posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 10:32 AM
I am going to try to stay on topic and not respond to the inevitable cop bashing I receive on this and every other forum.
In my opinion after watching the video I believe the officers acted in the wrong and should be held accountable for their actions.
From what I saw the guy never stepped towards the officers. He didn't appear to be within their "danger zone" of 21 feet. If anything the officers
walked towards him closing the gap.
I have been in this same situation and other similar ones numerous times in my career. In a situation where some one has a knife, is not an immediate
threat and there are at least two officers on scene, one officer should pull his firearm (lethal force) and the other should pull his taser or other
(non lethal) tool. If the person suddenly charges the officers, the one with the less lethal tool should attempt to use it first. If it fails to stop
the threat then lethal force is justified. To accomplish this takes great skill. Great skill in not only being able to use your weapon or non lethal
system effectively, but also communication and timing between the two officers. It appears that these two didn't have either the skill or knowledge
Another thing the officers could of done was to park their patrol car parallel across the street to make a barrier between them and the guy. Then they
could start the conflict resolution/negotiating process. There is no need to rush.
I really don't like being a Monday morning quarterback. However, I do have experience in these types of scenarios. I believed these officers are in
the wrong and I would of handled the situation differently.
edit on 18-10-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)
Hey Torquey, thanks for chiming in. Hopefully this discussion will remain civil and you won't feel bashed, so far so good I think.
I do have some concerns about the use of terms like 'danger zone', it is inconsistent with the presumed function of police. As peace officers, they
are there to stabilize a situation and bring about a reduction to the likelihood of any violence. They are not meant to insert themselves into any
situation where people are not in immediate danger and then use deadly force to 'protect' themselves. The 'rules of engagement' (if there were
any) should preclude this very common course of action. That said, if fired upon, police (like any citizen) have the right to defend themselves but,
like any citizen, they should be wary of collateral damage.
Setting south central and NYC aside for the moment, I do not see a need for any armed force in most towns, especially if everyone is already armed.
The police have no better ability to handle any situation than those closest to the problem, in fact, they have much less.
Keep in mind, I am coming at this from the perspective of presumption of corruption. Power always corrupts so, power should be withheld whenever and
wherever possible. When special power is awarded to an agent of the state, they should be presumed to misuse that power and be bridled with relentless
oversight as a precaution.
I believe what I suggest is the American way.