When Non-lethal can become lethal for the user.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pond, from the way people have described the events in the video, the officers were slightly surprised by the initial approach of the subject. They may not have felt he was "contained" in those circumstances.

A really good example of containment working, and LTL means subduing a deadly weapon armed man, was the video shot in Seattle several years ago. A man was acting odd on a downtown street, menacing people with a katana.

Seattle police were able to contain him, but there were several officers on the scene, and the guy had his back to a wall. The officers kept him at an impasse, until a Seattle fire truck was able to come into play, and a water cannon disarmed the guy and knocked him flat.

There are major differences, though.

In the Seattle case, there were a lot more officers; the suspect never made a convincing, threatening move toward the officers (I'll tell you right now that if somebody advances on me with a katana, and I think he's serious, the gun is no longer the last option); the suspect was effectively contained, so there were no concerns about bystanders; and the availability of the fire truck was the clincher.

You seem to be worrying about "eight seconds." On the one hand, it's not a lot of time. On the other hand, it's plenty of time for somebody to harm or kill another.

I have an acquaintance who was involved in a hot refueling accident with an A-6 on a carrier. He was seriously burned, but managed to get out of the plane. Crash crew ran into the fire and pulled him away from the aircraft.

He saw the flight deck video recording later, and realized he'd only been on fire for thirteen seconds. He says that was the longest thirteen seconds of his life.
 
The guy went down after the first shot. After that if they could not contain him with the dog and tazers then they need further training. With the number of shots fired it looked like excessive force.

By the way i am far form being a liberal. The police have to follow the law just like the rest of us.

I would suggest that if a civilian shot someone that many times in similar circumstances they would be in jail waiting on their trial.
 
Mleake:

What you say makes sense, but doesn't really address my point:
He may not have been contained, but nor were officers rooted to the spot. They could move and regardless, at the time he was tazed, he was NOT acting in an overtly threatening manner toward any particular officer.
I do not see the overwhelming motive for tazing at that time.

But tazing meant proximity, proximity meant striking distance, which meant shots fired due to the tazer being ineffectively used.

I don't see how I can make this point any differently.
Some may disagree, but that is the way I see it.
 
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

Turn up the volume on your computer and on the Youtube video controls. You will hear several shouts. Your contention that the officers only seem to have shouted commands once is wrong.

There are witness accounts that indicate the officers issued multiple commands.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012...k-officer-involved-shooting-caught-on-camera/

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.

Tazing is considered an appropriate response to use on a person that represents a danger to the public, officers, or himself, especially given that the suspect failed to comply with the officer's instructions.

The reaction of the suspect to the officers was illegal.

Once again, loving the sarcasm...
The queries were not sarcastic. Your post did not indicate you understood what you were saying. You said the officers needed to establish a dialog, but no dialog is established if the suspect doesn't reply.

What if he'd just said "Leave me alone!". Not beyond possibility is it? (Rhetorical question).
That would be refusal of the dialog you said the officers needed to establish.

Would that be reason enough to move to stun
Yep, already answered. The suspect was a danger. A response of "Leave me alone!" would be a verbal indicator of the intentions not to comply.

Your fixation on 8 seconds is interesting, but those are only the seconds that elapse after the suspect exits Carl's Jr. When the video starts, the door to the Carl's Jr. is being held open and officers are already yelling commands to the suspect inside. Then the suspect exits and your 8 seconds occur. However, the lapsed time is 40 seconds of commands, not 8 seconds. You wanted officers to try talking to him for at least 30 seconds? You got 40. The suspect failed to comply, posed a danger, was not stopped by the tazer, then turned lethally hostile.
 
You got 40.

And all that the suspect did in that time was walk out of the building, until being tazed.
Personally, if there is scope, and I believe there was, I think a person's life is worth more than 40 seconds of commands.

The suspect failed to comply, posed a danger, was not stopped by the tazer, then turned lethally hostile.

You've said it yourself. He turned lethally hostile after the taze. Not before. So he did not comply. Big deal. Not complying to "drop the bar", is not the same as threatening with the bar.

There was a risk of threatening behaviour, granted, but there was none directed at a particular officer, dog or member of the public, at the time of the tazer being deployed.

Trying to talk him down from 10 yards with sites on target would not have put the officers at greater risk than tazing him unsuccessfully at 2 yards.

Once more: Please tell me what actions by the suspect required a taze, at that time, as opposed to any other action possible.

Please tell me what prevented them from standing further back, easily out of range, just waiting to see what he might do.

On second thoughts don't bother: I've made this comment several times and no-one has addressed this point.

The queries were not sarcastic.

Queries or not, to me your tone and remarks in those sections were clearly sarcastic:

Gee, I don't know. ...
:rolleyes:... No, the attempt to taze did not work....
You do realize that to get a dialog going, you have to have input and response from from both parties, right?...

Feel free to use this tone with others you disagree with, but I'd rather you didn't with me: it does not add weight to your arguement, and makes me less inclined to discuss issues with you. Mutual respect should be a given.
 
The guy went down after the first shot. After that if they could not contain him with the dog and tazers then they need further training. With the number of shots fired it looked like excessive force.

Did you see him hit pavement after the first round of shots? I did not.

And all that the suspect did in that time was walk out of the building, until being tazed.

So I am curious. At what point should an officer try and detain/ stop a criminal? If a Bank rubber walks out of a bank with an RPG, can we taze him? Or do we have to sit down and talk with him about it to ensure that he really means others harm? Ok how about a mac 10 in his hand now. is that two big of a downgrade from an RPG r does that now warrant a tazing? Howabout a samurai sword? At what point does the object in the fellas hand become dangerous enough that a cop should be allowed to engage him? Or do you feel they should let all of these fellas walk?
 
So I am curious. At what point should an officer try and detain/ stop a criminal? If a Bank rubber walks out of a bank with an RPG, can we taze him? Or do we have to sit down and talk with him about it to ensure that he really means others harm? Ok how about a mac 10 in his hand now. is that two big of a downgrade from an RPG r does that now warrant a tazing? Howabout a samurai sword? At what point does the object in the fellas hand become dangerous enough that a cop should be allowed to engage him? Or do you feel they should let all of these fellas walk?

Stop, stop, stop.

Why are you putting a guy with an RPG, or a Mac 10 in the same category as the item in the video? :confused:
Why are you even bringing other fabricated scenarios into this discussion?
The video is what we are discussing, not your rampant imagination.
Stop cooking up extreme examples to support your views on this incident.

Back your views with facts from the case in hand, or please don't bother posting in response to my comments.

As for the samurai sword: same as the bar. If he can't easily reach you with the blade, you are not in immediate danger, are you?
 
Last edited:
IF he had had a gun, would you suggest the police stay out of gun range, thus eliminating the need to shoot the suspect in self defense as he would never have a chance of harming them in the first place? The reason I am asking these questions is because this idea of walking around on eggshells around armed criminals, is very new to me, so I am trying to figure out the rules.

as far as cooking up extreme examples. A man hitting me in the face as hard as he possibly can with a pipe bender is about is pretty extreme for me.
 
IF he had had a gun, would you suggest the police stay out of gun range, thus eliminating the need to shoot the suspect in self defense as he would never have a chance of harming them in the first place? as far as cooking up extreme examples.

There was no gun in that man's grasp during this video. So.. irrelevant.
If you cannot grasp that each situation should be judged on its own characteristics, I can't explain it to you.
Are you just trolling?

The reason I am asking these questions is because this idea of walking around on eggshells around armed criminals, is very new to me, so I am trying to figure out the rules.

No.
The reason you ask is because you have no answer to the issues in this situation. Hence, instead, you make up examples to suit your point of view, even if they are entirely make-believe.
Troll looking more and more likely

A man hitting me in the face as hard as he possibly can with a pipe bender is about is pretty extreme for me.

Not even going to bother with that one.....
Definitely time to stop feeding the Troll....
 
Pond, James Pond,

Based on the video, we have no clue of what occured before the video began or why the police were there in the first place. What if the suspect had just bashed someone's skull in? The police are supposed to apprehend him and prevent him from threatening others. The amount of thime they gave him is irrelavent. The suspect's actions led to his own demise. The fact that the police officers even attempted to use a less than lethal weapon is a testament to their "sanctity" for life.

I'm sure the officers ordered the suspect to put down the weapon. The man clearly failed to comply. Less than lethal force was used to apprehend him. The officer that tazed the suspect made a tactical mistake by not retreating after the tazer failed to stop the suspect. At that point, there was no other option than for the other officer to shoot the suspect to prevent him from bashing in his partner's skull. It was a split second decision and in my opinion, the correct decision. The dog may or may not have been able to stop the suspect in time. I can assure you that a pipe bender can cause serious injury or death with a single blow, especially a two-handed swing.

If suspects don't want to be shot, comply with police officers. A good way to get shot is attack a police officer when multiple officers already have their weapons drawn on you.
 
we have no clue of what occured before the video began

Absolutely true.

I don't question the common sense in your comments, but they in themselves are also making suppositions about what happened.

I have put forward some suppositions: they postulate an alternative to how some have interpreted or justified the events, but ultimately can't be the basis for my point of view.

That is why I am doing my best to confine my conclusions based on what I have seen.

I see a guy walking, only walking, when he is tazered by a policeman at his 9 or 8 o'clock.

If we later find out that he had already assaulted someone in the restaurant, then that would be a relevant point to be taken into account.
Until then, though....
 
And all that the suspect did in that time was walk out of the building, until being tazed.
Personally, if there is scope, and I believe there was, I think a person's life is worth more than 40 seconds of commands.

Ah, I now see your confusion. You think that the officers should not have done anything that would result in the suspect turning violent such that they were put in a position to defend their lives. You think it is the officer's fault that he attempted to do serious bodily harm to the officer.

It was the suspect that decided to go lethal when he did, not the officers. You seem to repeatedly miss this point. If you are going to argue that the suspect's life is worth more than 40 seconds, then argue with the suspect. He picked the time and place, not the officers.

You've said it yourself. He turned lethally hostile after the taze. Not before. So he did not comply. Big deal. Not complying to "drop the bar", is not the same as threatening with the bar.

I have put forward some suppositions: they postulate an alternative to how some have interpreted or justified the events, but ultimately can't be the basis for my point of view.

That is why I am doing my best to confine my conclusions based on what I have seen.

So your goal here is to repeatedly argue from a position of ignorance. You did that with the audio information and now you are doing it with the visual information. You have decided that the only factors relevant to what occurred are what you have or have not seen and heard in the video clip despite witness accounts and other information available to you.

I see a guy walking, only walking, when he is tazered by a policeman at his 9 or 8 o'clock.
So just out of the blue you think the officers just decided to taze a guy walking? You don't see and hear a guy who has already exhibited violent behavior and who fails to comply with officer demands?

Tazing a violent suspect who refuses to comply with officer demands is appropriate.

Why are you putting a guy with an RPG, or a Mac 10 in the same category as the item in the video?
Why are you even bringing other fabricated scenarios into this discussion?

LOL, you find it okay when you bring fabricated scenarios into the discussion (post 40), but not when others do.
 
Ah, I now see your confusion. You think that the officers should not have done anything that would result in the suspect turning violent such that they were put in a position to defend their lives.

Actually, put like that, it sounds like an excellent advice.
Yes, making a suspect turn violent would be very unwise.

So your goal here is to repeatedly argue from a position of ignorance. You did that with the audio information and now you are doing it with the visual information. You have decided that the only factors relevant to what occurred are what you have or have not seen and heard in the video clip despite witness accounts and other information available to you.

You suggest that basing my views on the evidence at hand is bad thing...
You are as ignorant as I since, like me, you were not there.
I'll happily accept that the police had shouted several commands at him, but....

...I have not seen any links to other witnesses saying that he made any aggressive moves in the moments prior to being tazed.

All I've seen is your news link that says he smashed windows and ignored police commands.
Antisocial: yes. Stupid: yes.
Immediate threat to the public: No.

Since you have all the answers: tell me what he did or what you know he was about to do in the middle of that carpark to make tazing the only option.

If you think that he deserved to get shot: good for you.

If you think that there was absolutely no advantage in just hanging back from the guy and letting him rant for a bit, gauging his intent; good for you.

As trained professionals, yes, I would expect the police where I live to work by procedure, but also use judgment to assess each case by its own merits.

Aside from the obvious destruction of property, not obeying the police was his mistake.
Approaching the guy here, I think was their mistake.
That was the tipping point: and there was no indication that he would otherwise have lunged at anyone. His actions had been up till then directed at property and he was isolated from the public.

Difference here being the police had the advantage in training, in space, in numbers, in weaponry. I believe they were premature in using the tazer: it lead to a death that I think could have been avoided.
And they injured a member of the public due to stray fire, which is more than the suspect did throughout.

Bottom line is: I know what I think on this. I've cited why.
I'd be more than happy to review that opinion if new evidence came to light.

I've not really seen any specifics to address that point so I'm not particularly bothered if you agree or not.
However, I certainly haven't changed my degree of courtesy to you in order to bolster my point.
Unfortunately, you seem unable to disagree without opting for condescension.

LOL, you find it okay when you bring fabricated scenarios into the discussion (post 40), but not when others do.

At least I admitted it was hypothesis.
I offered a different possible take on what we saw for the purposes of challenging some people's immediate interpretations on the situation. Not some ludicrous reference to RPGs

You seem to think bringing military ordinance into the equation is on a par.
LOL indeed....
 
If you think that there was absolutely no advantage in just hanging back from the guy and letting him rant for a bit, gauging his intent; good for you.


and he was isolated from the public.

how would letting him walk out into the street, have been advantageous, and how would it have kept him isolated from the public?

You seem to think bringing military ordinance into the equation is on a par.
LOL indeed....

once you have witnessed people killed in front of you, you start to realize the types of weapons that people use are not as significant as the intent behind their use. One reason why I never get involved in the 9mm vs .45 discussions.
 
This has become a bit too personal. It's a shame too, because the subject had potential. (Stress on past tense.)

Oh well, hopefully the subject will come up again sometime, without the incivility. The fate of this one, however, is sealed.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top