View Single Post
Old January 29, 2012, 05:01 AM   #40
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,166
They seem to issue a single verbal command? What are you basing this on?
That is what I hear over the video: one garbled shout. Yes could have been more, hence the word "seem". However, as you point point three officers all shouting at once may not always be better

Gee, I don't know. Did you see the suspect fall to the ground when the tazer was being used? Was the suspect rendered harmless by the tazer? Did the suspect stop his aggressive actions after being tazed? No, the attempt to taze did not work.
Well, thank you for the sarcasm. Really appreciated. It was a rhetorical question...

The amount of time isn't any issue here. The suspect attempted to strike an officer with the bar. Such a strike may have resulted in significant injury or death.
I disagree. I counted 8 or so seconds. 8 seconds to attempt communication. That is all they decided to try. Before upping the stakes. And it was upping the stakes that elicitied a reaction from him.

Just what video are you watching where you explicitly can hear what was going on between the officers and the suspect? What dialog was needed? You do realize that to get a dialog going, you have to have input and response from from both parties, right?
Once again, loving the sarcasm...
What if he'd just said "Leave me alone!". Not beyond possibility is it? (Rhetorical question). Would that be reason enough to move to stun?
My point is and was that when he came out of that building he was not walking aggressively, apart from what was in his hand. He looked at them and yet walked straight on past: there was no officer I could see that was directly in his path: an objective, so to speak.

Perhaps you have good control of your emotions, but for many, when their "blood is up" and they're **ssed off, they will not automatically, instantly react to someone else's vebal command

I see little reason, given his demeanour at that time for a) deploying the tazer and , b) getting close enough to use it.

But they did, they didn't succeed (as you kindly pointed out), and they then only had grappling or shooting as the only options, if indeed the dog was of no use then.

Here's a scenario.
I am going to work on the assumption that we agree that he was not using body language of attack when he walked out and walked past the police.

What if they had tried to calm him down for more than 8 or so seconds: they had space to move, they could have shadowed him from a greater distance. He was not running around, screaming and swinging.

Even if he was not responding, verbally, and it was mostly one sided.

As long as his body language did not go from "I'm angry right now" to "I'm angry right now and I'm gonna swing at one of you", would trying to talk him down for 30 seconds, a minute, 10 minutes be such a bad idea?

Would that have been out of the question?
Would that not have been worth the attempt, given the outcome we've seen?
It's not like they didn't have their guns drawn in case, or were cornered by him. On top of that more police would have arrived too.

I put this out for consideration as an alternative outcome, don't feel you have to asnwer those questions. They are simply the questions I asked myself.

At the end of it all, I am not saying that the guy was not a threat.
I am not saying that using a firearm was never an option in that situation. And I am not saying that I have all the facts at my disposal, but based on what I saw in that video he became direct threat when they tazered him, not before.

That is when I see the situation going from tense, to dangerous, and that to my mind is what triggered it. After that, it seems a shooting was inevitable should the tazer fail.

I don't feel that hanging back and talking for longer would have put the officers at any greater risk.
Quite the opposite: further out of his strike range and a greater chance that he would engage in dialogue, rather than combat.
So, needless to say, you may well disagree with me, but I don't feel any of my points are unreasonable, nor my hypotheses beyond imagination.

PS: liberally using sarcasm in your responses is pretty condescending, and I certainly don't see why I merited it.
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Any idea that relies on murder for its survival in intrinsically weak.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Page generated in 0.07521 seconds with 7 queries