Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
But generally I tend to believe that officers who end up these situations may have mismanaged the situation from the outset. If you pull up from an appropriate distance and question the suspect from an appropriate distance, you should have time to at least deploy pepper spray before you have to do something else, and I've seen pepper spray stop charging men cold in the field. Alternatively, if the cop keeps a car or something else between them and the suspect, that can also give the cop extra time to react. Nobody wants to underestimate someone and end up like that cop who got killed after a naked guy took his gun away from him and shot him with it, but if the situation starts out with the cop in his car and the suspect sitting on the curb, I think the cop has other choices in how to set the confrontation up.
Not that SPD doesn't have a terrible reputation for force, anyway. I wouldn't fuck with them.
If a cop's holster is unsnapped and a round is cycled, any cop in the world should be able to get off one shot in less than 2.5 seconds. This is not to say that I think a cop should use a taser when someone is charging at them from a distance of 35 feet, with nothing between the cop and the suspect. But even if your hypothetical scenario was meaningful -- which it's not, because the real-life variables will always be more complicated -- a cop who has qualified with his or her weapon should be able to make that shot.
The point is that the cop should try to set the situation up so there can be intermediary steps. So, for example, you drive up, take out your pepper spray, get out of your car and say, "Put the knife down and put your hands behind your head. If you stand up, I will be forced to pepper spray you." Or you come to a stop with a car between you and the suspect and have the same conversation, possibly with the taser in place of the spray. You give yourself options going in, so you don't just have to shoot someone if things don't go your way.
b) she said the officer "used the Force on him."
Maybe the "standards" or pay grade for SPD needs to go up.
I wonder the difference between WSP,KingCo Sheriff and SPD.
People want careers, not to shoot people.
Half of you are idiots.
Someone comes at you with a knife and you have a gun - you shoot them.
Period.
SPD's pay isn't the problem, it's cultural. The whole department needs to be fired from the bottom to the top and replaced with new people from elsewhere. We have a horrible mix of Keystone, don't care, corrupt and murderous police. I'd be willing to lose the few good apples to get rid of the rest of them.
Cops are not allowed to shoot to wound. A gun is always deadly force. You are only allowed to use deadly force if it is absolutely necessary. If you aim for some part of the body calculated to wound rather than kill you are, by definition, using deadly force in a situation where it wasn't absolutely necessary.
@14
As to the, "If someone comes at you with a knife..." thing -- bullshit. Remember the guy with the sword who they eventually subdued by pinning him with a fire ladder? That's just the best-known example of you being wrong. There are plenty of others. This is not to say that shooting someone who is coming at you with a knife is never justified, but neither is it a hard-and-fast rule.
i get your point, i just think that using the sword guy as an example is pretty base. also, aiming for another area is not exactly "deadly" force. it's a means to an end. imho. though i'll trust you on the legal implications as i am not well-versed in that particular realm.
Also, what happens if the cop shoots to wound and hits an artery, and the guy dies? In other words, what if you shoot to wound and you miss that shot? You just can't have a system where a cop is allowed to shoot someone without the intent to kill them.
Yes, because if I wanted a cop to shoot me I'd do something sure to attract their attention. Like whittling.
Learn something about guns and how they work. Read a couple of books. Pay particular attention to the penetration characteristics of pistol rounds will full metal jackets (FMJ) like the ones that most cops are required to use. Then go to a range and run a couple of boxes of ammo through a 9mm or a .40S&W. Then sit on any corner in the middle of the city and imagine trying to fire a pistol at something other than center mass when you're scared. Check your backgrounds, and notice what you'd be hitting if you missed a leg or an arm or a shoulder. Keeping in mind, of course, that a FMJ round is more likely to ricochet on an oblique impact with a solid surface, like a sidewalk or the side of a building.
Long story short, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd realize that asking cops to shoot for any other target than center mass is patently ridiculous, dangerous, and irresponsible.
This isn't a fucking video game. The cop's not going to just go into V.A.T.S. and call his shot. He's not going to activate Deadeye and go for the disarm so he gets an extra +50 Fame. He's going to aim for center fucking mass, because that's easiest to hit. That's the most likely shot to stop whoever is presenting the deadly threat.
I don't think that guy ever approached anyone.
If you'd paid attention to my first post -- and my next several -- you'd notice that I also think the cop fucked this situation up. But the idea of using guns as wounding weapons runs afoul of both practical and legal obstacles that just make it a terrible idea. Center mass presents the BEST odds of a hit, and also has the advantage of being the part of the body with the best odds of having the bullet hit bone, stopping it or slowing it down.
It's interesting to me that the preference among cops these days is for 9mm or .40S&W rounds, when a .45 is a much slower bullet that's much less likely to over-penetrate, but which has pretty much the same muzzle energy. But the fact is that most cops use smaller higher velocity rounds, so their odds of over-penetration are higher if they're going for a wound shot than if they go for center mass.
As it happens, I was in almost the exact situation that got this guy killed, about 20 years ago. I was homeless, and I was sitting on the grass of the University campus, next to 15th, sharpening my pocket knife with an oil stone, when a cop walked up behind me with a gun and told me to put the knife down and put my hands behind my head. Evidently he'd seen me sharpening my knife and decided to sneak through the trees so he could get behind me. I did as I was told, and he proceeded to search me, empty my backpack out on the ground so he could go through the contents, read my mail, and make me stand there while he called in my name, my social security number, and my last known address and just generally acted like a major fucking douche. Keeping in mind, through all of this, that my knife was under the legal limit, and he had no proof -- or even any suggestion -- that I'd been involved in any crime.
I've wished hives and boils on that fucking pig at least once a week since then, just from the sheer humiliation of having to stand there and let that motherfucker hassle me, but I can say from personal experience that not getting shot in a situation like this is actually pretty easy.
That said, I completely agree with you that steps probably could've been taken to avoid those circumstances. If nothing else, he could've requested backup. But I do take issue with the implication that a knife - or a wrench for that matter, when wielded as a weapon - is not a serious threat.
1. It is extremely hard to dictate what "should have been done" when one is not in the actual situation. Police officers are trained to use their gun as a last resort, and I give the benefit of the doubt to the police officer, for the citizen did not follow the officer's request to put the knife down, but instead, made advances at him. It most likely happened quickly and the officer felt his gun to be necessary.
2. Use of non-lethal force such as tasers, pepper spray or nightstick is not always effective. A report by the Green Bay Police Department analyzed taser deployments between June 2004 and December 2005 and found that deployment failed 12% of the time due to malfunction, non-deployment, misfire, etc. Because of this, officers are instructed to use tasers on suspects with deadly weapons when they have a partner with a firearm in case the taser fails. The officer in this scenario had no partner. If the taser failed, he would have no other defense he could deploy in time (tasers have a maximum range of 35 feet). Also, Sheriff's Capt. Ron Mattino of Palm Beach reports that non-lethal force such as stun guns, do not always subdue the suspect. Quad Cities, Iowa reports two failed taser deployments within eight weeks in Spetember 2009, and in Shelbyville, Tennessee officers report the use of pepper spray failing to subdue a suspect in March, 2010. Bottom line: pepper sprays and tasers do not always work.
3. Trying to disable the citizen rather than killing him by a shot to the leg or any other limb is very difficult when standing still at thirty feet with a still target. Having handgun experience, aiming is nothing like the movies. Most people might not have handgun experience and do not know how difficult it can be. Officers must learn not to aim down, a natural reaction in anticipating recoil. Also, the handgun is not a rifle or shotgun which rests on a more steady surface: the shoulder. Holding a gun with hands alone is shaking, especially under duress. Officers are also instructed to shoot the largest mass for most success in hitting the target, that being the abdomen. It is somewhat unreasonable to expect the officer to quickly pull his gun from his side, while under pressure from an armed man advancing at him, aim at his moving leg or arm (a much smaller target) and hit it in a limited time frame when he is most likely moving himself. The fact that he fired five times might be because he was not confident in hitting the man in the first place.
4. Increasing pay grade is extremely diffucult and incredibly unlikely. SPD officers are about to enter contract negotiations, and last time around the contract was left to expire by the city for over a year before pay increases were agreed to. SPD officers were actually working without a contract for over a year a few years ago. With the economic situation more grim now, police officers are looking to keep pay cuts at bay.
5. Police officer qualifications have gradually lowered over the past 25 years, for less and less potential officers are entering the force. More SPD officers retire, leave or are killed every year than new officers are hired. The average lifespan of an officer in the US is 57, mostly due to stress, and 90% of officers quit after shooting a suspect for it is very traumatizing, hence two weeks time off automatically for officers after discharging their weapon. The point being that police departments are accepting more people to keep up with growing populations and making up for those who leave, meaning that officers today are not as skilled and may not handle potentially dangerous situations in an ideal manner. Examples being the Lakewood officers in which none of the officers noticed the peculiar behavior of the suspect at the counter (didn't answer the barista's questions, fiddled with his pockets, etc.). Also, the officers shot in Pierce County let the suspect go upstairs alone before trying to escort him from the premises. That being said, the citizen probably made mistakes as well.
Ultimately, it is hard to say that the officer used excessive force for he, and he alone was involved in the situation. And in such cases, officers are to respond as they deem necessary in potentially dangerous or life-threatening situations. Not ideal for there is some subjectivity involved on the part of the officer, but what other options are there? A set of step-by-step guidelines for all potential situations? Different situations call for different responses, and one cannot always respond in a robotic manner, but must adapt to the situation and make decisions well and make them quickly.
Well, you're either a cop or a policy wonk or both.
FWIW, I don't actually have a lot of faith in tasers myself, having been hit with them in training. They don't slow me down much and, frankly, it's always been sort of a mystery to me why cops keep using them. They're basically just torture devices for uncooperative suspects who have already been mostly subdued. My preference in an actual confrontation would be for chemical spray, just because I've seen it deployed in the field in a number of high-stress situations, and I'm always amazed at how effective it is even against people who are really intent on causing some damage.
Here's where you and I part ways. When it comes to a media trial, I agree that a cop should get the benefit of the doubt. But the fact is that lots of cops -- most cops, in my experience -- escalate situations unnecessarily and are too quick to respond to disobedience with violence. Many of them have an incomplete knowledge of the law, or of their own department's policies and procedures. Personally, I chalk it up to the fact that so many cops are from the suburbs and the exurbs. They don't consider the people they're policing to be members of their community, so they act like an occupying army. But whatever the cause, cops escalate, they use excessive force, and they shoot people who didn't need to get shot, or create situations where a shooting is more likely. And there needs to be accountability for that, or the division between citizens and cops will only widen.
Right now I'm just stuck at a desk doing something that's boring, time-consuming, and has a hard deadline. So I'm commenting here a lot because I hate what I'm doing and I need something to distract me. Unfortunately, there aren't nearly enough late-night types on the thread to keep me entertained.
My. Aren't you clever.
If you want to use nonlethal force to subdue someone, shooting for the thigh is an idiotic idea. You're likely to miss, and if you hit, there's a decent chance you'll kill him anyway. Either shoot for the torso or use a less dangerous weapon.
Actually, I am neither. This is my first blog post and I am in the field of education. I am just playing the devil's advocate, for most people on this blog have tended to blame the officer. And I agree that officers might escalate the situation unecessarily, but average citizens do as well. The man ignored repeated calls to put down the knife, and instead advanced at the officer. Had he decided to put down the knife, the problem would have been diffused. Police officers have to deal with intoxicated individuals, people on drugs, violent and belligerent citizens, and so on. Not to mention the fact that they respond to suicide calls, domestic violence disputes, murders, and many other sobering situations. Many see dead bodies on a weekly basis, something most of us would not enjoy. They also have to work knowing that many people have negative views of police officers and are extremely critical of the work they are doing. So it is reasonable to assume that over time, officers get worn down by the negativity and stress of the job, and might not have as much patience in certain dangerous situations, especially involving citizens that disobey orders. Let us not forget all of the times we have talked to our family and friends about the negative feelings we have toward officers when we get pulled over. Average citizens escalate violence just as much as officers do, such as last year when an SPD officer was kicked in the ribs repeatedly when handcuffing a suspect for public intoxication and drug possession. His ribs were bruised and broken, and was forced to take a three month absense from work. Also, a citizen called his German Shepherd at an officer in Seattle five years ago when he approached the house with a search warrant. Certainly neither example is an appropriate response by the citizen to the situation either. My point being that the officer should not be solely blamed for escalating the violence of the situation, and may not be guilty of escalating the situation at all. Especially considering that we do not possess the detials of the situation to make such a judgment call.
To address the issue of police officer's incompetence, to say that most officers are uneducated and respond with violence is a nice assertion, but not necessarily true. In my experience, I have come in contact with officers that attended law school and have a much deeper knowledge of the legal system than myself. Especially considering that officers face punishment for administering the law incorrectly, it is reasonable to assume that officers have at least a working knowledge of the law. So it is difficult to say either way that officers do or do not understand local law better than the average citizen. And in regards to using violence, many officers have never discharged their weapon. I witnessed an arrest on vacation in Philidelphia and the citizen was resisting arrest, punching and kicking the officer and overpowering his on the ground, but the officer did not discharge his weapon or even use non-lethal force. Instead, another officer saw the situation from the street and assisted in the arrest. In this case, neither officer used excessive force. If anything, the officer should have used pepper spray or a taser. Officers should not be blanket stereotyped as defaulting to using excessive force, especially when they are trained to use their weapon as a last resort.
In regards to accountability, the automatic two weeks off after discharging a weapon that every officer in Seattle is granted is also used for investigative purposes. The department looks into the situation and analyzes whether the officer responded appropriately. If not, punishment in the form of dismissal, demotion or transfer is administered depending on the severity of the situation. Should this system be improved an investigations done by an outside party? Probably so. I agree that officers should be held accountable along with citizens, but there is at least a system in place in the status-quo.
I have even stopped and spoken to him a few times. He was a funny dude. COWBOY, they called him. He was a harmless drunk. When someone, especially a whittling ol' drunk, is brandishing a knife at you and you have a gun, a taser, and a night stick, to take him down with...and you're wearing a BULLET-proof vest.... what do you choose??? This is why we don't trust the police. WE the people downright HATE THEM!!! They're monsters with weapons. It just seems that the SPD can't wait to taze or shoot someone. I've met this guy. He sets on a ledge near my house everyday. EVERYDAY. WHITTLING A STICK!!!
One time I was taking a drunk whiz in an alley and 5 cop cars came screeching up on me and they all drew their weapons. Thats 9 cops with guns and tazers drawn... for one guy taking a leak!!
Luckly my girlfriend came around the corner to witness this. They let me go immediately.
Good thing too. I might have been just another SPD casualty. They probably would have pulled my knife out of my pocket and said I tried to stab one of them or something.
SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE. The Police do more harm than good. Fuck 'em.
-CHA JA G'BOAR
Surely when the officer stopped his car to confront the man sitting on the sidewalk whittling a stick with a knife, he or she positioned the vehicle in such a manner that the interaction would be captured on camera.
Very well put. I've been trying to explain that very point to people - including cop friends of mine - for the last few years, but I hadn't managed to put it into words in a way that made sense. The Us Vs. Them mentality seems to be getting worse and worse, and it's leading to dangerous escalation in too many cases. For all the shit the cop who subdued the jaywalker got, he did precisely everything he could to keep from escalating the situation - and that situation was screaming for escalation, with a crowd standing around screaming at the cop the whole time.
This cop is in deep shit. I personally don't even think the police union is going to back him on this one, especially if any of the bullets were in the back. This situation was escalated to the point of insanity with absolutely no thought to alternatives - calling for backup, putting the car between him and the subject if he thought the subject was approaching, etc.
The one witness who's come forward says the man never appeared even to hear the cop, let alone understand what he was saying. Now, that being said, if you have ANYTHING in your hands and you see a cop coming toward you, it's probably a good idea on general principles to drop whatever you have immediately. But hindsight is frequently 20-20.
This incident has destroyed two lives. I don't see how the cop's life will ever be the same, even if he's fully exonerated.
Why does the SPD hate Whittlers so?