers acted cautiously, tried less-than-lethal means first, and exposed themselves to deadly danger at close range prior to using deadly force.


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

Ah. the PCP gives a person the strength of 15 men defense? Wondering when we'd see that old chestnut brought out...

From what I saw on the news they were herding him. If there was one cop there with a shotgun that shot bean-bag rounds, rubber slugs or other non-lethal rounds they may have had the opportunity to save the guys life.
While I am not capable to judge if this was a justified shooting, it sure looked like it could have been avoided.

They had radios. They couldn't have called for someone?

I'm, not sure, but I believe the NO police department doesn't even have this weapon.

As long as we're talking about methods that the cops didn't have, how about nets? I've often thought it would be so sensible to shoot some kind of net onto people having a mental health breakdown.

Of course, seeing as how these cops didn't have anything but their guns, they did the only thing they could. It may have helped if they had been given training in how to deal with people suffering through a schizophrenic episode, but they weren't. Most cops aren't, and most cities have cut out what little training there once was.

Frankly, the police shouldn't have to be the ones to deal with actively mentally ill people. There should be specially trained folks who can be called out when the police are called, with the police as back-up.

Set up a method through which poor mentally ill people are simply removed from society.

No money for treatment, so episodes like this are played out.

Cops are not equipped to deal with the situation, so the person is killed.

It's almost Rovian.

got tired of offing mentally ill people.

They know they are not shrinks and they know these people don't get the care they need.

www.consensusproject.org

You would get a much different reaction here. :popcorn:

I don't quite understand what you mean. If a white woman wielding a knife who had assaulted a local merchant was out in the street with a knife she would have been treated how?? Would you like extra butter with that popcorn?

If he happened to be a white woman shot dead by a bunch of cops & the whole thing was captured on tape just like this incident I firmly believe you would get a much different reaction on this forum.


:popcorn: *crunch* *crunch* *crunch*

I wanted to cry when I read many of the responses in the LBN thread. Who in their right minds believes that if a person doesn't comply to an order, then it is acceptable to kill him??

Comply or die. That's some scarry stuff.

Enough is enough. How many times does this happen a year? Hundreds? Thousands? We only see it when there is videotape or it gets blown up into a 'terrorist threat' or four cops empty their clips into someone reaching for their wallet. How many other people are killed each year because of a presumptive threat?

Training targets should be moved from the torso to the legs. They'll have two targets to shoot for in practice instead of one. If you can hit someone in the leg you can hit them in the torso. This will inculcate their reaction and their attitude into something other than deadly force. If you don't have a taser, then a shot to the leg should be your trained reaction.

You can die from a leg wound. It's not a small thing. At the very least you're going to go down with a 9mm or two in the leg.

There is no reason to use deadly force unless a life is in immediate danger, and if there is one thing this incident, caught on tape, shows is that the police will call anything immediate danger, even if five cops have their automatics pointed directly at someone from ten feet away. It's bullshit, pure and simple.

Does this mean that police should never use deadly force? Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of circumstances where the LAST RESORT of deadly force, a shot to the chest, is warranted, but it simply has to stop being the standard reaction.

If you're too pissy-pants to deal with a situation where someone who might have a weapon that they might try to use that might be a danger, then there is an easy solution: get a desk job somewhere. We'll get men and women who can deal with it.

a foot and a half taller than I am for a decade and with no back up, I'm sure the tough guys at the NOPD could do as well as I can.

Fuck this, this is murder.

:nuke:

episode is more dangerous WITH A KNIFE?


My friend, when a person is in that state, their whole self is geared to survival. It doesn't matter if they have a knife or a toothpick or their teeth.

And to answer your question, yes. I have been in the presence of a very ill person who had a weapon.

But this is what matters: As long as we just shoot mentally ill people, EVERYONE is at risk.

Beth

It was a fair question.

than someone without a knife.

and is threatning people. He is dangerous just by himself. give that same person a knife or other weapon it stands to reason that he is more dangerous.

will not assess his/her own capability or assets as well as someone without these issues will.

Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch. Get over your own fear and get some facts in hand.

in that situation. you are just talking semantics. a person who is a danger to himself or others by himself because of his mental state becomes more dangerous when armed. what do you not understand about that?
I take it you are a mental helth professional. can yo GUARANTEE that any given mentally ill person who is threatning people with a weapon will NOT attack with said weapon?

is murder?

Or, that a person in that state doesn't need a weapon, Rambo, to be lethal?

Geezus.

wants to kill someone in the line of duty. but, I will tell you that the number one imperative for me each shift is to go home at night. We do not have the luxury of a detailed psychological profile on every person we encounter.

is a wide array of choices. This is being prove all over the country with CIT training.

Too risky for the cops who are at enough risk, thankyouverymuch.

and then pepper spraying, taser or sedation. I know they with all of those police they could have surrounded him. If not all didn't have to shoot and feet or legs are better than head and chest.

I don't know where he was shot at but I suspect all over. All of those police were not afraid of one man with a knife, I know he was mentally ill but he was not superman, any excuse to kill.

and they had no taser.

I can't find the LBN report.

Are we sure?

:cry:

It was mentioned that he was fairly well known in the neighborhood as a "troubled person". It may have been a spokesmodel that used the term schizophrenic...

Ridicule.

The entire reason cops carry guns to begin with is to protect against knife wielding maniacs that don't listen to reasoning and aren't stopped by pepper spray.

I will defend many who I feel are unjustly prosecuted, abused or victims of inappropriate actions, but not a knife wielding moron who confronts multiple officers in threatening manners and refuses to give up even after being sprayed with mace.

Sometimes perps get shot and killed, but don't always blame the officers. They did their damn job.

one more unnecessary slaughter. There is another case of gross injustice with a seventeen year old Georgia boy sentenced to ten years for having oral sex with a fifteen year old. The kid has a decent GPA and was never in trouble. I doubt if this sentence would have been handed down to a white kid.

I'm just wondering how the cops were to know he was schizophrenic?

I don't like the outcome of what happened at all, but it is a lot easier to watch a tape of something and say what *you* would have done. Risking killing innocents by trying to shoot a limb is not the answer. As for jumping in and taking the knife from the man :eyes: That is irresponsible to yourself, your fellow police officers and to your family and friends.

How many of you have been in these cops situation? And what did you do to resolve it?

a person like that down. You keep yourself safe, and you clear the area of other people in danger. Then, you talk to the individual in a soothing manner for as long as it takes.

And you don't take the knife away. You get the guy to GIVE you the knife.

Geezus.

I was hoping someone that has experienced this before would post. I just have a few questions:

How did you know all the men you were dealing with were schizophrenic?

How did your fellow officers decide that you were the one to talk to the man to gently give you the knife?

And just out of curiosity, how long were you on the force?

I hope I didn't drive him there. :silly:

And, fyi, our families handle these situations EVERY EFFEN DAY and we don't seem to need to kill people.

So, how long have you been so outstandingly clueless about the state of mental health care in this country?

On the force? That's hilarious. Police departments all over the country are tapping OUR FAMILIES for how to deal with this stuff. www.consensusproject.org.

You know, at bottom, I don't judge those cops. God knows, they've been in hell for months in that city. I'm just amazed they didn't all turn in their badges.


But this killing of mentally ill folks has GOT TO STOP.

Beth

/g

They aren't mental health experts. Then again, they could have asked the guy if he had mental problems instead of being whacked on drugs.

"So, how long have you been so outstandingly clueless about the state of mental health care in this country?" What is that supposed to mean? Since when have you been so outlandishly clueless on how to talk to people? Or is that just your attempt at trying to make yourself look superior because you know a little more about mental health care than I do?

Just a family member dealing and, I've never found it necessary to KILL any one.

As far as the rest of my post, if I offended you, I apologize, sincerely. You are right. I was out of line.

I only know the wee bit more about how to handle this stuff because I had to learn it to survive. And that's just me, and superiority is just so not on my agenda.

This is the deal. The tech to handle this stuff is widely available. Even cops as a culture are looking, on their own time, for a better way to handle these situations.

That's all.

There just seems to be a lot of people who have all the answers and it seems that some don't know what they are talking about.

I don't know if these cops were right or wrong, but I know there has to be some way that these things won't happen so often. I posted a thread asking what should be done and I have gotten 2 replies. The threads bashing the cops got 100 plus, but when asked for ideas on what could be done, I got 2.

I'm sorry you have to deal with those things at home. Unfortunately, not a lot of law enforcement officials don't learn to do that. Maybe that would be a major step in the right direction.

You know, my family has gone through everything trying to deal, so sometimes my mouth outruns my thinking.

I've gathered some good strategies and connections and would like to share them.

peace,
Beth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5704452&mesg_id=5704452

I would like to hear your opinions. :)

:)

because anyone who wasn't a cop, who acted like THOSE cops, would be facing hard time and possibly execution.

a man in my jurisdiction was a paranoid schizophrenic. state mental health would not do anything to help him. One day he was running around his neighborhood with a butcher knife and meat cleaver yelling he was going to kill people and he was the "undertaker". we cornered him (partner and I) tried to talk him down. We came VERY close to shooting him until he decided to drop the weapons. It still took a couple of incidents after that to get him permenantl;y committed.

or aimed to kill?

I would have aimed for center mass consistant with my training to stop the aggression.

evaporate into thin air.

You have no more legal right to kill someone than I do.

legal right to kill someone?? civilians(non leo) have the right to self defense where i live. If your life is in danger you have the right to defend it with deadly force. end of story.


point is we did'nt shoot him. someone threatens you with a meat cleaver and butcher knife you would be justified in defending yourself.

I expounded in the next post down.

But basically yes, that is my point: if my life is in danger I have the same right to defense as you do. You have no more of that than I do.

Imagine if the knife-guy in New Orleans was surrounded by five citizens and shot dead. Do you really think a claim of self-defense would fly? I don't. And that's the same standard the police are legally, and should be, held to.

The fact that you think your training grants you greater leeway is why your training must be changed.

YES. If a man who had previously assaulted someone lunged at a citizen with the knife, and the citizen shot him in self-defense, it WOULD be rule justifiable, regardless of how many other citizens were there.

The only difference between the ordinary citizen and the LEO in this case is that the citizen would be allowed to run away if it were safe to do so, whereas police officers are legally required to apprehend people who assault other people with deadly weapons, hence they couldn't run away.

It should also be reiterated that there is no such thing as a nonlethal gunshot in the law. If you shoot somebody in the leg, that is legally "shooting to kill." (And yes, they may die from it, just as they might survive being shot in a lung.) The concept of "shooting to wound" is a movie myth.

are simply the only reasonable policy.

Because your attitude is that kill-shots are sanctioned based on nothing more than your training.

Again, cops have no more legal right to kill someone than any citizen does. And they should be held to the same standard as anyone who kills someone else, that being that unless their very life was in immediate and irrefutable peril nobody has a right to kill someone else.

Can you just imagine if one citizen shot another because they were reaching for 'a weapon' that turned out to be a cellphone. Any doubt what a jury would do with that one? Or five guys gunning down someone with a knife in "self defense"? Your standard is the same as ours in all these scenarios, "consistent with my training" notwithstanding.

And since you seem to rest on that reasoning as some kind of justification, it practically demands that your training be to shoot-to-disable replacing shoot-to-kill as the standard response.

And again, nobody is going to raise an eyebrow should force requirements escalate above that. In fact, a record of shooting to disable would lend quite a bit of credibilty to police actions where lethal response is claimed as necessity, wouldn't it?

its hard enough to hit center mass in a high stress situation. shooting to hit the legs (or arms)has a low probability to disable or incapacitate. plus you run a greater risk of hitting innocent bystanders if you have that type of policy. studies have shown that on average police have approximately 40% hit rate when under high stress. shootin for other than center mass would cut that ratio at least in half. where are those bullets going? the femoral artery runs through the upper leg and if that was hit it would almost certainly be fatal. in shooting for the legs you could still kill him and open youself and dept to a lawsuit. do me a favor, next time you are out at a range run 50 yards and while you are breathing heavy fire 5 shots into a stationary target trying to hit the "legs" at 15 yards. and then come back and tell us how it went. it's not as easy as it sounds.

bottom line is: shooting for the legs or arms put the general public at greater risk than shooting for center mass. you may not disable the suspect and you may injure innocents ( at greater risk than center mass)

where your life is in danger that's one thing. I addressed that. I'm not talking about putting a ceiling on the level of force available to leo's, I'm talking about changing the standard levels of response leading up to such circumstances.

A shot in the leg can still kill you, as I've said here before. It will almost certainly take you down. People seem to have some action-movie sense that getting shot in the leg is something you shrug off and just keep coming. You know there's no way that's true. Anybody who's been around firearms knows how dangerous they are.

But a leg shot is still less life-threatening than a bullet in the vital organs. When you say a leg shot that killed would open you up to a lawsuit, that's disingenuous. At worst it would open you up to the same lawsuit as a torso shot that killed would, but in fact it would always open you up to less of a lawsuit than a leg shot. By definition there would be lesser lethal intent in a leg shot. How much easier that would be for a lawyer to defend in any situation.

This New Orleans incident wasn't anything like that, and it sounds like you and your partner's situation with that crazy guy wasn't either. This was no 40% situation. Those NO police had the guy surrounded with like five guns on him. It wasn't some split-second response necessity. They weren't all out of breath after running for 50 yards. They got to choose the distance between them and him and the multiple angles they had on him. They had time. They could have easily shot him in the leg with no risk to anyone. It doesn't begin to even approach the running out-of-breath, high-stress, their own lives-in-the-balance extreme situation you posit.

Just mentioning such a circumstance doesn't somehow validate the use of lethal force in any other circumstance. You don't get to juxtapose the most extreme situation on any other situation to justify any action taken in that situation. And that's what I'm talking about here - the standard response protocol. It should be non-lethal intent. From there, circumstances change to warrant higher levels of response. It would be good for everyone, even law enforcement. This kind of thing isn't good for either the individual officers, who like you react according to their training, or for the profession whose methods get questioned.

I simply think we need a range of non-lethal firearm useage incorporated into the standard response training. We're seeing too much use of lethal force where it wasn't needed and there's no doubt but that we're only seeing a small part of it. Time for some more gradual protocols for the application of firearm violence by law enforcement. It's a pretty reasonable recommendation.

As I have said in other posts, I don't think there are very many cops who *want* to shoot someone. I have never been in that situation and I hope I am never in that situation.

I just wonder how people would really react. It's easy to be an armchair cop.

I think the US cops could take some advice from people who know how to police without disregarding the lives of the citizens they are sworn to protect.


Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

the privacy of their homes.

Don't blame the cops for what the politicians have done.

You continue to astound me with your irrelevant, vacuous comments.

The fact that the Brits have state sponsored psychiatric care means a situation like the one that occurred in N.O. would be dramatically less likely to happen than here in a country where the mentally ill are left to roam the streets without care.

:eyes:

Sheesh!

Britain made the brilliant move of arming their cops after 9/11; the result: a spate of criminal gun violence, unprecedented in that country.

A week later a prominent preachers wife freaks out and ... nothing

A rockstar freaks out and ... nothing

I guess mentally ill people are dispensible and great for "teaching us a lesson"

/pissed

n/t

there is a mentally ill guy with a knife its ok to call you instead of the cops. when the guy kills you I guess we will have to reevaluate that policy.

broken up several fights.....

is VERY high. You were VERY luck you did'nt get stabbed or severly injured. 1/4 in in some parts of the body and you would have been fatally stabbed.

He was threatening my friend with it. The important thing is to immediately defuse the situation and not to allow it to get out of control.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

grabbing the knife of someone who has no qualms about killing you is suicidal.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

God, the stories some of you tell.

his arms like a chicken! There is no grey area for some people, it is either live or die. Black or white. Sad.

people. (Yes, folks, I said Georgia!) I saw something about it on cable yesterday; they were showing it in response to this shooting. I believe they said it was intended to be a new prototype for training cops across the nation, so these types of tragic incidents don't happen as often.

The program is mandatory and consists of 20 hours (I think) of classroom instruction on mental health issues provided by both police and psychiatric specialists. After the classes the cops do some role-playing of the sorts of situations that they may encounter when dealing with a mentally ill person (someone plays the role of a MI person exhibiting the sorts of symptoms that might be encountered out on the streets and the cops-in-training respond), with feedback again from the experts. It sounds like an excellent approach.

The video that I saw of the incident in NO showed a single man surrounded by quite a few police officers (I don't recall how many I saw; I know there were more than 3). Apparently they were all yelling loudly. A mentally ill person's illness might very well cause him to percieve that sort of a situation to be one in which the cops were planning to kill him (ah, the ironies of mental illness, huh?), or cause him serious harm, and therefore he would feel he needed to protect himself. This kind of thing is why these situations can escalate out of control. That Georgia program really sounds like a great thing that could help solve lives. I hope that police around the country will embrace it.

(It is also important to note that the average mentally ill person is actually LESS likely to become violent than members of the general population. It is when there is a concurrent problem with drugs or alcohol that these problems are more likely to occur. These sorts of dramatic stories sometimes give the wrong impression.)

And the best they could do to get control of this guy was to KILL him? For shame.

We are seeing more and more of this type of excessive force used against citizens. :scared:

for this act of violence by an official arm of the state are many of the same people who were also wholly unconcerned by any of the arguments against the woefully biased application of the death penalty, is it?

well -- you've seen it.

I think that as a culture, Americans have been systematically traumatized -- maybe even purposefully.

Traumatized people don't think very well. :(

1. Why do we pay cops, if not to handle situations like this without resorting to brute force? We could just all carry guns and blow each other away when we feel threatened. A cop with a black belt, a barrage of bean bag bullets, and quite possibly a halfway competent psychologist could have removed the man's weapon with minimal harm to anyone. I don't like paying taxes to put MORE gun-toting thugs on the street. Cops should be professionals, not gunslingers.

2. Why do we hate cops, when the media is awash in nothing but positive images of them? My guess is mostly from personal experience--being detained without charges, "DWB" searches, sexual harassment by cops, etc. I would add that sometimes stories come out, like Abner Louima and the "Riders" in my own city, that seem to verify what we suspect after encountering the police officer's typical personality.

3. The main problem with today's cop is his authoritarian personality. He cannot think outside of a rigid set of established rules. He who obeys the rules, is right, and he who does not is wrong. Reasoned questioning of the rules themselves will make them go ballistic. Watch it happen in this thread.

impossible without them.

On top of everything our guys do in our neighborhood, they attend meetings on their own time/dime to help us sort out neighborhood problems.

Man, just don't EVER mess with the San Francisco Police Department. :)

They don't have as bad a civil rights record as most departments, videotape hankypanky aside.

I'm only trying to explain why most people on DU side against the cops when pro-cop propaganda prevails on all media channels.

My oldest kid as a teen was in a great drug recovery program with someone who is now SFPD.

When I talk to that friend nowadays, he seems so ensconced in the cop culture, it's disturbing. His thinking is black and white where there used to be room for ? For finesse.

I will never know what he has to deal with every day. And I hope that he has enough training and support to do the job he signed up for.

On the other hand, I will shout out on policies that are clearly, themselves, insane.

I was mentally at war with the SFPD for years before I understood, they are in the same position I was in -- taking up the slack for a culture that has shamefully turned its back on our most vulnerable citizens. As are the Berkeley PD and the Oakland PD and . . .

I have had some really negative experiences with police and sometimes my hatred of them consumes me. To see their most monstrous acts defended in a place like DU is seriously making me contemplate leaving the country. I am totally neutral toward cops in other countries I've visited--they are, unlike American cops, sane and mostly unarmed conflict resolvers.

I wrote my dissertation on a topic where the opinion of police was important, and did some ethnographic fieldwork among them. Nothing I saw or heard disabused me of my prejudices. All in all, it's actually a pretty easy job. You drive around all day deciding who to fuck with. Kind of like being a high school jock. The one in a million situation where a cop is actually in danger is seen as warranting lavish expenditures, of both money and civil rights, for "officer safety." Often the advocates are the same people who want to roll back safety regulations for other essential workers.

I really believe in taking away the guns of patrol officers. It is not (only) because I have met and heard of a few police officers (google: Justin Volpe) whom I think deserve to face danger unarmed. The idea is to transform the police from a macho warrior culture that disdains thought and subtlety, into an actual force for good that could defuse volatile situations instead of pouring fire into them.

I've been a crime victim plenty of times and learned long ago that getting the cops involved tends to make it worse. I'm all for detection and warrant serving. I'd like to see more of that and less riding the streets.

but a life threatening situation will make it worse.

This is in part a product of the ecomony. There are no funds for investigation. And few for warrant serving. What cops can do is make their best call, diffuse a situation if possible. If the wrong person winds up in jail for 72 hours while the DA's office throws it out, well, maybe no one gets hurt.

Much.

On the other hand, I know there is a whole office in our SF City Hall that processes complaints from wrongful arrests.

On a third hand, wtf are these guys supposed to do? They get to handle everything the rest of the culture bails on. So, these departments attract the best of us AND the worst of us.

That's where we are, 'far as I can see.

:hug:

On edit: If the wrong person winds up dead, well, the department has lawyers and PR people.

They are paid to enforce those laws, and to bring the law breakers before a court for judgement. They are not judges. They job is NOT to decide which laws they will enforce based on their personal beliefs. Do you really want that kind of police force, where each cop tears out the pages of the law books that he doesn't like?

in the community?

Explain that to me, because I don't understand.

He seems to want cops who make up the rules as they go along. He wants cops who, if he can win a debate with them, will not enforce whatever laws he dislikes, and if wins another debate, will enforce what they think the law should be. That is not a police force that I want.

Nothing direclty to do with mental illness. All threads suffer a bit of thread drift.

Worked in Britain for a long time. They armed cops after 9/11 and now they are having their first serious spate of gun violence.

Cops in America are the wrong people to be cops. The cop should be the mellowest dude on the block, someone who naturally likes everyone, a highly physically fit martial arts expert, and trained in conflict resolution. Maybe some cops in America fit this description... I dunno... but the ones I have met have been out-of-shape nasty men with a chip on their shoulder. The cop I describe could keep the peace without using firearms, and this in turn would make criminals less violent.

where do you live in this fantasy land where cops make six figures a year and can subdue dangerous maniacs w. edged weapons bare-handed?

new orleans ain't frickin london

you are comparing one of the richest, if not the richest, city in the world, w. a ridiculously low crime rate for its population to one of the highest per capita murder rate cities in north america, if not the very highest per capita in the months leading up to katrina

you're comparing a nation where guns are all but illegal unless you're hunting foxes -- and apparently even that is in doubt -- a nation where and this actually happened to me, several times, during my visit, game birds like pheasant and quail do everything but walk right up to you, dance on yr head, and laugh in your face...you are comparing this britain to the culture of usa and especially louisiana, where being armed is a part of life and a right of passage for many, where hunting is a part of the life, and where sadly enough disputes are all too often settled by pulling out the gun

it just isn't fair

i would love the gun-free world too but fair is fair

a gun-free police force is not fair to the police officers who are fighting well-armed, heavily armed criminals in many cases

also keep in mind, nopd also tries to have some equal opportunity, in fact, one of the police heroes of katrina was a new officer, only five feet one, a woman officer who lost her home but still showed up at the dome and demanded to be put to work helping out

you want to put a woman officer out there on the street w. no weapon or do you want to just keep police work as a boy's club of six foot plus men? because that is what you are doing when you cry out for a gun free force

A few farmworkers probably died to get the food to my table in my life. Tough on them and their families. Just as tough, in fact, as it is when someone in your family gets killled, needlessly, by a cop.

:nopity:

on edit: please learn the difference between London and England. The latter has some pretty scary places.

And I don't have any special gifts.

Once again, the six-figure link that everyone loves to deny:

http://www.cfac.org/Attachments/ot_costs_oakland.htm

snip

Records released as part of that lawsuit show not only that Valladon made $71,470 in overtime last year but that his entire base salary is paid to perform the job of union president. That means any police work Valladon performs -- he averaged about 20 hours a week last year -- is reimbursed at the overtime rate of 1.5 times his base salary.

"What a horrible deal for the taxpayers," Olson said. "Not only are they paying him $150,000 a year to be a beat cop, but by paying his salary as union president they're paying him to fight the city over money."

snip

Note that the union officials are NOT the only patrol officers making six figures here. There is almost no such thing as an OPD officer who lives in Oakland--they all live in fancy suburbs and get their ideas about the communities they police by listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Where do you get your information about LA gangs, btw?

I find the Taser a valuable tool for Law Enforcement. This would of been an excellent opportunity to utilize a winnable intervention, the Taser.

:shrug:

One bullet to the little toe? You really, really, need to learn what you are talking about.

you actually believe what you are saying. One bullet to the little toe would be enough?

BTW - That is a very tiny target and very hard to hit on a moving man.

in the various means by which individuals are to be 'brought down'; the various levels of 'bringing then down', levels of interaction and de-escalation; but little of that may have meant much to they such as yourself; in that he was himself brought down in the line of duty and killed, by a stolen car filled with illegal gun toting, not schizophrenics, but flat-out criminals.

please do not speak to me, as to what your notion of "reality" is unless & until you have made a good faith effort to understand mine. the OP has imo made an effort to draw a distinction between what is presumed reasonable, and what is clearly not.

are you trying to assert, that there is no other way to bring down a wanton, highly escalated event scenario but to discharge a dozen rounds into the chest cavity of an alleged perpetrator?

a kneecap is a larger target. would that have your seal of approval?

There is simply no way to "shoot some one just a little bit". To go into all the reason why, you can simply read the thread. I don't feel like posting what others have already covered and extremely well too.

You either shoot for "center mass" or not at all.

shots from 10 separate firearms is to admit a level of state and/or municipal sanctioned, not schizophrenia per se if while approaching the view as such, but psychotic paranoia imho

http://www.notinourname.net/restrictions/non-lethal-weapons-jul03.htm

small tree branches, colored water pistols, cardboard signs, bottles and other hardly lethal instuments. All of these killed were mentally ill.

An ex NFLer and Notre Dame footballer was killed when he refused to stop walking away from SDPD in Mission Beach. I cant remember his name but he had NO weapon, was drunk and just walked away when they told hin to freeze. They pumped 16 rounds in his back, The last six were when he was in a prone position, He was lying on his stomach after being shot allready and they put six more in his back.

The NAACP and Jesse Jackson, along with San Diego African-American leaders screamed for an investigation and the firing of the officers. The shooting was ruled "justified" and the cops walked/kept their jobs.

There are non-lethal devices and weapons out there. I wonder why police departments dont use them.

Just yesterday SD county cops (Carlsbad), killed a mentally ill man who had a screwdriver.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20051228-9999-7m28freeway.html

Cops around here shoot first and answer questions later.

in the past is to write a letter of support to the department in the wake of one of these killings. That's right, a letter of support as in "I'm sorry you, your officers and the community are having to go through this."

Then, I offer them contact information for the Consensus Project and wish them well. I'll be damned if nine of ten times, I get a positive response.

It's such a simple thing to do.

The richest, most uncivilized, uneducated, free wheeling self-destructive capitalistic environment on planet earth.

The best is yet to come.