Languish.org

Princesca and I were discussing this last night, because yesterday there was an incident in Louisville where a crazy guy was fighting with his wife and she threw him out of the house or something, and someone called the cops because he was a) banging on her door screaming, and b) totally naked. :lol:

So this cop arrives, and whips out a taser and tases him, which "didn't work".  So she (yes, lady cop) then attempted to wrestle him to the ground and cuff him, during the process of which he grabbed her gun out of her holster and shot her twice in the legs.  He then shot his girlfriend, and a neighbor who came out to see what was going on.  She then managed to get the gun away from him and shot him in the stomach, but nobody died as a result of all of this.

Anyway, we were discussing it because Princesca's cousin is a Louisville firefighter and was called to the scene, and actually had to ride with the perp to the hospital.

In my opinion--and I'm someone who is against capital punishment generally--in this sort of situation the cop should be allowed to retaliate with deadly force... I would have been fine if she emptied the rest of her clip into this guy's face if that's what it took to stop him.

I think in the past cops in the US used to do so without hesitation, but with people complaining about police brutality these days it seems cops are now expected to avoid lethal force at all costs.

Thoughts/comments?

Oh, and I forgot to mention the cop was black and the suspect white.

DIS BE RACIDISTIC TREATMENT OF DA WHITE MAN!!!!111111  :mad:

No cop should put him/herself or bystanders in danger of getting killed if they can resolve the situation by shooting a gun wielding maniac.

I thought deadly force was authorized in this situation. Threatening with a gun is not the same as three shots, hitting two people. Or is taking potshots at civilians treated differently than taking potshots at cops?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 09, 2009, 08:15:31 AM
I thought deadly force was authorized in this situation.

It is in most places in the US, I think.  The question is: should it be? :)

The cop would be a fool if they didn't try to drop someone pointing a gun at them.

Agree that this is a strange question.  How could the issue be controversial?

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2009, 08:21:03 AM
Agree that this is a strange question.  How could the issue be controversial?

Well cops are generally assholes and it sucks to have an asshole win. :(

I don't even think this is vageuly an issue.

SOP is that someone threatening the use of deadly force can be neutralized with deadly force.

The problem is that in your story, I don't see what cop you are talking about. She did not use deadly force at first, since he did not threaten deadly force, and once he did, she had lost her ability to shoot him, since he took her gun...right?

WTF was she thinking getting into a wrestling match with the guy without backup there?

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 08:19:01 AM
It is in most places in the US, I think.  The question is: should it be? :)

Well, your anecdote is a poor illustration. Should a cop take down somebody who's already fired and hit civilians? Absolutely. Should a cop take down someone as soon as the gun is presented? Personally, I think the cops should give one order to a "scared gunman" to put the gun down. If that one order is ignored/refused, the gunman is then a threat and should be treated as such.

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2009, 08:21:03 AM
Agree that this is a strange question.  How could the issue be controversial?

In places like Cambridge or what not I think it might be, but even most of the loonies would put up resistance  pro forma to use of deadly force in situations like this.

I'm with Berkut here. What was the cop to do - shoot Naked Screaming Man? Of course once he took the gun, she should have shot him, but by that time she couldn't.

The real problem here was in wrestling Naked Man without a partner. 

QuoteSo this cop arrives, and whips out a taser and tases him, which "didn't work".  So she (yes, lady cop) then attempted to wrestle him to the ground and cuff him, during the process of which he grabbed her gun out of her holster and shot her twice in the legs.  He then shot his girlfriend, and a neighbor who came out to see what was going on.  She then managed to get the gun away from him and shot him in the stomach, but nobody died as a result of all of this.

OK, I think I see the confusion.

The question is whether she was justificed in shooting him AFTER she get her gun back, right?

Sp timeline is:

He gets her gun, shoots her
Shoots girlfriend
Shoots neighbor
Cop gets gun back.

This was not clear - I thought maybe the neighbor got the gun away from him, or someone else.

No, at this point unless she feels her or someone elses life is in danger (like he is wrestling with her trying to get the gun back) of course she has no right or reason to shoot him.

I would probably understand it if she did anyway though.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 09, 2009, 08:23:48 AM

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 08:19:01 AM
It is in most places in the US, I think.  The question is: should it be? :)

Well, your anecdote is a poor illustration. Should a cop take down somebody who's already fired and hit civilians? Absolutely. Should a cop take down someone as soon as the gun is presented? Personally, I think the cops should give one order to a "scared gunman" to put the gun down. If that one order is ignored/refused, the gunman is then a threat and should be treated as such.

I think this ullustrates the gap between what they can do and what they should do - and it is a necessary gap.

I think a cop should be able to blow someone away who has a displayed weapon in hand and there is reasonable reason to believe they have some intent to use it. That doesn't mean they must - this is going to require some amount of judgment on the part of the police officer. And they will get it wrong sometimes.

I fucked up the story, now that I read over my OP. :blush:

She shot him BEFORE he wrestled her gun away.  First, she tazed him, and when he didn't respond to that, she drew her gun and shot him.  THEN he grabbed her gun.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 08:29:34 AM
I fucked up the story, now that I read over my OP. :blush:

She shot him BEFORE he wrestled her gun away.  First, she tazed him, and when he didn't respond to that, she drew her gun and shot him.  THEN he grabbed her gun.

Oh my, that is a rather different story then.

So she tazed him.
Then she shot him.

At what point where they wrestling? Why did she shoot the naked guy? How could he possibly be a threat?

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 08:29:34 AM
I fucked up the story, now that I read over my OP. :blush:

She shot him BEFORE he wrestled her gun away.  First, she tazed him, and when he didn't respond to that, she drew her gun and shot him.  THEN he grabbed her gun.

Back up, Kentucky boy - did she shoot him before or during wrestling to cuff him? What exactly prompted her to do it - that he wasn't cooperating, or that he attacked her?

Your story lacks key details.  :lol:

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 08:23:27 AM
SOP is that someone threatening the use of deadly force can be neutralized with deadly force.

Yeah, that's not usually debated, it's just that the line of when a reasonable person would believe there was a threat of deadly force is often blurry.

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 08:35:35 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 08:23:27 AM
SOP is that someone threatening the use of deadly force can be neutralized with deadly force.

Yeah, that's not usually debated, it's just that the line of when a reasonable person would believe there was a threat of deadly force is often blurry.

True. Which is why I think there is a pretty good line defined right now - an officer can use deadly force if you threaten to use deadly force. But that does not mean they MUST do so, just protects them if in fact they decide that is the proper response.

A bit of grey area is not a bad thing.

Quote from: Malthus on April 09, 2009, 08:35:15 AM

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 08:29:34 AM
I fucked up the story, now that I read over my OP. :blush:

She shot him BEFORE he wrestled her gun away.  First, she tazed him, and when he didn't respond to that, she drew her gun and shot him.  THEN he grabbed her gun.

Back up, Kentucky boy - did she shoot him before or during wrestling to cuff him? What exactly prompted her to do it - that he wasn't cooperating, or that he attacked her?

Your story lacks key details.  :lol:

No shit - I am still not sure exactly what happened.

Hell, I could even see where the crazy naked guy might have been justified in shooting the cop, depending on how his story actually happened!

Which raises an interesting question - if a cop was acting illegally during the performance of his duties, and unjustly threatened someone with deadly force, and you shot him....would you ever have a chance in hell of not getting thrown in jail?

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 08:39:09 AM
Which raises an interesting question - if a cop was acting illegally during the performance of his duties, and unjustly threatened someone with deadly force, and you shot him....would you ever have a chance in hell of not getting thrown in jail?

Yes.  You might get sent to the morgue instead.

...in seriousness, this has happened before in no-knock searches gone bad, and the shooter is always prosecuted.

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 08:45:06 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 08:39:09 AM
Which raises an interesting question - if a cop was acting illegally during the performance of his duties, and unjustly threatened someone with deadly force, and you shot him....would you ever have a chance in hell of not getting thrown in jail?

Yes.  You might get sent to the morgue instead.

...in seriousness, this has happened before in no-knock searches gone bad, and the shooter is always prosecuted.

No doubt they are always prosecuted, but are they always convicted?

If some cops attempted to suddenly break into your house without identifying themselves and showing a warrant - how are you to know they aren't crooks themselves? Shooting them could well be justified self-defence.

My remarks are based on the following assumptions:

1. Man is naked banging on the door.  Nobody is in immediate danger.
2. Cop shows up sees naked man banging on the door and tasers him.
3. Taser does not work.
4. Cop, seeing taser doesn't work, shoots man.
5. Man, having just been shot, charges at cop and wrestles her gun away from her.
6. Man shoots cop in the legs and then shoots others.

Man is morally justified (but likely not legally justified) in wrestling gun away from the cop, but not shooting her once she became unarmed.  No justification for shooting the others, unless the girlfriend/wife really deserved it.

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 08:39:09 AM

No shit - I am still not sure exactly what happened.

Hell, I could even see where the crazy naked guy might have been justified in shooting the cop, depending on how his story actually happened!

Which raises an interesting question - if a cop was acting illegally during the performance of his duties, and unjustly threatened someone with deadly force, and you shot him....would you ever have a chance in hell of not getting thrown in jail?

Yeah being tazed and then shot in the stomach if one is guilty of nothing more than naked shit disturbing would put anyone in a bad mood. Hell, if that was me and I thought lady cop was just out to kill me, damn right I'd try to get the gun away from her ... though once I had it, maybe shooting up the rest of the neighbourhood wasn't such a good idea ...

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 08:39:09 AM
Which raises an interesting question - if a cop was acting illegally during the performance of his duties, and unjustly threatened someone with deadly force, and you shot him....would you ever have a chance in hell of not getting thrown in jail?

Unfortunately, probably not.  As ulmont notes, people who have shot cops in legitimate self-defense have gone down.  Look up Cory Maye and Ryan Frederick.

Quote from: Malthus on April 09, 2009, 09:05:58 AM
No doubt they are always prosecuted, but are they always convicted?

If some cops attempted to suddenly break into your house without identifying themselves and showing a warrant - how are you to know they aren't crooks themselves? Shooting them could well be justified self-defence.

They are sometimes sentenced to death.

Quote from: Malthus on April 09, 2009, 09:05:58 AM
No doubt they are always prosecuted, but are they always convicted?

I've never read of a case where someone was not convicted.  Here's one example of the guy ending up on death row (now merely life in prison):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

Radley Balko, for Reason, does a good job tracking these War on Drugs abuses (and it's always drugs where a no-knock goes bad).
http://www.reason.com/staff/hitandrun/143.html

Hopefully Languish won't crash on me before I get this post out like it did 30 minutes or so ago.  :mad:

...

Well, the issue is that it's not clear at this point exactly WHAT happened, since the Courier-Journal (daily rag) is reporting one thing, one of the TV stations is reporting another, and eyewitnesses including Princesca's cousin are saying something else (but he wasn't there until after the shootings took place).

Here's what her cousin said, in terms of the timeline:

1.  Cop arrives on-scene in response to a 911 domestic disturbance call.  When she arrives, she finds a raving naked man who appeared to have some sort of injury banging on his door and making verbal threats.  A neighbor is also there apparently trying to intervene and calm the suspect down (I think the neighbor is actually who made the call, not the perp or his spouse).

2.  Cop draws taser, orders suspect to stop banging on his door and making a disturbance.

3.  Suspect verbally explodes at cop and begins advancing toward cop.

4.  Cop attempts to subue suspect with a taser gun (i.e. not a contact taser).

5.  Suspect shrugs off the tasing and continues to advance.

6.  Cop draws sidearm and points it at the suspect, ordering suspect to stop.

7.  Suspect ignores order and continues to advance.

8.  Cop fires one round at the suspect, striking them in the midsection/abdomen/stomach/whatever.

9.  Suspect charges cop and wrestles her sidearm away from her.

10.  Cop attempts to flee from suspect (??? - this part seemed odd to me).  Suspect fires twice at cop and strikes cop twice in the legs.

11.  Suspect turns the gun on his spouse (who I guess had come outside by now), striking her with one round, and then on the neighbor, striking them with a single round.

12.  Cop manages to regain control of gun, but apparently does not fire it again.

The details of and after point 12 are very murky, as in when exactly did backup show up, and how exactly did she manage to finally subdue the suspect?  The news reported he collapsed before or during point 12. from his earlier injury.

Is it wise to send a single woman cop to a domestic disturbance situation?

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 09:28:47 AM
Is it wise to send a single woman cop to a domestic disturbance situation?

Yes. :)

I would say, Cal, that the cop was justified in using deadly force in step 8.  However, the department needs better guns.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 09:25:34 AM
6.  Cop draws sidearm and points it at the suspect, ordering suspect to stop.

7.  Suspect ignores order and continues to advance.

8.  Cop fires one round at the suspect, striking them in the midsection/abdomen/stomach/whatever.

This timeline looks questionable in terms of the gunshot; a naked man advancing is not obviously threatening deadly force.

In the new and improved version, yes, of course deadly force should be used.  I have been told that police here are trained that if they are put into a position where they are required to fire that they are to use deadly force.

ie the only times they should be firing their weapons is when deadly force is required.

Another interesting point in the story is that the Taser failed.  Tasers have come under a lot of scrutiny here and police forces have had to have all units tested before they are used in the field.  The suspicion was that they were putting out to much voltage but surprisingly the tests showed that most put out an ineffective amount.

Also, I forgot to mention that the house was apparently searched after the shooting (not sure why) and a large amount of drugs were removed from it.  Given the suspect's behavior, it seems likely he was high on something.

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 09:34:17 AM

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 09:25:34 AM
6.  Cop draws sidearm and points it at the suspect, ordering suspect to stop.

7.  Suspect ignores order and continues to advance.

8.  Cop fires one round at the suspect, striking them in the midsection/abdomen/stomach/whatever.

This timeline looks questionable in terms of the gunshot; a naked man advancing is not obviously threatening deadly force.

Disagree completely.  He has already had a verbal altercation with the cop.  Has shrugged off a taser and his coming at the cop. What would you have the cop do?  She already used her nonleathal means of force and it failed.

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 09:34:17 AMThis timeline looks questionable in terms of the gunshot; a naked man advancing is not obviously threatening deadly force.

What if he's saying "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU YOU FUCKING BITCH!!!" ?

I'd say in the new, improved version the cop's shooting of Naked Man was justified. Though obviously it would have been better to have two cops respond and not one. I thought cops usually worked in pairs.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 09:36:54 AM
Disagree completely.  He has already had a verbal altercation with the cop.  Has shrugged off a taser and his coming at the cop. What would you have the cop do?  She already used her nonleathal means of force and it failed.

If the taser fails, break out the goddamn nightstick. 

Police officers are supposed to meet non-lethal force (or the threat thereof) with non-lethal force, lethal force (or the threat thereof) with lethal force.  It's not a "fire the taser, then fire the gun" model.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 09:40:02 AM
What if he's saying "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU YOU FUCKING BITCH!!!" ?

Closer, quite possibly justified.  I'm still thinking that shooting an unarmed suspect is a complete police failure, and certainly should not be a "taze then shoot" model.

Quote from: Malthus on April 09, 2009, 09:41:31 AM
I'd say in the new, improved version the cop's shooting of Naked Man was justified. Though obviously it would have been better to have two cops respond and not one. I thought cops usually worked in pairs.

I have a vision of her in my head as Officer Hooks from Police Academy, in which case Bob Goldthwait should have been there, yeah.

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 09:42:07 AMIf the taser fails, break out the goddamn nightstick. 

Police officers are supposed to meet non-lethal force (or the threat thereof) with non-lethal force, lethal force (or the threat thereof) with lethal force.  It's not a "fire the taser, then fire the gun" model.

You assume she was carrying a nightstick.  I don't know for sure she had one, though.  The local cops in my county don't seem to carry them on their utility belts (I guess they could have them in their cars).

Quote from: Malthus on April 09, 2009, 09:41:31 AM
Though obviously it would have been better to have two cops respond and not one. I thought cops usually worked in pairs.

In a lot of smaller towns, and even in larger ones depending on the assignment, police officers are alone.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 09:43:52 AM
You assume she was carrying a nightstick.

No, I assume that "taze then shoot" is an extremely poor model to apply against unarmed suspects.  Are police officers no longer trained in compliance holds, etc.?

Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2009, 09:33:37 AM
I would say, Cal, that the cop was justified in using deadly force in step 8.  However, the department needs better guns.

Why?

I don't see how he is threatening the use of deadly force.

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 09:42:07 AM
If the taser fails, break out the goddamn nightstick. 

Police officers are supposed to meet non-lethal force (or the threat thereof) with non-lethal force, lethal force (or the threat thereof) with lethal force.  It's not a "fire the taser, then fire the gun" model.

Do you have some authority for that proposition?  It would be a wierd policy indeed if a police officer was forced to engage in unarmed combat with a perp and could only use their gun if the perp was similarly armed.

This person was coming at the officer.  In your world when shoud the officer be permitted to shoot.  We already know from this very example that by the time the perp got to her it was too late because he was able to get the gun and shoot her.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 09:28:47 AM
Is it wise to send a single woman cop to a domestic disturbance situation?

Why does it matter that the cop is a woman?

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 09:42:07 AM
If the taser fails, break out the goddamn nightstick. 

Police officers are supposed to meet non-lethal force (or the threat thereof) with non-lethal force, lethal force (or the threat thereof) with lethal force.  It's not a "fire the taser, then fire the gun" model.

The Taser is an option to the gun, mt an option to the nightstick.

If the Taser doesn't work you go to the gun because if you're using the taser there's a risk of death or greivous bodily harm.

By the way here's the latest RCMP use of force chart:


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcmp-grc.gc.ca%2Fgazette%2Fimages%2Fvol70n4%2Fimim_larg.gif&hash=8ba34a7c5892579c71fad67850ac129976a280c7)

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 09:28:47 AM
Is it wise to send a single woman cop to a domestic disturbance situation?

Why does it matter that the cop is a woman?

Because women on average are smaller and less powerful than men, and thus can be overpowered by big men in a surprise struggle.  I once read about a story where a woman cop was attacked by a guy, and even after he was shot once in the stomach he was able to wrestle her and taker her gun away.

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:15:49 AM
The Taser is an option to the gun, mt an option to the nightstick.

Tasers are soft control, below the nightstick (hard) and below the gun (lethal) (or intermediate between come-alongs and the nightstick, apparently).

QuoteWest Palm Beach police consider firing Tasers about midway in the agency's use-of-force criteria, between "soft control techniques" -- such as handcuffing and using pressure points to subdue an aggressor -- and "hand control techniques" such as punching, kicking or unleashing a dog, according to the policy. The Taser and pepper spray both rank fourth in the department's six categories of acceptable force. Firing a gun is sixth on the list.

See also http://www.police.nashville.gov/news/media/2008/05/29a.htm

Chart's not showing up, Beeb.

Anyway, if I recall correctly from when an officer visited us in school way back when, the RCMP are not supposed to even draw unless lethal force is required.

Of course that was a long time ago, I may remember incorrectly, or it may have changed.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 10:24:29 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 09:28:47 AM
Is it wise to send a single woman cop to a domestic disturbance situation?

Why does it matter that the cop is a woman?

Because women on average are smaller and less powerful than men, and thus can be overpowered by big men in a surprise struggle.  I once read about a story where a woman cop was attacked by a guy, and even after he was shot once in the stomach he was able to wrestle her and taker her gun away.

Either they are a cop, or they aren't.

I've met plenty of fairly small male cops, and some really big powerful female cops.

Your question should read whether a single cop should be going to a call of domestic disturbance or not.

Couldn't she have just gotten back in her car and called for backup?

 :huh:

um, it's not like cops have to be "big men", though all cops (male or female) have physical fitness requirements they need to meet.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 10:31:01 AM
:huh:

um, it's not like cops have to be "big men", though all cops (male or female) have physical fitness requirements they need to meet.

Even if there are minimal physical requirements, people who tend to be stronger will tend to exceed them more.

Quote from: Maximus on April 09, 2009, 10:28:40 AM
Chart's not showing up, Beeb.

Anyway, if I recall correctly from when an officer visited us in school way back when, the RCMP are not supposed to even draw unless lethal force is required.

Of course that was a long time ago, I may remember incorrectly, or it may have changed.

Not quite.  I'm not sure how to phrase it, and the RCMP don't give out their exact use of force guidelines to the public, but they certainly can draw their firearm when the situation is elevated but doesn't yet require lethal force.

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 10:29:36 AM
Couldn't she have just gotten back in her car and called for backup?

I'm thinking she prolly should have, yeah.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 09:36:54 AM

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 09:34:17 AM

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 09:25:34 AM
6.  Cop draws sidearm and points it at the suspect, ordering suspect to stop.

7.  Suspect ignores order and continues to advance.

8.  Cop fires one round at the suspect, striking them in the midsection/abdomen/stomach/whatever.

This timeline looks questionable in terms of the gunshot; a naked man advancing is not obviously threatening deadly force.

Disagree completely.  He has already had a verbal altercation with the cop.  Has shrugged off a taser and his coming at the cop. What would you have the cop do?  She already used her nonleathal means of force and it failed.

Get back in her car, lock the door, call for backup - this is assuming she is not confident she can take the guy in a physical altercation.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 10:07:05 AM
This person was coming at the officer.  In your world when shoud the officer be permitted to shoot.

An unarmed person?  Never.  If we have cops that cannot subdue an unarmed suspect without killing them then we need to get rid of them and get better cops (or at least send them in pairs).

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:28:53 AM
Your question should read whether a single cop should be going to a call of domestic disturbance or not.

That's part of the question.  However, given that there is only one cop, a single male cop is less likely to be physically overpowered than a single female cop.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 10:34:44 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:28:53 AM
Your question should read whether a single cop should be going to a call of domestic disturbance or not.

That's part of the question.  However, given that there is only one cop, a single male cop is less likely to be physically overpowered than a single female cop.

Bullshit.

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:32:53 AMNot quite.  I'm not sure how to phrase it, and the RCMP don't give out their exact use of force guidelines to the public, but they certainly can draw their firearm when the situation is elevated but doesn't yet require lethal force.

Well, on COPS*, I've seen cops draw weapons without firing plenty of times.  Often they'll draw their sidearm, point it at a suspect, yell at a suspect to get on the ground, and then a partner (if one is present) will cuff the person behind their back or whatever while the gun is still trained on them by cop #1.

* yes people, I realize this is television and the cops may not act this way when the cameras are off.

3 shot grouping to the chest is always a good thing.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 10:36:14 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:32:53 AMNot quite.  I'm not sure how to phrase it, and the RCMP don't give out their exact use of force guidelines to the public, but they certainly can draw their firearm when the situation is elevated but doesn't yet require lethal force.

Well, on COPS*, I've seen cops draw weapons without firing plenty of times.  Often they'll draw their sidearm, point it at a suspect, yell at a suspect to get on the ground, and then a partner (if one is present) will cuff the person behind their back or whatever while the gun is still trained on them by cop #1.

* yes people, I realize this is television and the cops may not act this way when the cameras are off.

Only thing I'd tend to disagree with in real life is the "gun trained on them".  It's my understand that when the RCMP (which is the only agency I have experience with, so all I can talk about) unholster their firearm they do not point it directly at the subject, they kind of point it down towards the ground in front of the subject.

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 10:34:22 AM
An unarmed person?  Never.  If we have cops that cannot subdue an unarmed suspect without killing them then we need to get rid of them and get better cops (or at least send them in pairs).

Yeah and in this case one can't hide behind the idea that he was concealing a weapon as there aren't many places that a naked person can be hiding one.

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:35:53 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 10:34:44 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:28:53 AM
Your question should read whether a single cop should be going to a call of domestic disturbance or not.

That's part of the question.  However, given that there is only one cop, a single male cop is less likely to be physically overpowered than a single female cop.

Bullshit.

No.

I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:38:29 AMOnly thing I'd tend to disagree with in real life is the "gun trained on them".  It's my understand that when the RCMP (which is the only agency I have experience with, so all I can talk about) unholster their firearm they do not point it directly at the subject, they kind of point it down towards the ground in front of the subject.

Hmmm... well, granted on television it can be hard to tell if they might not be doing the same thing.  Also key would be whether the cop's actually got his finger on the trigger.  I would thing that once you finger is off the guard and onto the trigger itself you better be prepared to fire.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 10:41:15 AM
I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

:unsure:

Who thinks that?

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 10:41:15 AM
I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

I don't know...a nude male walking towards a female cop is certainly sexually menacing.

Just remember everyone: a stapler is a deadly weapon.  :contract:

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:44:19 AM
Just remember everyone: a stapler is a deadly weapon.  :contract:

Is a penis?

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 10:42:59 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 10:41:15 AM
I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

:unsure:

Who thinks that?

Three Canuck lawyers, for example.

Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 10:45:47 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:44:19 AM
Just remember everyone: a stapler is a deadly weapon.  :contract:

Is a penis?

You can use it to screw someone to death.

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 10:34:22 AM
Get back in her car, lock the door, call for backup - this is assuming she is not confident she can take the guy in a physical altercation.

Police are not required to "take" someone in a physical altercation before they fire and it would put police in too much danger if such a policy were in place.  He was coming at her.  Do you think it reasonable that she turn and return to her car?

When would you say lethal force should be authorized?  Only when the bad guys draw a gun?  Police can get hurt or killed with suspects who do not have guns too.  Just because they are police does not give them superior strength.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 10:46:59 AM
You can use it to screw someone to death.

I wonder what the most powerful man's would be like.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 10:41:15 AM
I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

It is surprising to me that there are people here who say he was not a threat.  He got to her, took her gun and shot here with it.  The events of the case itself show that he was in fact a threat.

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:35:53 AM
Bullshit.

Agree. Proper training will more than make up for the size/gender difference.

Quote from: Maximus on April 09, 2009, 10:53:03 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 10:35:53 AM
Bullshit.

Agree. Proper training will more than make up for the size/gender difference.

Well my perspective is more that if someone isn't big enough or strong enough then they shouldn't be a cop, man or woman.  The notion that you'd have two classes of cops, and in particular that those two classes are divided by gender, is just offensive.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 10:49:21 AMIt is surprising to me that there are people here who say he was not a threat.  He got to her, took her gun and shot here with it.  The events of the case itself show that he was in fact a threat.

The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 10:48:00 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 10:34:22 AM
Get back in her car, lock the door, call for backup - this is assuming she is not confident she can take the guy in a physical altercation.

Police are not required to "take" someone in a physical altercation before they fire and it would put police in too much danger if such a policy were in place.  He was coming at her.  Do you think it reasonable that she turn and return to her car?

I did not say they should be required to "take" them - but it is certainly an option, and one used rather often.

And yes, I think it is entirely reasonable for her to return to her car, rather than killing him. Her pride has no value compared to his life.

QuoteWhen would you say lethal force should be authorized?  Only when the bad guys draw a gun?  Police can get hurt or killed with suspects who do not have guns too.  Just because they are police does not give them superior strength.

It should be authorized when the life of the officer or someone else is in imminent danger, or they are in danger of serious harm.

Her life was not in danger, as far as I can tell. The use of deadly force should be a last resort.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 10:49:21 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 10:41:15 AM
I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

It is surprising to me that there are people here who say he was not a threat.  He got to her, took her gun and shot here with it.  The events of the case itself show that he was in fact a threat.

She let him become a threat. Why didn't she just back away from him, get in her car, and call for backup and observe?

If he starts walking away again and goes after someone else, she can get back out and make sure he doesn't harm anyone.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 10:56:57 AM
The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

The important point that the "just walk away" crowd is missing is that cop was in danger.  That is why she fired. 

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 10:56:57 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 10:49:21 AMIt is surprising to me that there are people here who say he was not a threat.  He got to her, took her gun and shot here with it.  The events of the case itself show that he was in fact a threat.

The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

He can only take her gun away from her if she allows him to get close to her.

If in fact she did not feel she could get away from him, then perhaps there can be an argument that shooting was justified.

Still seems like she could have just turned around and run from him though.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 10:56:57 AM
The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

Also, she doesn't sound very good at her job. She tazed a guy and shot him but still ended up getting shot after? Clearly her methods were ineffective.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 10:56:57 AM
The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

1) It cannot be ok to shoot an unarmed suspect who is stationary.
2) It must be ok to shoot an unarmed suspect who has their hands around someone's neck.

Applying that to the described situation, somewhere after the justified tasering and before the unarmed suspect took the gun away from the police officer, lethal force becomes legally justified. 

I see the use of lethal force without another non-lethal attempt against an unarmed suspect as morally wrong, and submit that different police procedures could have ended this situation without anyone being shot.  But no, instead, we get lowest-common-denominator, shoot as soon as you think you can get away with it, bullshit.  Yay, you shot an unarmed man, go you!

Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 11:01:47 AM

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 10:56:57 AM
The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

Also, she doesn't sound very good at her job. She tazed a guy and shot him but still ended up getting shot after? Clearly her methods were ineffective.

Rather her weapons were ineffective.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:01:05 AM

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 10:56:57 AM
The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

The important point that the "just walk away" crowd is missing is that cop was in danger.  That is why she fired. 

I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 11:02:15 AM


1) It cannot be ok to shoot an unarmed suspect who is stationary.
2) It must be ok to shoot an unarmed suspect who has their hands around someone's neck.

Now you are just making up facts to suit your argument.  He was not stationary.  He was coming at her.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:02:19 AM
Rather her weapons were ineffective.

So she should have high-tailed it then? Based on what he had been doing, it doesn't seem like she should have tried to kill him.

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:02:25 AM
I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Well, Berkut, clearly a police officer armed with a gun is always in deadly danger from an unarmed man; he might take away the gun and shoot her with it!

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:02:25 AM
I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Why do you an Ulmont cling to the belief that someone who is unarmed is not a threat.  I can hurt someone pretty badly with my own hands and after seeing your pictures I would guess the same is true of you.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:03:18 AM
Now you are just making up facts to suit your argument.  He was not stationary.  He was coming at her.

No, I didn't say those were the facts, I said those were the principles, and determining where lines move from 1) to 2) is important.  Or do you think it's always ok to shoot unarmed suspects?

I'll concede that the cop was justified to shoot the naked guy if she shot him while they were struggling for control of the gun.  At that point he was clearly a danger to everyone.  It's not clear whether this is what happened.

If guns weren't so prevalent in America, this never would have happened. :(

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 11:04:39 AM
Or do you think it's always ok to shoot unarmed suspects?

It is always ok when they are threatening the police officer.

You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.  If that were the case we would have a lot more police officers injured and killed in the line of duty.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:05:23 AM
I'll concede that the cop was justified to shoot the naked guy if she shot him while they were struggling for control of the gun.  At that point he was clearly a danger to everyone.  It's not clear whether this is what happened.

Great, so officers have to wait until their life is in jeopardy.

You just created a policy that will kill any chance of anyone wanting to become a cop.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.

You are under mistaken impression that this is a mistaken impression.

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 11:03:50 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:02:25 AM
I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Well, Berkut, clearly a police officer armed with a gun is always in deadly danger from an unarmed man; he might take away the gun and shoot her with it!

Indeed.

We can extend this notion:

Lets say we have the following story:

1. Man is in confrontation with police. He clearly has no weapon.
2. Police do not shoot him.
3. Man runs away from police, police do not shoot him.
4. Man gets gun, shoots someone.

Cna we now conclude that the police would have been perfectly justified in shooting him in step 2, since we know that in step 4 he became a threat?

And of course, if she had shot him competently, we would never have known that in fact he was going to take her gun away from her, and we would just have a cop blowing away a crazy naked guy.

The justification for the shooting is completely reliant on the events that occurred AFTER the shooting. Maybe if she hadn't shot him, he would have shot her. Maybe he felt that was the only way he could keep the crazy cop chick from shooting him again.

Who knows?

The rules should apply based on what is known at the time of the shooting, not on what happened after it.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:08:25 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.

You are under mistaken impression that this is a mistaken impression.

:jaron:

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:05:23 AM
I'll concede that the cop was justified to shoot the naked guy if she shot him while they were struggling for control of the gun.  At that point he was clearly a danger to everyone.  It's not clear whether this is what happened.

indeed - once you start wrestling with a cop and make any kind of move toward their gun, you are fair game.

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:08:41 AM

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 11:03:50 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:02:25 AM
I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Well, Berkut, clearly a police officer armed with a gun is always in deadly danger from an unarmed man; he might take away the gun and shoot her with it!

Indeed.

We can extend this notion:

Lets say we have the following story:

1. Man is in confrontation with police. He clearly has no weapon.
2. Police do not shoot him.
3. Man runs away from police, police do not shoot him.
4. Man gets gun, shoots someone.

Cna we now conclude that the police would have been perfectly justified in shooting him in step 2, since we know that in step 4 he became a threat?

And of course, if she had shot him competently, we would never have known that in fact he was going to take her gun away from her, and we would just have a cop blowing away a crazy naked guy.

The justification for the shooting is completely reliant on the events that occurred AFTER the shooting. Maybe if she hadn't shot him, he would have shot her. Maybe he felt that was the only way he could keep the crazy cop chick from shooting him again.

Who knows?

The rules should apply based on what is known at the time of the shooting, not on what happened after it.

Of course you example has no relevance to the example at hand where the person was coming for the officer.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.

As I understand policy, they have to be at risk of death or greivous bodily harm, yes.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:07:55 AM
You just created a policy that will kill any chance of anyone wanting to become a cop.

:o :weep:

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:07:55 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:05:23 AM
I'll concede that the cop was justified to shoot the naked guy if she shot him while they were struggling for control of the gun.  At that point he was clearly a danger to everyone.  It's not clear whether this is what happened.

Great, so officers have to wait until their life is in jeopardy.

You just created a policy that will kill any chance of anyone wanting to become a cop.

Of course they ahve to wait until their life (or someone elses) is in jeapordy. How else would you do it? Just let them shoot people as longa s they

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:07:00 AM

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 11:04:39 AM
Or do you think it's always ok to shoot unarmed suspects?

It is always ok when they are threatening the police officer.

You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.  If that were the case we would have a lot more police officers injured and killed in the line of duty.

That is the case, and we have a decent number injured or killed in the line of duty.

I am unsure where you got this idea that if someone threatens a police officer, they can and should kill them, even if the threat is not credible. Like they are naked.

What if a cop pulls me over and I say "Fuck you, I should kick your ass!"

They can blow me away then?

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 11:10:05 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.

As I understand policy, they have to be at risk of death or greivous bodily harm, yes.

Which is different then what I said.  Folks here are saying that cops can never fire on someone who is unarmed.  The fact is that a police officer can face a risk of death or greivous bodily harm even when someone is unarmed.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:09:57 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:08:41 AM

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 11:03:50 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:02:25 AM
I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Well, Berkut, clearly a police officer armed with a gun is always in deadly danger from an unarmed man; he might take away the gun and shoot her with it!

Indeed.

We can extend this notion:

Lets say we have the following story:

1. Man is in confrontation with police. He clearly has no weapon.
2. Police do not shoot him.
3. Man runs away from police, police do not shoot him.
4. Man gets gun, shoots someone.

Cna we now conclude that the police would have been perfectly justified in shooting him in step 2, since we know that in step 4 he became a threat?

And of course, if she had shot him competently, we would never have known that in fact he was going to take her gun away from her, and we would just have a cop blowing away a crazy naked guy.

The justification for the shooting is completely reliant on the events that occurred AFTER the shooting. Maybe if she hadn't shot him, he would have shot her. Maybe he felt that was the only way he could keep the crazy cop chick from shooting him again.

Who knows?

The rules should apply based on what is known at the time of the shooting, not on what happened after it.

Of course you example has no relevance to the example at hand where the person was coming for the officer.

I think I already said that if she felt she had no way of avoiding him, then perhaps a case might be made that she was justified in killing him.

I still don't see how that is the case here though - why couldn't she just run away?

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:08:41 AMThe rules should apply based on what is known at the time of the shooting, not on what happened after it.

This is what I was trying to get at a little while ago with my post.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:12:30 AM
Which is different then what I said.  Folks here are saying that cops can never fire on someone who is unarmed.  The fact is that a police officer can face a risk of death or greivous bodily harm even when someone is unarmed.

Wanna get closer to the matter at hand with the naked guy, counselor?

Cops should always have the right to take out the trash as best they see fit.

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:11:48 AM

I am unsure where you got this idea that if someone threatens a police officer, they can and should kill them, even if the threat is not credible. Like they are naked.

What if a cop pulls me over and I say "Fuck you, I should kick your ass!"

They can blow me away then?

Threaten in the sense that the police officer fears that they could become injured which is clearly the case here.  You knew that but you are taking this off to the riduculous.

Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 11:13:38 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:12:30 AM
Which is different then what I said.  Folks here are saying that cops can never fire on someone who is unarmed.  The fact is that a police officer can face a risk of death or greivous bodily harm even when someone is unarmed.

Wanna get closer to the matter at hand with the naked guy, counselor?

You think that just because he was naked he could not hurt her?  Subsequent event show the fallacy of that reasoning.

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:13:08 AM
I still don't see how that is the case here though - why couldn't she just run away?

Do cops often run away? Seems counter to being all powerful and cop-like.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:14:39 AM
You think that just because he was naked he could not hurt her?  Subsequent event show the fallacy of that reasoning.

True, he grabbed the gun that she brought into the situation...after she let him advance on her.

Is Berkut a criminal? Why does he worry so? :(

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:12:30 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 11:10:05 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.

As I understand policy, they have to be at risk of death or greivous bodily harm, yes.

Which is different then what I said.  Folks here are saying that cops can never fire on someone who is unarmed. 

Never? I don't think anyone said anything of the sort.

In fact, everyone arguing my side has explicitly stated, I think, that there is a circumstance under which it would be justified.

However, those are rather unusual cases. Most of the time, there needs to be a weapon displayed to justify deadly force.

QuoteThe fact is that a police officer can face a risk of death or greivous bodily harm even when someone is unarmed.

Sure, it is possible. Was that the case here? Note that the officer was not injured while the suspect was unarmed, but only after he armed himself - and everyone agrees that at that point, she was justified in using deadly force (if not longer capable - back to the issue of her simply returning to her car and getting backup once it was clear the situation was not going to be resolved without some kind of confrontation).

Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 11:14:58 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:13:08 AM
I still don't see how that is the case here though - why couldn't she just run away?

Do cops often run away? Seems counter to being all powerful and cop-like.

I don't know about often, but it happens.

If the person holes up in a house and there's no risk of further offences, then sure.  Or a high speed chase where the risks to the public are too great, they'll back off.

The tough question though is whether there's a risk that if they back off the suspect will commit a further offence.

Oh look, here's an article on the incident:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361 (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361)

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:13:55 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:11:48 AM

I am unsure where you got this idea that if someone threatens a police officer, they can and should kill them, even if the threat is not credible. Like they are naked.

What if a cop pulls me over and I say "Fuck you, I should kick your ass!"

They can blow me away then?

Threaten in the sense that the police officer fears that they could become injured which is clearly the case here.  You knew that but you are taking this off to the riduculous.

No, I am taking YOUR words and showing that they do not work in any kind of general case.

And what does "could become injured" mean? The rules are not "could become injured" they are "imminent threat of serious inkury or death".

Was that the case with the unarmed man? He was no threat to injure or kill her until he became armed which she likely could have avoided by simply retreating and waiting for backup*.



*assuming the situation was not such that she could not do so - he was already too close, restricted area, whatever.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
Oh look, here's an article on the incident:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361 (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361)

I like this part of the article:

QuoteSince the beginning of March, there have been two incidents in which police were threatened with guns, leading them to return fire. In both cases, the officers weren't injured.

Seems rather odd as the cop in this case fired before she was a threatened with a gun...

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
Oh look, here's an article on the incident:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361 (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361)

Thanks.  I couldn't follow Cal's account at all, now it makes sense.

Often there isn't an inkury if the blue wall of silence works as intended. :contract:

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
Oh look, here's an article on the incident:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361 (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090409/NEWS01/904090361)

See, this is a MUCH better view of what happened:

QuotePolice say they were called to 5205 Ronwood Drive, not far from Jefferson Mall, just before 8 a.m., on a domestic-violence report.
Neighbors tried to intervene in a fight between a man and his girlfriend, calling police, White said.

Gaus said his attention was first drawn by a police car, then he saw a naked man walking toward the officer.
Gaus said the officer backed up as she ordered the man to stop.

"She started running backwards and he started running at her and she opened fire, which didn't seem to slow him down at all," Gaus said.

From his car, Gaus said he watched the officer fall, then saw the man pick up her gun. He said Rice was able to get up and try to run from him.

"He started running toward her and just opened fire," Gaus said. "He fired until the gun was empty."
White confirmed Rice's gun was the only weapon used and that it was emptied of bullets.

Neighbors Kelly and Steve Griffie said they were just waking up to start their day when they heard gunshots a couple doors down from their home.

Steve Griffie said he looked out the window and saw an officer on the ground and other police arriving quickly.
Kelly Griffie watched from her basement window as her neighbors, one of whom she said is a nurse, tried to assist the wounded officer.
"You could see the anguish on their faces," Kelly Griffie said. "They were doing everything they could to comfort the officer."

Officer honored
Rice, who joined the former Jefferson County police department in 1994, works as a patrol officer in the 7th Division, which includes the Okolona, Fern Creek and Jefferson Mall areas.

Sounds to me like she did just about everything reasonable she could to avoid shooting the guy.

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 11:22:06 AMThanks.  I couldn't follow Cal's account at all, now it makes sense.

<_<

If the newspaper account is correct, then it seems that the shooting is clearly justified.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:28:15 AM
If the newspaper account is correct, then it seems that the shooting is clearly justified.

His or hers?

After reviewing that account I was somewhat surprised the officer resorted to the firearm.  Hard control, sure.

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 11:30:23 AM
After reviewing that account I was somewhat surprised the officer resorted to the firearm.  Hard control, sure.

Funny how perception flip-flop.  To me the newspaper account makes it seem like she couldn't run away, and it was obvious that once the suspect was in the melee range, she would be seriously threatened, and her gun could become a liability.

Another article:

QuoteWitnesses Tell Horrifying Story Of Police Shooting
Ben Jackey/WLKY


LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Some witnesses said they still can't believe a Louisville Metro Police officer is alive after a shooting Wednesday morning.

Police said a naked man shot Officer Andrea Rice with her own weapon after she responded to a domestic run in Okolona.

"I'm still shaking from it," said Kenny Young, who lives next door to the suspect. "The police officer, I hope she's okay."

Members of Kenny Young's family are still visibly traumatized after the horror that unfolded in the 5200 block of Ronwood Drive. Young, his brother Philip, and niece Leigh all reacted to sounds of a young woman early in the morning.

"I heard her screaming," said Leigh Young. "I looked out the window and there was a naked man outside."

"He was trying to pound her head into the pavement," said Kenny Young. "That's when I grabbed him and I said, 'My God man, you're trying to kill her,' and I tried to pull him off and he jerked away from me, one time."

After two more tries, Kenny Young got ahold of 24-year-old Joe Starcher. He said Starcher ran back inside the home.

When Rice arrived, he emerged, jumped off a porch and landed on his stomach, then approached her.

"He's aggressive," said Kenny Young. "He's got his fist up and he's going right at her, and she's like, 'Stop. Stop. Stop.'"

Rice deployed her Taser, which had no effect. She then fired her pistol twice, hitting Starcher.

"Looked like the upper torso, didn't really see him jump back," said Phillip Young. "He just kept coming. You could see blood coming."

"I seen her slip," said Kenny Young. "I seen her go down, and I seen her gun come flying out. With that, he went over, picked it up. By that time they was around the far side of the car and I heard two shots like, 'boom, boom.' At that point, he was shooting at her."

The Young brothers said Starcher was firing at point-blank range and emptied the ammunition clip.

"I think he had one thing in mind -- he's going to finish that officer off," said Kenny Young.

Philip Young said Starcher appeared to be zoned out or on drugs. He said he thought because of that, Starcher kept pulling the trigger as the gun recoiled.

Witnesses said bullets flew in every direction. Two bystanders were struck. One was hit in the leg, another was shot in the hand.

More officers arrived and subdued Starcher with Tasers. He was taken to University Hospital, where he was last listed in serious, but stable, condition.

Leigh Young, a nurse at Norton's Suburban Hospital, treated Rice at the scene. She sustained multiple gunshot wounds to her right thigh. Rice is listed in good condition.

"She was telling me, 'Just pray for me. Just pray for me,'" said Leigh Young. "I said, 'We're praying for you, Andrea. It's going to be OK.'"

"It's just horrible seeing someone laying there, helpless, and somebody who really doesn't know what they're doing shooting at them and you just can't do anything about it," she said.

So what we've really learned here is that Cal shouldn't make threads about news items until he has an article.:rolleyes:

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:33:42 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 09, 2009, 11:30:23 AM
After reviewing that account I was somewhat surprised the officer resorted to the firearm.  Hard control, sure.

Funny how perception flip-flop.  To me the newspaper account makes it seem like she couldn't run away, and it was obvious that once the suspect was in the melee range, she would be seriously threatened, and her gun could become a liability.

No kidding.

After reading the account, a couple things are much more clear:

1. The guys was already extremely violent, and clearly irrational.
2. The officer had very little time to react.
3. The officer tried pretty hard to avoid him even considering #1 and #2 before shooting him.
4. Crazy people can't shoot straight.

Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 11:36:19 AM
So what we've really learned here is that Cal shouldn't make threads about news items until he has an article.:rolleyes:

On the other hand, doing it that way gave us three completely different stories to discuss out of one incident.

Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 11:36:19 AM
So what we've really learned here is that Cal shouldn't make threads about news items until he has an article.:rolleyes:

I didn't really start the thread to discuss this specific incident, but I just used it as an example.  But obviously the thread evolved in another direction.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 11:38:00 AM
I didn't really start the thread to discuss this specific incident, but I just used it as an example.  But obviously the thread evolved in another direction.

But it wasn't even an example of a time when a suspect pulled a gun on a cop, prompting said cop to shoot the suspect. :mellow:

Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 11:39:21 AMBut it wasn't even an example of a time when a suspect pulled a gun on a cop, prompting said cop to shoot the suspect. :mellow:

It's more like we were discussing the ethics behind this general situation, but the discussion stemmed from a discussion about a particular incident that had personal relevance, since Princesca's cousin was at the scene.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:28:15 AM
If the newspaper account is correct, then it seems that the shooting is clearly justified.

So the newpaper article saying he was coming at her is that much different the Cal's version of him coming at her. :rolleyes:

The lesson is: if it doesn't involve huge tits and/or gas station food, Cal's not the guy to describe it.  :P

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:42:09 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:28:15 AM
If the newspaper account is correct, then it seems that the shooting is clearly justified.

So the newpaper article saying he was coming at her is that much different the Cal's version of him coming at her. :rolleyes:

The difference was the ability to withdraw.  The newspaper account seems to indicate that she couldn't.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:07:00 AM
You are under the mistaken impression that the officer must be under threat of lethal force themselves before they use a gun.  If that were the case we would have a lot more police officers injured and killed in the line of duty.

You're kidding, right?  This is from Connecticut:

QuoteThe statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force.

You see this, in the main, requires the police officer or a third person to be under threat of lethal force?

EDIT:  I see we have moved on a bit.  Must remember to reread the entire thread before replying when coming back from an absence.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:46:35 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:42:09 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:28:15 AM
If the newspaper account is correct, then it seems that the shooting is clearly justified.

So the newpaper article saying he was coming at her is that much different the Cal's version of him coming at her. :rolleyes:

The difference was the ability to withdraw.  The newspaper account seems to indicate that she couldn't.

More importantly, the newspaper account makes it clear she tried to.

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:51:36 AMMore importantly, the newspaper account makes it clear she tried to.

I believe the Caliga Account, Take 2 made that clear as well.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 11:54:36 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:51:36 AMMore importantly, the newspaper account makes it clear she tried to.

I believe the Caliga Account, Take 2 made that clear as well.

Debateable, but the argument was over whether she could blow him away whether she felt she could get away without doing so or not.

CC seemed to be suggesting that she was under no onus to attempt to get away, and could kill him as soon as he advanced on her, even if she did not feel there was an imminent threat to herself or others.

Quote from: Malthus on April 09, 2009, 11:44:43 AM
The lesson is: if it doesn't involve huge tits and/or gas station food, Cal's not the guy to describe it.  :P

I pictured her with Big tits and a gas station in the background to do justice to Cal.

Quote from: Berkut on April 09, 2009, 11:57:03 AM
CC seemed to be suggesting that she was under no onus to attempt to get away, and could kill him as soon as he advanced on her, even if she did not feel there was an imminent threat to herself or others.

Nope, that is terrible summary of what I was saying.  I repeatedly have made the point that she was justified in shoting because SHE DID FEEL AN IMMINENT THREAT TO HERSELF.  In fact I clarified that point for you at least twice.

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:46:35 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 11:42:09 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 09, 2009, 11:28:15 AM
If the newspaper account is correct, then it seems that the shooting is clearly justified.

So the newpaper article saying he was coming at her is that much different the Cal's version of him coming at her. :rolleyes:

The difference was the ability to withdraw.  The newspaper account seems to indicate that she couldn't.

You are right.  I assumed that when I said the reason she shot was because she felt she was under threat, while you went on about having to be in a strangle hold first.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2009, 12:15:28 PMI pictured her with Big tits and a gas station in the background to do justice to Cal.

Nope, no such luck on the gas station... the guy lives in the middle of a lower-middle class subdivision.  FUN FACT:  Princesca's grandparents used to live about a half mile away.

Well, from my training she definitely was justified in shooting him.

We are basically allowed to shoot to stop the offensive behavior (since we never shoot to kill, hehehe) if we feel threatened with the risk of serious injury or feel that a 3rd party faces the risk of serious injury. It doesn't have to be a threat of lethal force. Than we are allowed to keep shooting until the person in question ceases the offensive behavior.

I saw someone mention a baton (nightstick). It is a good control tool (especially across the shins) but has its drawbacks. It can also easily be a deadly weapon (look up Monadnock Chart).

The other thing that a lot of people without training and/or experience don't realize is that most law enforcement shootings take place within a distance of 7-10 yards from the shooter to the assailant. Why?

Seven yards (21 feet) is known as the reactionary gap[/].  At 21 feet, the officer has about 1 to 1 1/2 seconds to draw his firearm, bring it up to a firing position, and aim before an attacker can reach them. This is not a lot of time even for a well trained officer. And even if the officer gets off a couple shots it's unlikely that the attacker's momentum will be slowed enough to allow the officer to avoid a collision with the person which can be very bad if they have a knife. So why 7-10 yards than? Simple, at 15-20 yards, which looks great in a movie, the officer is probably going to jail or losing his home if the attacker doesn't have a weapon capable of hurting the officer at that distance.

For shits and giggles, try it at home. Stand 21 feet away from each other. Have your friend run at you and see how fast you can mimic dropping your hand to your side and bringing up an imaginary gun. Than try it with first holding something in your gun hand to simulate holding a baton/oc spray i.e. dropping the object than going for your imaginary gun. Have you friend also pretend to stab you and/or go for your gun hand.

And, it sounds like the officer did the smart thing of yelling at the assailant before shooting him. In this day and age of video phones nothing would look worse at trial than an officer shooting someone without some sort of warning even though a warning isn't required.

Though, it does sound like she screwed up when she tried to back away. While it may sound like a good idea, and it may seem like the reasonable thing to do. It probably caused her to slip and fall which ultimately allowed the assailant to get her gun. She is very lucky she wasn't killed.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 07:35:16 AM
Princesca and I were discussing this last night, because yesterday there was an incident in Louisville where a crazy guy was fighting with his wife and she threw him out of the house or something, and someone called the cops because he was a) banging on her door screaming, and b) totally naked. :lol:

So this cop arrives, and whips out a taser and tases him, which "didn't work".  So she (yes, lady cop) then attempted to wrestle him to the ground and cuff him, during the process of which he grabbed her gun out of her holster and shot her twice in the legs.  He then shot his girlfriend, and a neighbor who came out to see what was going on.  She then managed to get the gun away from him and shot him in the stomach, but nobody died as a result of all of this.

Anyway, we were discussing it because Princesca's cousin is a Louisville firefighter and was called to the scene, and actually had to ride with the perp to the hospital.

In my opinion--and I'm someone who is against capital punishment generally--in this sort of situation the cop should be allowed to retaliate with deadly force... I would have been fine if she emptied the rest of her clip into this guy's face if that's what it took to stop him.

I think in the past cops in the US used to do so without hesitation, but with people complaining about police brutality these days it seems cops are now expected to avoid lethal force at all costs.

Thoughts/comments?

Well, the first problem is that the continuum of force wasn't followed;  if the taser doesn't work, you go up the force level with the gun, not back down.  By wrestling with him, putting yourself in a position to have exactly what happened: a gun taken away, which is the cardinal sin of Cop No-Nos.

The second problem is that the officer is female.  Chicks make shitty cops.  Fin.

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 08:29:34 AM
I fucked up the story, now that I read over my OP. :blush:

She shot him BEFORE he wrestled her gun away.  First, she tazed him, and when he didn't respond to that, she drew her gun and shot him.  THEN he grabbed her gun.

Chicks make shitty cops.

Berkut, whether or not she had the opportunity to run away, even if she could should she have done so? She wasn't called there to keep herself safe, but presumably to protect others from a person the neighbor felt was a threat. What would your take on this story be if the timeline was: "armed cop runs from approaching wildman, wildman goes in window and beats wife to death with a pan."

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 08:29:34 AM


She shot him BEFORE he wrestled her gun away.  First, she tazed him, and when he didn't respond to that, she drew her gun and shot him.  THEN he grabbed her gun.

I'm guessing...heroin? Gotta be something like that.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 09, 2009, 08:05:33 PMI'm guessing...heroin? Gotta be something like that.

From the sounds of his behavior, I would think something more along the lines of PCP.

He was clearly in a very violent mood, wearing no clothing (so possibly very delusional/delerious), and at one point grabbed on to the door of her patrol car and started growling like a rabid dog or something.

But I mentioned earlier they *did* find a very large stash of cannabis in the house.

Quote from: Strix on April 09, 2009, 06:05:40 PMSeven yards (21 feet) is known as the reactionary gap.  At 21 feet, the officer has about 1 to 1 1/2 seconds to draw his firearm, bring it up to a firing position, and aim before an attacker can reach them.

This is interesting... in the state of Kentucky, to obtain a CCDW you must:

* Demonstrate that you can manually load a magazine, insert it into the pistol, and properly switch off the safety (if applicable) in a reasonable timeframe;

* Fire twenty rounds into a silhouette target at 21 feet.  Of those 20 rounds, 11 must hit the silhouette somewhere (does not have to be in the bullseye at all).

* Take a safety course with the certified firearms instructor who supervises you while performing the first two requirements I listed above.

I think the requirements for steps 1 and 2 are a little different for revolver owners.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2009, 06:55:02 PM
Well, the first problem is that the continuum of force wasn't followed;  if the taser doesn't work, you go up the force level with the gun, not back down.  By wrestling with him, putting yourself in a position to have exactly what happened: a gun taken away, which is the cardinal sin of Cop No-Nos.

The second problem is that the officer is female.  Chicks make shitty cops.  Fin.

FBI agents are trained to keep shooting until the guy goes down.  I thought that cops were trained that as well, which is the top reason for restrictions on the use of lethal force; since shooting someone with a gun is always potentially lethal, there's no reason to shoot to wound.

Quote from: Scipio on April 09, 2009, 09:01:02 PM
FBI agents are trained to keep shooting until the guy goes down.  I thought that cops were trained that as well, which is the top reason for restrictions on the use of lethal force; since shooting someone with a gun is always potentially lethal, there's no reason to shoot to wound.

Yeah. Guns have one overarching purpose of design. If you're going to use one, use it for what it was designed for.

BTW, I noticed ulmont saying an advancing naked man is not a threat earlier in the thread. I disagree with that because of the "crazy factor-" an unarmed man advancing might not be, but in this situation the man was pretty clearly not in control of his own faculties- it's conceivable he might not have acted within normal levels of restraint, either, so he was definitely a threat by being a wild card.

Quote from: ulmont on April 09, 2009, 10:34:22 AM
An unarmed person?  Never. 

Back when I was a little kid, cops were still allowed to shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back.  IMO, that should still be the case is the crimes the person is suspected of are serious violent offenses

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 08:17:10 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 09, 2009, 06:05:40 PMSeven yards (21 feet) is known as the reactionary gap.  At 21 feet, the officer has about 1 to 1 1/2 seconds to draw his firearm, bring it up to a firing position, and aim before an attacker can reach them.

This is interesting... in the state of Kentucky, to obtain a CCDW you must:

* Demonstrate that you can manually load a magazine, insert it into the pistol, and properly switch off the safety (if applicable) in a reasonable timeframe;

* Fire twenty rounds into a silhouette target at 21 feet.  Of those 20 rounds, 11 must hit the silhouette somewhere (does not have to be in the bullseye at all).

* Take a safety course with the certified firearms instructor who supervises you while performing the first two requirements I listed above.

I think the requirements for steps 1 and 2 are a little different for revolver owners.

I hope I'm never a bystander to a gunfight in Kentucky.

Quote from: dps on April 09, 2009, 10:11:00 PM
Back when I was a little kid, cops were still allowed to shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back.  IMO, that should still be the case is the crimes the person is suspected of are serious violent offenses

Yeah because police on the scene always have all the facts and are never deceived by faulty tips.

Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2009, 10:17:23 PM
Yeah because police on the scene always have all the facts and are never deceived by faulty tips.

You've got a point there, garbon, but in this case ulmont doesn't. One of the few things that doesn't seem to be in dispute here is that this guy was clearly violent and obviously dangerously unpredictable.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 09, 2009, 10:15:04 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2009, 08:17:10 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 09, 2009, 06:05:40 PMSeven yards (21 feet) is known as the reactionary gap.  At 21 feet, the officer has about 1 to 1 1/2 seconds to draw his firearm, bring it up to a firing position, and aim before an attacker can reach them.

This is interesting... in the state of Kentucky, to obtain a CCDW you must:

* Demonstrate that you can manually load a magazine, insert it into the pistol, and properly switch off the safety (if applicable) in a reasonable timeframe;

* Fire twenty rounds into a silhouette target at 21 feet.  Of those 20 rounds, 11 must hit the silhouette somewhere (does not have to be in the bullseye at all).

* Take a safety course with the certified firearms instructor who supervises you while performing the first two requirements I listed above.

I think the requirements for steps 1 and 2 are a little different for revolver owners.

I hope I'm never a bystander to a gunfight in Kentucky.

No kidding.

Yeah, I know.  :lol:

I suspect the "marksman" requirement is in there to make sure blind people can't get a CCDW.

I recently fired about 20 rounds (ok, more like 50  :blush: ) at a target at 21 feet and I had no problem getting all of the shots in the bullseye, most nearly dead-center, aside from the five or so I took at the head and neck. :menace:

Quote from: Caliga on April 10, 2009, 06:44:51 AM
Yeah, I know.  :lol:

I suspect the "marksman" requirement is in there to make sure blind people can't get a CCDW.

I recently fired about 20 rounds (ok, more like 50  :blush: ) at a target at 21 feet and I had no problem getting all of the shots in the bullseye, most nearly dead-center, aside from the five or so I took at the head and neck. :menace:

It is like shooting womp rats at beggar's canyon back home.

Quote from: Scipio on April 09, 2009, 09:01:02 PM
FBI agents are trained to keep shooting until the guy goes down.  I thought that cops were trained that as well, which is the top reason for restrictions on the use of lethal force; since shooting someone with a gun is always potentially lethal, there's no reason to shoot to wound.

"Shoot to wound" is also known as "intent to maim". Not a viable policy.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2009, 05:18:50 PM

Quote from: Scipio on April 09, 2009, 09:01:02 PM
FBI agents are trained to keep shooting until the guy goes down.  I thought that cops were trained that as well, which is the top reason for restrictions on the use of lethal force; since shooting someone with a gun is always potentially lethal, there's no reason to shoot to wound.

"Shoot to wound" is also known as "intent to maim". Not a viable policy.

It also leaves the witness alive, IMHO.

Quote from: Scipio on April 10, 2009, 06:26:36 PM
It also leaves the witness alive, IMHO.

And that is the biggest issue. A jury is much less sympathetic towards a dead criminal than a maimed "victim of circumstance and society" misunderstood bad guy who never had a chance growing up.  :mad:

Quote from: Scipio on April 10, 2009, 06:26:36 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2009, 05:18:50 PM

Quote from: Scipio on April 09, 2009, 09:01:02 PM
FBI agents are trained to keep shooting until the guy goes down.  I thought that cops were trained that as well, which is the top reason for restrictions on the use of lethal force; since shooting someone with a gun is always potentially lethal, there's no reason to shoot to wound.

"Shoot to wound" is also known as "intent to maim". Not a viable policy.

It also leaves the witness alive, IMHO.

Which is why I preferred carrying .357s and .45s as personal weapons as opposed to the 9mm Glock POS.
The larger the bore, the more reduction in testimony.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2009, 07:07:25 PM

Quote from: Scipio on April 10, 2009, 06:26:36 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2009, 05:18:50 PM

Quote from: Scipio on April 09, 2009, 09:01:02 PM
FBI agents are trained to keep shooting until the guy goes down.  I thought that cops were trained that as well, which is the top reason for restrictions on the use of lethal force; since shooting someone with a gun is always potentially lethal, there's no reason to shoot to wound.

"Shoot to wound" is also known as "intent to maim". Not a viable policy.

It also leaves the witness alive, IMHO.

Which is why I preferred carrying .357s and .45s as personal weapons as opposed to the 9mm Glock POS.
The larger the bore, the more reduction in testimony.

The RI state police carry the .357 Sig Sauer. :menace:

She had a Glock 22 (.40 caliber).