HellforLeather
Member
C'mon guys. Even Ben Affleck can disarm a knife wielding guy!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Campus police shoot and kill LGBT activist armed with knife at university
- Thread starter Enter The 36 Chambers
- Start date
Eh, muscles don't save you from dying when a knife stabs one of the many vital parts of your body.
That said, there should absolutely be non-lethal weapons for these situations. And a group should be able to stop someone with a knife without shooting him dead indeed.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not...
The real tragedy is that it was able to get to this point and that their was not a sufficient safety net of mental help services to prevent the situation from reaching the point of no return. Hopefully better cooperation between campus police, counselors, and students will be able to prevent such a tragedy in the future. It is strange to me that campus police officers would even be armed at all, at my college our security officers developed a close relationship with the student body that did much to foster a mutual feeling of respect, making them more akin to guardians than most officers. I have to wonder if that relationship would have been possible if they had been armed, or if such a situation is only possible at a small school where everyone knows the security staff by name. Hopefully they will be able to figure out what went wrong and take steps to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
My question exactly.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
There's more to carrying a weapon than knowing how to shoot it.
Like, knowing how to apply techniques where you don't have to shoot it. Being aware how to deal with "suicide by cop" ect. Especially as a group.
If that's too much for a school cop, don't give him deadly weapons.
DerangedHermit
Member
Obviously, the victim should've eaten someone's face, then these hardworking officers would do everything they could to not shoot even when attacked.
All these people in the thread bending backwards to make excuses for these cops, while police in civilized countries are able to handle situations exactly like these without any deaths, ...this forum sometimes, it's really fucking something.
All these people in the thread bending backwards to make excuses for these cops, while police in civilized countries are able to handle situations exactly like these without any deaths, ...this forum sometimes, it's really fucking something.
Unless
A taser would have been a better option here. No one's gonna be able to stab you while they're getting tased. If I had to take any guess, I'd say that they went with the gun over the taser because they were responding to reports of someone with both a knife and a gun, so the cops didn't want to take the risk of them possibly pulling out the gun as well. That's provided they didn't lie about the gun part and just thought it'd be easier to shoot.
I think the conversation that comes out of this should focus on the mentally unstable transgendered person who needed psychological help. in my home town I knew a transgender girl who very obviously needed a counselor or someone to work on some issues with but she refused to acknowledge it and get the help she needed. The LGBT community needs to stress the importance of counseling when going through stressful life changes.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Don't these types of situations happen in Europe? How do they address them?
LostMyNarbles
Member
It's like you haven't even read the last few replies if you're going to recommend a taser.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
They shoot the assailant's leg in a way that the ricochet will also bounce back and knock the knife out of their hand.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
It's a US centric board after all, not really surprising.
They try to think of a non violent action, while backing off to a safe distance.
plagiarize
Banned
Can't blame the officers here. This was an appropriate use of force under the current guidelines.
Which absolutely, positively need to be changed, so that shooting someone dead isn't the first use of force in a situation like this.
That video makes it worse for me. I'm not sure what is at the side, but they should have just kept the distance between them and the suspect. Like the first officer seems to do well.
I guess the question is, did the cop deviate from his training protocol? You cannot expect cops to do something different from how they are trained.
This sort of sarcastic shit posting isn't welcome.
Magic. Unarmed UK police literally employ magic spells and buffs to safely disarm and detain aggressive knife wielding individuals. Over in America, they haven't been taught these skills.
You see with your own eyes videos of police taking down people with machetes while being unarmed, and yet you read here that such things are impossible.
Eeeee'yuuuuup.
You can keep saying "it's not Hollywood, you can't aim for the leg, tazer, baton" but statistically the US training for an officer is bad, underfunded, not centralised ruling, etc. Police aim for the leg in some other countries first, then chest area if absolutely necessary. Finland included where I am from. The loss of life is considered less risky on leg shots so they aim there first. There legal rule is not written as "aim leg first" but as a "use guns as a last resort" and the training is given as legs first, then chest.
They were campus cops so I undestand that they are even more undertrained but stop defending something that can be changed. So, with them the situation is a bit different. Still, a loss of life. They did not want that to happen. Things need to change in the US regarding gun training, for officers and sales to citizens.
US police shoot 100 times more likely than a Finnish police officer.
https://newrepublic.com/article/126473/american-cops-100-times-deadlier-finnish-police
They were campus cops so I undestand that they are even more undertrained but stop defending something that can be changed. So, with them the situation is a bit different. Still, a loss of life. They did not want that to happen. Things need to change in the US regarding gun training, for officers and sales to citizens.
US police shoot 100 times more likely than a Finnish police officer.
https://newrepublic.com/article/126473/american-cops-100-times-deadlier-finnish-police
The UK model is pretty simple. If the assailant isn't actively engaging, create a sterile environment (aka getting the public the fuck away), verbally engaging the assailant while a perimeter is formed. Then overwhelming the assailant with numbers. UK police will only physically engage an armed assailant if that assailant is attempting to engage the officer or the public and there is no other choice.
If the assailant continues to approach and is non responsive to commands, then the officer will go up the force tree: maintain distance (since UK cops always work in pairs, as assailant approaches one officer the other will close distance from the side or behind to confuse and distract), spray, taser, baton (baton is more of a last resort than spray or taser because UK police are trained to hit the extremities once at full force which given it's a metal baton is more likely to cause lasting damage than taser or spray).
If perimeter has held long enough for reforcements to arrive, they'll just set up a shield cordon and continue to negotiate, then if necessary use the shields with full riot protective gear to engulf the assailant (either pinning them against a wall or pinning them against other officers shields)
Only in really extreme conditions will a baton round or firearm be used for a knife wielding assailant.
If the assailant continues to approach and is non responsive to commands, then the officer will go up the force tree: maintain distance (since UK cops always work in pairs, as assailant approaches one officer the other will close distance from the side or behind to confuse and distract), spray, taser, baton (baton is more of a last resort than spray or taser because UK police are trained to hit the extremities once at full force which given it's a metal baton is more likely to cause lasting damage than taser or spray).
If perimeter has held long enough for reforcements to arrive, they'll just set up a shield cordon and continue to negotiate, then if necessary use the shields with full riot protective gear to engulf the assailant (either pinning them against a wall or pinning them against other officers shields)
Only in really extreme conditions will a baton round or firearm be used for a knife wielding assailant.
entremet
Member
Well, I do hope that this alerts Tech and other campuses to develop better procedures for dealing with Suicide By Cop scenarios.
Mental health is a huge issue in college and with the LGBT community.
I do remember a company developing a Net gun, kinda like a bolas, to help prevent lethal force. It's in R&D. I forget the company.
Mental health is a huge issue in college and with the LGBT community.
I do remember a company developing a Net gun, kinda like a bolas, to help prevent lethal force. It's in R&D. I forget the company.
Vicetrailia
Member
After watching the youtube video I don't see why the cops couldn't handle it without killing. Their training is complete garbage if they can't deal with that situation.
Temeculan3000
Member
In how many of these European countries is it legal to carry a concealed firearm?
A big reason why in the US police don't aim for the leg, is because they are opening themselves up to a lawsuit. After all, if they weren't afraid for their lives, then why did they need to use deadly force? As such, they always go for the kill to "prove" it was necessary.
I think the reality of our gun laws in the US vs Europe means the way our police are trained are vastly different. I think police in the US are much more worried that at any given interaction they are thinking "This guy could have a gun and might end my life," and are much more ready to use deadly force.
Is it fucked up? Maybe it is, but I think it stems from our gun laws.
A big reason why in the US police don't aim for the leg, is because they are opening themselves up to a lawsuit. After all, if they weren't afraid for their lives, then why did they need to use deadly force? As such, they always go for the kill to "prove" it was necessary.
I think the reality of our gun laws in the US vs Europe means the way our police are trained are vastly different. I think police in the US are much more worried that at any given interaction they are thinking "This guy could have a gun and might end my life," and are much more ready to use deadly force.
Is it fucked up? Maybe it is, but I think it stems from our gun laws.
Hissing Sid
Member
They buy the assailant pizza.
I'm only half joking.
The vast majority of the UK police do their jobs without being equipped with firearms. You'd be amazed what can be accomplished when your go-to tactic of choice doesn't include the use of a bang bang.
Same. Way some people made it seem Scout was rushing police. But Scout was walking slow as fuck and the cop didin't back up and decided to fire.
Nah, not always. There are single officer responses too.
The US has 112.6 guns per 100 residents.
The UK has 6.6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
hobblygobbly
Member
Yep and in Germany in 2011 police only fired 85 bullets, of which killed 6 people. Germany is a population of 80 million, open borders, and has no different types of crime than the U.S does.
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...d-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/328297/
U.S police use more bullets in a single car chase.
The one major factor U.S police do have to contend with is the sheer amount of firearms in circulation in the U.S and that people can easily carry them.
Elysian Fury
Banned
Officer acted appropriately given the circumstances.
It's unfortunate the mentally ill individual couldn't get the help they needed, and chose to involve innocent people in their tragic decision.
It's unfortunate the mentally ill individual couldn't get the help they needed, and chose to involve innocent people in their tragic decision.
Pankratous
Member
Honestly that's way more than I thought it would be.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
That seems reasonable, humane, and meets the spirit of what an enlightened society that trusts a police force would expect.
It's unfortunate the young man had to die, I feel sorry for his family.
Regarding the broader topic of knife wielders and how police deal with them: most police in the UK don't carry guns, yet they deal with people with knives without anyone dying. There have also been stories about police in other countries shooting people in the leg to subdue them when they have a knife. I guess it all comes down to training and what each police department considers appropriate action for dealing with someone with a knife.
I can't say for sure what I would do in those cops shoes, though I'd like to think I would try to at least pepper spray and/or tase a person who was clearly mentally unstable before shooting them - especially when I had the numbers.
Regarding the broader topic of knife wielders and how police deal with them: most police in the UK don't carry guns, yet they deal with people with knives without anyone dying. There have also been stories about police in other countries shooting people in the leg to subdue them when they have a knife. I guess it all comes down to training and what each police department considers appropriate action for dealing with someone with a knife.
I can't say for sure what I would do in those cops shoes, though I'd like to think I would try to at least pepper spray and/or tase a person who was clearly mentally unstable before shooting them - especially when I had the numbers.
Agreed totally will all of this post.
For the people asking about shooting in the leg, it is not allowed for three reasons:
1) Less likely to hit the target
2) Less likely to incapacitate the target
3) (And this is the one being glossed over) Missing the target means the bullet is flying wild
A wild bullet is a danger to bystanders and other people completely not involved with the situation. Its also why warning shots are not allowed. That bullet is going to hit something and if you're not hitting the target, you're hitting something else at random.
The question of why non-lethal means weren't used is a valid one? If they didn't have any, why not? And I support better training for responding to suicide-by-cop.
Shooting in the leg though is not a reasonable option.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
This is where I'm at. It's ridiculous that we've just decided that "oh, they wanted to die, guess we should just watch them get capped" like it's a valid response. What's the difference between this and pushing someone off a ledge?
How in the hell do those officers not have tasers or pepper spray?
Hissing Sid
Member
Everyone in the world has access to a knife, maybe US police should be given better training in not having to solve every problem with a gun.
holygeesus
Banned
And yet....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0f_nFKVoyQ&t=472s
The video was published in 2015 so the figures are out of date, but it shows that between 2013-2015
US police killings of knife wielding people = 575
UK police killings of knife wielding people = 1
I would presume the UK has more people wielding knives and I would presume they are as dangerous there.
The US police training is just horrible. That is the bottom line. No, or little, de-escalation training.
Right. But it's a tragedy the protocols are the way they are
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Quite frankly, that training is not very good and I'm really uncomfortable with it. The correct first rule of firearms should always be "Don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, and don't shoot anything you don't intend to kill." I really don't like the idea that it's okay to shoot at people. Guns should be treated as lethal in all cases, which is supposed to discourage people from using them in such a cavalier fashion.
This is all fantastic, and it should really be adopted everywhere.
TimeEffect
Member
why didn't theY use a taser? Has that been answered?
Unquestionably. Our police force needs to do so much better.
Why would you agree? It's half bullshit.
Look, I will agree that the idea that knives aren't dangerous or that every cop should be able to disarm someone with one is nonsense but I will never agree with the idea that when you have several trained armed people with guns trained on a person with a knife that just one of them trying a taser first is too risky. That's just fucking stupid.
That's where all these tactical arguments break the fuck down. One on one with a person with a knife, the post makes sense, in this situation the post's bullshit. If with several armed officers on the scene you still do not feel in control and emboldened enough to "risk" using anything less than lethal force first then you're a piece of shit. Period. How many cops do I have to give you in a situation with one person and a knife before you feel secure enough to not shoot to kill first? 5? 10? How many?
Now, that's negated somewhat by the fact these guys didn't have tasers or anything else which is stupid but it is what it is. So now the issue isn't why didn't these guys not use something else but rather why didn't they stall longer for someone who would have had more options time to arrive at the scene first? And before someone says Scout got too close, that works both ways, the officers also somewhat choose what distance they engaged Scout at. This could have totally been prolonged until someone else arrived.
Now, it's totally possible that a taser wouldn't have worked, Scout would never drop the knife or stop moving forward necessitating a fatal shot but we'll never know now will we?
I finally watched the video. I didn't want to, and I had to wait a little bit to type this up. My hands were shaking, my thinking definitely was as clear as it was before the video.
I'll break down a few things in this, and hopefully that helps others understand why these cops did what they did, and why they didn't do what others think would have been better.
They tried to deescalate by backing off, giving verbal commands. I'm good with that. That person is way to close already though. Jesus. I have to give those officers credit for even allowing that person to be that close with a knife.
When they got to the part where one officer went into that garage, while the other backed off the other way, this is were a few things went wrong. Taking into account, I'm here, sitting behind a computer, and I'm not in any way threatened in real life, this is an obvious safe setting critique.
When the officer is to the side of the person, tazer isn't reliable at all. Also too far for pepper spray, that wouldn't have been reliable at all. This person is already not complying with basic instructions, so enraging them with spray probably wouldn't have helped the situation. The officer on the side could have gotten behind the person, but that is a big no no. You'll be in the direct threat of any response the officer that is directly in front of the person has to take.
The other thing I think they should be trained on is only ONE person to talk to the person. When you have two people talking it's going to be harder for the person to hear both orders/directions, etc., and that causes more confusion.
The only other lethal force I can see would have been rubber/beanbag bullets. That isn't something officers just carry around with them. It's something mostly used in controlled situations that were planned to have on hand. Waiting for others to get there is an assumption that there were other responders that were available, on the way, or otherwise a better option to wait for.
I don't see any realistic alternative based on the video.
I wish there wasn't ever a reason to have to do it for sure. A lost life is a lost life and it's terrible. I feel bad for that persons friends and family that will have to deal with this for the rest of their lives. Also the officer that took that persons life. That will haunt them for life. I've put myself at risk at times to not take a life even though it would have been justified, and put mine at risk so I wouldn't live with taking that life.
I'll break down a few things in this, and hopefully that helps others understand why these cops did what they did, and why they didn't do what others think would have been better.
They tried to deescalate by backing off, giving verbal commands. I'm good with that. That person is way to close already though. Jesus. I have to give those officers credit for even allowing that person to be that close with a knife.
When they got to the part where one officer went into that garage, while the other backed off the other way, this is were a few things went wrong. Taking into account, I'm here, sitting behind a computer, and I'm not in any way threatened in real life, this is an obvious safe setting critique.
When the officer is to the side of the person, tazer isn't reliable at all. Also too far for pepper spray, that wouldn't have been reliable at all. This person is already not complying with basic instructions, so enraging them with spray probably wouldn't have helped the situation. The officer on the side could have gotten behind the person, but that is a big no no. You'll be in the direct threat of any response the officer that is directly in front of the person has to take.
The other thing I think they should be trained on is only ONE person to talk to the person. When you have two people talking it's going to be harder for the person to hear both orders/directions, etc., and that causes more confusion.
The only other lethal force I can see would have been rubber/beanbag bullets. That isn't something officers just carry around with them. It's something mostly used in controlled situations that were planned to have on hand. Waiting for others to get there is an assumption that there were other responders that were available, on the way, or otherwise a better option to wait for.
I don't see any realistic alternative based on the video.
I wish there wasn't ever a reason to have to do it for sure. A lost life is a lost life and it's terrible. I feel bad for that persons friends and family that will have to deal with this for the rest of their lives. Also the officer that took that persons life. That will haunt them for life. I've put myself at risk at times to not take a life even though it would have been justified, and put mine at risk so I wouldn't live with taking that life.
How about Finnland. Germany. Switzerland. Plenty of European countries with high ownership rates.
In the UK, most people do not have access to handguns. US police protocols are set up as a defensive reaction to the insane gun situation here.