• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another fatal shooting in St. Louis

then what exactly is your point...you took my post, twisted it and then argued a point I had not made

of course I have high expectations of the police force as should we all...they carry weapons, have power and the authority to blow you away.... and in MY particular geographic area, they are well rewarded

Um, you claimed you thought cops were paid just fine (impled: for the risks they take) and also implied that I was ignorant of police by questioning by background.

I have done nothing but answer your questions since. And you have gotten increasingly defensive for no reason that I see.
 
Um, you claimed you thought cops were paid just fine (impled: for the risks they take) and also implied that I was ignorant of police by questioning by background.
yes, these are the first clear points that you have made, and I agree with this part of your post

I have done nothing but answer your questions since. And you have gotten increasingly defensive for no reason
I don't like my words twisted, it's that simple
 
yes, these are the first clear points that you have made, and I agree with this part of your post

I don't like my words twisted, it's that simple

I didnt twist your words anywhere. At least nowhere I'm aware of. I have no need to unnecessarily aggravate you, I normally find you to be a rational poster.
 
Lursa, I'm interested in what you feel might constitute a borderline case for lethal response by police. Clearly this particular situation is a slam dunk in your opinion. Can you give an example of something which isn't cut and dried or is solidly cut-and-dried the other way? Hypothetical, or real (e.g., Amadou Diallo) if you prefer.

I've only watched the video once. I'm not into watching people die and sometimes not inclined toward the detachment necessary to view repeatedly since it's not my job. I'd need to view again to develop a firmer opinion, but my first impression is that this looks borderline. I'm not saying the outcome would've been different in other scenarios but the mechanics along the way seemed to be suboptimal - for cops. I don't wish to armchair quarterback. I will say this: as a citizen, I would want the right to drop that guy in the same situation were I as close as the cops AND had no opportunity for retreat.

Now, when I run away, that means someone else has to deal with the crazy guy with a knife. Enter the cops. Who don't exactly have the opportunity to run away unless faced with overwhelming force... but this is their job and they're trained, equipped (or should be) blah, blah, blah. I believe if there's the opportunity to retire and regroup that should be first choice over shooting. That is, retreat into an arc of less than 180, forcing the individual to choose a target or maintain some margin of distance from all. One officer can immediately deploy taser or high volume pepper spray, the others ready to shoot as required.

I didn't see any wall behind them. I didn't see any strategic thinking. I saw all parties continue approach until such time as a police shooting seems justified. ****, man, why'd they get out of the car? The same result could be accomplished by rolling the window down, demanding he drop the knife, then immediately shooting his ass. Basically the functional equivalent. I'm not convinced that's the best they could do.

I do believe that those sworn to uphold the law should be held to a higher accountability both in legal standards and operational expertise, not lesser. I personally don't feel (based on casual examination) this case is a good poster-boy for police abuse. All the same, I can dredge up dozens or perhaps hundreds of cases which are, with some effort. Most if not all will be accompanied by fabrications and/or significant discrepancies in the associated police report which have been established to be false.

Part of what might be behind a rush to judgement against the police stems from a growing, cumulative awareness regarding the attitude and modus operandi of many contemporary law enforcement officers. Everyone is a perp, a suspect, my potential killer. I believe you said you were a ranger, Lursa. No ranger I've interacted with has ever made me feel like a subhuman, but cops sure have. Pretty much every casual contact in the last couple of decades, except when I've called them, and sometimes even then.

Based on comments favorable towards the police made in this thread, it seems to be acknowledged that nearly any confrontation between police and commoners could be life threatening to the officer - i.e., a blow the the head can be fatal, which it can. I freely admit that at any time, a sufficiently motivated person could breach the 21ft distance and kill an officer with their bare hands before it would be possible to react with their weapon. And one never knows when this might happen. If officer safety is the first concern, would it not be appropriate to have all non-police officers automatically assume a compliance position when an officer approaches them within a certain threshold distance, say 25 feet?

Hmm. That's such an obvious incursion on personal liberty, it CAN'T fly. (Don't bet on it; I'd give it about 25-30 years before ANY small town cop with have both the technology and legal authority to physically immobilize all persons within a small radius at the touch of the button based on their expert opinion of a perceived threat. They're about to acquire the power to shut off all these pesky cellphones. You seriously think they won't want to be able to shut YOU [generically] off? I would, and I'm a nice guy.) I think the statement in blue in your sig line is true for all people, but especially true for cops, and I think they've by and large abandoned that notion.

It pains me less to be armchair psychologist than quarterback. I postulate this: what you are seeing is simply backlash against a now well-documented trend of abuse of authority. Notice I said "documented"; the number of cases established to be contrary to police versions seems in near direct proportion to the public's ability to independently document the events.

Moreover, it may not be fair, but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles. I'd say, way more often than not, it crumbles in favor of law enforcement. In each and every way. Public perception (and, yes, I've been surveying this subject for a while) is increasingly vociferous and wider spread regarding police attitudes and actions. Old white ladies with spotless records are taking stands against the police as a whole! I mean, I'm just saying! This didn't come out of a vacuum, and it didn't come out of this one video.
 
Last edited:
Lursa, I'm interested in what you feel might constitute a borderline case for lethal response by police. Clearly this particular situation is a slam dunk in your opionion. Can you give an example of something which isn't cut and dried or is solidly cut-and-dried the other way? Hypothetical, or real (e.g., Amadou Diallo) if you prefer.
.

I never said this was a slam dunk. But the police statement did say the guy was within 3-4 feet of at least one cop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
 
Last edited:
... a sufficiently motivated person could breach the 21ft distance and kill an officer with their bare hands before it would be possible to react with their weapon.
Given I said this, it's a little odd to reply with the link I must be familiar with. TLDR?
 
Given I said this, it's a little odd to reply with the link I must be familiar with. TLDR?

That you dont see the relevance speaks to a lack of knowledge of violence and police encounters.
 
That you dont see the relevance speaks to a lack of knowledge of violence and police encounters.

Why do you think I don't see the relevance? I understand the brief article in its entirety quite well, and I've read every single time you've posted the closest distance in the actual encounter. What's left to see?
 
Lursa, I'm interested in what you feel might constitute a borderline case for lethal response by police.

Hostile suspect with a knife 35 feet from a single police officer. The actions of the suspect determine the actions of the cop.
 
Hostile suspect with a knife 35 feet from a single police officer. The actions of the suspect determine the actions of the cop.
Thanks for a very specific reply. Is it safe to say, then, that if the suspect took one step towards the officer you feel lethal force would be justified? Is it necessary that the suspect actually have a knife, or is it sufficient that the officer believes it?
 
Thanks for a very specific reply. Is it safe to say, then, that if the suspect took one step towards the officer you feel lethal force would be justified? Is it necessary that the suspect actually have a knife, or is it sufficient that the officer believes it?

Do you think that anyone not immediately involved would be able to evaluate the threat *per foot*?

If no, who do you think would be the best people to effectively evaluate that threat.

If yes, since you have no immediate insight into the threat, how do you justify determining a course of action for a person who's life is at risk?
 
Would a stun gun have subdued the man with a knife?

Stun Gun, Flashlight Stun Gun, Rechargeable Stun Gun, Mini Stun Gun, Pink Stun Gun & More, Boise ID



PETALUMA, Calif. (AP) - Authorities say a naked man who was running on a Northern California freeway resisted an officer's attempt to arrest him and had to be subdued with a stun gun.

The California Highway Patrol said 25-year-old Alexander Leonard of Hawthorne, California was taken into custody Sunday morning on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs and resisting arrest.

Sgt. Ross Ingels told the San Francisco Chronicle (Naked suspect blocking Hwy 101 in Petaluma gets Tasered, arrested - SFGate ) that Leonard was driving erratically in northbound lanes of Highway 101 in Petaluma before crashing into a guardrail. He said Leonard then got out of a rented pickup truck, took off his clothes and ran on the freeway.

Ingels said when Leonard refused an officer's demand to stop, the officer used a stun gun on him.



CHP use stun gun to subdue naked man running on freeway


The problem may be the police training. Police are not taught to use non-lethal means of subduing upset or belligerent individuals.





//
I think we should leave that up to the officer and not policy. If the officer wants to take the risk of being stabbed to save the life of the person with the knife, that should be his choice. We should not force anyone to take unnecessary risks. It only takes one well placed stab, accidental, lucky or not, to kill someone quickly.
 
Do you think that anyone not immediately involved would be able to evaluate the threat *per foot*?
If I'm to take your question literally, it is certainly possible that others in the vicinity might be in a better position to see the full context, and/or might not be affected by elevated stress since they aren't under threat, are directing their attention solely to observation and not real-time tactics, etc. Just as an umpire is in better standing than the batter to deliver not only an objective but highly accurate account of whether a pitch was a strike or ball. A third party may theoretically be much better suited to assess threats than ones involved in engagement. Reconaissance is provided to support troop actions for obvious reasons. No, the fighter is not always the best eyes. Even cops have spotters and recon for this very reason. And incidental witnesses may be able to provide a more accurate and detailed account than the officer(s) involved up to and including a more credible threat assessment.

But I don't think that's what you meant. I assume it's more like "Do you think that anyone not immediately involved should be able to evaluate the threat *per foot* for them (without their consent)? If so, my answer is no. The person experiencing the threat should make the determination as a matter of fact concerning their own well-being. But that doesn't absolve them entirely of responsibility for their actions. More on that in a moment.

In light of my reinterpretation of your first question, I'll answer the appropriate follow-on question:
If no, who do you think would be the best people to effectively evaluate that threat.
If the person being threatened is a cop, or if the cop is acting on behalf of others who are perceived as being threatened, then it is the cop's call.

You answered my questions with only questions. Your choice of questions suggest to me we are operating on entirely different planes and are unlikely to achieve any substantial mutual understanding. I asked because your criteria for assessing the threshold of lethal force justification was well-stated and relatively objective, for which I'm thankful, yet doesn't stand to the fullest scrutiny. While you may consider this irrelevant pickiness, there's a great deal of context dependence omitted from your criteria. Your sole qualifier is "hostile", presumably as judged by the police on scene.

It's not hard to imagine a person threatening suicide with a knife might flail pathetically at kindly strangers trying to intervene, telling them to get back. Neither is it hard to imagine cops arriving on the scene at that particular moment - even on a suicide call - interpreting that as hostile and threatening action. If the police were to stop their cruiser at 35 ft distance from the individual, exit their vehicle, draw their firearms and yell "drop the weapon!"... would they be entitled to exercise lethal force if the individual advanced a few steps toward them? There could be no finding of poor judgement, in fact no inquiry at all because a priori it meets the criteria for lethal force?

What might be considered nitpicky or going to extremes to make a point is really exposing a position for lack of nuance. How does one properly account for the wide variety of possible situations and subjective or erroneous conclusions of hostility with such blunt instrument as your proposed criteria? While I do feel the decision to use lethal force at the moment rests with the officer - just as with a homeowner during a perceived home invasion - the final judgement on whether the decision was appropriate for the circumstances should not, and in practice does not, lie with the shooter. Thus, it may be true that, while a simple rule of survival might suffice for deciding to act, it does not suffice for a final determination of the correctness of that decision. If forensic evidence and logical inference determine that the force was unjustified, the officer can be culpable even when acting within the decision parameters.

Unfortunately, findings of unnecessary lethal force are rare enough to flag them as statistically anomalous, but that's another matter which is genuinely off topic.

I got the impression that it was a slam dunk in your mind because you're stating figures like 21 and 35 feet for criteria and 3-4 feet for closest approach to the officer. That far exceeds your criteria for lethality, why isn't it a slam dunk? Do you have additional unstated conditions?

I not only looked at the video again, I watched it many times, also scrubbed back and forth through frames and examined individual frames in detail. My first observation is, you're either playing fast and loose with distances (in favor of the police), or simply repeating what you've been told. The "3 or 4 feet" figure you've bandied about applies to a rolling corpse at the moment it (that's right, "it") hits the sidewalk after falling from the low wall. My second observation is that I would rule this police action as justified under the circumstances. The third observation is that a certain measure of excessive zeal is evident from the number of shots fired and the duration of fire, however I don't conclude this is evidence of anything other than "heat of the moment" reaction once the decision to drop the target had already been made. My final observation is that I believe the performance of the officers on scene prior to the use of lethal force was notably suboptimal but not outside the bounds of acceptability.

There are plenty of unjustified use of force cases to rally around, this is not one of them. IMO.
 
Last edited:
I think it's disingenuous to stack something like the Tueller Drill against any real world situation without proper contextual qualification. The drill establishes a bounding case for expectation of survivability. Any given case may deviate greatly and the typical case is unlike it altogether. It presumes the officer(s) must unholster as opposed to being already drawn and trained on the target. It doesn't account for instances where the officer has deliberately engaged the subject at distances under the bounding threshold, nor cases where the officer advances rapidly as opposed to the subject.

A real world threat need not be anything like this drill, so this survivability measure is an inadequate basis in itself on which to judge merits of use of force. Merely stating the final position of the subject relative to the threatened party, for example, ignores all dynamics leading up to that point. I don't like the idea of a "line of death" within which an officer's discretion is supreme, it's too simplistic.

In this situation, I see the closest officer does back up while shooting and does not advance on the subject past the initial contact. All aggression leading up to the shooting is displayed by the subject who had ample opportunity to comply. Shooting commenced at relatively close range. I originally characterized this as borderline where I don't now after closer examination. An unfortunate outcome, yes, but spurred by the subject.
 
I think it's disingenuous to stack something like the Tueller Drill against any real world situation without proper contextual qualification. The drill establishes a bounding case for expectation of survivability. Any given case may deviate greatly and the typical case is unlike it altogether. It presumes the officer(s) must unholster as opposed to being already drawn and trained on the target. It doesn't account for instances where the officer has deliberately engaged the subject at distances under the bounding threshold, nor cases where the officer advances rapidly as opposed to the subject.

A real world threat need not be anything like this drill, so this survivability measure is an inadequate basis in itself on which to judge merits of use of force. Merely stating the final position of the subject relative to the threatened party, for example, ignores all dynamics leading up to that point. I don't like the idea of a "line of death" within which an officer's discretion is supreme, it's too simplistic.

In this situation, I see the closest officer does back up while shooting and does not advance on the subject past the initial contact. All aggression leading up to the shooting is displayed by the subject who had ample opportunity to comply. Shooting commenced at relatively close range. I originally characterized this as borderline where I don't now after closer examination. An unfortunate outcome, yes, but spurred by the subject.


Tueller Drill


"The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]
1.The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
2.A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
3.If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.

Mythbusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 feet the gun wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot.[4]




Tueller Drill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

//
 
Do you think that anyone not immediately involved would be able to evaluate the threat *per foot*?

If no, who do you think would be the best people to effectively evaluate that threat.

If yes, since you have no immediate insight into the threat, how do you justify determining a course of action for a person who's life is at risk?


What is the training officers have for using non-lethal force, when working with a partner, out of a squad car? What further training might be helpful, so that Tasers were used more frequently, before an aggravated suspect is shot and killed?


Would police prefer to carry a 17 Foot Taser, or a 35 Foot Taser? Would police prefer the option of having a shot-gun type taser cartridge, in the cruiser for 100 foot range?


//
 
Last edited:
I think it's disingenuous to stack something like the Tueller Drill against any real world situation without proper contextual qualification. The drill establishes a bounding case for expectation of survivability. Any given case may deviate greatly and the typical case is unlike it altogether. It presumes the officer(s) must unholster as opposed to being already drawn and trained on the target. It doesn't account for instances where the officer has deliberately engaged the subject at distances under the bounding threshold, nor cases where the officer advances rapidly as opposed to the subject.

A real world threat need not be anything like this drill, so this survivability measure is an inadequate basis in itself on which to judge merits of use of force. Merely stating the final position of the subject relative to the threatened party, for example, ignores all dynamics leading up to that point. I don't like the idea of a "line of death" within which an officer's discretion is supreme, it's too simplistic.

In this situation, I see the closest officer does back up while shooting and does not advance on the subject past the initial contact. All aggression leading up to the shooting is displayed by the subject who had ample opportunity to comply. Shooting commenced at relatively close range. I originally characterized this as borderline where I don't now after closer examination. An unfortunate outcome, yes, but spurred by the subject.

It's a standard used in court. You seem to have zero understanding of actual violence and attacks.

It applies to everyone, not just cops. And the entirety of the circumstances are included for each situation. And the bold shows you do not understand at all (as previously stated).

It is ONLY applicable against an immediate lethal threat (or gross bodily harm, etc). Nothing leading up to it matters. Nothing. If the lethal attack is turned towards someone, this is the *reality* of the attacker's ability to kill. (it doesnt mean certainty, it means they have the ability.)

This is the same for all these encounters people are describing. Lots of things *happen* to put all the participants in place. Lethal force can only be used when and IF it gets to the point where lethal force is justified. Not before. For an example...all the cops surrounding him talking to him: lethal force not justified, nobody shooting, trying apprehend him. Attacker becomes a threat: police have the right to protect themselves.
 
What is the training officers have for using non-lethal force, when working with a partner, out of a squad car? What further training might be helpful, so that Tasers were used more frequently, before an aggravated suspect is shot and killed?


Would police prefer to carry a 17 Foot Taser, or a 35 Foot Taser? Would police prefer the option of having a shot-gun type taser cartridge, in the cruiser for 100 foot range?


//

You realize that the media and the public freak out over using tasers too, right? And that people die from tasers? And then they cops get blamed for overtasing, not using feather dusters to apprehend, etc?

Do people really believe cops just prefer to shoot people?? Really?
 
If I'm to take your question literally, it is certainly possible that others in the vicinity might be in a better position to see the full context, and/or might not be affected by elevated stress since they aren't under threat, are directing their attention solely to observation and not real-time tactics, etc. Just as an umpire is in better standing than the batter to deliver not only an objective but highly accurate account of whether a pitch was a strike or ball. A third party may theoretically be much better suited to assess threats than ones involved in engagement. Reconaissance is provided to support troop actions for obvious reasons. No, the fighter is not always the best eyes. Even cops have spotters and recon for this very reason. And incidental witnesses may be able to provide a more accurate and detailed account than the officer(s) involved up to and including a more credible threat assessment.

No, an immediate lethal threat is right in front of YOU and only YOU are looking that person in the eye, judging their intent, absorbing their body language and movements. You point out alot of silly crap that makes no difference if YOU are not the one facing down the threat. Because if it's not black and white (all your attempts at justification are examples of that), then by no means does a 2nd party have the right to decide someone else should take the risk.


In light of my reinterpretation of your first question, I'll answer the appropriate follow-on question:

If the person being threatened is a cop, or if the cop is acting on behalf of others who are perceived as being threatened, then it is the cop's call.

That is all it ever comes down to, if lethal force is justified. They cant kill just to kill, it has to be a justifiable response to an immediate lethal threat or gross bodily harm.

And I'm not even interested in reading the rest of the wall of text you wrote. Maybe you should consider starting a blog.
 
I realize it's beyond yiou.

Quite the Internet ego there eh? Just because I cant be bothered to read your wall of text?

I didnt realize how important your opinion was!

:lamo
 
But NO ONE else can make the split second decisions needed to save their own life except the cop.

The rules, the laws are there. No one else has the right to tell the cop how he should judge those split seconds, but he still has the burden of proof on him to demonstrate that threat.

Not everything can 'literally be a lethal threat.' There is distance, timing, ability to take cover, retreat, multiple reinforcements, etc.

Did you even read the link for the Tueller Drill that I posted? Where multiple tests show that an attacker can reach and kill within 21 feet in 1.5 seconds? That is faster than someone can draw, aim, and shoot. Not to mention that it is uncommon for a single shot to stop an attacker instantly.

This information is so verified and accepted that it is admissable in court.

In this case the Tueller Drill is irrelevant as the weapon was already drawn and yes, anything can be a lethal threat. Anything. Of course, one has to maintain common sense and context because we are obviously not talking about using a flower as a weapon. There is a basic common sense aspect to this argument that is literally being ignored... and that is that the cops have other means of subduing a person and if they do not like it they should not be front line cops... period.
 
It doesn't have to be an either or.

Exactly...

Tell that to the dead cops.

No one else can make those split decisions for anyone in those situations. It's easy for you to not worry about the consequences for other people when you toss around 'feel good' regulations.

Tell that to dead innocent people killed by cops shooting first when there is not a lethal threat, when shooting innocent children in their own homes during no-knock warrant searches or when less than lethal force could have and should have been used and the cop not only gets away with essentially a murder but often gets congratulations for it. Disgusting.

We are not talking about excess. Using lethal force to protect yourself from lethal threats is not excessive force.

There are other options... why you condone police violence is beyond me...

Firefighters don't enter derelict structures and don't go after interior attacks when the fire has reached certain levels. Lifeguards don't have to enter the water when conditions risk their lives as well.

Why do you expect something different from police?

To be fair. Police should try all means. But sometimes the circumstance just doesn't work that way.

I was a fire fighter and entered burning structures and put my life at risk... I was a life guard and put my life at risk saving others... I have saved many lives in my time so far and often my life was at risk if for no other reason than it is risky to attempt to save people in risky situations.

We agree though as your last sentence sums up my position.
 
Back
Top Bottom