KnifeMissile

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...

Ustwo

The only issue as I see it, is if the officer is lying or not.

If he is telling the truth, then all is fine.

It would be nice if officers carried some sort of recording device on their person as well as on the car. Not only would it clear up a lot of these issues, but if the officer KNEW they were on camera, you would see over all better behavior.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Darkblack

I agree. I think he should have called for backup. There should always be two officers at all times.

Food Eater Lad

I have a simple solution to this; dont pull a knife on a cop, or anyone for that matter.

Sparhawk

Great advice...

So what's your solution when a dirty cop shoots you twice in the chest and plants a knife that he just cut himself with on your person?

Just to lay out another scenario of course....

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

seretogis

I have to agree with FEL. This is not at all an obvious example of police going "too far" to stop a criminal. This guy had a knife, and slashed at the cop, and fully deserved two shots in the chest. I'd much rather this guy die, than one of our officers who are putting their lives in danger every day.

For individuals with carry permits, we are not allowed to use deadly force unless we feel our lives or the lives of others are in immediate danger -- some weirdo pulling a knife and stabbing us would qualify. I don't see why police should be forced to deal less harshly with people who are threatening their lives.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

KnifeMissile

No one has said that this was an obvious example of "too far." Unless you meant to say that it was obviously not an example of "too far," I am tempted to say you didn't read my post...

As for asking why police should "deal less harshly" with criminals, I used to ask this question, myself. The answer, as it turns out, is that police officers are supposed to protect everybody, even the criminals! That's why they work so hard to bring the criminal to trial, alive. Obviously, this is not always possible but they try damn hard!

MSD

I will assume that the evidence is correct, and that the man did pull a knife and slash the officer. I support his decision to defend himself. It would be nice if he had a reliable, non-lethal way to incapacitate the man, but if it's a guy with a knife versus a cop who just got slashed, I know whose side I'm taking when the guy gets shot.

Saying that the officer should've shot at his leg or arm, both moving, small (compared to the torso) targets, is not reasonable, because there is no guarantee that the officer would be able to disable the attacker and protect himself. A baton is not a good option, nor is pepper spray, because both require close proximity to a knife-wielding attacker who already slashed the officer.

As for the question about the man's disposition, his friends and family are naturally inclined to defend him, as they don't want th consider the possibility that someone so close to them would try to kill an officer. It's not difficult to hide the fact that you carry a knife, after almost two years of carrying a butterfly, my mother saw it (and confiscated it ) for the first time last week. The article didn't mention what type of knife was used, but I think it's safe to say that it would be easy to conceal.

I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the police on this one, and believe that the officer acted properly unless an investigation proves otherwise.

filtherton

I'm with ustwo.

Unfortunately, in many cases it is way to easy for a police officer to get away with murder, literally. Not saying this is one of those cases, just that the behavior of a "few" bad apples makes cops(at first glance) no more credible in my mind than the average person and by extension the average criminal.

Food Eater Lad

I think there are ways to tell from the cut, who did it, what angle, and so on. I doubt the cop was lying.

Macheath

The fact that the cop was slashed would give me cause to believe him. If a struggle had already ensued; the cop would be within his training to shoot at that point. I've heard that two shots is pretty standard.

One thing to question is whether he should have called for backup sooner in that situation and that's a matter of looking at the exact facts and the department's policies.

I do agree with the Alberta Civil Liberties Association idea of creating an independent investigative body even if this particular case is totally above board.

We have independent bodies in Australia such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption and various Royal Commissions.

Food Eater Lad

I think every time a cop shoots a person it should be investigated. Everytime a cop comes back with less bullets than when he went out with, they should be investigated. Otherwise we are opening the door for abuse. This case sounds justified, but as I said, by all means make sure.

seretogis

There is a point at which bureauocracy can cloud the minds of our officers that they hesitate before doing the right thing, because it may get them in trouble. I don't think that paperwork is the answer to a more responsible police force.

Knife: Eh? I think you skipped over the word "not" in my reply. Check teh quote.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

chavos

Minneapolis has had this situation a few times now, and in several cases, the person they shot had a history of mental illness...which lead to some pretty severe criticism of the department. Not too fair to cap someone when they're seeing things and pick up a knife out of fear... Now, there's a special response team, trained to talk people down, and to use non-violent means. There have still been some incidents, but in each case, the special response unit wasn't called in time...

Now, i can't say how relevant this experience is to the alberta case-there wasn't a strong indication why this man used the knife...but i'm inclined to beleive that the police had a responsibility to use more patience in the situation, containing the man until backup could arrive. A lone officer is much more likely to panic and make stupid choices than if there are several of them working together with senior leadership present.

Mojo_PeiPei

I don't see the difference between capping a mentally ill person with a knife and a "sane" person with a knife.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

sTghezzo

the part about not calling for backup is sketchy, but who knows

KnifeMissile

It's interesting that you bring this up. Last I heard, in Toronto, police holsters have tags on them, like shoplifting tags. How they work is they form a seal over the weapon so that you can't pull your gun out without breaking the seal. If the seal is broken when you get back to the station, guess what? You must fill out some paper work detailing exactly why it was necessary for you to have pulled your gun out!

I don't think I missed the "not" in your reply.
First, you responded to FEL except that your response had little to do with what he said. I didn't address this but it is now causing confusion for me.
Secondly, you said "this is not at all an obvious example of police going "too far" to stop a criminal," as if anyone had said otherwise. I attempted to point out the lack of opposition to this sentence, even by the original poster!

eple

I'm just glad coppers don't get to carry weapons on them here in Norway yet. They get to have them in the cars, but they must get permission to use them. This may change in the big cities though, as there have been an increase in violent crime involving guns (they are a seldom sight, we have a strict gun control policy). They carry pepper spray and batons, and I have'n heard of any problems with that yet. The funny part was when the cops had to use the spray on themselves once, to know how it feels like, so they wouldn't get too trigger happy . The local police big chief has won the the "strongest man in Norway" contest several times though, so he can probably handle most situations :P.

onetime2

My confidence remains with the police officer until there is strong evidence that he was out of line. I have many friends (and a soon to be father-in-law) who are active or former cops/state troopers. Pull a knife on a cop or fail to put it down as soon as one is present and you are risking death. It's that simple.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

seretogis

I wasn't replying to anyone in particular when I said it was not an example of cops going too far. As for agreeing with FEL, I agreed that anyone who pulls a knife on a cop deserves to be shot twice in the chest.

As for the incidents in Minneapolis with the mentally ill people, I believe that in both cases police were responding to a domestic disturbance call and in both cases were approached by hostile people bearing knives. As I said before, the life of a cop is more important than the life of someone who is running at them with a knife. Don't want to get shot? Don't run at cops with knives. Don't want your mentally ill brother to get shot? Make sure he stays away from knives.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Ustwo

Just because you are mentally ill, does not mean you are not a danger to others.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Food Eater Lad

How is gun crime rising in Norway if they have "strict Gun control" Does that mean that CRIMINALS are getting guns, while the lawful people can not? Thats sounds smart....

eple

Well...you can never get a 100% efficient gun restriction, so you will of course find criminals with weapons. Still, we don't really see many cases of people being threatened or attacked by armed robbers. If anyone wants to wield weapons for protection, they are free to get a lisence, but not many do, as there is little use for one. You must understand that noone is denied access to weapons if they think they need it, and are fit to have it (you will need to have a clean slate and prove yourself able to handle the weapons responsively). Many have weapons for hunting, of course, and the members of the national guard get to have their AG-3's locked up in their house. I am glad that Norway haven't got any constitutional laws preventing us from having a responsible policy on weapons. I don't believe more weapons will make our society safer, many of the weapons used by criminals are weapons stolen from national guard members, so one can clearly see what more weapons among the people can lead to. If you ask me, more weapons will make it easier for the criminals to get them, and if people are armed, more criminals will be armed. Weapons are dangerous, and it is imperative that we can be sure as few as possible fall into the wrong hands.

When it comes to the increase in violent crime, there are many factors. Sadly, one of them is immigration. 99% of immigrants are okay people, but gangs and regular mafia-businesses have grown in the Capital. There have been several exposures of illegal weapons among these gangs. There are of course ethnic Norwegians doing the same thing, but much of the big-scale criminality are performed by professional mobsters who have slipped past our borders and established criminal operations. Now I realise that this statement might strenghten your view of Norwegians as xenophobic, but the truth is that this problem have occured mainly because of a naive policy on immigration, where criminals have been allowed entrance one way or another. We are not talking about poor somalians refugees, but mainly professsional criminals from eastern Europe.

JBX

All this is, is some mental midget bringing a knife to a gun fight.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

chavos

Arrrggghhhh... If the cops can use less than lethal force, wouldn't it be worth training, preparing and trying for? Anything less is saying that the life of the mentally ill person isn't valid...we don't cap people who might spread the flu, or other cases where a disease makes someone dangerous. Letting apathy create situations where the police have no option but to shoot is a goddamn human rights violation....

Food Eater Lad

Once you stab the cop, he is allowed to shoot you. You dont like it, dont stab the cop. At that point he is in a life or death fight. I love how some people that have never been in a knife fight know how to react properly.

Am I cheering the cop on? No, but I totally understand why he did what he did. Its a sad thing, but that is the way the cookie crumbles.

123dsa

Exactly. As soon as you pull the knife and get aggressive you can legally be killed. The cop did the right thing.

LSD

iamjero

"People ask me what I'd say to a dead cops wife... Cops kill my people everyday, thats life."

__________________
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?"

- Joseph Stalin

Liquor Dealer

What some of you don't realize is that in many rural areas there is no one to call for backup. As many of you have stated - barring the scenario of a rogue cop shooting the guy because he didn't like his haircut and planting the knife after the fact - the guy was bought and paid for when the knife came out - only mistake the officer made was in not shooting him before he got close enough to do bodily harm - he should have blown him away the instant the knife appeared.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

rgr22j

The more important point about backup, I think, is that at first glance this is a situation involving asking a homeless person to move:

Ay least in my area, homeless people are pretty peaceful, non-violent, relatively harmless people. Most (mentally sane) homeless aren't about to slash police officers. I would imagine the officer felt the same way, getting a single homeless person to move would be peacefully routine. Besides, it would be a terrible image to send to homeless people if the police called in a SWAT team every time they needed to ask someone to move.

While I agree that the police officer was correct in defending himself from a suddenly angry, potentially life-threatening, knife-wielding man, I disagree that the officer should've shot him the instant the knife appeared. I would like to think that a police officer would try to convince the offender to go peacefully before opening fire. Simply producing a weapon isn't enough for me to justify shooting someone. It might be a temporary bout of stupid macho bravado, for example. But if he lunges at or points a gun at or in any way threatens the policeman, I stand by the cop's right to defend himself.

-- Alvin

Food Eater Lad

He shot the man AFTER he was stabed. Not as soon as he brandished a knife.

prosequence

Double Tap --- that's two shots in rapid succesion. Commonly used in practice and training.

To keep it from happening again, stiffen the penalties for ALL offenses of violent behaviour. I see it as sloppy Capital Punishment. Cheap though.

__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...