Couer d'Alene Police Officer Involved Shooting video

[Double Naught Spy]

I cannot say that I agree with your assessment. While anyone armed with a knife certainly poses a threat, the man was not advancing quickly nor,aggressively on the officer in my opinion.

Ah, but he was advancing on the officer and forcing the officer to retreat. That is aggression.

...and bringing a knife to a gunfight is strong evidence of hostile intent without any particular concern about winning that fight.

No, that is completely wrong. First of all, you fight with what you have. Secondly, a lot of officers have been defeated or seriously wounded by people with knives. To put it in your vernacular, bringing a gun to a knife fight can be a losing proposition. Third, you are assuming that the person is in the correct frame of mind or has the correct understanding that the odds may not be in his favor. That is a naïve assumption.

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

You are right. He gave the suspect 8 opportunities, ONLY 5 of which while the suspect was advancing on the officer. From the looks of the video, that is two more than I thought was prudent.

Just like you shouldn't take a knife to a gun fight, you don't take a Taser to a knife fight.

Sure some cops absolutely do.

http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/crim...-knife-in-west-seneca-planet-fitness/4565793/
http://www.policeone.com/less-letha...lice-TASER-knife-wielding-man-at-Whole-Foods/

But the key here is that they are usually backed up by other officers with firearms.

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

Have you seen how many times firearms have failed? They are but a tool of a series of tools for officers to use. Not all tools work in all situations equally well on all people by all officers.

 

[DT Guy]

Rule #1: Never call the police to 'save' someone considering suicide; this is not the first case of a family calling the police in that circumstance to have their family member 'saved' from self-harm by swift application of lethal force.


The question here isn't really 'did he need to shoot when the subject advanced' (he, IMHO, did), but 'should he have been there in the first place?'


Larry

 

[OuTcAsT]

Brian Pfleuger wrote;

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

Of course, the OP posted a video that none of us were on the scene for, anyone who posts an opinion can only work from assumption.

It was quite obviously a minor accident.

How so ? This seems to be an assumption on your part.

There isn't the slightest evidence that there was any concern whatsoever about injuries or "shock".

My point exactly.

Obviously, he needed more than insurance but the tone and words indicate it's minor.

However the drawn firearm indicate it is not "minor" in the slightest.

No evidence at all that a person should have been "in shock" or anyone has any injuries.

Indeed, there is no "evidence" either way, whether it be from the accident or, self inflicted thus, the need for the officer to enter.

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.

Agreed, the quality is poor, but it is all we have to rely on for discussion purposes.

Why now, unless his experience and training are telling him he has to?

That is, indeed, the point of discussion.

 

[zombietactics]

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.

+1

Anyone so stubborn as to think that "shoot him in the leg" (or hand, arm, etc.) is good advice, needs to educate themselves with some FoF training.

It's truly amazing what opinions people hold to, absent genuine knowledge or training.

 

[JERRYS.]

this was a justified use of lethal force based on what the officer knew at the time, based on the law, based on his duty to respond/protect/act.

if you base the outcome on your opinion you have already displayed bias.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Nice point by point avoidance of the actual point.

The point is, virtually every argument made against the officer is either patently false or an unreasonable assumption. He was NOT alone. There were AT LEAST 2 other officers on scene. They had either verbally or by instinct agreed that one would go to check on the suspect.

There's *zero* evidence that the accident was severe, caused any injuries or would put anyone in "shock". None. There's amble circumstantial evidence that it was minor, including that no one had any concern about ACCIDENT INJURIES to the suspect. They certainly DID have concerns that he was going to hurt himself. That's why the woman called police or at least the first thing she told the officers on scene and the officer says something like "... It isn't worth it, it's just a crash."

I really have nothing else to say. I've seen a thousand of these discussion that turn into point by point break downs of every sentence while ignoring the overarching concepts. I'm not going to do it.

Some people will assume the officer did wrong and make up stories to prove it. Others will assume that, absent historical or factual evidence to the contrary, the officer was acting the way his training and experience told him to and make the overriding assumption that the only unreasonable acts were by the person who caused an accident, ran away, threatened to hurt himself, ignored numerous police requests and orders and then, armed with two knives, advanced on a police officer, despite threats of getting shot.

 

[ClydeFrog]

Conditions...

I stated a few times the first police officer/officer who used lethal force could be cleared. Im not critical of his actions based on what he said & did, I'm saying what I would do in that event.
I agree that we can't dissect a short video of a incident we were not involved in first hand. But I also say there are other ways of handling events like this & I still say I would not close in on a subject. Id have him/her come to me or let them become barricaded so a SRT unit or crisis negotiators could resolve it.


About 3 months ago, a older man near where I live became distraught & confused during a fight with another man. He got a large knife & made several threats. The other guy & a few tenants called the local PD. The subject ran into his small apt & refused to come out.
The patrol officers called SWAT & they negotiated for approx 45min. After that they made a dynamic entry & took the older man into custody without incident.

Those tactics can work. They take longer & are more stressful but they can avoid lethal force.

 

[manta49]

Its just ironic, call the police because you are concern that a loved one will harm themselves. The police respond and shoot them dead.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Its just ironic, call the police because you are concern that a loved one will harm themselves. The police respond and shoot them dead.

There is no irony there. You call the police about concern that a loved one will harm themselves (as they are apparently mentally unstable and cannot be trusted to value life) and then the loved one moves aggressively against the cops that you called to take your place to deal with the situation. If you call and have the cops put into danger, it should be no surprise that they will defend themselves.

 

[OuTcAsT]

There is no irony there. You call the police about concern that a loved one will harm themselves (as they are apparently mentally unstable and cannot be trusted to value life) and then the loved one moves aggressively against the cops that you called to take your place to deal with the situation. If you call and have the cops put into danger, it should be no surprise that they will defend themselves.

Or, they can use different tactics rather than "brute force" and diffuse the situation. Sometimes that is not possible but, it has been done successfully many times. I'm sure not all police departments have people that specialize in these types of situations but, many do. One cannot help but wonder if this department has such a specialized unit.

It would be nice if life were as black and white as you seem to view it but, there are mentally unstable people who need to be approached differently than a street thug. Some LE agencies recognize that fact and, apparently some do not.

 

[manta49]

There is no irony there. You call the police about concern that a loved one will harm themselves (as they are apparently mentally unstable and cannot be trusted to value life) and then the loved one moves aggressively against the cops that you called to take your place to deal with the situation. If you call and have the cops put into danger, it should be no surprise that they will defend themselves.

I don't think many are saying that the officer had not the right to lawful shoot when he did. Just that it could have being handled differently. But if you can't see the irony in what happened . Its a bit like someone ringing for an ambulance and it driving over and killing you when it arrived.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Just that it could have being handled differently. But if you can't see the irony in what happened . Its a bit like someone ringing for an ambulance and it driving over and killing you when it arrived.

Its like the ambulance driving over and killing you when you attacked it, you mean. Funny how you keep leaving out the aggression on the part of the guy with the knife.

Could have been handled differently? No situation ever occurred that could not have been handled differently. Not all of the outcomes would have been as good for the officers either.

The cops were called and the guy moved aggressively against them with lethal implements despite repeated and lawful commands by the cops to drop the knives. At that point, it is a little late to be singing Kumbaya.

 

[manta49]

The cops were called and the guy moved aggressively against them with lethal implements despite repeated and lawful commands by the cops to drop the knives. At that point, it is a little late to be singing Kumbaya

You are preaching to the converted, I have already said that in the situation the officer got himself into, it looked like he had the right to shoot.

The cops were called and the guy moved aggressively

Could you not argue that the officer moved aggressively against him, entering his house weapon drawn.

 

[Pezo]

Read the commentary after that story ) the people who dis agreed with the officer using his firearm to stop a NUTJOB from approaching him threatening with a knife! Good shooting officer. You did a fine job of protecting the law abiding sane public and yourself. Oh, and by the way thank you for stopping bad elements in the gene pool. Great outcome if you ask me.

 

[Pezo]

"That guy didn't need to wind up dead". News flash. Pull a knife on another person violently and expect to wind up dead. Common sense.

 

[johnelmore]

I know the officer doesnt have a legal duty to retreat but what about a moral duty? I will acknowledge knife fighters can move and kill fast so the shooting was required, but what about a moral duty to retreat out of the house?

There is a video on the internet of a knife fighter killing some officers down in Central America. People with knives can move very fast so if they get within some odd feet you must fire.

 

[Nanuk]

You are preaching to the converted, I have already said that in the situation the officer got himself into, it looked like he had the right to shoot.

You don't sound convinced. The officer did not "get himself" into anything. He was called into a situation and had a duty to respond.

I know the officer doesnt have a legal duty to retreat but what about a moral duty?

No. The officer has every right to protect himself from an armed violent aggressor.

 

[zombietactics]

I know the officer doesnt have a legal duty to retreat but what about a moral duty? I will acknowledge knife fighters can move and kill fast so the shooting was required, but what about a moral duty to retreat out of the house?

Please detail the nature of a "moral duty to retreat".

 

[towboat-er]

It could have been handled differently.

The man would only talk to one of their dispatchers. By 10:30 p.m. officers decided to leave the area. They say the man was not threatening anyone and they didn't want to "force his hand" and cause any other problems

http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/...n-House-In-Pueblo-240689751.html?device=phone

 

[Ton]

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/16/2996731/coeur-dalene-cops-release-shooting.html

http://www.krem.com/video/featured-videos/Video-released-of-fatal-Coeur-dAlene-officer-involved-shooting--240318431.html

Not that it really matters, but apparently Eric had clipped a power pole, so..... not a serious accident, probably no shock.

Also, it appears he had spent time in jail before. Also, the prosecuting attorney, who I'm sure has a lot more background info than we do, believed that suicide by police was his intention.

Could this have played out differently? Absolutely. As somebody pointed out, EVERY situation that has ever occurred could have played out differently. The police have to make split second decisions every day and hope for the best possible outcome. Being that the officer in question was a 6 year veteran, I'm sure this wasn't the first time he had dealt with a situation like this, and his tactics have obviously worked in the past. He had no way of knowing that Eric was going to do what he did. If I were in his shoes, I feel that the fact that the accident was minor and that the friend was calm would serve to downplay my belief that his threats of self-harm were credible. Of course, it's not up to the officer to determine whether a suicide threat is credible. He proceeded with a level of caution that he deemed appropriate for the situation. I believe the officer did exactly what he was trained to do, and the bottom line is that he still went home at the end of that shift.

My personal belief is that the headline was right. It was suicide by police. That belief mostly stems from the slow but steady pace of Eric's advance. Had he been bent on harming the officer, I believe he would have advanced much faster. Had he not wanted to be shot, I believe he would have stopped his advance, and complied with the officer. But instead he marched toward him like something out of the walking dead, and didn't give the officer any choice.

One last note: Tasers, OC Spray, etc. are less lethal weapons that an officer has available to him/her. Officers are typically trained to respond to aggression/resistance with a level of force that is one step higher than the level of force being used/threatened by the perpetrator. Example: Perp pushes officer, officer punches perp. Perp punches officer, Officer maces perp. This means that less lethal weapons are for officers to respond to non or less lethal threats or assaults. Any DEADLY assault or threat, must be met by the officer with deadly force. This is to minimize the chance of the officer ending his shift in a body bag. It's not that a taser or mace wouldn't have worked. They probably would have, we'll never know. The problem is that if the officer had responded with one of those tools and found it to be ineffective on Eric, he would have been in a world of trouble, and could very well have been killed. And if that had happened, the only point made in this thread would have been that the officer should have shot him when he advanced with a knife.

These are all just my personal beliefs based off of what I know, and could very well be flawed. Just thought I'd add my 2 cents.