Police: society's willing sacrifices??

[Slytovhand]

This story... (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24787921-661,00.html)

is about a 15yo boy who was shot and killed by police, after stealing some large knives and going on a tantrum - threatening to kill police etc.

Police tried various things to restrain the youth, but no doubt felt threated enough for their lives that they had to shoot him (although, story seems to indicate that while several shots were fired, only 1 or 2 actually hit).

But, in discussing this at work, it was suggested that the police should have done other things, such as tried to tackle the youth.

Now, after capsicum spray was used (a couple of times) to no avail, I would say that doing such would put the police into an extremely dangerous situation - after all, it doesn't really take a lot to badly injure, maim or kill a person with a large knife.

My CW's opinion was that police ought to make such sacrifices, to put themselves in harm's way, for the benefit of 'society' - which in this case means a knife wielding, drug affected teen.

I disagree, and think that police have as their first priority, their own personal safety. Once that is assured, then look after the rest of the people. (sure, there are times when they will put their lives on the line - but not as a sacrificial lamb).

Thoughts and opinions?? (and this is not about whether they should have aimed for the arms/legs... let's not get into the practicalities of that!)

[DesignFox]

The police tried TWICE to incapacitate the teen without harming him. The teen was warned without gunfire to stop advancing. After that, warning shots were fired, and he still advanced with the knives. He was a threat, and they neutralized him.

Yes, the police have a responsibility to the public not to immediately come out guns blazing. But if all non-lethal attempts fail, and the assailant insists on continuing the attack, no way in hell do I expect ANY person to sit there and take it. They have every right to protect themselves- not just for their own sake, but for the sake of their fellow officers and any innocent by-standers.

[Greenday]

If the story is exactly as I read, it doesn't seem like the cops did anything wrong. The cops warned him, tried non-lethal weapons, fired warning shots, and when their lives were still being threatened, along with potentially anyone else in the area, they aimed to put him down. Society is not being made any better by cops taking unnecessary risks that would lower the amount of cops on the streets, making the streets more dangerous. They did what they had to do.

[lordlundar]

Unfortunately, these days being a police officer is a thankless job. Nothing they do can be considered justified. They are either incompetent or abusive.

For example, I haven't seen one police chase ending in an accident that wasn't blamed on the police. I've even seen one where the police back off, and the person they are chasing crash and die well after the chase is called off. The police were blamed for the death by the police for "forcing him to run".

In this case, they're being nailed for abuse of authority. If they tried other means to restrain him and he got injured by his own actions or kills himself, it's the police's fault for failing to protect him from himself. If they accidentally injure him, they get blamed for excessive use of force, if an innocent bystander gets injured, it's their fault for failing to protect the public. If an officer gets injured, GREAT! One less abusive/incompetent cop on the street.

The police do their job to the best of their ability, which is tough enough as it is, and get called abusive, corrupt or incompetent, usually all three at once. Add to this the covert and overt hatred for police for little more than trying to do their job, I keep finding it excessively tough to understand why someone would want to do this, and am thankful for those that do.

[Flyndaran]

I feel that it's all the cases of dirty cops using excessive force that tarnish the ones that do do everything they can.
Here in the Portland Oregon metro area, cops have gotten away with so many cases of murder, that even the few where individuals do aboslutely no wrong are still tarred with the same brush.

If we actually got rid of dirty cops, then the public might gain a little more respect and save a little benefit of the doubt for cops.

[Boozy]

Car chases are a tough one.

Usually, the news only presents part of the story. We see a police car tailing a fleeing suspect's car, and we assume that the cops are using speed to catch up to him/her. That's not necessarily the case. They are using their sirens to alert traffic ahead that a maniac is coming towards them while their colleagues set up tire strips up ahead (or something of the sort). We rarely see the road blocks that have been set up to keep traffic off the road or the blockades set up to keep the criminal from entering residential side streets. And the police are often following much farther back than they could be, trying to get the criminal to ease off the gas. The cops are often behaving far more responsibly than we give them credit for.

Cops get blamed for car chase accidents because people have higher expectations of them than they do of criminals; if someone has to be the "bigger person" it's gonna have to be the cop. That is both understandable and logical. But it's never good to make snap judgments about situations we know nothing about.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Yes, the police have a responsibility to the public not to immediately come out guns blazing. But if all non-lethal attempts fail, and the assailant insists on continuing the attack, no way in hell do I expect ANY person to sit there and take it. They have every right to protect themselves- not just for their own sake, but for the sake of their fellow officers and any innocent by-standers.

This. *applauds*

[crazylegs]

The police (in the UK at least) are taught that their safety is paramount. If they get injured or incapacitated then who looks after everyone else...?

[Flyndaran]

The police (in the UK at least) are taught that their safety is paramount. If they get injured or incapacitated then who looks after everyone else...?

Absolutely. We must always understand that everyone in every profession is human. Everyone deserves certain rights, not the least being to freaking life! If we demand any group to be perfect and heroic, then when they suffer from the horrors of normal people, bad situations will just get worse.

My father was a heroic police officer. The idea of expecting anyone else to live up to his standard is ludicrous. I don't expect anyone to avoid shooting back at people and instead talk them down to a peaceful resolution. I don't expect anyone to stay abosolutely clean in a department so corrupt every other cop is arrested in an FBI sting. Etc.

I expect cops to be honorable but still human in their jobs.

[Slytovhand]

Yay all for the voice for the coppers :D

The reason I posted was that my co-workers did the "But they shot a 15 year old boy!!! What was a 15 year old small and skinny kid going to do? They should have shot him in the leg. All cops are pigs".

One thing I did note is that I got that particular story after we read one that didn't mention the kid only got hit once (implying he was shot up to 6 times). Funny how CW backed off a bit when I mentioned he was only hit once in the chest.

[Evandril]

Concidering that I've heard of people taking more than one fatal shot, and keep coming, depending on the drugs in 'em...Yeah, can't blame them in the least. I'd not doubt some of those six shots where *trying* to take out the knife or the like...and it just wasn't possible.

They showed far more restraint than I would have...which is why I'd never be a cop ;) Well, one of the reasons, at least

[smileyeagle1021]

They showed far more restraint than I would have...which is why I'd never be a cop ;) Well, one of the reasons, at least

ditto... if I had a gun and a guy came at me with a knife I wouldn't hesitate to empty my clip into him... if it comes down to me or him, I chose ME.

To first warn him, then try non lethal means, then fire a warning shot, before actually firing at him (and presumably most of the shots had the aim of disabling him, not killing him) shows a superhuman level of restraint as far as I'm concerned.

[daleduke17]

It looks like the officers were justified.

- Verbal commands didn't work
- OC spray didn't work
- agitated and armed person advancing on officers


Yeah, I would have shot as well.

[Flyndaran]

ditto... if I had a gun and a guy came at me with a knife I wouldn't hesitate to empty my clip into him... if it comes down to me or him, I chose ME.

To first warn him, then try non lethal means, then fire a warning shot, before actually firing at him (and presumably most of the shots had the aim of disabling him, not killing him) shows a superhuman level of restraint as far as I'm concerned.

Emptying a clip is called murder. I would be quite happy to convict you if I were on a jury and you said that you did it on purpose.
In the heat of the moment I give norma people with no experience in violent altercations the benefit of the doubt.
But intentionally killing someone when there is a reasonable alternative is murder.
All the myths of people continuing to fight after recieving fatal wounds is mostly just that, a myth. It's simply that time slows down and what seems like forever is just a moment for the body to drop.

[daleduke17]

But intentionally killing someone when there is a reasonable alternative is murder.


What was the "reasonable alternative" in the case shown by the OP?

[smileyeagle1021]

Emptying a clip is called murder. I would be quite happy to convict you if I were on a jury and you said that you did it on purpose.
In the heat of the moment I give norma people with no experience in violent altercations the benefit of the doubt.
But intentionally killing someone when there is a reasonable alternative is murder.
All the myths of people continuing to fight after recieving fatal wounds is mostly just that, a myth. It's simply that time slows down and what seems like forever is just a moment for the body to drop.

you have both convicted me and forgiven me in two paragraphs... you say that time slows down (an illusion caused by adrenaline) and that it appears the guy is still fighting when it just seems like forever for the body to drop. Yet you said that emptying the clip would make it clearly intentional. Which is it... is it the adrenaline screwing up your perceptions to make it seem like the person is still coming at you when he isn't or is it intentional murder. I foresee a hung jury in that case.
Also, in the case of a wild man running at you with a knife, what is the alternative?

[Evandril]

Emptying a clip is called murder. I would be quite happy to convict you if I were on a jury and you said that you did it on purpose.
In the heat of the moment I give norma people with no experience in violent altercations the benefit of the doubt.
But intentionally killing someone when there is a reasonable alternative is murder.
All the myths of people continuing to fight after recieving fatal wounds is mostly just that, a myth. It's simply that time slows down and what seems like forever is just a moment for the body to drop.

Personally, I'm pulling the trigger until they stop coming towards me...and that's going to put more than one bullet into 'em, hopefully ;) Full clip, most likely not...But it is NOT uncommon for someone to just keep shooting, once they start, if they are panicing.

The drug I was talking about was PCP, and shots to the chest will be fatal...but won't stop someone that can't feel 'em, until the lack of blood makes 'em go down. Luckly, that's something you don't hear much about anymore...Hopefully that means it's not really around as much as it used to be.

[AdminAssistant]

The drug I was talking about was PCP, and shots to the chest will be fatal...but won't stop someone that can't feel 'em, until the lack of blood makes 'em go down.

Which is why you aim for the head. I have no idea how I would react to a situation like that. I hope I would have the bearings to be able to defend myself. As a civilian, I just try to keep myself out of those situations. But if I feel someone is threatening me, in anyway, I will defend myself by whatever means possible. I keep a steel hammer under my bed and I don't think I would hesitate to smash someone in the head with it. And I would feel completely justified in doing so. Especially if the attacker is male. (Side note: I don't believe in the 'just do what they tell you to and stay alive' bs. Somebody tries to rape me he is in for a FIGHT.)

I could never be a cop. Too much crap to deal with all around.

[crazylegs]

Yay all for the voice for the coppers :D

Did you expect any different from me Slyt...? :D

To first warn him, then try non lethal means, then fire a warning shot,

You shouldn't be firing a warning shot, where would you aim it? What if it ricochets and kills a child (as happened in Greece recently). As soon as you have pulled the trigger you have decided that you will be using lethal force, you can't 'wing' them, you can't fire warning shots, you either shoot them or you do not.

Which is why you aim for the head.

No, you don't. You aim for the single largest part of the body, which is the torso. Attempting to aim for the head of a person who is moving is folly at best, the head will be ducking and moving rapidly. The torso will be moving much more slowly and you have a much greater chance of hitting them. This is also the argument agains trying to shoot at limbs.

[Slytovhand]

What?? Crazy??? Are you crazy??? siding with the coppers?????? :p

It's just that people around here have been going off about "He's only a 15 year old boy"...

As for a warning shot - into the ground between you and the assailant (if it's dirt).

And you beat me to it re: torso shots.

Also - when you shoot to stop someone, don't take 1 shot, stop and wait to see what it did (hit or not, effective or not), fire another one, check to see... etc. You fire off a few at a time (at least 3) - and if they're still moving - keep firing. Unless they're a few meters away, that may mean a full clip (given that it's more than likely not all with hit).

[AFPheonix]

He already explained that shooting into the ground could cause the bullet to ricochet.
Shooting straight into the air could have consequences too as the bullet must come down at some point and still has the ability to injure someone.

[smileyeagle1021]

He already explained that shooting into the ground could cause the bullet to ricochet.
Shooting straight into the air could have consequences too as the bullet must come down at some point and still has the ability to injure someone.

depending on the surface ricochet risks could be minimal... if it's soft ground (IE sod, lose dirt, etc)... that said... that is yet another judgment call that we have to trust to be made on whether or not a shot would be safe and whether or not it will have a chance of deterring the situation from deteriorating.

[Flyndaran]

I have been a little behind in this discussion. But NO absolutely not. A gun is a weapon used to cause greivous injury only whne one's live is in danger. It is not a toy or a bullhorn.

[Slytovhand]

Flyn.. you've lost me. Are you saying that warning shots shouldn't ever be fired?? That it is not preferable to put a couple of bullets into the ground (assuming relatively safe - ie dirt - not concrete), as a warning, rather than having first shots put into an assailant - where even 1 hit can possibly kill??

Smiley, thanks for the back up (partner :p) - yes, that's what I was thinking. The actual incident occurred in a skate park - which would be concrete (but at night, and no-one else around ... so perhaps ok).

[crazylegs]

Flyn.. you've lost me. Are you saying that warning shots shouldn't ever be fired?? That it is not preferable to put a couple of bullets into the ground (assuming relatively safe - ie dirt - not concrete), as a warning, rather than having first shots put into an assailant - where even 1 hit can possibly kill??

You should never fire warning shots, it is British Army policy and UK Police policy that warning shots are not used, they spread panic, they are dangerous and they are unpredictable, who's to say that 5mm below the dirt surface you're plugging a round into that there isn't a metal plate of some description?

Warning shots are fraught with inherent risks and dangers that cannot be adequetly assesed and controlled in the short amount of time that is present for them to be used at all.

[Slytovhand]

Yeah, I can understand the logic behind that. Not 100% sure that I can agree with it, which is why we have policy in Australia that warning shots are still fired (possibly circumstantial??). Which is what the officers did in this case (and others I've heard of).

[daleduke17]

Yeah, I can understand the logic behind that. Not 100% sure that I can agree with it, which is why we have policy in Australia that warning shots are still fired (possibly circumstantial??). Which is what the officers did in this case (and others I've heard of).

If you're to the point of pulling the trigger on your sidearm, there is a reason to injure or kill the subject you're aiming at.