New Orleans Police Involved In Justifiable Shooting

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/26/police.shooting/index.html

It was justifiable, in case anyone is wondering.

[hammegk]

Per tv talking heads, man in suit, surrounded by 10 cops with guns drawn, waves 3" blade pocketknife, will not drop per command, shot 7 times ... :)

Engagement policies just gets stranger & stranger ... :confused:

[Bjorn]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/26/police.shooting/index.html

It was justifiable, in case anyone is wondering.And yet ...

After a standoff that lasted at least several minutes, during which several police officers were pointing their guns at the man, he lunged within a foot of one of them, Adams said.Since he didn't have a bomb, not even a gun, wasn't this a time when the police could have aimed at his legs - if they had to shoot him?

[HarryKeogh]

Since he didn't have a bomb, not even a gun, wasn't this a time when the police could have aimed at his legs - if they had to shoot him?

or taser him?

they did Mace him though to no effect.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And yet ...

Since he didn't have a bomb, not even a gun, wasn't this a time when the police could have aimed at his legs - if they had to shoot him?

Interesting you should mention that. On CNN they were interviewing a guy that said police are trained to aim for the "center of mass" (or something like that). In other words, when a guy with a knife is lunging at you, the adrenaline is flowing, and the hands are shaking, you aim for the biggest target. You don't have time to say "Excuse me Mr. Man-with-a-knife. Could you hold still while I try to shoot the knife out of your hand?"

[The Central Scrutinizer]

or taser him?

they did Mace him though to no effect.

I don't think Taser guns are standard issue. So they have to call in someone that has one, and they person may be 10 minutes away. I suppose it he has stood still for 10 minutes, it would have worked.

[HarryKeogh]

if the cops could predict the future: "ok, he's going to lunge in a few moments, you shoot him in the leg everyone else stand by."

what probably happened: "let's not shoot this guy unless we have to" (man lunges)..."what the!? shoot!!!"

I do think they were justified in their actions but perhaps it should have been handled differently but hindsight is 20/20.

[Bjorn]

Interesting you should mention that. On CNN they were interviewing a guy that said police are trained to aim for the "center of mass" (or something like that). In other words, when a guy with a knife is lunging at you, the adrenaline is flowing, and the hands are shaking, you aim for the biggest target. You don't have time to say "Excuse me Mr. Man-with-a-knife. Could you hold still while I try to shoot the knife out of your hand?"I understand that, and would certainly aim for the biggest target myself if someone was attacking me with a knife.

However ...

a standoff that lasted at least several minutes, during which several police officers were pointing their guns at the manIt looks like the police had "several minutes" when the guy wasn't attacking anyone, although he had a knife in the hand and wouldn't drop to the ground.

Instead of waiting for him to attack (and blam, blam, blam, kill him) why didn't anyone aim for his legs during those "several minutes"?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

if the cops could predict the future: "ok, he's going to lunge in a few moments, you shoot him in the leg everyone else stand by."

what probably happened: "let's not shoot this guy unless we have to" (man lunges)..."what the!? shoot!!!"

I do think they were justified in their actions but perhaps it should have been handled differently but hindsight is 20/20.

Yep. And I think if they did the "shoot him in the leg" thing, then you would have the same crowd whining "Why did they shoot him the leg? He was just standing there"

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Instead of waiting for him to attack (and blam, blam, blam, kill him) why didn't anyone aim for his legs during those "several minutes"?

Yep. And I think if they did the "shoot him in the leg" thing, then you would have the same crowd whining "Why did they shoot him the leg? He was just standing there"

I must be psychic.

[Just thinking]

Per tv talking heads, man in suit, surrounded by 10 cops with guns drawn, waves 3" blade pocketknife, will not drop per command, shot 7 times ... :)

Engagement policies just gets stranger & stranger ... :confused:

Ever consider what a sharp 3" blade could do slicing across your neck? In all the likely confusion of a lunge and struggle (with no shots being fired) and a knife present in the hands of an uncooperative, the above scenario I just mentioned is not all that impossible.

[Bjorn]

I must be psychic.Why? Am I a whining crowd or something? :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Why? Am I a whining crowd or something? :)

No. :)

But there are those who will criticize no matter what the police do. Agreed?

[Cleon]

No. :)

But there are those who will criticize no matter what the police do. Agreed?

And there are those who will justify whatever the police do.

[brodski]

I am certainly no police apologist, but how stupid do you have to be to lunge with a knife at a police office who is pointing a gun at you, and is backed up by several other, all ready to "put you down" to protect their own?

It's either terminal stupidity or suicide by cop.

That is if the reports are accurate of course.

Maybe the cops could have tackled him without shooting him, but that would require extensive retraining and a reorganization of the criminal justice system in the US. American cops go armed, and are trained in the most effective use of those arms. If you except a routinely armed police force, then this is the kind of situation where it is perfectly acceptable for the cops to shoot. Which s one of the very many reasons I oppose the routine arming of police in my country, because our bobbies are expected to be able to subdue a knife wielding assailant without resorting to leathal force, and they get the training and equipment to achieve this. US cops face more threats to their life, and are given appropriate tools to deal with those threats, unfortunately in practice this meas that cops in the us are More likely to kill an assailant that unarmed cops are. Still, if you threaten the life of an armed officer what do you expect?

I wont be loosing any sleep over this case, unlike the Harry Stanly or Jean Charles de Menezes cases.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And there are those who will justify whatever the police do.

True. But when you wave a knife at a cop, after being told repeatedly to drop it, you can't complain about the outcome.

[Cleon]

True. But when you wave a knife at a cop, after being told repeatedly to drop it, you can't complain about the outcome.

Well, typically when you're fatally shot, you tend to have some difficulty complaining about the outcome anyway...

[fishbob]

they did Mace him though to no effect.
He must have been a robot or a space alien then, because that stuff will definitely affect humans.

[corplinx]

He must have been a robot or a space alien then.

He was pepper sprayed, not maced. And he partially covered his face.

[Grammatron]

He must have been a robot or a space alien then, because that stuff will definitely affect humans.

Depending if he was on drugs or not.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, typically when you're fatally shot, you tend to have some difficulty complaining about the outcome anyway...

Which is as it should be.

[Skeptic]

And there are those who will justify whatever the police do.

Yes, but whatever you think of the police, shooting a man who lunges at you with a knife after being told for a few minutes to stop it is rather justifiable.

I agree with those who think it's probably "suicide by cop", which is more common that one might imagine.

[fishbob]

He was pepper sprayed, not maced. And he partially covered his face.
Oh. Then he must have been a robot or a space alien then, because that stuff will definitely affect humans with partially covered faces.

Just goofing a little. There is something not right with the report where it says he was pepper sprayed with no effect.

[Freakshow]

Oh. Then he must have been a robot or a space alien then, because that stuff will definitely affect humans with partially covered faces.

Just goofing a little. There is something not right with the report where it says he was pepper sprayed with no effect.Nope. It happens. Especially when people are under the influence of certain drugs, such as PCP. I've seen a Taser demonstration video that showed police hitting someone with pepper-spray (the guy was on PCP), and it had no effect other than making him blink. So they used a Taser on him, and that worked.

Pepper spray is far from being 100% effective.

ETA: Found it. http://www.personal-selfdefense-online.com/taser-video_center.htm Look at the "PCP user LASD" video.

[Bjorn]

No. :)

But there are those who will criticize no matter what the police do. Agreed?Sure. We just had a thread here about the guy who was shot and killed by air marshals, and a typical defense of the marshals' actions went like this (by Skeptic):

"people had 15 seconds to choose if they risk a plane being blown up"

I can understand the reasoning in that case - it happened fast, it was confusing, he "reached into his bag" and so on. In the present case we had 5-10 police officers around a guy with a knife in his hand for several minutes, and yet the reason for shooting him is basically the same: What are you supposed to do if someone lunges a knife at you? Maybe you could shoot him in the leg before it got that far.

You wrote

And I think if they did the "shoot him in the leg" thing, then you would have the same crowd whining "Why did they shoot him the leg? He was just standing there"

I think the opposite - I think most people would say "good, at least they didn't kill him". I might be wrong.

[Freakshow]

Yep. And I think if they did the "shoot him in the leg" thing, then you would have the same crowd whining "Why did they shoot him the leg? He was just standing there"They already do...
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510671997
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=1A01E91E134A327080256F190042408D

What exactly do these people want the police to do? (Rhetorical question...I already know. And I'm glad Amnesty Int. is not in charge of my local police force.)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think the opposite - I think most people would say "good, at least they didn't kill him". I might be wrong.

I think you are wrong!
;)

[Manny]

Heh. Even that assumes that the guy doesn't die from being shot in the leg. If the cops hit the wrong artery, or if he had pre-existing health problem, or if the ambulance gets stuck in traffic or any of a thousand other ifs and all of a sudden people are saying "why did the cops kill the guy? He was 20 feet away and posed no immediate threat!"

[Giz]

I think you are wrong!
;)

I think the lawyers would have liked it.

[LW]

Maybe you could shoot him in the leg before it got that far.

Perhaps they hoped that they could in the end defuse the situation without shooting at all.

And mind you, outside movies shooting at a leg is not exactly a harmless way of disarmament. A single shot that hits the femoral artery [I knew that the anatomy book that my girlfriend forgot here when she left to visit her family would be useful for something] may be lethal. A single shot that crushes leg bones may leave the victim crippled for life, especially if it hits the knee.

[Tmy]

The guy appeared to be mentally ill. So shouting commands probably wouldnt do much. Cant reason with a crazy, thats what makes them CRAZY!

It looked like 1/2 the police force had him surrounded. And he ends up with 9 bullets in him??? Sorry but thats f'upd. basically he was dead as soon as he picked up the knife. Someone shouldve taken his leg out instead of letting it progress to a fatal shooting.

[Skeptic]

I can understand the reasoning in that case - it happened fast, it was confusing, he "reached into his bag" and so on. In the present case we had 5-10 police officers around a guy with a knife in his hand for several minutes, and yet the reason for shooting him is basically the same: What are

The crucial difference which you are missing is that in this case the police knew he had a knife, not a bomb, so there is more time and ways to neutralize him as he is not an imminent threat to others (though wielding a knife on a plane would still justify deadly force.) The fact that they waited for several minutes and tried mace and other things first shows they would probably not have shot him if he calmed down.

But then he actually attacked them with the knife--then, you only have a few seconds and are at point-blank range, so it is an imminent threat; you have no time to pause and think if you can hit their hand or leg, which is a lot harder, incidentally, than the movies make it appear.

It's a totally different situation in far more ways than merely the time of the incident. The police acted correctly in both cases.

P.S.

I, for one, would much rather give the police the power to shoot me dead if I attack them, than the power to shoot me in the leg if they think I might attack them in a few minutes and didn't want the situation to "get that far". The second is, in effect, the right to shoot in the leg anybody for rude behavior.

[Tmy]

Yeah but it looked to me that the guy was nuts. Are you saying the only solution was to shoot him dead?

I think its lame that a large police department like NOrleans, would be without non-lethal methods. Its a party town for christsakes. Im sure they have been bag guns and rubber bullets available.

[luchog]

He must have been a robot or a space alien then, because that stuff will definitely affect humans.
Not always, no. See below.
Depending if he was on drugs or not.
Not necessarily. It is possible for a normal person to be completely immune to Mace (CS agent) and have a high tolerance to pepper spray.

I know this not only from reading (the info is easily available if you so a little homework); but from my own personal experience. I am highly resistant to Mace. It takes 3-5 times the normal level and duration of exposure for it to have the desired effect on me. My basic training senior drill seargent was completely immune to it, as was one of the trainees in my unit.

I also have a somewhat higher resistance to pepper spray than the average person.

When pepper spray first became widely available for law enforcement, there was a concern voiced by police in, i think it was, Texas or SoCal, concerning it's effectiveness in the predominantly hispanic populations. The theory being that their high consumption of capsacinoids would give them a high tolerance for the pepper spray. That turned out not to be the case; but some individuals do have a naturally higher resistance to it's effects.

But yes, various drugs can also lend a high level of resistance, or even temporary immunity.

[luchog]

Someone shouldve taken his leg out instead of letting it progress to a fatal shooting.
Aside from the refutations that Freakshow and LW have already posted, have you ever tried to do this? Under similar circumstances? It is very difficult to hit a leg, even at point-blank range; especially[b] in an urban setting where you're worried about potential civilian casualties.

You can claim that police should be trained to do so. No, they not only should not, they cannot be trained to do this. Unlike you, I actually have relevant training and experience; and can tell you that what you see in the movies is just so much garbage. No one with a scrap of intelligence is going to aim for a limb, even a leg. Even stationary, it's a difficult target. Moving, you can forget it unless you have a truly legendary marksmanship and combat ability.

I think its lame that a large police department like NOrleans, would be without non-lethal methods. Its a party town for christsakes. Im sure they have been bag guns and rubber bullets available.

Do you have any experience at all with these sorts of things? I'm guessing no. I'd put a lot of money on it. Rubber bullets are [b]moderately effective when used with other methods for crowd control. They are completely useless when dealing with individual violent criminals. Particularly nutcases and those under the influence of any of several different drugs. Even a reasonably fit normal person can shrug off a volley of rubber bullets fired at point blank range, and still move fast enough to stick a knife in your chest before you have time for a second volley. Someone with a high pain tolerance, or defective pain response, can do so even while being fired upon.

Plus, depending on the type of rubber bullet and the strength of the round being used, they are potentially lethal at short range.

[Bjorn]

I can understand the reasoning in that case - it happened fast, it was confusing, he "reached into his bag" and so on. In the present case we had 5-10 police officers around a guy with a knife in his hand for several minutes, and yet the reason for shooting him is basically the same: What are

The crucial difference which you are missing is that in this case the police knew he had a knife, not a bomb, so there is more time and ways to neutralize him as he is not an imminent threat to others (though wielding a knife on a plane would still justify deadly force.)I didn't miss that at all, it was in fact my point.

The fact that they waited for several minutes and tried mace and other things first shows they would probably not have shot him if he calmed down.I cant find any 'other things' than pepper spray in the story, and for "several minutes" after that was used, nothing much happened.

But then he actually attacked them with the knife--then, you only have a few seconds and are at point-blank range, so it is an imminent threat; you have no time to pause and think if you can hit their hand or leg, which is a lot harder, incidentally, than the movies make it appear.I've already mentioned that I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who attacked me with a knife, small or large. The question is what other means they could have used in those minutes when he didn't attack.

[Bjorn]

They already do...
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510671997
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=1A01E91E134A327080256F190042408D

What exactly do these people want the police to do? (Rhetorical question...I already know. And I'm glad Amnesty Int. is not in charge of my local police force.)Your links aren't very relevant. The second one is about pepper spray used against peaceful demonstrators, in the first one (about tasers) Amnesty states that it "acknowledges the importance of developing non-lethal or "less than lethal" force options to decrease the risk of death or injury inherent in the use of firearms or other impact weapons such as batons" - but questions if it is sometimes used when not necessary (on a handcuffed person according to their example).

[Tmy]

Do you have any experience at all with these sorts of things? I'm guessing no. .

Your right I dont. Ive been shooting before. Im not a professional but an accurate shot at 10 feet aint all that hard.

But Im guessing there should be somthing to handle a similar situation. A friggen net, or bolo, tranquilizer, a boomerang, dog doo on a stick, WHATEVER. It seems that shoot to kill is a pretty lousy policy compared to "try n shoot in the leg." Its not like their was only one police officer around. There were like a dozen of them. Youd think they couldve come up with somthing a little less leathal.

No one had a tazer?

[Freakshow]

Your right I dont. Ive been shooting before. Im not a professional but an accurate shot at 10 feet aint all that hard. It is when it is a life-or-death situation. You'd be surprised as how inaccurate trained, experienced police officers can be when their lives are on the line.

[Tmy]

Has anyone seen the shooting part of the video? On the news, they cut it off before the money shot.

[Ryokan]

Your right I dont. Ive been shooting before. Im not a professional but an accurate shot at 10 feet aint all that hard.

I really suck at first person shooter games, because as a former soldier, I'm trained to always aim for the middle/chest of a person. I know a headshot is better, but when someone pops up in front of me, I shoot him in the chest. Pure reflex. I'm assuming the police in the USA recieve similar training.

But reading this thread makes me glad the police in my country don't carry guns.

[Freakshow]

I really suck at first person shooter games, because as a former soldier, I'm trained to always aim for the middle/chest of a person. I know a headshot is better, but when someone pops up in front of me, I shoot him in the chest. Pure reflex. I'm assuming the police in the USA recieve similar training.

But reading this thread makes me glad the police in my country don't carry guns.That's funny. I read the story and came to the exact opposite conclusion. I'm glad that the police in my country DO carry guns. :) (Although, actually, it merely reinforced a conclusion I came to many years ago.)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that's what's so great about different countries doing things differently. People have at least some choices as to what kind of society they live in. I would hate for all countries to be basically the same.

[Tmy]

I really suck at first person shooter games, because as a former soldier, I'm trained to always aim for the middle/chest of a person. I know a headshot is better, but when someone pops up in front of me, I shoot him in the chest. Pure reflex. I'm assuming the police in the USA recieve similar training.

But reading this thread makes me glad the police in my country don't carry guns.

Soilder is not a police officer. They have different roles. The police arent out to kill the enemy.

[Santa666]

Soilder is not a police officer. They have different roles. The police arent out to kill the enemy.

They may have different roles, however, the goal is the same when operating a firearm. Officers do not carry guns for subdual purposes. Police officers are not trained to fire at appendages because they can miss. You certainly DO NOT want to aim for an arm or leg and fail to hit the target, losing your own life or the life of a fellow officer in the process.

The officers spent several minutes pointing guns at this person, issuing orders to this person, and attempting to use pepper spray; all of which failed to cause him to put down the weapon. For anyone who believes this man should not be dead, please provide a viable alternative the police could have used. If I were one of those officers, and a man lunged at me with a knife, I would fully expect my fellow officers to take whatever action necessary to protect me as I would do the same to protect them.


Santa

[Garrette]

"Shoot to Wound" is a myth.

Hitting a target at 10 feet isn't particularly difficult if you're calm and the target isn't shooting back or charging at you with a knife or in some other fashion threatening your life in return.

Most law enforcement officers never fire their weapon except at the target range; most hope never to have to and abhor the fact that it might become necessary; the concomitant repugnance at having to actually do it works against their accuracy, too.

It amazes me that this canard will not die.

[Beerina]

Yep. And I think if they did the "shoot him in the leg" thing, then you would have the same crowd whining "Why did they shoot him the leg? He was just standing there"

"Shoot him in the leg" is a fantasy maintained by the squeamish sitting on their asses in an office somewhere.

One would probably miss, and cause them to either start running, or worse, start running at the officers. Now what? And suppose you hit him in the leg. Now he's laying on the ground, in agony, scared out of his wits, thinks he's about to be killed, and still has his weapon...

The police are trained, and correctly, that if they shoot, they shoot to kill..

That doesn't mean they don't set up a sniper to shoot out his knife (or gun) if time and safety permit. But the scenario these officers had was not that situation.

[Beerina]

He was pepper sprayed, not maced. And he partially covered his face.

Police officers can legally carry mace -- why weren't they using it?

Pepper spray is for the public to have and use, since it counts as a "food additive", it's not illegal.

[brodski]

Pepper spray is for the public to have and use, since it counts as a "food additive", it's not illegal.

Thats gonna be one hot curry :p .

[Manny]

It's New Orleans. The probably just give the cops a bottle of Tabasco and a nebulizer.

[luchog]

Your right I dont. Ive been shooting before. Im not a professional but an accurate shot at 10 feet aint all that hard.
On a small, moving target it certainly is. Very hard. And once someone with a knife is within 10 feet of you, you have, literally, only a fraction of a second to react if he appears to be attacking.

[luchog]

Police officers can legally carry mace -- why weren't they using it?

Pepper spray is for the public to have and use, since it counts as a "food additive", it's not illegal.
Two serious errors in your post.

1) Police don't, as a rule, carry mace anymore for two reasons: one, it is less effective than pepper-spray, more people are highly resistent or outright immune to CS agent; and two, there is a non-trivial risk of lethality due to reaction to the CS agent (while some people are immune to CS, others are dangerously sensitive).

2) There are two grades of pepper spray: civilian grade, which is fairly mild (you can eat the stuff straight out of the can, if it doesn't have a toxic propellant); and LE/military grade, which is several times stronger than the civilian grade.