Another Philly police shooting...

J

Jffal

New member
According to a CBS channel 3 newsbroadcast, the Amtrak police were equipped with Asp batons and "mace" (it wasn't specified if this was brand named OC or CS/CN). Though a cop wouldn't want to risk getting bludgeoned, having his firearm taken away by the desperate miscreant, or "going to the ground" with the guy, there is already criticism of the shooter for escalating the situation without an attempt to use less lethal weapons.

Race relations, claimed to be a factor in the local shooting last week of an alleged career criminal carjacker, has so far not reared its ugly head in this incident.

Question for those knowledgeble in police procedure - are chemical sprays and impact weapons supposed to be used to restrain empty handed but agitated antagonists or are cops encouraged to use these devices against suspects who may be armed with contact weapons (knives, blunt force opjects, etc)?
Jeff

Amtrak Cop Kills Threatening Man
by JONATHAN POET
Associated Press Writer
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A man who was harassing passengers at the city's main train station was shot to death by Amtrak police Tuesday after he allegedly threatened them with a chair. One witness quoted the man as saying: ''You're going to have to shoot me.''
The man, who was believed to be homeless, was threatening passers-by at 30th Street Station and using profane language, witnesses said.
Amtrak Chief of Police Ron Frazier said a restaurant in the station contacted his department to report the man. Two officers were escorting the man out of the station when he picked up a chair and threatened them, then threw it at one of the officers, Frazier said.
The other officer, Lt. Dennis Kelly, fired one shot and struck the man in the chest, Frazier said.
The shooting apparently did not affect train travel at the station, which handles Amtrak and commuter trains.
Glenda Langley, 42, a sanitation worker who was in the station on a break, said she saw the man holding the chair over his head and the two officers pleading with him to drop it.
''The guy was saying, 'Stay away. You're going to have to shoot me,''' Langley said. The man swung the chair when one of the officers reached for it, she said.
''After it happened, everyone screamed,'' Langley said. ''Tears came out of my eyes and some people said, 'You didn't have to do that.'''
Langley said she saw the man nearly every day at the station, adding, ''He often talks to himself, but he never seemed violent.''
Kelly, an 11-year member on the Amtrak police force, was placed on leave while the Philadelphia Police Department investigates.
Amtrak spokesman Rick Remington said deadly force is justified in a life-threatening situation. Amtrak has 500 police officers nationwide who are trained and accredited like regular municipal officers, he said.
Cheri Honkala, leader of the advocacy group Kensington Welfare Rights Union, said police could have handled the situation better.
''Where ever there's homeless people and law enforcement, there's going to be a situation where (the homeless) are going to be treated less than human or they're going to be treated like someone to be feared,'' Honkala said.
The shooting happened less than two weeks before the start of the Republican National Convention, which is expected to draw 45,000 GOP officials, delegates and media to Philadelphia from July 31 to Aug. 3.
AP-NY-07-18-00 1648EDT<
 
Definitely sounds like too much force to me. Sure a chair could hurt, but it's probably not too hard to dodge, and there were two cops -- can't believe they couldn't avoid killing him.
 
If I did that I would be sitting in jail right now.Excessive force and I couldn't blame the DA for throwing me in.

------------------
Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
 
Here we go again.
The Leos clearly used to much force. The man was no longer threatening the public. He was threatening TWO armed leos. The Leos had this guys attention. But, instead of waiting for further reinforcement, one of them has to agravate the situation by grabbing the chair.

The story timeline out of sequence though. It would appear that either the person had two chairs, or the guy then threw the chair at the Leo trying to get the chair.

Then, they wasted him.

So, either they shot at a now unarmed person, OUCH.
Or, they got tired of having nolethal chairs thrown at them after they provoke him, OUCH.

And the Leo's on message boards wonder why the public is losing their trust.

Sprig
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jffal:


Question for those knowledgeble in police procedure - are chemical sprays and impact weapons supposed to be used to restrain empty handed but agitated antagonists or are cops encouraged to use these devices against suspects who may be armed with contact weapons (knives, blunt force opjects, etc)?
Jeff
[/quote]

Normally batons and chemical agents are used for combative persons who are unarmed. However, when the person picks up a weapon then most departments acknowledge the officer should respond with his/her sidearm. An officer skilled in the unarmed martial arts and confident in his abilities may choose to leave the pistol in the holster, but I'm afraid most departments don't train to that level of proficiency in weaponless defense.

I remember a shoot-don't shoot training film I once saw where the officer confronts a man with a knife. The man throws the knife at the officer. The narrator of the training film maintained that up until the man released the knife deadly force was justified. After he released the knife, he was unarmed and deadly force was no longer justified.

There are no cut and dried answers. When I was in the academy I was presented with a scenario where I was responding to an armed robbery. When I arrived I was confronted by an angry man who charged me, screaming and cussing. I was in uniform, I identified myself, I ordered him to stop, he didn't stop. I answered I would shoot him. He may not be armed, but I have a gun and if he overwhelms me, he will have my gun.

I was criticized by the instructor, saying that the man wasn't armed. His answer was to somehow holster my pistol, draw my baton, and beat him into submission.

Several years later the same instructor was point man in a drug search warrant on a house. The police entered the house, announced themselves and their intentions to serve a search warrant. The instructor was confronted in a hallway by a man who charged him, screaming, etc. The officer ordered him to stop, he didn't stop, and so the officer shot him to death. The district attorney ruled the shooting was justified.

Go figure.

This may not seem like an answer, but the perceptions of the witnesses at the Philadelphia shooting may be different from what really happened. Everyone sees things differently.

Years ago San Diego police encountered an emotionally disturbed man who stood in front of a store with a pistol in his hand and did nothing. He held the pistol at his side, the barrel pointed down alongside his leg. Two officers tried to get him to drop the gun, but he wouldn't respond. Suddenly, the two officers opened fire, killing the man.

Witnesses complained the two officers shot the man for no reason. He didn't pose a threat, etc. Apparently there was a news camera man who was also a reserve police officer. He kept his camera focused on the man and his video tape showed the man had started to raise his pistol from alongside his leg when the two officers fired. Only the two officers correctly saw what was happening and responded. Without the video tape they might have been crucified in the news media.

Bruce
 
LEOs get away with murder, that's all there is to it, and the worst part is that they have all this training and yet still kill people. People that regulate mandatory training need to get their head out of their ass and realize that training doesn't make the difference, accountability does. LEOs know they aren't gonna get in trouble so they are way more likely to pull the trigger when provoked than a civilian. I know many LEOs and I have a few of them in my gun club, they are all the older ones though. The young guys are all *******s, and they have the job they do because it is the only job where they can legally attack and harass people without reprecussions. I'm not just saying that either, a couple of them have admitted as much to me.

Remember the guy with the machete in front of the White House? That guy refused to drop the machete, and when he moved one foot, they shot him a whole lotta times. Those SS guys are very well trained, but they didn't give a damn about some homeless guy with a machete and knew they wouldn't get in trouble, so they murdered him. Plain and simple, they murdered that guy. Don't give me any of that, he had a machete so it was ok bull****. If a civilian did that they would be in prison. This country needs to have it's ass kicked by the voters. We need to put people in office that observe our rights and have proper fear and respect for us. This is our country, just as much as it is theirs.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 
Dangus, gotta stand up for the LEO's here - and I'm not one, nor do I play one on TV, and I believe that many LEO actions these days are totally unConstitutional.

Your first para is no doubt sometimes (you could argue often) true.

However, your second para is pure bovine scat. If a deranged guy is waving around a piece of sharpened metal, won't put it down in the face of armed (with guns) police, he's de facto mortally dangerous. I'm not going to ask someone else (i.e. the police) to physically tackle him and risk death and dismemberment! This is a case of Darwin at work.
 
I just thought I'd point out the fact that the regular cops fired something like 24 rounds at the carjacker and hit him 5 times- he still drove a ways in the car and then nearly squirmed away from a dozen cops- while the transit cop fired one round and killed his target. What does that say?
Anybody know what caliber/loads they were using?

------------------
Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules.Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 
Once again more armchair quarterbacks. It sure must be nice to sit in the comfort of your home and critize other people's actions. Especially with the media reporting on incidents.

Dangus,
"LEOs know they aren't going to get in trouble so they are way more likely to get in trouble when provoked by a civilian".

That is such utter BS I can't believe. Why don't you go talk to LEOs that have lost their jobs, families, homes etc due to a good shooting.

In regards to a machete being waved around, how would have you the expert handled it? I am sure if some lunatic was waving a machete at you, you would just disarm him with a karate chop. Why don't you go watch some of the training videos that show how quick someone can close a distance with a knife and kill someone before they can even get a gun unholstered before you make judgement. Don't let your anger towards LEOs override common sense.

Sprig,
I have read your posts on the "Shoot to kill" thread. How can you make the statement here that "the LEOs clearly used too much force" with some of the posts you made on the other thread? It seems a bit hypocritical to me.

[This message has been edited by mrat (edited July 24, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrat:
Sprig,
I have read your posts on the "Shoot to kill" thread. How can you make the statement here that "the LEOs clearly used too much force" with some of the posts you made on the other thread? It seems a bit hypocritical to me.[/quote]


Mrat, this is easy.
In the first case, we have a KNOWN rapist, and a highly suspect multipile rapist/murderer. You physically took him off your daughter.

In this case, we have a Leo that provokes the issue by physically trying to grab a chair the weirdo hasn't yet used as a weapon.

According to the news release, the weirdo was on the way out of the station. .... That is until one officer physically pushes the issue.

As far as I know, a mentally ill person weilding a chair is not a person commiting a crime.

As far as the story goes, there was no attack untill the Leos acted physically first.

Now, if the weirdo starts fligging chairs at others, or attacks other civilian personel, without provocation, then all bets are off. Waste him fast.

Not hypocritical at all. The situations you mentioned are completely different.

And, if you read the first post of mine in that other thread, there was room for error and legality. The only reason I pushed the issue in the other threat was that the distinction between "legality" and "morality" were never addressed. It appears my post once again killed the thread. (And persons wonder why the "Bah, no replies" thread I created.)

Also, in the other thread, I never said I was convinced. I still haven't heard good argument otherwise to change my tendency to think differently.

Sprig
 
Originally posted by Sprig:

Mrat, this is easy.
"In the first case, we have a KNOWN rapist, and a highly suspect multipile rapist/murderer. You physically took him off your daughter."

This does not allow you to kill him no matter how right you think it is.

"In this case, we have a Leo that provokes the issue by physically trying to grab a chair the weirdo hasn't yet used as a weapon.
According to the news release, the weirdo was on the way out of the station. .... That is until one officer physically pushes the issue."

Pushes the issue? I would think the idiot with the chair pushed the issue. I guess the LEOs should have just left. The LEOs were doing there job to get him out of there.

"As far as I know, a mentally ill person weilding a chair is not a person commiting a crime."

Actually it became assault when he picked up the chair and threatened them.

"As far as the story goes, there was no attack untill the Leos acted physically first."

LEOs are not mandated by law to only react once they are physically hit. This was a disturbed person who up a weapon. LEOs job is not to get injured before they can act. If you do not think a chair is a weapon that can cause injury let someone beat you with a chair, that might change your mind.

"Now, if the weirdo starts fligging chairs at others, or attacks other civilian personel, without provocation, then all bets are off. Waste him fast."

So in your mind the LEOs could not protect themselves just others. I also like that once he hits a civilian then "waste" him.

I don't agree with them shooting him because of a chair, I would have tried other means first. But I was not there in the LEOs position, therefore I am not passing judgement.

I just find it interesting you feel you can kill someone but you critize these LEOs. I stand by my hypocritical evaluation.


[This message has been edited by mrat (edited July 24, 2000).]
Click to expand...
 
Mrat, I doubt I will change your mind, but I have to try.

Your reply, "Pushes the issue? I would think the idiot with the chair pushed the issue. I guess the LEOs should have just left. The LEOs were doing there job to get him out of there." This reply isn't quite accurate in that I said, "physically" pushing the issue. Big difference. The Leos esculated the encounter from one of verbal threats to physical action. Until the physical assualt by the Leos, there was no physical action by the chair weilding guy. VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. And, when we consider that the guy WAS leaving, it is apparent the Leos should have continued to try to non-physical methods to remove the guy, and the chair from the guy.

I think its pretty stupid to grab at a mentaly ill person. You could never know how they will react.

I am not sure what level of accountability mentaly ill persons have. "As far as I know, a mentally ill person weilding a chair is not a person commiting a crime." However, you reply, "Actually it became assault when he picked up the chair and threatened them."

That may be. However, as soon as the weirdo threw the chair, he was disarmed. The Leos THEN used deadly force on an unarmed person.

That part I really like in your reply, "If you do not think a chair is a weapon that can cause injury let someone beat you with a chair, that might change your mind."
If the Leos are so stupid as to be within beating distance of a guy with a chair, then they deserve a beating. Oh, I forgot, they are that stupid. One of them went up to grab the chair. I would have left more distance between him and me.
This would have meant the guy could only throw the chair. Very possible to be extremely easy to dodge from the proper distance.

So, after someone throws anything at a Leo, and are now disarmed, the Leo is justified to kill them. Interesting.

Sometimes when people author text, they fail to get the full intent across. When I said, "Waste him" I should have said, "Waste him if needed". Again, this really makes all difference. If two Leos can't verbaly or physically stop a physical assault against the public or them, then its time to esculate the threat level, up to and including deadly force.

And, back to the shoot to kill topic. I never said it wasn't illegal to shoot him after he is down and he isn't moving. Infact, I said he was moving.
But, the question is whether or not its morally wrong.

Sprig
 
Sprig,
I have said it before and I'll say it again. It is very easy to sit in the comfort of your home and critize another person's actions. I don't agree with what they did. I would have handled it differently, but I refuse to critize them because I wasn't there and I am positive that we are not getting the full story from our wonderful media.

In my opinion I don't think you have a clue to how these things unfold in "the heat of the moment". It is very easy to Monday morning quarterback incidents, regardless if they are by LEOs or citizens defending themselves (this is what the antis do when a citizen protects themselves with a gun). That is what has bothered me most about your posts. Also, I think you need to put the blame with the guy who provoked this whole incident. Regardless if the actions of these LEOs was right, this guy f**ked with the bull and got the horns. That is a problem with our country today nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions when their own actions cause the poop to hit the fan. This guy acts like an idiot (and gets himself shot) and people trip all over themselves to stand up for him. Once we force people in this country to be responsible for their actions maybe we will stop this madness.

I think you and I could continue this forever, therefore I think we should agree to disagree on this one.

P.S. You keep refering to the guy as mentally disturbed, nowhere in the article did it say he was mentally disturbed.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrat:
Sprig,

I think you and I could continue this forever, therefore I think we should agree to disagree on this one.

P.S. You keep refering to the guy as mentally disturbed, nowhere in the article did it say he was mentally disturbed. [/quote]

I won't continue to argue, but I still feel strongly that shooting a Leos shooting a now unarmed citizen is a bad thing for America. How you can justify otherwise baffles me. I most certainly agree to disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise.

The article said, "Homeless ... He often talks to himself". If thats not mentally disturbed, then I don't know is.

Sprig
 
Sprig,
I know I said I was done but I can't help myself. ;)

You say "that LEOs shooting a now unarmed person is bad for America. How you can justify otherwise baffles me."

Sprig, I would take this last comment from you and say o.k. except in your shooting to kill II thread you are saying to shoot someone to kill them once they are down, already shot and out of commission because of what they have done or might do. So you are saying it is o.k. to shoot to kill a now unarmed person if you are a citizen and not an LEO. I think that is bad for America. You can't have it both ways, if it is bad for an LEO it is bad for a private citizen also.

I am not defending what the LEOs did. I am saying I am not an armchair quarterback. All most all of us here say we don't believe or like the media's slant and lies about RKBA. How these same people are able to immediately believe the media when it involves LEOs is beyond be.
 
Hey Mrat,

I think we are more in agreement then we both think we are.

I did not "get" your take on whole ball of wax until this last post.

For me, the whole reason its clear to me that Leos were not justified is that there was NO initiated *physical* attack by the guy in the station. And, from the text it appears that his mental status could/should have been determined by his dress combined with actions and history.

If the guy with the chair was raping/beating a person, then I have no disagreement with the use of escualted means of force to stop it.

Read the conclusion to the shoot thread I just posted.

Every life experience is not going to be black and white. I never said, "So you are saying it is o.k. to shoot to kill a now unarmed person if you are a citizen and not an LEO." Everyone here just assumed the guy on the daughers bedroom floor was no longer a threat. I never made that claim.

Mrat, I thank you for an honest discussion that certainly pushed the logic and emotions to the edge. Sometimes people don't author text the way they should, and sometimes people don't read the text the way it was authored. I think we are both a little guilty of each.

I offer applogies to you for any hard feelings. And, I look forward to further heated debate done for the purpose of edification of my mind and soul.

Sprig
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrat:
Sprig,
I know I said I was done but I can't help myself. ;)

I am not defending what the LEOs did. All most all of us here say we don't believe or like the media's slant and lies about RKBA. How these same people are able to immediately believe the media when it involves LEOs is beyond be.[/quote]

I thought I was done too. Then I reread your last paragraph.

I think you will notice that I slammed the media for getting timeline of the story wrong. A person that can't write a logical event by time should NOT be writing to the general public and feeding the millions with poorly presented (mis?)information.

I based all my comments on the story. I realize the story may not be reality. However, in the discussion we must stick with the facts as we know them.

It is quite possible that story is wrong and the Leo's were correct in their actions. That goes beyond the scope of what I wanted to debate under this topic.

Sprig
 
No hard feelings here Sprig. If I was that sensitive there was no way I could survive as an LEO for over a decade; I have been called every name in the book, spit on, attacked, sat in emergency rooms wondering how long before they got to me, etc. I come to TFL to broaden my understanding and hopefully to broaden others.
Thanks for caring though. ;)

[This message has been edited by mrat (edited July 25, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top