When Non-lethal can become lethal for the user.

[Pond James Pond]

How far away should they have been? 20 feet? 45 feet? How close should they have let him get before they started running away from him to maintain said distance? Perhaps roadblocks should have been setup in all directions to give them the opportunity to leave the parking lot and run down the street away from the attacker to maintain the safe distance

I see that the only way you can address my point is by opting for the extreme.

If you are seriously suggesting that, in a car park of approximately 400 sq metres, the officers could not move about freely and had no alternative to but to get within his striking distance, get a fright and shoot him with anything up to 8 or 9 shots then I can only guess at your logic.

do you suggest turtle formation?

Actually, I was thinking a re-enactment of the Battle of Thermopylae would have been ideal...... because one police man ramming him with a shield is just plain unrealistic....

If US police training is what it is said to be, I don't see why 4 officers, and a police dog, could only disarm a guy with a length of metal in an open area by shooting him.

Furthermore, a riot shield would make such a manoeuvre even less of a risk to the officers.

You have obviously never seen someone permanently injured or killed with a blunt object. I assure you it is much easier than you would think.

I haven't seen this, and hope I never do. However, I am certain never to see someone killed or injured by a blunt force instrument if they are out of range of said intrument.

None of this explains why they had to get that close to him.

And if you watch the video again you will see that the culprit CLEARLY began to rear up his arm to strike one of the officers.

As far as the video is concerned, I saw what the guy did. He turned with the implement toward the officer.

One hand appears to be at one end and the other hand at the other end. Not a swinging pose, but a thrusting one and not as powerful.

Once more: If they hadn't been so close they would not have been at risk.

Personally, I feel shooting was excessive, at that stage and premature in that situation. The guy was full of holes within 14 seconds of him walking quite slowly from the building.

I feel that the polices' approach escalated things by limiting their own options.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't see why 4 officers, and a police dog, could only disarm a guy with a length of metal in an open area by shooting him...

...None of this explains why they had to get that close to him....

Kind of contradicting yourself. They couldn't really disarm the guy without getting close to him.

In any case, pretty standard modern police procedure is --

• to deploy less lethal force against a potentially lethal threat only when there is immediate lethal force back-up present;
  
  
• if less lethal force doesn't stop the aggressor who is wielding a potentially deadly weapon and has by his actions manifest the apparent intention to hurt someone with it, lethal force is appropriate to immediately end the threat; and
  
  
• to avoid closing and grappling with someone wielding a potentially deadly weapon and has by his actions manifest the apparent intention to hurt someone with it because, among other things, you don't know what other weapons he may have.

 

[raimius]

They used ranged, less-lethal force against an individual with what amounts to a melee weapon. That makes sense. When that failed, the suspect turned and advanced toward an officer in an aggressive fashion.

My point--where do you reasonably go on the force continuum after you deploy less-lethal force and the suspect is still advancing on you or your partner? The vast majority would say to move up the force continuum, which is exactly what happened.


As to the proximity to the suspect. First, the officers were using the building to screen themselves from view until the suspect exited. That put them relatively close. (Which also makes sense if they plan on entering if the suspect starts killing people inside.) Next, they use a Tazer--a weapon with limited range. When that fails, the suspect turns and closes with the officer.

What do you expect to happen when you turn and advance on an officer who just deployed less-lethal force against you, while you have a 3ft long chunk of metal in your hand?!

 

[KC Rob]

JP, you and I have differing opinions on this and that is fine, but I think part of your opinion is being formed by not understanding what you are seeing in the video or you are only seeing what you want to see because you have a preconceived bias against the police. I am going to assume the former.

One hand appears to be at one end and the other hand at the other end. Not a swinging pose, but a thrusting one and not as powerful.

This is incorrect, he has both hands at the bottom of the handle like a baseball bat as he turns towards the officer, takes a couple hop-steps like he is winding up and has the implement cocked back, he is set to swing. Whether he intended to or not, I don't know, he may have been feinting, but either way he was in range of striking an officer.

Which leads to another point I think you are not seeing correctly:

in a car park of approximately 400 sq metres, the officers could not move about freely and had no alternative to but to get within his striking distance

The BG is in the building, the police are approaching the door, from the side so as to not expose themselves if he has a gun, when the suspect pops out of the door right in front of the police. Suddenly, he is in striking distance of the police with his club. I guess at this point you think the police should have retreated, but they choose to use a LTL device, a Taser, which necessitates a fairly close range. This is ineffective, then the subject makes an aggressive move towards an officer and is shot.

I am curious when, or even if, you felt they were justified in using deadly force. You seem to discount the danger to the police officer when he cocked back to swing the club, do you think even then they should not have fired?

I feel that the police's approach escalated things by limiting their options.

I see where you are coming from here, and in a perfect world I agree with you as far as limiting their options, but I think the way things unfolded the police were justified in shooting a man who was armed, behaving irrationally, and made threatening moves towards a police officer.

 

[cambeul41]

They had a dog: aren't dogs trained to disarm an assailant with weapon in hand?

There was too great a chance that the dog would be killed.

 

[Pond James Pond]

You're right. I have no patrticular bias against the police.
It's a tough job, and not one that I 'd expect to do better, by any means.

However, what I see is a guy who walks, let's face it, in quite a leisurely gait, from a building.

They seem to issue a single verbal command: he has a hoody on.. Do they know if he can hear them?

They taze him: he visibly has only a bar in his hand, no other weapons in his hands. They have a dog they do not use. They seem to mess up the stun. Did it even work?

They then shoot. He visibly starts to go down, before disappearing behind the car after which they shoot again.

All this in 12-15 seconds on a guy visibly holding only a bar.

You're right:
I probably do only see parts of the bigger picture, but I still feel that stakes were raised way too fast, IMO.

They did not really try to properly engage verbally with him, get a dialogue going. I heard one shout and then, bam, in with the stun gun. As you could see both his hands, I think the stun was too early

When he walked out of that building there was nothing in his demeanour toward the police that suggest he was going to go for them. He looked left and right and continued walking past.

He may have held a deadly weapon, but at that time his body language was not "I'm gonna **** you all up". That changed with the stun attempt.

I see what you mean about the hands on the bar, but with the 20-20 sight of seperation: That is when the dog should have been let loose.

There was too great a chance that the dog would be killed.

Are you saying that shooting the suspect is OK, but risking a dog is not?

I've no wish to see a dog harmed, but if not for locating and disarming assailants, perhaps you can tell me what a K-9 unit is for?
And the locating part was already done...

 

[Ruthless4christ]

in some states they charge the assault of a police dog the same as assault of an officer.

 

[manta49]

The officer might be able to justify the shooting time will tell. In my opinion at that stage the shooting wasn't justified. The police could of backed of out of reach reach of the weapon he was carrying a taser could of being tried again. Lethal force should always be a last option.

One thing i do know if that happened here the american politicians would be the first to be protesting to the British government about the wrongful shooting. Next would be amnesty international. Double standards i think.
For those that are saying that the shooting was justifiable the guy could have had mental problems, if it was their son or brother would they have the same opinion.

Dose anyone disagree that lethal force should be a last resort. And do they think it was the last resort in this shooting.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

At the time the officer was justified shooting the driver but was criticised for putting him in the position that lethal force was necessary

God bless the Police Officers in your country for putting up with that level of abusive micro management.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

I love how whenever a Police officer shoots a criminal, liberals always talk about how there need to be measures put in place to reduce the use of “excessive force” against criminals. However whenever a criminal murders a cop, no one ever talks about how criminals should seek out ways to reduce “excessive force” against cops.

 

[TheGoldenState]

Remember, no matter the situation in any facet of life, people will find a way to complain. Sometimes those complaints are warranted, some times theyre not. This, imo, falls into the latter category.

EDIT: Suspect identified as 22-year-old Steven Rodriguez of Chino Hills.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

They seem to issue a single verbal command: he has a hoody on.. Do they know if he can hear them?

They seem to issue a single verbal command? What are you basing this on? The video is unclear and you cannot hear the goings on well through the glass with any consistency. You can hear a lot of shouting that does appear to be from the officers. However to answer your question, the did issue multiple commands and he could hear them and responded to the officers. And even if he could not hear them, he most certainly felt the tazer barbs that he pulled out and saw the officers. He had awareness that the cops were there and were directing their attention on him.

I don't know of any such situations where the officers come in and only issue a single command. Usually the opposite is more true. There are too many officers issuing too many commands. Issuing behavior control commands is the first step in such a process and they did it.

They taze him: he visibly has only a bar in his hand, no other weapons in his hands. They have a dog they do not use. They seem to mess up the stun. Did it even work?

Gee, I don't know. Did you see the suspect fall to the ground when the tazer was being used? Was the suspect rendered harmless by the tazer? Did the suspect stop his aggressive actions after being tazed? No, the attempt to taze did not work.

All this in 12-15 seconds on a guy visibly holding only a bar.

The amount of time isn't any issue here. The suspect attempted to strike an officer with the bar. Such a strike may have resulted in significant injury or death. At that point, immediate action is required and that is what was applied.

They did not really try to properly engage verbally with him, get a dialogue going. I heard one shout and then, bam, in with the stun gun. As you could see both his hands, I think the stun was too early

Just what video are you watching where you explicitly can hear what was going on between the officers and the suspect? What dialog was needed? You do realize that to get a dialog going, you have to have input and response from from both parties, right?

I see what you mean about the hands on the bar, but with the 20-20 sight of seperation: That is when the dog should have been let loose.

Had the dog been let loose before the suspect tried to hit the officer with the tool, people would be crying about the use of violent force against a suspect who was not threatening anyone. Once the suspect started his swing, the dog was not an option. The dog probably could not have gotten to the suspect before he completed his swing. Bullets could.

Quote:
There was too great a chance that the dog would be killed.

Are you saying that shooting the suspect is OK, but risking a dog is not?

Given that the suspect was actively using lethal force against a police officer, the dog would have been an inappropriate to use and the result likely would have been an injured or dead officer and then the police dog would have been in the way for using lethal force by the officers and the dog may have been injured as a result as well. So to answer your question, in this case, shooting the suspect was the prudent thing to do and so there was no reason to risk injury to the dog when at that point the dog was not the appropriate response.

I've no wish to see a dog harmed, but if not for locating and disarming assailants, perhaps you can tell me what a K-9 unit is for?

I can't say that I have ever seen a police dog disarm somebody, not as a matter of completing the particular task. I have watch police dogs work on several people, armed and not, and sometimes the armed people did drop their weapons and sometimes not. Once the weapon was dropped, the police dog did not do anything different. They charged in and atttemted to bite, hold, and shake the suspects until the suspects go down where they continue to bite and hold and sometimes shake the suspects. They would bite the arm with the weapon if indeed that was the arm of opportunity. Sometimes they got the weapon arm, sometimes the other arm, sometimes a leg, and in a couple of cases, the butt of the suspect.

 

[Ruthless4christ]

The amount of time isn't any issue here. The suspect attempted to strike an officer with the bar. Such a strike may have resulted in significant injury or death. At that point, immediate action is required and that is what was applied.

what he said.

 

[MLeake]

I still can't view the video... limited online access and bandwidth here.

However, in response to the hypothetical posed by Pond a little while back, about placement of hands on a 3ft bar...

1) It seems like those who can see the video now agree he has a baseball bat type grip, but -

2) In training with the Jo staff, which is approximately 3ft long, there are several techniques which start with a hand at either end of the staff. That position actually lets the wielder attack with either hand, by releasing or shifting the grip of the secondary hand. Musashi, of Japanese swordsmanship fame, feared jo practitioners more than swordsmen, because they could attack from either side, and required more of his attention.

3) Having not seen the video, I don't know why the police were interested in the suspect in the first place. If I had to guess, I'd think they were responding to reports of threatening behavior, and I would not think they'd be willing to just give the guy a long leash until he decided to calm down.

 

[KC Rob]

Just to give MLeake a recap since he is in the dark: 20 something male with a bandana over his face goes into a Carls Jr. with a pipe bender (3 foot metal shaft with a small metal head on the end) and breaks every single window in the joint. Patrons scattered. Police respond. Poor cell phone video is taken by some low lifes (they joke and laugh while the guy is shot and dies in front of them) from inside a vehicle, and it appears to be raining because the window is covered in water droplets, further degrading the video. Police approach restaurant, taking an angle that provides cover from any gun fire, but effectively keeps them in the blind about the subjects location. Subject exits building right on top of two officers, catching them a little off guard I think. Because the video is taken from inside a car, audio is muffled at best, so what and how many commands the police issue the subject can not be heard. Subject strolls casually into parking lot. Cop Tazers him directly in the face, which has zero effect (almost looks like it didn't work, he does not react at all). Subject pulls barbs from face then cocks his weapon back and moves quickly and aggresively towards officer who Tazed him (this officer has made an egregious error and is fumbling on his duty belt NOT looking at the subject for over two seconds, when he looks up and sees he is being rushed, he almost trips over backwards). K9 officer who is supporting the Taser cop quickly pumps 5 rounds into subject center mass from essentially point blank range. Subject staggers back but does not go to ground, he turns away from the officers and the same cop pops another 4-5 rounds into him and he goes down.

There you go, clear as mud!

 

[BlackFeather]

Mleake, it was a typical two handed grip, hands closer together. Musashi himself used a Jo or Bokken instead of a real sword. I'd also like to believe Musashi wasn't afraid of anything, and most Jo schools started after his win over Muso Gonnosuke. As far as I know. That aside...

The key point is that the less than lethal option failed, just after the threat decided to attack the police. He knew they were armed, they had a dog, and had already shot the tazer.

So, when your initial LTL tool fails, is deadly force the next option or do you try LTL again? I'd like to think I'd go for LTL but it may not always be that easy.

Are the police justified in shooting him? Well, they could have let him walk off, he seemed like that's all he wanted until he turned around on them. His furtive movements warranted an immediate response and the pistol was the only right choice to preserve the Officers safety. Unless someone thinks the Officer should have let the dog get hurt, let the other officer take the hit, or sword fight the guy with his baton..? (I'd have rather seen that, but I'm off.)

 

[Frank Ettin]

...For those that are saying that the shooting was justifiable the guy could have had mental problems, ....

The guy might well have had mental problems. But that doesn't make the threat to the officers any less or any less real or immediate.

The attacker had set the terms of the engagement. If someone is wielding a lethal weapon and putting an innocent, whether a police officer or a private citizen, in jeopardy of imminent death or grave bodily injury, lethal force is justified in self defense.

 

[kinggabby]

One thing we don't know is how long it was actually going on before the the video started. And even if they were to back up and wait there would be the possibility that he would take off and possibly hurt or kill someone one as he tried to get away. Also people tend to forget how quickly a person can advance granted he had a solid object and not a gun. But even a hand can be very dangerous. Here in Oklahoma we had an officer attacked and paralyzed from an attack with just hands. And seeing he was advancing on the officers I feel they did right in their actions . My $.02 worth

 

[hangglider]

I still think way too much information is missing to draw definitive conclusions--except that a guy got shot and killed who was carrying a weapon. My initial reaction is that the threat was there and the possibility of imminent harm to an officer was a possibility as well. May this have possibly been a "death by police" suicide or attention-grab event done on purpose--in other words the intended outcome the "BG" wanted was to be shot? Was there a "reasonable" way out without a loss of life given the situation and resources at hand? (I'm not suggesting the shoot was not justified--for all we know the BG may have had other weapons and intended to carry out other crimes).

 

[Pond James Pond]

They seem to issue a single verbal command? What are you basing this on?

That is what I hear over the video: one garbled shout. Yes could have been more, hence the word "seem". However, as you point point three officers all shouting at once may not always be better

Gee, I don't know. Did you see the suspect fall to the ground when the tazer was being used? Was the suspect rendered harmless by the tazer? Did the suspect stop his aggressive actions after being tazed? No, the attempt to taze did not work.

Well, thank you for the sarcasm. Really appreciated. It was a rhetorical question...

The amount of time isn't any issue here. The suspect attempted to strike an officer with the bar. Such a strike may have resulted in significant injury or death.

I disagree. I counted 8 or so seconds. 8 seconds to attempt communication. That is all they decided to try. Before upping the stakes. And it was upping the stakes that elicitied a reaction from him.

Just what video are you watching where you explicitly can hear what was going on between the officers and the suspect? What dialog was needed? You do realize that to get a dialog going, you have to have input and response from from both parties, right?

Once again, loving the sarcasm...
What if he'd just said "Leave me alone!". Not beyond possibility is it? (Rhetorical question). Would that be reason enough to move to stun?
My point is and was that when he came out of that building he was not walking aggressively, apart from what was in his hand. He looked at them and yet walked straight on past: there was no officer I could see that was directly in his path: an objective, so to speak.

Perhaps you have good control of your emotions, but for many, when their "blood is up" and they're **ssed off, they will not automatically, instantly react to someone else's vebal command

I see little reason, given his demeanour at that time for a) deploying the tazer and , b) getting close enough to use it.

But they did, they didn't succeed (as you kindly pointed out), and they then only had grappling or shooting as the only options, if indeed the dog was of no use then.

Here's a scenario.
I am going to work on the assumption that we agree that he was not using body language of attack when he walked out and walked past the police.

What if they had tried to calm him down for more than 8 or so seconds: they had space to move, they could have shadowed him from a greater distance. He was not running around, screaming and swinging.

Even if he was not responding, verbally, and it was mostly one sided.

As long as his body language did not go from "I'm angry right now" to "I'm angry right now and I'm gonna swing at one of you", would trying to talk him down for 30 seconds, a minute, 10 minutes be such a bad idea?

Would that have been out of the question?
Would that not have been worth the attempt, given the outcome we've seen?
It's not like they didn't have their guns drawn in case, or were cornered by him. On top of that more police would have arrived too.

I put this out for consideration as an alternative outcome, don't feel you have to asnwer those questions. They are simply the questions I asked myself.

At the end of it all, I am not saying that the guy was not a threat.
I am not saying that using a firearm was never an option in that situation. And I am not saying that I have all the facts at my disposal, but based on what I saw in that video he became direct threat when they tazered him, not before.

That is when I see the situation going from tense, to dangerous, and that to my mind is what triggered it. After that, it seems a shooting was inevitable should the tazer fail.

I don't feel that hanging back and talking for longer would have put the officers at any greater risk.
Quite the opposite: further out of his strike range and a greater chance that he would engage in dialogue, rather than combat.
So, needless to say, you may well disagree with me, but I don't feel any of my points are unreasonable, nor my hypotheses beyond imagination.

PS: liberally using sarcasm in your responses is pretty condescending, and I certainly don't see why I merited it.