Los Angeles Police Commission Tells Officers To Run Away from Armed Suspects

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Shoot em all and let God sort em out.
You have a gun and point it at police you die.

or not point it at police you die too.

I think what you mean is if you brandish a gun, you could die.

There are plenty of instances where people have had and/or brandished guns or other weapons when police were present and lived to tell the tale without being shot at.

I think that your comment is a direct contradiction to your avatar.

But to make a point on-topic, no officer should ever run away from a suspect with a deadly weapon, as that weapon could be subsequently used against the public that they are supposed to protect. Of course, as any person who knows anything about hand-to-hand combat against weapons will tell you, coming face-to-face with someone with a knife is much more dangerous than someone with a gun, assuming that you know how to handle yourself.

Running is generally always the best option for self-preservation against a knife attack, but LEOs don't have that luxury of only worrying about themselves, and therefore a police commission telling them to flee, or even to "redeploy" really is a policy that puts the public in greater danger.

a reply to: jonnywhite

You know a lot of unarmed people die in police encounters.

I do know that. I also know based on the report the assailant in this case was armed with a lethal weapon. If the assailant were wielding a bat, or club, or other blunt object, I could maybe agree to the logic of re-deploy. However, when a grown adult makes the choice to charge with violent intent with a bladed object that can also pierce through a woven ballistic resistant vest, they have made the choice of attacking with lethal force and intent.

Noone in any job field, let alone law enforcement, should be questioning in mere seconds whether it is worth it to risk dying right now for a criminal who mas made the choice to use lethal force against them. The argument here really is whether a ranged lethal weapon is appropriate for a melee lethal attack. The only one who has the right to make that decision is the human being defending their life, right there, in that moment. Would I stick up for him if he shot teenagers pelting his vehicles with stones? Heck no. Context.

A grown adult choosing to attack another with lethal force is grounds to be met with lethal force no matter who you are. Ranged vs melee is an irrelevant argument. The only motivating factor that should be taken into account is that human intent and the actions of that intent to make an attempt on a life with a lethal weapon. The assailant was not twirling it in their fingers, jumping and retreating. Or had it sheathed. This was an armed assailant brandishing a lethal bladed weapon that can easily commit great bodily harm whos intent was made clear when they proceeded to charge full speed and close the distance to make an imminent assault with possible great bodily harm.

People should have to have experienced their life literally in the hands of another to really appreciate the significance of this.