Couer d'Alene Police Officer Involved Shooting video

[Brian Pfleuger]

I know police would not enter a house in a similar situation without back up. And are not duty bound to .

Frankly, I fail to see how back-up would have reasonably been expected to change the outcome, except having two officers shooting at the guy instead of one. Waiting presents several possible problems which have already been addressed. Knowing the outcome, it's easy to second guess. Not knowing, it seems natural to want to make sure the guy isn't slitting his own wrists while you wait for backup.

 

[Pond James Pond]

My feeling is that was avoidable. With the speed of the man's approach a shot to the leg would have been an option, instead of some 5 shots to CoM.

People will disagree and I wasn't there, but that is my view.
That guy didn't need to wind up dead.

 

[Nanuk]

He was absolutely justified. The officer did what he needed to do, he gave the guy every opportunity.

There are times when you just can't wait for the Calvary, knowing that they are around the corner is good enough.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Judging from the video an accident had just occurred, and he needed to speak with this guy.

That seems to be the case, and it is possible that, due to the accident, the subject was suffering from shock.

1.) As for going into the house alone without backup, he had been told this man was self-harming and suicidal. At a certain point he needed to go in and make sure the guy wasn't bleeding out on the kitchen floor.

I agree however, you do not typically "talk someone out of suicide" at gunpoint. The officer knew the man was alone inside the house, so he was a danger only to himself at that point.

If I had to draw the male subject out, Id stay by the porch area & let him come to me, not entering the house & starting a confrontation.
The officer's approach seemed highly dangerous & risky from a tactical perspective.

I agree. The officer's decision to confront the man with heavy handed commands escalated the situation, it seems to me that the point would be to de-escalate a subject in that frame of mind, back out and let him cool off.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

My feeling is that was avoidable. With the speed of the man's approach a shot to the leg would have been an option, instead of some 5 shots to CoM.

People will disagree and I wasn't there, but that is my view.
That guy didn't need to wind up dead.

I'm sorry but that's Hollywood fantasy land. No use of force training or reputable instructors any where teach that sort of method.

A firearm is deadly force and is employed only when deadly force is believed to be necessary. Besides that, there's no reason to believe that a shot in the leg would not have been deadly.

The guy CERTAINLY didn't need to end up dead and he could have NOT been dead by putting down the knife and complying. As cold as it sounds, the old saying of "Don't play with bull unless you're ready to deal with the horns." is absolutely true.

 

[OuTcAsT]

he gave the guy every opportunity.

No, he clearly gave him a choice but, far from "every opportunity"

 

[manta49]

A firearm is deadly force and is employed only when deadly force is believed to be necessary. Besides that, there's no reason to believe that a shot in the leg would not have been deadly.

Looked to me watching the video that the officer could have backed off keeping the individual covered, would that not have being an option. I have no doubt that the officer was justified shooting when the guy went towards him, but was it the best and only option. If he went in to the house to try and prevent the guy harming himself then seeing that he might have to shoot him ,not backing off but shooting and killing him doesn't really make sense to me. After all the officer is going to have to live with what happened as well. It reminds me of a case here, an officer shot dead an individual in a stolen car that drove at him. An investigations was held its opinion was that the officer was justified shooting when the driver drove towards him. But criticised the officer for standing in front of the car to try and stop it , as if he didn't then he wouldn't have had to shoot.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I'm sorry but that's Hollywood fantasy land. No use of force training or reputable instructors any where teach that sort of method.

A firearm is deadly force and is employed only when deadly force is believed to be necessary. Besides that, there's no reason to believe that a shot in the leg would not have been deadly.

The guy CERTAINLY didn't need to end up dead and he could have NOT been dead by putting down the knife and complying. As cold as it sounds, the old saying of "Don't play with bull unless you're ready to deal with the horns." is absolutely true.

Like I wrote; that is my view. That hasn't changed.
It is one of those situations that polarise views and so, I'm leaving it at that.

 

[towboat-er]

I'll call it a good shoot. I also think that, if it was determined that there was no one else in the house. It might have been a good idea to wait him out.

 

[g.willikers]

Did the officer think there was someone else in the house, that the guy with the knife was threatening?
Easy enough to find out by asking the woman.
If the guy with the knife was the only one still in the house, and no one else was in danger, what was the need for the confrontation?
Looked very much like a nervous young officer over reacting to the situation.

 

[LockedBreech]

Looked very much like a nervous young officer over reacting to the situation.

Officer Spencer Mortensen has been an officer for 6 years. Based on the officers I know, he has probably been in hairy domestic situations and/or tense situations hundreds of times.

Oops I forgot I wasn't going to post anymore, sorry.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Lets look at this from a different perspective;

When the officer arrived, the female was inside with the subject. She made it clear as she stepped outside that she was afraid he might cut himself with a knife. She stepped out before the officer entered.

Lets suppose, for a moment, that this had been some sort of "hostage" situation. That there might have been someone else inside with the subject. Do you think that the officer would have walked inside and attempted to confront the subject as he did ?
Having seen hostage situations unfold before, usually it seems (to me) that LE takes the utmost care to avoid confrontation.

I feel relatively sure that the officer knew the subject was alone inside and, he even made sure that there was no other way for the subject to get out through a back door, or window.

I can understand his wanting to "size up" the situation and, check the status of the subject but, the fact remains that the officer, after ascertaining that the subject was alive, and indeed holding a knife, could have backed out and chosen a different approach. The subject was moving quite slowly and did not "raise" the knife at all.

I realize that someone with a knife can cover a lot of ground very quickly if they are inclined to do so, this subject did not seem to be moving aggressively toward the officer in such a manner.

 

[Venom1956]

I feel the officer did the best he could given the time he had to make a call. Remember he back pretty much to the door. Received a call about this man threatening to hurt himself possibly others. The woman he had on the porch repeatedly ignored his instructions and got up. She could've become a second assailant and or victim if she entered or he allowed the attack outside.

Those who felt he shot to much. there is a chance he misses. the rounds fail to stop or enrage the target. If he waited to see what happened it could cost him his life. When the target fell he stopped per training.

 

[ClydeFrog]

Statements, testimony, events....

1st;
I'd say waiting for a SWAT/SRT unit or more back up would be smart because there is safety in #s. Also it shows a jury or review panel that you made every effort to follow policy or try to resolve the incident without lethal force.
Would a crisis negotiator or SWAT commander be able to resolve the dispute? Who knows? But more officers on scene could have been a deterrent.

2nd; The female subject is not a credible source of information.
I've been many, many critical events where some jittery tweaker changes their story every 30sec. That woman in the video should been detained or removed from the scene, questioned then kept away from the house until more LE officers could have cleared it.
I've seen first hand where "witnesses" lie about identity, tamper with evidence, flee, become violent, or deny what they say(refuse to file sworn statements).
The female in the video was not assisting the police & put them at risk IMO.

 

[mrray13]

Something I haven't seen mentioned, the officer didn't go rushing in. He waited by the door, and called for the guy repeatily. No answer, no compliance, then the officer goes in. So what was he to do? Keep waiting and hope the guy isn't bleeding out? I think the officer did fine.

Also, we are trained to respond to the threat of lethal force with the threat of lethal force. Just like you shouldn't take a knife to a gun fight, you don't take a Taser to a knife fight. I have had my Taser fail on several occasions, all due to the probes not sticking, and in one case, not a wide enough spread. I'm more then glad it didn't happen in a lethal force threat, ie; dude has two knives, type of scenario.

Lastly, while on camera it appears the officer had all the time in the world to make a decision, I can tell you with 100% certainty, that officer had a split second to decide what to do. And we don't always get a second chance if we're wrong, and we have families too.

 

[Jeff #111]

Tough situation. This video has some value for training and I've already forwarded it to the lieutenant in charge of firearms training (which includes tactics).

 

[ClydeFrog]

Post #35, tactics....

I disagree with #35.
The police officer could have waited. Knowing the front door area was the only access point of the dwelling(except for the unlikely chance the man would lunge out a window).
The officer decides to enter & slowly move towards the subject(who he thinks may be armed).
Now, a valid point could be made that the unstable male might stab himself or injury an unknown occupant of the property with the knife or another weapon.
The cop's movement might be appropriate under those conditions.
I still say, I would have stationed by the doorway(porch) then draw the subject in. Going towards the subject, alone was risky. Talking & being + was a smart tactic too.
It showed the police officer was honest & sincere about helping him.

 

[OuTcAsT]

mrray13 wrote;

Something I haven't seen mentioned, the officer didn't go rushing in. He waited by the door, and called for the guy repeatily. No answer

Actually. after the officer had asked the woman to exit and, he got to the front door there was only 1:18 that elapsed until he made visual contact with the subject, that is not exactly a great deal of time.

So what was he to do? Keep waiting and hope the guy isn't bleeding out?

There is no doubt that the officer had to try and establish the subjects status but, when he arrived the woman was inside with the subject, she even answered the the officer's question and assured him that he had not hurt himself yet but, that she feared he "might" She did not seem to fear for her own safety and, had the presence of mind to realize that something was wrong enough to call the police and advise them as such. The officer did start his communication with a calm and re-assuring demeanor, however, immediately upon making visual contact he changed to a "command voice" and had his weapon pointed at the subject. ( that is, of course, understandable )

we are trained to respond to the threat of lethal force with the threat of lethal force.

Again, the subject, and the officer made visual contact with each other at the same moment. The officer perceives the subject with a knife as a "threat" Is it not also possible that the evidently unstable subject might perceive the man pointing a firearm at him and yelling, a "threat" as well ? Is that training, or simply instinctual ?

you don't take a Taser to a knife fight. I have had my Taser fail on several occasions, all due to the probes not sticking, and in one case, not a wide enough spread.

If Tasers are so un-reliable, why do departments continue to issue and train with them ? Does OC spray fail equally as often ?

Lastly, while on camera it appears the officer had all the time in the world to make a decision, I can tell you with 100% certainty, that officer had a split second to decide what to do.

According to the video, he had slightly over 17 seconds from his initial visual contact until he fired his first shot. The officer stopped using any sort of "calm" or "talking him down" immediately upon making visual contact. there were about 12 of those 17 seconds that the subject stood in place before beginning to slowly move.

no compliance

The subject was reported as possibly suicidal, he has just been in some sort of MVA, is it possible that he might be unable to understand the circumstances as they unfolded in the 1 minute, 35 seconds that the officer and subject were in contact with each other ?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

There's a whole bunch of assumptions floating around, made mostly of whole cloth.

Who honestly believes that the car accident was a factor here? It was quite obviously a minor accident. There isn't the slightest evidence that there was any concern whatsoever about injuries or "shock". The guy clearly left the scene. The officer said it was no big deal on the video, telling him "I just need your insurance...." Obviously, he needed more than insurance but the tone and words indicate it's minor. No evidence at all that a person should have been "in shock" or anyone has any injuries.

Also, the idea that he didn't wait for backup is false. There is no gap in the video and it is clear that other officers were at the door within moments of when shots were fired. The officer inside called on the radio "I need you in the house NOW." as soon as he saw the suspect. By the time he checks on the deceased, just seconds after shooting, there are two other officers in the house with him.

We can't see the suspects face at all. The facial expression and eyes could be telling the officer that this is much worse than what we see. He has 6 years experience. We have poor visibility, low detail on the subject and 2 minute video with the officers arms in the way.

This is really simply to me. We have a veteran officer. Any evidence that he has demonstrated a hair trigger in 6 years of police work? No? Why should I think he did here? I'd bet he's never shot anyone else in 6 years. Why now, unless his experience and training are telling him he has to?

 

[teeroux]

Again, the subject, and the officer made visual contact with each other at the same moment. The officer perceives the subject with a knife as a "threat" Is it not also possible that the evidently unstable subject might perceive the man pointing a firearm at him and yelling, a "threat" as well ? Is that training, or simply instinctual ?

Well the officer called out to him several times to come talk to him at the front door. Told him why he was there. Not very threatining. The officer also calmly told him to put the knife down first. It wasn't until the subject advanced that the officer started to yell.

As for entering the woman said he had a knife and she thought he would hurt himself. The officer also didn't know if the woman outside was lying to him. If it were me I think I would have put her in the back seat of the car. He could have been dying from self inflicted wounds or for all he knows the woman stabbed him to death and called them making up a story(I've hadled cases like that). Given the situation I can understand why the officer entered and like is said in previous post^^ that camera is only seeing and hearing in a direct line in front. We can't make out return traffic on the radio. Two officers were called and entered immediatly after shots were fired so we don't actually know when back up was there or if another officer was behind him.