Chain said:The officers in this case, at least the ones closest to the suspect, could have shot him dead and, in all probability, weathered the aftermath.
Let me explain...
About twenty years ago, a Salt Lake City PD sergeant named Dennis Tueller developed what we in policing know today as the Tueller Drill. The Tueller Drill proved an average person could cover 21' in 1.5 seconds from a standing start before an average officer is able to respond with gunfire.
Most of us know that but for a shot to the heart, brain or spine, it's possible for an assailant to keep coming even after they've been shot. So even if you could get off a couple rounds before a knife wielding subject makes it to you (i.e. you've already brought your weapon to bear), it remains very likely that you're going to get cut, maybe badly.
What you saw in the video there was something of a goat-rope, a disorganized, haphazard response by police officers, not all of whom were acting in a highly disciplined way IMO. But that can be the nature of the beast in these situations. You have mere nano-moments to think and react... and the whole world has weeks and months to ruminate over your actions when the dust has settled.
Courts tell us police officers are not expected to retreat. The officers in this situation could not afford to let this individual break their containment area and get to innocent citizens whom might have been harmed.
While less-lethal options such as bean bag rounds, Pepperball guns and Tasers could certainly be of great value in an incident such as this, I can only assume the officers in question didn't have these devices at their disposal.
I have been party to a handful of incidents much like the one we observed in this video. My 'policy' is and remains very simple: (a) I will not retreat, risking falling over backwards or allowing the subject to get out of my containment area; (b) I will give the individual an opportunity to disarm (we're talking about a perishable period of time here, not long folks); (c) if less-lethal is available, it's used; (d) if it's not, deadly force is called for and the hammer is coming down, period.
Note: courts have also said that deadly force is deadly force, so running this guy over with a car versus shooting him to death with a firearm is largely a moot point.
Damn, that means you're a great shot or a lucky SOB!! :smilebig:Chain said:Turn my weapon on another human being and discharge it to protect myself or a fellow officer? Yes, I have. Did I kill the individual in question? No.
Why, pray tell? :hmm:
Chain said:Turn my weapon on another human being and discharge it to protect myself or a fellow officer? Yes, I have. Did I kill the individual in question? No.
Why, pray tell? :hmm:
Depending on what study you cite, there's a better than average chance a police officer who shoots someone during the performance of their duties will not make it to retirement. Many officers fall ill to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and take disability. Not all, but a statistically significant number.phobiaphobe said:Just friendly curiosity is all. I find your profession fascinating. Seems like the kind of thing that would really permanently change a person.
When you shot someone did you have to go through a bunch of counselling and time off?