Drop the knife!

a reply to: TinySickTears

I think they shot him in the body and it didn't stop him he just decided to back up and grab cover. Cover being that old lady standing around there. So no I don't think that German police or British police shooting him in the leg would have been any different.

Don't police in those places even use lower caliber weapons as well? So it would have been less effective then this was. It was just a bad situation.

But anyways, you could be right on this. Its become impersonal, just show up to random places with random people, and well? You get random results.

i think it is because back in the day in many places the cops kind of came up in the neighborhood they policed.
theyre piped in. they know people. it makes a difference. they were invested to a point.
these days it seems like the cops are policing places they didnt come up in and i think it makes a difference.

a reply to: CharlesT

Ya if anything, this video just proves that the police at least in this situation did not use enough deadly force ahead of time. Funny no! When so many complains out there are that they are using to much deadly force.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: CharlesT

Ya if anything, this video just proves that the police at least in this situation did not use enough deadly force ahead of time. Funny no! When so many complains out there are that they are using to much deadly force.

I have been reading about this for a bit, it is not the force used but when or at what situations they use it.

Like the guy selling cigarettes that got killed right away, while this guy with a knife is allowed to walk around and they do nothing until it is too late and then they kill the lady because they wanted to save her? This is retarded sorry

They should have done the same as in other cases:

Cop 1: drop the knife!
Cop 2: get on the ground!
Cop 3: raise your arms and get on you knees;

Cop1: drop the knife and get on the ground!
Cop 2: knife the drop and walk on your knees!
Cop 3: Hand you feet and drop on the knife while walking on the ground!

And then they shoot because he is not following directions. Why did they take so long to act on it? He clearly had already hurt the lady, they knew he was trying to kill her and they ended up killing her instead of the a*hole.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

You really don't even need a sawing motion to kill somebody if you have a knife to there throat. Just a little pressure and a that's a rap. Hit the right artery which is hard to miss and there dead. It takes a few seconds to choke somebody unconscious if you block there Carotid artery, and if you hold on for a few more seconds then necessary they would be brain dead.

So ya, how fast do you think they would go if you cut into it? Just the forced pressure of the situation and the movement of the guy trying to hide from the bullets and bean bags would be enough to cut into her neck. Sawing motion would not even be necessary.

a reply to: testingtesting

No offense dude, but in both those videos. Those are two completely different situations, for one thing there is no hostages near by. And second, in that first video, all the cop had to do is wack that knife wielding guy once and he was like "Ok i give up" Stop hitting me with your little metal stick.

Do you have any idea how fast you could stab a guy who hit you with a metal stick if he got that close if you wanted to actually kill them. Both of those cops, the lady with the peeper spray would have been beading and dead and the guy with the metal stick, would be dead and in a few minutes if the perp was actually out for blood. A knife, and really any knife even a small one, is really really dangerous if they are really and actually out to use it.

I even cringe when I watch people demonstrate knife defense techniques. Its some wacky wacky #. That's going to get somebody killed if they actually had to try it.

And the machete wielding guy. Again no hostages near by, and obviously the guy was deranged and had mental problems. If anything I suppose that would be the way to handle it, maybe you could even talk him down. Not to sure about crowding him with riot shields and getting him to the ground. With a properly sharp machete you could literally take there feet off while your on the ground. If anything, in a situation like that just to be sure the bean bag guns may come in handy to disarm him before you crowd him.

Sorry bro, but If I had a machete and was actually trying to kill people, I think I could kill all 10 of those police officers, riot shields or no. Its definitely a volatile situation no matter what. I also don't think its to smart to walk behind a machete wielding guy and wack him with a metal stick either, literally a flick of the wrist in a lazy backhand from that guy, and that cop would be dead.

So ya, situations, situations. The problem is that there are to many of them. And there is no one clear cut way to handle all of them.

a reply to: WarriorMH
They should have shot him dead when he came forward past the woman at them, I think the whole thing lasted about a minute, from when they got out of there cars and started yelling drop the knife. And they had crappy vantage points, if you look a the video, most of those cops if they missed would have hit the woman.

And as soon as he backed up for cover and garbed her. Well, it was to late, and only really the guy on the left side had any sort of clear shot by then, and then with the guy trying to hide behind her and squishing that knife to her nick with both hands while trying to hide his head behind hers, its not a good shot by any means.


I don't know maybe if they did not come in guns up, and tried to talk, he would have complied and dropped the knife. Or maybe not, maybe he would have thought he was more in charge and likely started swinging to. But ya, once he was forward past the woman and at them, they should have shot him dead then and there if they wanted to end that situation. Probably the reason why they even tried the bean bag gun, or waited is because of the whole police are to gun ho shoot first ask question latter thing people are going on about.

And your list does not work, because you can only tell them to get on the ground and hands in the air after they have dropped the knife. The guy was told to drop the knife, he didn't, walked towards them within a few feet, still with the knife in hand, then started walking back only when they shot him with the bean bags, which is supposed to deescalate the situation, it didn't work either.

Basically what I am saying is, I dont think he had any intention of dropping the knife to begin with and getting on his knees, if he did, he would have, and he just happened to have somebody to hide behind when he was walking back.

So ya, they probably waited so long because they did not want to look bad and gun ho like all the other cops that people are whining about on the news and interwebs, so they waited a bit longer then they should have. Basically this whole situation could have went differently if they were more gun ho.

Funny how that works no? To much force in one situation and people start crying police brutality, don't get me wrong it exists, but! To little force in another situation and this happens. And timing is generally the key to things. What his shows me is that people who say there is one procedure to handle all situation, are full of bull#.

I'm surprised the officers didn't move in closer right from the start. I assume that their training would stress the importance of protecting potential hostages.

I believe they fired about 3 bean bags. Then they followed that up with 18 bullets. If they didn't want to kill the guy, why don't they overwhelm him with non-lethal attacks? Rubber bullets, bean bags, pepper spray, tasers.

An assailant with a knife can do some serious damage if he gets in close; even if the defender is armed with a firearm. They should have put him down when he started to walk toward them ignoring their commands; especially in light of the fact that he had just attempted to murder another person.

I wonder if their reluctance to preemptively use deadly force is driven by recent media scrutiny of officer involved shootings. I guess they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't...

I think it could have been handled better, but I'm not going to second guess these law enforcement officers. I wasn't there. Hopefully the LAPD will learn from this and provide additional training to its officers.

-dex

a reply to: DerBeobachter

The documentary will star Leslie Nielson. 🍌🍌

I went back and watched again and it is even more disturbing the second time.

The video is like a list of everything a cop should not do in a situation like that.

Cops pull up telling each other to keep cover.
Perp is too far away for pistol accuracy so they let him slowly walk up towards them while they scream. They should have closed the distance.
Perp walks past the victim towards cops and before he gets into effective range idiot cop starts shooting bean bags. Think about that... those bean bags are almost useless at that range.
So they let the perp retreat back to the victim and get behind her and only then do they close distance and start firing killing the victim and perp.

Those cops totaly f'ed up from begining to end.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

You got nothing, because I didn't defend the shooting. Nice try, though...go back and read my initial comment in this thread.

Furthermore: Young black man shot dead by Dutch police six years after father suffered same fate

Mitchel Winters, 21, from Capelle aan den Ijssel, was killed by a policeman in the Prinses Beatrixpark in Schiedam, west of Rotterdam.

Police were summoned after a call claiming a man had been robbed and shot, and reportedly saw someone matching the description in the park.

A police officer shot several times – for reasons that are unclear – but no weapon was discovered on Winters’ body.

So, if Dutch police only shoot at the legs to wound, and they never miss, how did Mr. Winters end up dead. Furthermore, how did the same fate befall his father at the hands of Dutch police years earlier...you know, if they only shoot to wound and never miss?

Now, this is an assumption, but I'm betting that the officer was white. In any event, this shooting prompted protests against police brutality in Denmark, a Danish version of BLM to march in protest and call out that this shooting was an example of racist cops.

In fact, they cited another officer-involved killing in Denmark (the place where they only shoot to wound and never miss, remember), even though Mitch Henriquez wasn't shot, he just died of asphyxiation at the hands of the police. He was a darker-skinned man from Aruba.

Now, I'm not saying that race matters in police killings or brutality, as it all needs to stop or be an only-as-necessary situation (meaning "justified"), but it's worth noting that other countries, even the almighty Netherlands, where police only shoot at the leg to wound and never miss, have their issues as well, both with officer-involved deadly shootings/behavior, and with possibly racist officers.

It's also worthy of note that the officer who killed Mr. Winters was not prosecuted for his actions.

So, what was that about me having nothing?

Oh yeah, again, you were wrong, just like your claim that I'm defending the shooting in this thread.

Go play your silly games with someone else...or better yet, do some simple research before making silly claims about Dutch police.

To summarize: Mature a little, do your own research, and don't make claims that are not true unless you're emotionally prepared to be called out on them and proven wrong.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I knew you were going to post that one, single case. I've lived in NL for 25 years so I know that of which I speak.

Now. How many American citizens have been shot for non-lethal offences. Police worldwide make mistakes but America seems to be conditioned to extreme violence for minor infractions. It's not my fault. Cops here use glocks. I think that being shot in the leg hurts a lot. People waving a knife get shot in the leg (we are not allowed firearms in NL, only criminals or registered gun-club owners, requiring (supposedly) a thorough background police check.) When Dutch police receive reports of a firearm involved, they respond accordingly with a team but all Dutch police officers carry a firearm. They use it as a last resort. I think we can both agree that it's hard to walk/move after being shot in the leg. They often fire a warning shot in the air too. It works well on regular citizens.

I do not need to grow up, I'm 47. Thanks for your concern though. Now, back to the bloodbath...

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver
If they shoot to disable in the legs, then you can definitely kill somebody with a leg shot. You just have to hit the major arteries. It runs all over your body, neck down. I remember some years ago, a football player got shot in the foot in a scuffle, he died of blood loss by the time they arrived at the hospital, it was under 20 minutes I think. Even in your foot you got major arteries.

In fact you can see it, after a day of work or working out, if you take off your socks and look at it, you can likely see a vein not far from the ball of the foot pulsating. So ya, you can kill somebody if you shoot them in the leg, or even the foot. Its not as easily or serious as a chest or head shot, but it can kill you if its in the right spot. And the same goes for a knife stab in the foot in the right place and your likely just as dead.

Not to sure about this wounding them to stop them with leg shots, first of all there not likely to stand still, and leg shots are a smaller target making it a harder shot, if you got somebody intent on murder, if your wasting time trying to shoot his leg while he is using his time trying to shoot your chest or head, your likely going to die. And well you can also kill them, even if you hit them in the leg or if you hit a knee cap, there likely disabled for life, or, # a whole lot of things can happen.

This whole thing on never missing or leg shots seems ridiculous, and I don't think they ever really had to put that theory into actual real practice in a life or death situation, because in that case it would just be dam silly if it came down to it.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

For one, I told you to mature, meaning don't make absolute statements that are provably false and then proceed with ad hominems to cover your mistake...that's a child's tactic.

Secondly, I mentioned three cases readily available to find on the internet, not just one. If you "knew" that I would cite one of those cases, then you knowingly BSed your way through this whole dialogue between us. This is the "mature a little" part of my comment.

Now, being 8 years my senior, I would expect better than false claims, both about your perfect-shot politie and me. But, when people go on the defensive, I rarely expect better.

So, you really want to compare a country with a population less than four of our individual states (or 5% of our national population...hell, the NY Metropolitan area beats the NL population by 3-Million) to a country that much larger that has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms (meaning our police necessitate deadlier force far more often than the NL politie does)?

I mean, you're welcome to do that all that you want, but if you ask me, it's a fool's errand to compare two unlike things in an effort to demonize one. You might as well ask me to compare deaths by squirrels to deaths by pit bulls just so that you can prove that pit bulls have caused more deaths, even though by actual numbers, the amounts of pit bulls that do this is very small compared to their total population.

What I can tell you with certainty (being a self-defense instructor and having done a lot of research on this topic) is that no, there is no guarantee that you will subdue a threat by shooting them in the leg, even if you "never miss." But you know--sure, it always works, until it doesn't. Plus, there is still a lot that an assailant can do with a leg injury.

So, in summary, the NL Politie don't always shoot in the leg, I guarantee that they miss more than you're willing to admit, and it's been well established that trying to compare countries with unlike individual rights, laws, and populations, is about as big a lesson in futility as anything can be, even if it's a tired tactic of people just looking to base arguments on hyperbole and rare occurrences (yes, unjustified police shootings are a rare occurrence in the US, regardless what you want to believe).

And remember, "maturity" is not the same as your age number.

This, honestly, has blossomed into a rather pointless conversation, and I'm going to go ahead and just put a bullet in this lame discussion to put it out of its misery--at least on my end. I have no doubt that you will respond, and I promise that I'll at least read it if you do.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I reread your initial comment, just to be doubly sure. I apologise for a wrongly translated word. My fault. Ik spreek en versta Nederlands tot een redelijke niveau.

When I said armed, I meant armed with a knife. You will always get shot in the leg and that will make you either drop that knife or lie on the ground unable to move. 9 millimetre bullets hurt. A lot. The perp should never have been allowed to approach that woman. At all. Their (police) fault. I hope we can agree on that at least.

I could also point you to a few other cases where Dutch police shot someone with no cause but I'm glad you could manage to find a few in google. Nice job!

You say you didn't defend the officers actions but by bringing a bunch of mitigating circumstances to try and balance things, you seemed to defend their actions. I also found the tone of your answer to be extremely condescending. I hate smart-arses and that is how you appeared to be in my thread. But hey, my skin is old and thick. As for maturity, well. That's a whole different thing and something you cannot judge via a keyboard/screen.

"Oh, sweet, sweet Dutchman, you're going to have to back that up with some hard facts, because that is a very silly statement to make."

You call me silly in order to make your own argument stronger. Apparently.

Armed with a knife you will always get shot in the leg first. Unarmed and acting crazy, the same thing might (not always!) happen. Armed with a gun you will be approached by a specially trained team of LEO's and you won't get away. Guns are guns, knives are knives and crazy is crazy. Crazy with a knife will get you a bullet in the leg and if that fails, they will aim at the torso.

I am quite familiar with how things work here. I've lived here for quite a while.

I agree with you on one thing. This is a pointless back and forth on something you know little to nothing about concerning Dutch police tactics.

Regardless, have a nice day and be well.

ETA Tasers are also employed here.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I reread your initial comment, just to be doubly sure. I apologise for a wrongly translated word. My fault. Ik spreek en versta Nederlands tot een redelijke niveau.

Thanks for re-reading it--if translation is a barrier, then I apologize for being overly critical on word choice and phrasing, as I know that things can get lost in translation. The fact that you speak more than one language fluently beats me (I can understand the gist of want is being said in most simple Spanish discussions, but couldn't speak it well to save my life).

When I said armed, I meant armed with a knife. You will always get shot in the leg and that will make you either drop that knife or lie on the ground unable to move. 9 millimetre bullets hurt. A lot. The perp should never have been allowed to approach that woman. At all. Their (police) fault. I hope we can agree on that at least.

Yes, we can agree that the police never should have allowed him to approach that woman.


But in the same breath, aiming at his legs to stop him is not something that I would agree with nor teach to anyone, especially when they are in a crowded corridor with many innocent bystanders.

You say you didn't defend the officers actions but by bringing a bunch of mitigating circumstances to try and balance things, you seemed to defend their actions. I also found the tone of your answer to be extremely condescending. I hate smart-arses and that is how you appeared to be in my thread. But hey, my skin is old and thick. As for maturity, well. That's a whole different thing and something you cannot judge via a keyboard/screen.

A couple things about me--I used to be a paralegal and am now a part of a criminal investigation unit, so I have a pretty good understanding behind the "why" certain protocols exist and also of determining when mitigating, extenuating, or aggravating circumstances are appropriate to discuss.

In this particular instance, everything that I discussed matters, and so while mistakes were made in letting this guy approach and use that woman as a human shield while threatening her life, once that happened, it's not as if the police could just throw up their arms, say, "Whelp, we tried, let's just see what happens now," and wait for the guy to slice her throat out of desperation. They had to act somehow, and that's why I note that only one of them with the clearest shot should have pulled the trigger.

As for the tone of my comments--I'm probably guilty more than I'd like to admit, so if you are reading sarcasm or condescension, there's probably a 60/40 chance that you are correct. But understand that it doesn't stem from ignorant ramblings--I actually have a decent foundation of understanding behind that which I choose discuss. If repeated attempts at discussing end at a brick wall, my sarcasm, at the least, tends to come out.

It's something that I'm trying to fix.

"Oh, sweet, sweet Dutchman, you're going to have to back that up with some hard facts, because that is a very silly statement to make."

You call me silly in order to make your own argument stronger. Apparently.

I called your statement/claim silly, not you. In fact, I try very hard not to attack the individual, but instead their claims, especially on my initial response.

And as it turns out, I stand by that claim of silliness in your statement, and have since proven it.

Armed with a gun you will be approached by a specially trained team of LEO's and you won't get away. Guns are guns, knives are knives and crazy is crazy. Crazy with a knife will get you a bullet in the leg and if that fails, they will aim at the torso.

See, and therein lies the fallacy in that approach--yes, in long-range encounters, guns are more dangerous and deserve appropriate response (most often a bullet or 20), but at closer distances, a knife is actually much more dangerous, at least to the target of the assailant (which is most likely the police officer at that point). Using a firearm to stop a person with a knife is just as warranted, and I stand by my claim 100 times over that shooting to wound is a poor tactic, even if it seems to work in the small instances in NL when it has been used.

I agree with you on one thing. This is a pointless back and forth on something you know little to nothing about concerning Dutch police tactics.

Regardless, have a nice day and be well.

ETA Tasers are also employed here.

Tasers are used here--in fact, in the last couple days, a man was killed when officers used a taser on him...but those instances are few and far between, so they don't reflect standard deployment of tasers.

As for police tactics in NL, I'm absolutely no expert, but again, I am well versed in firearm tactics and usage for dangerous situations (ex-military, well-trained in and an instructor of Krav Maga, and have taken multiple tactical firearm courses as a civilian), and again, if the NL politie want to shoot at legs and hope that it works at all times and will not get their officers or innocent bystanders killed, that's fine.

But in America, where many encounters by police officers include bad guys with firearms, you should be willing to agree that our police need to approach and handle things quite differently if we want our officers to live to police another day.

ETA: You must keep in mind, though, if we want to be intellectually honest--no one forces these people/suspects to act the way that they do and to use the weapons that they do. These are personal choices that they make, generally knowing full well what the outcome most likely will be for their chosen mistakes. And that's not me making excuses for the officers, it's me citing the reality of individual responsibilities.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you for explaining. I'm a native English speaker but except for ATS I don't speak/type English any more and I forget some of the more important words. I only speak Dutch because I moved here 25 tears ago from my native UK.

It appeared to me that the man in the video was either high or mentally disturbed. I have no idea but it didn't look like he was all there. It was a difficult situation but damn... I can't defend that at all. Sad for all concerned. A gentle diversion sometimes works better, depending on the situation at hand of course. I tend to obey officers pointing guns at me.

"Hey John, have you got the time for me there buddy...?" Rule number one in stopping a situation. 1. Get "in the way" and refuse in a friendly and polite way to move. 2 Use force only if necessary but be prepared to use force.

I understand protocols and that details matter. If I report you to the police for waving a gun here in NL, expect 4 expert officers in...oh 5 minutes or so. And they might not shoot for the leg. They are trained only for (suspected) firearm-carriers. Obey or die basically.

No worries Bruce, it's all good. I do believe it is your round though. "Barmaid...!"

Here is your fallacy, this was NOT a long range encounter. Not after the first few seconds. We all make choices but sometimes crazy people decide to do crazy stuff in public. Drink, drugs, disturbed. That was at least my impression of the man in the video.

I googled paralegal. It sounds really complicated according to the text but then again, it sounded legalesey so I understood even less. (I bet you speak a fair bit of Latin!) I am not defending the actions of the crazy man, just the police intervention. It could have been done a lot differently and, imho, more effectively. I am not a LEO but this was nothing less than a damn shame IMHO.

To your health!

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

It appeared to me that the man in the video was either high or mentally disturbed. I have no idea but it didn't look like he was all there. It was a difficult situation but damn... I can't defend that at all. Sad for all concerned. A gentle diversion sometimes works better, depending on the situation at hand of course. I tend to obey officers pointing guns at me.

Drink, drugs, disturbed. That was at least my impression of the man in the video.

Unfortunately that makes them even more dangerous and unpredictable. People who are impaired enough to make such poor decisions to begin with, are likely to make equally poor decisions in how they respond.

Something to also consider about people who are impaired is the way they may respond to various control measures. For instance, there are a number of mental illnesses, in their most severe forms, that can be mostly unaffected by pain. So, a shot to wound or disable an attacker could still lead to violence being inflicted on defenders or bystanders, perhaps even more so.

A number of the better informed members have provided excellent analyses of the video; and they have pointed out how these officers violated protocol and basic tactics right from the start. It seems to me that deadly force was indicated much sooner.

I hope that LAPD is not changing their tactics to be more politically correct. An aggressive perpetrator armed with a large knife, who had already attempted to murder someone, is dangerous and needs to be taken out as soon as possible.

I'm glad that less lethal methods are effective in NL. I don't think those tactics would work as well here in the US. Perhaps our culture is a bit more violent than some of those in Europe. In a place like Los Angeles, the 2nd largest city in the US, law enforcement is likely to encounter anything; perhaps a different set of psychos than you might encounter there.

I just wanted to add a few of my thoughts about using deadly force rather than disabling a perpetrator.

-dex

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Here is your fallacy, this was NOT a long range encounter. Not after the first few seconds. We all make choices but sometimes crazy people decide to do crazy stuff in public. Drink, drugs, disturbed. That was at least my impression of the man in the video.

I think that I should explain this a little--when I say "long-range encounters," I'm specifically talking about distance from the opponent from a self-defense standpoint.

In our martial arts school, we discuss five basic distances:

1. Grappling range (good for throws/takedowns, knees, elbows, etc.)
2. Striking range with arms or short kicks
3. Kicking range with distances too far to reach with your arms
4. Weapons range, where someone could be farther away using a stick/pipe/bat/bladed weapon/etc.
5. Long-distances, which are out of range of everything noted before (this is where holding someone at gunpoint outside of the #4 weapons distance would come into play, like the officers were in this particular scenario).

This is where I'm coming from when I say "long-distance"...I'm not talking about needing a sniper or anything like that.

To your health!

To yours as well, sir. (the "sir" is an assumption...my apologies if it's wrong)