rgambs said:

I wasn't going to watch the video because I'm growing tired of watching people die, but I watched it.
The officers gave ground, they tried to reason with him, they didn't want to shoot him.
It was clear he was trying to get himself killed.

The officers tried, they didn't just blow him away at the first chance they got.
Not abuse.  
Still a failure.  4? Cops on scene with weapons drawn, why wasn't a taser deployed?  If they had used a taser everyone would have come away alive and well.  

The taser was my first question to. From what I've heard, that department did not issue tasers to their officers. A huge failure IMO. Giving those officers a non lethal use of force measure would have made a huge difference. I would guess they will be getting them now. Funding for training, non lethal force equipment and technology is what would alleviate the problems demonstrated in encounters like this one.

tbergs said:

rgambs said:

I wasn't going to watch the video because I'm growing tired of watching people die, but I watched it.
The officers gave ground, they tried to reason with him, they didn't want to shoot him.
It was clear he was trying to get himself killed.

The officers tried, they didn't just blow him away at the first chance they got.
Not abuse.  
Still a failure.  4? Cops on scene with weapons drawn, why wasn't a taser deployed?  If they had used a taser everyone would have come away alive and well.  

The taser was my first question to. From what I've heard, that department did not issue tasers to their officers. A huge failure IMO. Giving those officers a non lethal use of force measure would have made a huge difference. I would guess they will be getting them now. Funding for training, non lethal force equipment and technology is what would alleviate the problems demonstrated in encounters like this one.

I agree with all of this, with the addition of the will and interest of those leading the police departments and organizations to adopt and champion this. As long as these methods are subtly or overtly dismissed by them, they'll go nowhere. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

old news but relevant:

Cop fired for not shooting armed suicidal suspect
"Such restraint should be praised not penalized. To tell a police officer -- when in doubt -- either shoot to kill or get fired, is a choice that no police officer should ever have to make and is a message that is wrong and should never be sent," said his attorney, Timothy O'Brien.

Cops are no longer trained to protect and serve.  They are trained to view everything as a threat to be neutralized.  

So you really want cops firing their weapon when they don't intend to kill? That seems like a whole new level of a can of worms to me.
The whole point of shoot to kill (and yes, some will argue its shoot center mass, but thats basically the same thing) is two very simple reasons.
1- Never fire your weapon unless you intend to kill someone
2- Dont intend to kill someone unless you fear for your or someone else's safety

And I guess you could add a third of
3-if you are truly afraid for your life, I wouldnt want anything less than lethal force. Police have a right to protect themselves just like everyone else. Tasers dont always stop a guy with a knife. Especially someone on drugs, and they dont know the situation. 

That's it. You bring in shoot to injure in the picture, then the next conversation is going to be "well I was aiming for his leg as he ran away, but missed and nailed him in the back. Sorry you're paralyzed for life now."

The officer in the article didn't shoot at all. He was a former marine, facing someone holding a gun and managed to diffuse the situation without firing a shot. 

But since you brought it up, yes I would like police to stop shooting people and asking questions later. Why can't the US figure this out? 

US police kill more in days than other countries do in years

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

And what is this saying?

Is it saying the US is fraught with bloodthirsty police that love shooting people? Or is it speaking to the 'tip' of the problem which is the manifestation of brutal behaviours- borne from a multitude of social issues- that result in police encounters?

Again... we all like to point our fingers at the police, but we rarely point our fingers at ourselves. The US citizens are responsible for the inequities prevalent in their country that result in criminalized people encountering police.  Get behind solid social programming instead of things like military might and many of these situations will not present themselves. And I could go on, but won't.  

Outside of the outliers... ultimately, police are just people like us: doing a job and wanting to come home after doing their job.

You're talking about fixing the biggest problem in human civilization as if it's easy, to avoid tackling a much smaller problem because dealing with that issue makes you uncomfortable.
Everyone knows and agrees that poverty causes these issues, but poverty has never been eradicated in human history, while implementation of bodycams and increasing training are simple snap of the finger solutions that will cause immediate improvement.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I speak as a realist.

I'm not opposed to body cams, tasers, whatever... but the problem is not going to disappear- there will still be plenty of incidents where people are shot challenging authority. These 'band aids' you speak to are not going to make the problem go away like a snap of the fingers as you suggest.

Earlier on this page, people (Often) spoke to the underlying cause of the behaviour (desperation) that led to the clash and shooting. Further, someone (might have been you) spoke to the need for decent discourse on this subject to assist with change efforts. I find your comment interesting following those comments. You seem to scoff at the notion of addressing the real root of the problem given its challenges- insisting the area of focus should be where the problem manifests itself (treating the symptoms versus the cause). I would say to you that narrow minded focus is not as helpful as you present it to be.

I see what you're saying and you are not wrong, we just have a slight difference of opinion.
Sometimes treating the symptoms is the only thing we can do, you can't cure a virus (generally) once you have it, you can only manage the symptoms to increase comfort.
Poverty and mental health issues are like a nasty virus.  Yes, we have to work at creating anti-virals, but that's a long game, in the meantime let's get some relief.

The other thing is that the bandaids won't make the wounds go away, but they will help keep away infection.
Too much medical analogy lol

What I'm saying is that if we implement these easy systemic changes, we can prevent some deaths and we can gain confidence in our police force that will allow them to feel less like they are under assault.
This case, had taser been attempted, is a perfect example.
We have an assailant posing a threat, but the threat is clearly directed mostly at himself. 
The officers try to talk him down, they give ground within reason, when that failed they could have deployed tasers to subdue him.  Now, if the taser failed to eliminate the threat and they had to shoot him, there wouldn't be any second guessing.
They would have done all that could possibly be expected of them in that situation.
When that becomes the norm, the people who are just anti-police will be easily distinguished from the people who just want to see improvements for everybody's sake.

oftenreading said:

How about this one? Police shoot deaf man who couldn't hear their demands to stop, despite the fact that he was on his own property and not engaged in any criminal activity.

http://www.salon.com/2017/09/21/oklahoma-cops-shoot-kill-deaf-man-despite-pleas-from-neighbors/

I imagine we'll still have people blaming him. After all, he should know he's at risk of being shot if he walks up to police officers coming onto his property.

Don't forget the 2 foot long pipe he was waving around that looked like a weapon.

Another example where different training and tasers might have created a different outcome.

In Winnipeg... a cop may have exercised too much patience with a guy wielding a knife. He's in critical condition.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/man-shot-by-police-dies-officer-remains-in-unstable-condition/ar-AAsoG6z?li=AAggFp5&ocid=edgsp

I just don't think taking risks that can result in physical harm to themselves should be part of a cop's job.

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

In Winnipeg... a cop may have exercised too much patience with a guy wielding a knife. He's in critical condition.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/man-shot-by-police-dies-officer-remains-in-unstable-condition/ar-AAsoG6z?li=AAggFp5&ocid=edgsp

I just don't think taking risks that can result in physical harm to themselves should be part of a cop's job.

This is the mentality that encourages cops to shoot to kill at the first sign of danger. 

Cops themselves tell us how they put they lives on the line the moment they put on their uniform. 

People shouldn't suffer live altering injuries just for going to work. But everyday I see people mangled by machinery, body damaged from repetitive use, or killed in auto accidents; and they're not cops. 

Besides, I don't see any restraint in that article. It sounds like they kicked the door in and went in after knifey. Maybe some restraint would have helped. 

If I read correctly... there was no restraint because there were people inside the house at risk. Are you suggesting they should have concerned themselves more with the knife wielding guy versus the people at risk from his behaviour?

I'm not encouraging cops to shoot at the first sign of danger. I'm saying that we can all second guess their judgement from our couches and office cubicles. Without question... there has been poor judgement exercised where people have been unnecessarily hurt (both suspects and police for that matter). It's probably a lot more challenging being in the moment.

unsung said:

I could solve this right now.

How's that?

unsung said:

These settlements should come out of their pension (group) fund.

Yep.  It would make a big difference!  
Or some kind of insurance setup.