This article brings up an interesting question about the responsibility of the police using force.
A man armed with a knife was shot dead by a defending police officer. Here are the points of the article, revealed in the same order as the article:
- Knife attacker shot dead by police officer.
- Don't police officers have other means, techniques or technology, besides deadly force?
- Incident was over forceably removing offender from a building.
- Officer did not call for backup.
- Offender agreed to leave before pulling the knife
- Officer was slashed across the bicep.
- A struggle did ensue for control of the knife before offender was shot.
- Offender was shot twice in the chest.
- Police are trained to aim at target's center of mass, the chest.
- Family and friends of the offender swear he was never violent and never carried a knife.
The article did not specify if the police officer had a partner at the scene nor whether there were any other witnesses.
Now, I'm no bleeding heart for violent criminals but there are some details that warrant debate. Was deadly force the only option for the officer? Did he have to fire twice? Shouldn't he have called for backup?
Furthermore, are there any changes that can be made by the police department to prevent future deaths? Changes in attitude or procedure?
Assuming the officer is to be believed, I would tend to call it a justified shooting. However, there are details that cause me to worry, like firing twice or not calling for backup. Of course, the latter probably happened out of duplicity from the offender...