PDA

View Full Version : It Happened Again: Fatal Police Shooting


tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 03:44 AM
We discussed this earlier following the shooting of an airline passenger.
At the time, arguments justifying the shooting suggested the marshal did not have time to react and make judgement to shoot to kill or not to kill.

This time, the man had a knife, but surrounded by many policemen with guns blazing. What did they do, they shoot to kill.

Could they have aimed at less fatal area to incapacitate the guy.
From all accounts(video included), the police were close enough to him to aim at a knee, or other non-lethal body part.
================================================== ===

Source: http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2005/12/27/ap2415132.html

New Orleans Police Shoot, Kill Man

By BRETT MARTEL , 12.27.2005, 05:13 AM

The city's embattled police department will have another internal investigation to face after a swarm of converging officers gunned down a man brandishing a knife.

A police spokesman said the officers who fired on the man Monday will be reassigned pending the outcome of the probe, but he defended their response, saying at least one officer's life was in danger just prior to the barrage of gunfire.

"You have a subject who's lunging at them with a knife... swinging wildly at them and they're fearing for their life," said Officer David Adams, a police spokesman. "They had no other choice but to resort to lethal force."

Officers repeatedly asked the man to drop the knife and used pepper spray to try to subdue him, but he used a cloth to cover his face and was still able to walk toward an officer and threaten him, authorities said.

"Evidently the pepper spray had no effect," Adams said.

A businessman had called police after a confrontation with the 38-year-old victim in the Lower Garden District west of downtown. The shooting occurred on St. Charles Avenue, an important thoroughfare in the city, famous for its historic green street cars and Mardi Gras parades.

Adams said he did not know how many officers fired shots or how many shots were fired. Witnesses said a half dozen or more shots were fired.

Phin Percy videotaped a portion of the incident from his father's second-story apartment. "The cops kept telling him, 'Lay down! Lay down!' This went on for about three minutes," he said.

Trey Brokaw, a patron at a nearby bar, said he saw the victim with a knife in his hand shortly before the shooting. "I didn't see anyone near him," Brokaw said. "It didn't seem like anyone was going to get hurt to me."

Brokaw said he did not see what happened in the final moments before the shots rang out.

The victim's name was not released because his family had not been notified.

It was the first shooting of any kind involving a New Orleans officer since the city was officially reopened after Hurricane Katrina damaged many neighborhoods and displaced tens of thousands of residents nearly four months ago, Adams said.

Since the storm, the police department has struggled to rebuild its ranks and address questions about officers' conduct.

Hundreds of police left the city without permission in the days after the storm. There were also allegations of theft and looting by officers, and the videotaped beating of a retired teacher by police in the French Quarter. The police chief resigned a month after the storm.

Two of the officers accused of the beating were fired; a third was suspended for 120 days. All three are scheduled to be tried next month. The allegations of looting and theft are being investigated.



Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 03:46 AM
Fuckin' cops.

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 03:51 AM
...but in all sincerity, police are trained to eliminate the threat, not just wound it. It's Police Training 101. In a kill or be killed world, it's survival of the fittest. Obviously nobody wants to be under question for a shooting, a cop gets automatic time off work and mandatory psych consults, plus the shoot; whether deemed good or bad, is always and forever in the officers file. No matter what that officer does, his involvement in a shooting can be brought up at anytime. It's not as if all cops are jaded bigots who'd rather just be trigger happy and kill anything that moves. Sure there's a few bad apples, but to just have the assumption that all police are gun toting, piston-firing, anger-proporting murderers is a bit off-based.

That's just my personal experience though, since I've worked in this field for 11 years.

tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:00 AM
...but in all sincerity, police are trained to eliminate the threat, not just wound it. It's Police Training 101. In a kill or be killed world, it's survival of the fittest. Obviously nobody wants to be under question for a shooting, a cop gets automatic time off work and mandatory psych consults, plus the shoot; whether deemed good or bad, is always and forever in the officers file. No matter what that officer does, his involvement in a shooting can be brought up at anytime. It's not as if all cops are jaded bigots who'd rather just be trigger happy and kill anything that moves. Sure there's a few bad apples, but to just have the assumption that all police are gun toting, piston-firing, anger-proporting murderers is a bit off-based.

That's just my personal experience though, since I've worked in this field for 11 years.

I agree that police is trained to eliminate the threat.
But to that end, do they always have to shoot to kill?
Couldn't they eliminate the threat by incapaciatting the guy? Remember, he did not have a gun, he had knife. There were about seven policemen, with gun blazing.
Is there any consideration to simply incapacitate the suspect and not kill him/her? From the look of this particular incident, they completely surroundered the guy, they were within 10-15 feet of him.

Solitaire
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:06 AM
I just wish thet had a tazor gun or something less lethal. Coudln't they have shot him in the leg? They are trained with guns so it's not like they couldn't aim for both legs. Take his legs out and that man isn't going to stab anyone. It's a high pressure situation to say the least. From some of the eye witness accounts it didn't seem like lethal force was warrented.

tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:07 AM
Since you've worked in the field for 11 years, why did not they use non-lethal weapon to eliminate the threat?

Tazor guns, pepper spray, etc..

Is it true that police in the nation are trained to shoot in the body mass (middle section), not the extremities?

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:08 AM
Eliminating the threat is just that, in the literal sense. I'm sure based on standard operating procedures that the guy was given a plethora of chances to remove himself from the situation by complying with the orders of the officers. Finally, based on either of a verbal command (such as the officer saying "Is there anything I can say or do to make you feel differently......" {on the word do, the police are trained to arm themselves to take some type of action} or by the offender making an offensive move, suitable action needed to be taken.

Law enforcement agencies don't send warning shots off with their guns, nor do they shoot you in the big toe to slow you down. If the situation is that escalated to where the perceived threat needs to be retorted with firearms, the officers are always taught that it's them or the bad guy that gets to see their family at the end of the day... would you rather it be him or you? So by this training they make sure the threat is expunged and that no future threats can be perpetrated by the offender. A shot to the core will incapacitate or more the offender, and that's the training that all officers receive at the academy.

tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:11 AM
I just wish thet had a tazor gun or something less lethal. Coudln't they have shot him in the leg? They are trained with guns so it's not like they couldn't aim for both legs. Take his legs out and that man isn't going to stab anyone. It's a high pressure situation to say the least. From some of the eye witness accounts it didn't seem like lethal force was warrented.
I just saw an amateur video, the man was wielding a knife, but not charging at anybody. He was backing away from the police facing them, and the police was
following him form 3 quarter circle around him.

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:12 AM
We know *now* that he *only* had a knife. Lets say he got shot in the toe and fell to the ground. The cops would have swarmed him to cuff him... who's to say at that point without all the knowledge that the guy wasn't sitting on some C4 or a gun or ....

Any weapon that can inflict death is handled the same way. The officers are trained to recognize the threat and respond in kind.

So since a knife can kill, they had to 'even the playing field' so to speak and make sure they could inflict the same damage or greater if the need arose.

A PR24, asp, pepper spray, etc could have been used but the perceived threat was that of eminent death.

tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:15 AM
Eliminating the threat is just that, in the literal sense. I'm sure based on standard operating procedures that the guy was given a plethora of chances to remove himself from the situation by complying with the orders of the officers. Finally, based on either of a verbal command (such as the officer saying "Is there anything I can say or do to make you feel differently......" {on the word do, the police are trained to arm themselves to take some type of action} or by the offender making an offensive move, suitable action needed to be taken.

Law enforcement agencies don't send warning shots off with their guns, nor do they shoot you in the big toe to slow you down. If the situation is that escalated to where the perceived threat needs to be retorted with firearms, the officers are always taught that it's them or the bad guy that gets to see their family at the end of the day... would you rather it be him or you? So by this training they make sure the threat is expunged and that no future threats can be perpetrated by the offender. A shot to the core will incapacitate or more the offender, and that's the training that all officers receive at the academy.

Is there judgement made to use alternative means or everybody is wedded to the operating procedures regardless of the situations and circumstances.

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:19 AM
Is there judgement made to use alternative means or everybody is wedded to the operating procedures regardless of the situations and circumstances.
The threat level is assessed, and then the training just kicks in. Of course if the guy had a water balloon, this wouldn't have happened. But a knife = kill in the officers minds and ... well, at the end of the day the officer wanted to see his family. It's an us versus them type life for the cops.

And since everything everything everything a cop does is heavily scrutinized by the mass populous, cops are trained that they're always being watched and judged. So to jump from talking to shooting... well there had to be something going on there or some other factors there were involved that we don't know about.

Of course, I only speak in general terms, and I do know that there are plenty of rogue cops out there. So for this specific incident I can't speak of exactities, just what the SOP and training dictates.

tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:19 AM
We know *now* that he *only* had a knife. Lets say he got shot in the toe and fell to the ground. The cops would have swarmed him to cuff him... who's to say at that point without all the knowledge that the guy wasn't sitting on some C4 or a gun or ....

Any weapon that can inflict death is handled the same way. The officers are trained to recognize the threat and respond in kind.

So since a knife can kill, they had to 'even the playing field' so to speak and make sure they could inflict the same damage or greater if the need arose.

A PR24, asp, pepper spray, etc could have been used but the perceived threat was that of eminent death.

From what you are saying, there no room for flexibility. A knife toting or gun toting individuals are treeated the same. You would agree that a knife has different reach than a gun.

I do not think there a threat of eminent death. The police had this gun surrounded, wih guns drawn point at him.

Solitaire
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:19 AM
Haha shoot first ask questions later. :p Many people have been shot because the police thought they had a weapon and in he end they had nothing. I remember one guy was shot in New York I believe because he was holding a wallet. I say shoot him in the Big Toe get his ass to the ground and pepper spray the sh*t out of him, while u have back up cover you.

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:21 AM
From what you are saying, there no room for flexibility. A knife toting or gun toting individuals are treeated the same. You would agree that a knife has different reach than a gun.

I do not think there a threat of eminent death. The police had this gun surrounded, wih guns drawn point at him.
Knifes can inflict death. There is no wiggle room in terms of "Oh, let's see... he's 16 feet away he can't kill me". A knife = a knife = possibility exists of death.

Proximity does play a small role, but since they were all close that's a moot point. Was this in a public area or were there others around? That makes a HUGE difference on the timeline of eliminating the threat.

tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:26 AM
The threat level is assessed, and then the training just kicks in. Of course if the guy had a water balloon, this wouldn't have happened. But a knife = kill in the officers minds and ... well, at the end of the day the officer wanted to see his family. It's an us versus them type life for the cops..

This is really rigid and inflexible. It does not leave room for discretion and adaptive judgment. Also it is not healthy for society to have a police with US vs. THEM mentality.

And since everything everything everything a cop does is heavily scrutinized by the mass populous, cops are trained that they're always being watched and judged. So to jump from talking to shooting... well there had to be something going on there or some other factors there were involved that we don't know about.

Of course, I only speak in general terms, and I do know that there are plenty of rogue cops out there. So for this specific incident I can't speak of exactities, just what the SOP and training dictates.

From my impression as a layman, there does not seem to be imminent danger, And other police trainers have echoed the same sentiment.
But they added, they did not know all the circumstances. Form what was shown on TV, the situation did not seem to be out of control.

tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:30 AM
Knifes can inflict death. There is no wiggle room in terms of "Oh, let's see... he's 16 feet away he can't kill me". A knife = a knife = possibility exists of death.

Proximity does play a small role, but since they were all close that's a moot point. Was this in a public area or were there others around? That makes a HUGE difference on the timeline of eliminating the threat.

As much as I appreciate your insight, I must say I am more concerned now about the police than before I had the benefits of your insights. No reflection on you of course.

There seem to be lack of flexibility in the rules of engagement. It is as if they were dealing with animals instead of humans.

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 05:15 AM
As much as I appreciate your insight, I must say I am more concerned now about the police than before I had the benefits of your insights. No reflection on you of course.

There seem to be lack of flexibility in the rules of engagement. It is as if they were dealing with animals instead of humans.
Well, most people who are the offenders in those circumstances are acting as if they were animals. ;)

I work with cops, and while I don't really like them necessarily I do respect their job to put their own lives on the line.

venus_rulez
Dec 28th, 2005, 06:08 AM
It never ceases to amaze me in situations like these that we rarely, if ever look at the person who called the cops to be called out to began with. We never wonder where the hell the momma is of the 13 year old who stole the car and then took it for a drive and then proceeded to back it up into the cops, we blame the cop that shot the boy. We never blame the crazy man that led police officers on a chase through the city for hours, we blame the cops for having the audacity to shoot a man when there are cameras watching. We never ask who in there right mind would be carrying a knife around, especially after the cops have arrived on the scene, we put the burden on the cops to know if the man was going to use it or not. My goodness, if we all just stopped and thought about the other side for a minute, so many people would be singing a different tune.

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 28th, 2005, 06:29 AM
Since I have no intention of threatening anyone with a deadly weapon, it's not a concern to me. If you don't want to get shot by the cops in one of these situations, don't carry a gun or a knife. If you do carry a deadly weapon in an urban environment, you take that risk, and you and your family have no one to blame but you for anything that ends up happening to you as a result. Not only that, you are automatically on most people's "better dead" lists - most of us don't want to live in the same society as people who are armed to kill us. Finally, if you do find yourself in a confrontation with the police as a result of toting a deadly weapon, drop your weapon and make absolutely clear that you're not reaching for another one (e.g. by standing still and putting your hands in the air). How difficult is that to understand? :scratch:

I have no idea why people who insist on going around armed to kill get so much sympathy. I have no sympathy for such people at all.

RVD
Dec 28th, 2005, 06:51 AM
"To eliminate the threat" huh?
Wasn't there a time when they were employed to "Serve and Protect" the people?

It's a good thing this didn't happen in my old neighborhood. We shot back at these licensed killers, got them the hell outta our hood, and dared them to come back. They never did of course. :yeah:
The police in Oakland (where I grew up) weren't employed to eliminate threats. They were employed to eliminate us. If they were to eliminate the threat, there would have been no policeman left, because they were the threat. :lol:
I still remember the infamous licensed killers called the 'Riders' gang. These filthy cops literally got away with murder, evidence planting, harassment, etc... Even surrounding Bay Area cities like Alameda, San Francisco, Fremont, and San Jose are known for their ruthlessness. In fact, I don't know of a city that's known for good policing. :shrug:

As far as New Orleans, it's recently become public knowledge what that force is about. Moreover, I've never ever heard where police defused a situation by apprehending or disarming perpetrators anymore. They shoot you in the head and go out for a beer, and laugh about how the brain matter leaked all over their shoes.

There needs to be a serious overhaul of the legal policies and tactics in this country if you ask me, because pretty soon people will start doing what we did in my old 'hood and then where will it all end? Bunch of filthy killers! :fiery:

Erika_Angel
Dec 28th, 2005, 07:05 AM
Why didn't the man drop the knife away on the ground when he had guns pointed at him? Seems like that would've been the smartest thing to do. He wouldn't be dead now if he had.

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 07:06 AM
Why didn't the man drop the knife away on the ground when he had guns pointed at him? Seems like that would've been the smartest thing to do. He wouldn't be dead now if he had.
Exactly, but it's more en vogue to blame the cops for decimating an 'innocent' man who was just toting a knife.

RVD
Dec 28th, 2005, 08:14 AM
Exactly, but it's more en vogue to blame the cops for decimating an 'innocent' man who was just toting a knife.:lol: En vouge? :lol: That's a good one.

Naw, I was just blowing off steam because I hate police from past experiences, and because this appears like yet another senseless killing. Next thing you know, they'll be killing ya for eating a Snickers Bar.

Anyway, I'm not so quick to applaud police killings like most are. I don't think they're gods or community saviors either. But then, to each his or her own. :shrug: I suppose it all boils down to what you know about cops in general and how they operate. :wavey:

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 08:22 AM
I only work with the cops, I don't like them. ;)
If you break the law you have to pay. Since he didn't play by the rules, he paid the ultimate price. Would you rather him slit 2 cops throats and have their families suffer for him doing their job and protecting against a bad guy who is actively breaking the law? I dunno... I respect cops, well the position of law enforcement officers. I guess to the guy who got shot, maybe he should have thought about what he was doing and the consequences of his actions. Utlimately it was his choice, not the cops'.

Wigglytuff
Dec 28th, 2005, 08:32 AM
Why didn't the man drop the knife away on the ground when he had guns pointed at him? Seems like that would've been the smartest thing to do. He wouldn't be dead now if he had.
correction, he *might* not be dead, because sometimes the police shoot to kill anyway. :sad:

RVD
Dec 28th, 2005, 08:48 AM
I only work with the cops, I don't like them. ;)I truly feel for you.
If you break the law you have to pay.Agreed.
Since he didn't play by the rules, he paid the ultimate price. Would you rather him slit 2 cops throats and have their families suffer for him doing their job and protecting against a bad guy who is actively breaking the law?I dunno. I mean, seven cops, seven guns, versus 1 man with one knife. It's hard to tell who has the upper hand here. ;) :lol:
I dunno... I respect cops, well the position of law enforcement officers. I guess to the guy who got shot, maybe he should have thought about what he was doing and the consequences of his actions. Ultimately it was his choice, not the cops'.Hmm...? I suppose if you work around them all day every day, you probably see them as human beings. However, when you've seen them kill your friends for carrying a hair pick, or roughly pat you down because you're staring at them; or have them pull their call in front of you so close that they nearly run you over because your buddy has nunchucks in his back pocket, you develop a not to healthy opinion of these guys. :shrug: I have such bad memories of cops and their tactics that I can't even look at one without wanting to spit on their shoes.

Still, I imagine with the law of averages being as they are, 1 out of every 1,000 cops must certainly have some redeemable quality. ;)

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 08:52 AM
1 out of every 1,000 cops must certainly have some redeemable quality. ;)Just like posters on WTAWorld.com ;)

RVD
Dec 28th, 2005, 08:55 AM
Just like posters on WTAWorld.com ;):haha: Kudos! :worship:

rand
Dec 28th, 2005, 09:55 AM
We know *now* that he *only* had a knife. Lets say he got shot in the toe and fell to the ground. The cops would have swarmed him to cuff him... who's to say at that point without all the knowledge that the guy wasn't sitting on some C4 or a gun or ....

Any weapon that can inflict death is handled the same way. The officers are trained to recognize the threat and respond in kind.

So since a knife can kill, they had to 'even the playing field' so to speak and make sure they could inflict the same damage or greater if the need arose.

A PR24, asp, pepper spray, etc could have been used but the perceived threat was that of eminent death.
in that case you could shoot just about anybody, since anyone walking in the street could be carrying explosives or whatever, the possession of a knife has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility to have explosives, or am I missing something?

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 10:19 AM
in that case you could shoot just about anybody, since anyone walking in the street could be carrying explosives or whatever, the possession of a knife has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility to have explosives, or am I missing something?
I was just saying in part of assessing the threat when dealing with a criminal is to keep the aspect of focus contained. When someone suggested they should just wing him, it's not the best idea. A criminal mind could be a desperate mind. If one is wielding a knife and threatening and disobeying police, who knows what that person may be capable of. Situationally, you (the police) have to be on a different level than the offender. If you're on the same level - there's only a 50/50 chance the 'good' guy wins. And #1 of law enforcement is officer safety.

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 28th, 2005, 10:24 AM
^I dunno. It would be better if there were a way to use force in these situations without killing people. I just don't feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for his loved ones, but they should blame him more than the police. He could easily have avoided being shot.

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 10:35 AM
^ I agree... nobody should ever have to be killed. But if it's kill or be killed, I'd rather the cops live. Criminals waive their right to life when they threaten significant injury or death upon another.

rand
Dec 28th, 2005, 11:01 AM
I was just saying in part of assessing the threat when dealing with a criminal is to keep the aspect of focus contained. When someone suggested they should just wing him, it's not the best idea. A criminal mind could be a desperate mind. If one is wielding a knife and threatening and disobeying police, who knows what that person may be capable of. Situationally, you (the police) have to be on a different level than the offender. If you're on the same level - there's only a 50/50 chance the 'good' guy wins. And #1 of law enforcement is officer safety.
I follow what you're saying about the danger, and to a certain extent I agree,
but I'm always wondering: there exist very good paralysing drugs nowadays, why can't they replace ordinary bullets by instant working paralysing drug syringes? that way, they could fire more rapidly (in the sense that no life is put directly on the line, so you don't have to hesitate as long, thereby risking your own life (of the lives of your partners), but still don't needlessly kill anyone....
is there a technical problem doing so? too expensive maybe? I don't know really, just thinking out loud....

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 11:08 AM
I follow what you're saying about the danger, and to a certain extent I agree,
but I'm always wondering: there exist very good paralysing drugs nowadays, why can't they replace ordinary bullets by instant working paralysing drug syringes? that way, they could fire more rapidly (in the sense that no life is put directly on the line, so you don't have to hesitate as long, thereby risking your own life (of the lives of your partners), but still don't needlessly kill anyone....
is there a technical problem doing so? too expensive maybe? I don't know really, just thinking out loud....
I agree, less-than-lethal tactics need to be explored. Unfortunately, I can't answer your question. But I agree, there needs to be other tested and true methods in place.

~ The Leopard ~
Dec 28th, 2005, 11:23 AM
I suppose one advantage of using ordinary guns is that people fear death. Most people will cooperate if threatened with lethal force. Would it be the same if police were armed with something less deadly? It doesn't seem simple to me.

rand
Dec 28th, 2005, 03:05 PM
I suppose one advantage of using ordinary guns is that people fear death. Most people will cooperate if threatened with lethal force. Would it be the same if police were armed with something less deadly? It doesn't seem simple to me.
ah, but then it should equate like this:
-your state supports death penalty ->real guns
-it doesn't -> drugs

no?

Helen Lawson
Dec 28th, 2005, 03:09 PM
My mother always had various pearls of wisdom for me, among them:

(1) You can smell it on a girl who sells it.
(2) Two tears in a bucket, motherfuck it.
(3) If you brandish a knife to a cop, be prepared to have your head blown off.

Ma wasn't much of a provided in the money department, but her advice has kept me in good stead for over 85 years.

tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 04:37 PM
I only work with the cops, I don't like them. ;)
If you break the law you have to pay. Since he didn't play by the rules, he paid the ultimate price..

You seem to be more measured in your tone yesterday than today.
You now seem to be looking at this as a punishment or retribution for this guy breaking the law? Is there any mitigating circumstances (mental illness, rowdy teens) that might soften your stance and not be so wedded to the rigid rules of engagement?
The cops administered the ultimate punishment.
They play cops, judge and jury.



Would you rather him slit 2 cops throats and have their families suffer for him doing their job and protecting against a bad guy who is actively breaking the law? I dunno... I respect cops, well the position of law enforcement officers. I guess to the guy who got shot, maybe he should have thought about what he was doing and the consequences of his actions. Utlimately it was his choice, not the cops'.

This the kind of things civilized countries criticized dictatorship and third world countries for. Things like this used to happen in Brazil where the police set out to eliminate homeless street kids because the population is fed up with their aggressive begging. They just shoot them to kill for minor infractions.

By all indications, there no evidence that this guy was bout to slit a police man throat. Most of these policemen were bigger in stature than the guy.
They had him surrounded. I got to think another police depatrment will handle this differently than the NOPD, because a number of police trainers interviewed on TV, do not share your certainity about this.
Some say based on what they saw, they could have neutralized the guy w/o the lethal force used. They are also wondering about the number of shots. Was it necessary for all them to discharge their weapons?
THis is like overkill. Pardon the term

Sally Struthers
Dec 28th, 2005, 05:25 PM
tennisbum79, you are just ridiculous! If someone is waving around a knife and refusing to drop it in front of police they are going to get shot. Like that other person said .. sorry I can't be bothered to scroll up to look at your name hon :kiss: ... no one ever blames the person who got shot for starting the whole mess.

tennisbum79
Dec 28th, 2005, 05:37 PM
tennisbum79, you are just ridiculous! If someone is waving around a knife and refusing to drop it in front of police they are going to get shot. Like that other person said .. sorry I can't be bothered to scroll up to look at your name hon :kiss: ... no one ever blames the person who got shot for starting the whole mess.

Nobody is saying not to shoot. As a Athenaeum who works with the police suggested, the goal is to elminate the danger to the public.
If there is non-lethal way to eliminate the danger to the public without killing someone, why not use it. They had plenty of time to assess the situation.
He was surrouned, wiht guns pointing at him.

Of course, non trained peopel like you cannot reognize if a suspect is mentally sound or not. Police are trained to recognize certain situtations and make judgment accordingly.

Sally Struthers
Dec 28th, 2005, 05:40 PM
if you shoot the man in the toe, he can still throw the knife and hit someone. Anyway, small targets like that are hard to hit in pressure situations so it is easier to hit the person in the abdomen which unfortunately is where all the vital organs are

SelesFan70
Dec 28th, 2005, 06:27 PM
New Orleans chief defends fatal shooting

Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Posted: 11:57 a.m. EST (16:57 GMT)

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley said the shooting death of a knife-wielding man this week appeared justified, saying that officers followed procedure.

The knife that 38-year-old Anthony Hayes was carrying "wasn't just a pocket knife," Riley told CNN on Wednesday. "This was a hunting knife."

The situation Monday began when Hayes "committed a battery" on a store clerk, Riley told CNN.

"What's being missed here is Mr. Hayes' condition and the fact that officers gave Mr. Hayes many options, many verbal instructions to put the knife down," Riley said. "Mr. Hayes was not, in fact, fired on until he attempted to stab a police officer."

Riley said that reinforcements didn't arrive until after Hayes pulled out the knife and behaved belligerently toward the officers.

The incident continues to be under review, Riley said a separate news conference. He also said officers are trained to shoot to kill, not to wound.

The head of an independent police watchdog group told The Associated Press the shooting appeared to be justified, but puts another mark on a beleaguered department.

"Even if it's determined that officers have done nothing wrong, the people will continue to have a negative opinion of police in this city," Rafael Goyeneche, executive director of the Metropolitan Crime Commission of Greater New Orleans, told AP.

"That goes back to some of the sins the department has been guilty of over the past 10-15 years," he said.

Riley: Tasers weren't the answer
Two sergeants and a patrol officer fired nine shots at Hayes, killing him, after he lunged at one officer who was joining others "to form a perimeter around him," Riley told CNN.

"They were attempting to form a perimeter, so that no citizens could have been taken as hostage, so that he could not run into another business where he could escalate that into a hostage situation," the superintendent said.

Riley said he did not know whether Hayes had mental illness, as reported by some media.

Riley said that Tasers, which deliver an electric jolt from as far away as 20 feet and are intended to temporarily paralyze a person, would not necessarily have prevented Hayes' death either.

Citing the dozens of people who have died after being hit by a Taser jolt, Riley said the department is not "totally comfortable with Tasers yet." Only SWAT officers carry the weapons, he added.

Riley also denied that his officers, many of whom lost their homes in Hurricane Katrina, were working under too much stress. "That's what we get paid to do," he said. " ... This is what we're trained to do."

"Those who have had problems ... are no longer members of the New Orleans Police Department," Riley said.

The New Orleans Police Department has been the subject of controversy since Hurricane Katrina. Investigations are under way for officers allegedly involved in looting and stealing cars from a Cadillac dealership.

The videotaped beating of a man in the French Quarter resulted in two officers being fired last week. (Full story)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/28/nola.shooting/index.html

AjdeNate!
Dec 28th, 2005, 09:40 PM
^ Exactly.

ico4498
Dec 28th, 2005, 10:56 PM
hunting knife in hand, lunge at cop ... get fatally shot.

if those are the facts whats the problem?

i'll reserve my indignant outrage for the folks that get shot standing peacefully in their doorway.

RVD
Dec 28th, 2005, 11:45 PM
You seem to be more measured in your tone yesterday than today.
You now seem to be looking at this as a punishment or retribution for this guy breaking the law? Is there any mitigating circumstances (mental illness, rowdy teens) that might soften your stance and not be so wedded to the rigid rules of engagement?
The cops administered the ultimate punishment.
They play cops, judge and jury.





This the kind of things civilized countries criticized dictatorship and third world countries for. Things like this used to happen in Brazil where the police set out to eliminate homeless street kids because the population is fed up with their aggressive begging. They just shoot them to kill for minor infractions.

By all indications, there no evidence that this guy was bout to slit a police man throat. Most of these policemen were bigger in stature than the guy.
They had him surrounded. I got to think another police depatrment will handle this differently than the NOPD, because a number of police trainers interviewed on TV, do not share your certainity about this.
Some say based on what they saw, they could have neutralized the guy w/o the lethal force used. They are also wondering about the number of shots. Was it necessary for all them to discharge their weapons?
THis is like overkill. Pardon the termI have to agree with this post. There have always existed non-lethal methods of restraint. Yet in this case, the thinking seems to have been to kill the guy and be done with it. Didn't the report (article) say that a witness saw him walking with a knife? Apparently he hadn't threatened anyone until threatened himself. I'm not saying that he wasn't looking to kill someone. But what I am saying is that the threat didn't exist until he himself was cornered. Seems to me that if you are a cop trained to distinguished between various levels of threat, then this must be taken into consideration. Not become what was previously stated in this thread: Judge, jury, executioner.

As far as alternative forms of restraints:

Tasers, tranquilizer darts, cork rifles, bean bag rifles, rubber bullets, etc...
or how about this... http://www.the-isg.co.uk/sandbox/anti-riot%20weapons.pdf

It has always been strongly held by the public that killing perpetrators are more cost effective than any of the current retraint, capture, and incarceration approaches. Not only that, but you are also able to quickly rid the world of specific elements of society.

RVD
Dec 28th, 2005, 11:50 PM
New Orleans chief defends fatal shooting

Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Posted: 11:57 a.m. EST (16:57 GMT)

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley said the shooting death of a knife-wielding man this week appeared justified, saying that officers followed procedure.

The knife that 38-year-old Anthony Hayes was carrying "wasn't just a pocket knife," Riley told CNN on Wednesday. "This was a hunting knife."

The situation Monday began when Hayes "committed a battery" on a store clerk, Riley told CNN.

"What's being missed here is Mr. Hayes' condition and the fact that officers gave Mr. Hayes many options, many verbal instructions to put the knife down," Riley said. "Mr. Hayes was not, in fact, fired on until he attempted to stab a police officer."

Riley said that reinforcements didn't arrive until after Hayes pulled out the knife and behaved belligerently toward the officers.

The incident continues to be under review, Riley said a separate news conference. He also said officers are trained to shoot to kill, not to wound.

The head of an independent police watchdog group told The Associated Press the shooting appeared to be justified, but puts another mark on a beleaguered department.

"Even if it's determined that officers have done nothing wrong, the people will continue to have a negative opinion of police in this city," Rafael Goyeneche, executive director of the Metropolitan Crime Commission of Greater New Orleans, told AP.

"That goes back to some of the sins the department has been guilty of over the past 10-15 years," he said.

Riley: Tasers weren't the answer
Two sergeants and a patrol officer fired nine shots at Hayes, killing him, after he lunged at one officer who was joining others "to form a perimeter around him," Riley told CNN.

"They were attempting to form a perimeter, so that no citizens could have been taken as hostage, so that he could not run into another business where he could escalate that into a hostage situation," the superintendent said.

Riley said he did not know whether Hayes had mental illness, as reported by some media.

Riley said that Tasers, which deliver an electric jolt from as far away as 20 feet and are intended to temporarily paralyze a person, would not necessarily have prevented Hayes' death either.

Citing the dozens of people who have died after being hit by a Taser jolt, Riley said the department is not "totally comfortable with Tasers yet." Only SWAT officers carry the weapons, he added.

Riley also denied that his officers, many of whom lost their homes in Hurricane Katrina, were working under too much stress. "That's what we get paid to do," he said. " ... This is what we're trained to do."

"Those who have had problems ... are no longer members of the New Orleans Police Department," Riley said.

The New Orleans Police Department has been the subject of controversy since Hurricane Katrina. Investigations are under way for officers allegedly involved in looting and stealing cars from a Cadillac dealership.

The videotaped beating of a man in the French Quarter resulted in two officers being fired last week. (Full story)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/28/nola.shooting/index.htmlThese reports mean very little to those who have been witnesses to police killings. I'm sorry but what a police reports and what actually occurs are usually far different. As someone who's best friend was a cop who has been up front with how cops truly operate, this report means very little. Cops have and will lie to protect each other. Isn't that their code?
Also, I have been on the receiving end of police brutality, as well as my friends and relatives. People really need to open their eyes and stop believing everything that they are fed by legal authorities. There comes a time when individuals need to think for themselves and not just go along with that flawed program.
It's no wonder so many die senselessly—complacency run-amuck.

RVD
Dec 28th, 2005, 11:58 PM
hunting knife in hand, lunge at cop ... get fatally shot.

if those are the facts whats the problem?

i'll reserve my indignant outrage for the folks that get shot standing peacefully in their doorway.True.
Or like my 1st cousin...while climbing out of a window. :fiery:

Wigglytuff
Dec 29th, 2005, 12:02 AM
True.
Or like my 1st cousin...while climbing out of a window. :fiery:
:sad: :sad:

cheesestix
Dec 29th, 2005, 12:42 AM
It never ceases to amaze me in situations like these that we rarely, if ever look at the person who called the cops to be called out to began with. We never wonder where the hell the momma is of the 13 year old who stole the car and then took it for a drive and then proceeded to back it up into the cops, we blame the cop that shot the boy. We never blame the crazy man that led police officers on a chase through the city for hours, we blame the cops for having the audacity to shoot a man when there are cameras watching. We never ask who in there right mind would be carrying a knife around, especially after the cops have arrived on the scene, we put the burden on the cops to know if the man was going to use it or not. My goodness, if we all just stopped and thought about the other side for a minute, so many people would be singing a different tune.

You're asking people to use common sense. That's a stretch for a lot of people on this board. :cool:

cheesestix
Dec 29th, 2005, 12:44 AM
"To eliminate the threat" huh?
Wasn't there a time when they were employed to "Serve and Protect" the people?

It's a good thing this didn't happen in my old neighborhood. We shot back at these licensed killers, got them the hell outta our hood, and dared them to come back. They never did of course. :yeah:

:rolleyes:

cheesestix
Dec 29th, 2005, 12:48 AM
:lol: En vouge? :lol: That's a good one.

Naw, I was just blowing off steam because I hate police from past experiences, and because this appears like yet another senseless killing. Next thing you know, they'll be killing ya for eating a Snickers Bar.

Anyway, I'm not so quick to applaud police killings like most are. I don't think they're gods or community saviors either. But then, to each his or her own. :shrug: I suppose it all boils down to what you know about cops in general and how they operate. :wavey:

I don't think that anyone here is applauding police killings. Most reasonable people just don't get pissed off when a guy wielding a knife at cops gets killed because of it. They may have even said, "Put down the knife or we'll shoot", but I guess that still wouldn't matter to you. :rolleyes:

venus_rulez
Dec 29th, 2005, 12:49 AM
These reports mean very little to those who have been witnesses to police killings. I'm sorry but what a police reports and what actually occurs are usually far different. As someone who's best friend was a cop who has been up front with how cops truly operate, this report means very little. Cops have and will lie to protect each other. Isn't that their code?
Also, I have been on the receiving end of police brutality, as well as my friends and relatives. People really need to open their eyes and stop believing everything that they are fed by legal authorities. There comes a time when individuals need to think for themselves and not just go along with that flawed program.
It's no wonder so many die senselessly—complacency run-amuck.


I'm not trying to be rude, but there also comes a time when people need to stop with the conspiracy theories and own up to what's theirs. The truth is 9 times out of 10, the police aren't just going to bother you for no reason, or harass you or use "unnecessary force" without being prompted first by whoever is on the receiving end. To me most of the outrage that we hear about police brutality comes from people and areas where the people are unreasonable in their views on the police to begin with. I feel like the people who scream the loudest, in this case and in everything else, are usually the people who are the least willing to be reasonable. I'm not saying this to belittle your experiences or to say that what you or your family members have gone through was just or fair, but even at only 20 years old, I've found that the truth always seems to be somewhere in the middle, never on the extremes. There are some asshole trigger happy cops out there, but the majority of them are just doing their job.

cheesestix
Dec 29th, 2005, 12:55 AM
I'm not trying to be rude, but there also comes a time when people need to stop with the conspiracy theories and own up to what's theirs. The truth is 9 times out of 10, the police aren't just going to bother you for no reason, or harass you or use "unnecessary force" without being prompted first by whoever is on the receiving end. To me most of the outrage that we hear about police brutality comes from people and areas where the people are unreasonable in their views on the police to begin with. I feel like the people who scream the loudest, in this case and in everything else, are usually the people who are the least willing to be reasonable. I'm not saying this to belittle your experiences or to say that what you or your family members have gone through was just or fair, but even at only 20 years old, I've found that the truth always seems to be somewhere in the middle, never on the extremes. There are some asshole trigger happy cops out there, but the majority of them are just doing their job.

:worship:

cheesestix
Dec 29th, 2005, 12:57 AM
True.
Or like my 1st cousin...while climbing out of a window. :fiery:

:eek:

Let's hear the story, please.

kiwifan
Dec 29th, 2005, 01:11 AM
A good friend of mine told me a long time ago that if I ever had a run in with cops in his neck of the woods (Long Island, NY); "do exactly what you're told or they will kill you, end of story - you're just another dead ni**er who didn't follow orders to them."

My friend was an Italian-American my age and he had two uncles who were detectives.

Since that time, there have been stories in the news about cops shooting old ladies, retards, guys going for their wallets, etc.

Whenever I hear about another one I think of my buddy and what he told me...

...and :shrug:

His uncles aren't blood thirsty maniacs, they just want to make sure they get to go home at the end of the day. They don't have any responsiblity toward to guy with the knife - they have wives and kids that they have to take care of.

If you've got a weapon and the cops tell you to drop it and you don't...

...:shrug:


I'm not saying that its right or fair or just but its reality. ;)

Justin
Dec 29th, 2005, 01:36 AM
...but in all sincerity, police are trained to eliminate the threat, not just wound it. It's Police Training 101. In a kill or be killed world, it's survival of the fittest. Obviously nobody wants to be under question for a shooting, a cop gets automatic time off work and mandatory psych consults, plus the shoot; whether deemed good or bad, is always and forever in the officers file. No matter what that officer does, his involvement in a shooting can be brought up at anytime. It's not as if all cops are jaded bigots who'd rather just be trigger happy and kill anything that moves. Sure there's a few bad apples, but to just have the assumption that all police are gun toting, piston-firing, anger-proporting murderers is a bit off-based.

That's just my personal experience though, since I've worked in this field for 11 years.

:fiery: Too bad I good-rep'd you a recently b/c this post deserves a :clap2: and a good rep.

Those of us in law enforcement can recant literally fifty good cop stories (acts of heroism, act of courage, saved lives) for every suspect cop story.

Some stories get sensationalized because of their vividness, while the vast majority of cop stories get swept under the rug because they are considered either "run of the mill or expected."

Justin
Dec 29th, 2005, 01:52 AM
A good friend of mine told me a long time ago that if I ever had a run in with cops in his neck of the woods (Long Island, NY); "do exactly what you're told or they will kill you, end of story - you're just another dead ni**er who didn't follow orders to them."

My friend was an Italian-American my age and he had two uncles who were detectives.

Since that time, there have been stories in the news about cops shooting old ladies, retards, guys going for their wallets, etc.

Whenever I hear about another one I think of my buddy and what he told me...

...and :shrug:

His uncles aren't blood thirsty maniacs, they just want to make sure they get to go home at the end of the day. They don't have any responsiblity toward to guy with the knife - they have wives and kids that they have to take care of.

If you've got a weapon and the cops tell you to drop it and you don't...

...:shrug:


I'm not saying that its right or fair or just but its reality. ;)

Reality? Before you preach reality, you might wanna stop listening to your buddy go research just how many killings by cops have occurred in Long Island in the past ten years. That is where I have lived for all my life (save three years).



Also, per District Attorney Office policy in both Long Island counties (Nassau and Suffolk), all instances where a cop opens fire is presented to a Grand Jury (where the "Officer in Question" voluntarily waives their immunity against prosecution). Care to guess how many indictments are handed up?

kiwifan
Dec 29th, 2005, 02:37 AM
No need to be so defensive, angry one. :p

My warning was in 1987 and nobody said LI Cops are "trigger happy".

Capiche? :cool:

RVD
Dec 29th, 2005, 04:11 AM
No need to be so defensive, angry one. :p

My warning was in 1987 and nobody said LI Cops are "trigger happy".

Capiche? :cool:Isn't it interesting that people will call cops heroes for shooting the very people we love?
I've learned over my many decades of dealing with these cold blooded licensed killers, that none of them will come to your rescue if you are a minority.

Sorry folks, but the only good cop is a dead cop. :shrug: (Except for one that I know is a righteous fellow). ;)
And yes, I am bitter about these no good filthy members of society.
The only difference between a criminal and the vast majority of cops is one is applauded and rewarded for cold-blodded killing, and the other just gets killed.

Erika_Angel
Dec 29th, 2005, 04:16 AM
Isn't it interesting that people will call cops heroes for shooting the very people we love?
I've learned over my many decades of dealing with these cold blooded licensed killers, that none of them will come to your rescue if you are a minority.

Sorry folks, but the only good cop is a dead cop. :shrug: (Except for one that I know is a righteous fellow). ;)
And yes, I am bitter about these no good filthy members of society.
The only difference between a criminal and the vast majority of cops is one is applauded and rewarded for cold-blodded killing, and the other just gets killed.

If this isn't the most blatent use of generalisation :rolleyes:

JustineTime
Dec 29th, 2005, 04:23 AM
I have to agree with this post. There have always existed non-lethal methods of restraint. Yet in this case, the thinking seems to have been to kill the guy and be done with it. Didn't the report (article) say that a witness saw him walking with a knife? Apparently he hadn't threatened anyone until threatened himself. I'm not saying that he wasn't looking to kill someone. But what I am saying is that the threat didn't exist until he himself was cornered. Seems to me that if you are a cop trained to distinguished between various levels of threat, then this must be taken into consideration. Not become what was previously stated in this thread: Judge, jury, executioner.

As far as alternative forms of restraints:

Tasers, tranquilizer darts, cork rifles, bean bag rifles, rubber bullets, etc...
or how about this... http://www.the-isg.co.uk/sandbox/anti-riot%20weapons.pdf

It has always been strongly held by the public that killing perpetrators are more cost effective than any of the current retraint, capture, and incarceration approaches. Not only that, but you are also able to quickly rid the world of specific elements of society.

You exude an innate resentment and/or mistrust of law enforcement in your posts, RVD. I truly hope it doesn't require experience to convince you of the error of this mindset(although I can't say I'd be surprised to learn that it was experience that led you there in the 1st place. :shrug: )

tennisbum79
Dec 29th, 2005, 05:10 AM
if you shoot the man in the toe, he can still throw the knife and hit someone. Anyway, small targets like that are hard to hit in pressure situations so it is easier to hit the person in the abdomen which unfortunately is where all the vital organs are

Are you serious or you are being sarcastic?
I do not recall anybody saying to shoot in the toe.

What exactly do the police (law enforcement in general) learn at the academy?
Where is all this psychological training to diffuse intense and explosive situation?
These people always claim they got 100% on their professional test and were overlooked in promotion.
What exactly did they get the score of 100% in?
They seem to be handling many situations just like non-trained individuals do?

There was wacko and other blunders by law enforcement, but yet people never question why is the police do not apply these pshologial training the go through?

Sally Struthers
Dec 29th, 2005, 05:55 AM
Isn't it interesting that people will call cops heroes for shooting the very people we love?
I've learned over my many decades of dealing with these cold blooded licensed killers, that none of them will come to your rescue if you are a minority.

Sorry folks, but the only good cop is a dead cop. :shrug: (Except for one that I know is a righteous fellow). ;)
And yes, I am bitter about these no good filthy members of society.
The only difference between a criminal and the vast majority of cops is one is applauded and rewarded for cold-blodded killing, and the other just gets killed.

you are a real piece of work. Get some help!

Sally Struthers
Dec 29th, 2005, 05:56 AM
Are you serious or you are being sarcastic?
I do not recall anybody saying to shoot in the toe.

What exactly do the police (law enforcement in general) learn at the academy?
Where is all this psychological training to diffuse intense and explosive situation?
These people always claim they got 100% on their professional test and were overlooked in promotion.
What exactly did they get the score of 100% in?
They seem to be handling many situations just like non-trained individuals do?

There was wacko and other blunders by law enforcement, but yet people never question why is the police do not apply these pshologial training the go through?


you are insane as well.

Sally Struthers
Dec 29th, 2005, 05:59 AM
Hell... I'm sick of all of you :haha: Except those who agree with me :kiss:

tennisbum79
Dec 29th, 2005, 06:01 AM
you are insane as well.

You did not answer the question: Did anybody suggest to shoot the suspect in the toe?

RVD
Dec 29th, 2005, 08:47 AM
You exude an innate resentment and/or mistrust of law enforcement in your posts, RVD. I truly hope it doesn't require experience to convince you of the error of this mindset(although I can't say I'd be surprised to learn that it was experience that led you there in the 1st place. :shrug: )Yes...and ...yes, JustineTime. I've seen and experienced too much to believe that police are protectors and enforcers. And they are the ones who've created a very unpleasant mind set in many who've seen what I have. Believe me when I say that I'm by far not the only one who feels this way.

However, all that aside, I am willing to approach this particular situation from an unbiased POV. :)

It can't be denied that if the legal agencies put there minds to it, they can utilize many available, yet effective, non-lethal methods to both prevent collateral damage and apprehend criminals/suspects. I already mentioned several above, but here are a TON more options, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood USAF Institute for National Security Studies... :) http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/nonlethal.html (a lengthy but fascinating read :D )

The questions then becomes will law agencies abandon the antiquated lethal method, for ones that are non-lethal yet possibly more expensive. Remember, law enforcement is a business, and as such, they will take the route that will positively effect their bottom positively first. :wavey:

"Sluggy"
Dec 29th, 2005, 08:54 AM
if you have never been in a split second decision situation, you do not have time to think, you have to act. We dont know the full circumstances of the event so we cant judge it. Police officers have to protect themselves. Like in the movie mailman, the mailman is more important than the mail.

"Sluggy"
Dec 29th, 2005, 09:06 AM
A good friend of mine told me a long time ago that if I ever had a run in with cops in his neck of the woods (Long Island, NY); "do exactly what you're told or they will kill you, end of story - you're just another dead ni**er who didn't follow orders to them."

Well times have changed. I am caucasian, I never heard anything like that from white people but I can tell you I believed when I was a child that if i did a bad thing the police would put me in jail, kill me ... or worse.

Since that time, there have been stories in the news about cops shooting old ladies, retards, guys going for their wallets, etc.

In a country of 400 million people, where there must be over 200,000 law enforcement men and women, shit is going to happen.

His uncles aren't blood thirsty maniacs, they just want to make sure they get to go home at the end of the day. They don't have any responsiblity toward to guy with the knife - they have wives and kids that they have to take care of.

If you've got a weapon and the cops tell you to drop it and you don't...

...:shrug:

I agree. These are just people at their jobs. Imagine you spent months saving to buy your wife a present. You cut lawns on the weekend, eased back on the budweiser, spent more time at the soccer field with the kids... then some dumbass on drugs wont drop a deadly weapon and you have a split second to decide whether to protect your police officer friend or not but then you have to choose between shooting at a thin leg or knee cap, or a large stomach or chest???? i mean wtf, shoot the poor bastard and get it over with.

Do you'll remember the Orthodox Jewish guy in Brooklyn that met police officers at his door wielding a hammer? A hammer can kill a human just as fast as a bullet. Cops killed him in an instant. Of course the mans brother was upset about it - but the story went to rest fast enuf. Turns out this person had a habit of wielding his hammer and had threatened other people before i think. :fiery: