Is this a good resolution to what may have been murder?

Other reports indicate that the officer did not have a taser.

I don't know if he had pepper spray or not.

He still had not exhausted his entire collection of alternatives at this point.

No matter how you slice it 4 shots to the back short of the man lunging at someone with the knife was not warranted in any circumstance.

Oh, I know, I was just wondering what would have happened in the man had been tasered instead. Or IOW, if the officer had availed himself of a less-lethal option.

edited 27th May '11 6:36:21 PM by blueharp

From the other Wiki: "Use of deadly force" is often granted to police forces when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them... In the United States this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Wikipedia is not definitive, but it appears that it hinges upon whether or not the officer believed the victim posed a significant threat to anyone.

@Blue: Again, I was responding to a specific post by another troper who made a statement that went beyond this specific case. I was refuting his argument. I am sorry you find that offensive. Lets drop it.

De marquis: Which would be someone armed and having proven they are willing to used force in most cases. That also falls under damn good reason with some proof to back it up if you shoot them in the back.

Well, next time perhaps you might try another approach like:

"I believe you're being a bit over-broad in your statement here" or some such neutral statement, and avoid bringing up things that aren't factors in this case. You didn't refute his argument, you came up with an extraneous one of your own. Just avoid that next time. It will be less likely to come across as trying to justify the conduct here.

In regards the Supreme Court case, you might want to read that instead of just Wikipedia. It has a lot more in the way of exposition. But the key words are significant threat. Carrying around a knife, working on a piece of wood, does not merit a significant threat to anybody who is not a tree.

edited 27th May '11 7:08:52 PM by blueharp

So, what is the status on this police officer again?

With the knowledge I have, the police officer over-reacted too much. Four shots is overkill. One shot would've been enough to down the victim, but four shots is just too much. The police officer should've never became a police officer in the first place, as this reeks of some mental illness.

If the man was running, it may have been more justified, but it seemed like he wasn't charging at somebody. Regardless of anything, even if it was a suicide bomber, the police officer had to be fired.

But my personal choice: charge him with at least manslaughter, and punish him like a regular civilian.

By the way, about the passing woman, Bystander Effect.

edited 27th May '11 7:15:47 PM by chihuahua0

A federal investigation may be happening.

Otherwise, apparently nothing.

Why do I get the feeling that when a psycho, who is whittling wood while walking down the street, starts stabbing random people, people will question why he wasn't stopped by police to begin with...

A knife, in itself, is a deadly weapon, and worth the use of deadly force.

The real question would be "Was the dumbass with the knife getting close to someone while walking along the sidewalk?" Because if so, I can see an officer, who's told him to stop and put the knife down, think he's planning on hurting someone. Sadly the video doesn't show us what happened...

Swish: merely possessing the knife does not warrant being shot in the back. Unless the man showed a clear intent to use the knife to apply lethal force on someone there was no reason to shoot him.

edited 27th May '11 7:36:37 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I don't think you understand what can of worms you're going to open up with that particular suggestion, so perhaps you might want to think on how your statement may be interpreted as overly broad?

I'm really hoping this argument doesn't happen, but don't say I didn't warn you.

edited 27th May '11 7:35:59 PM by blueharp

Merely possessing a gun doesn't warrant one being shot in the back either.

But if the guy is walking towards someone on the side of the street, with a knife in hand, a police officer is supposed to sit back, watch the situation play out, and hope for the best? No, he says "stop, put the knife down" and then shoots if the guy continues on his present course. Law enforcement is supposed to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting people.

Four bullets may be excessive... but firing the gun in the situation may not have been unwarranted.

My statement may be overly broad, if only because yours is overly naive. Anyone with a knife is dangerous to others because the knife itself is dangerous...

edited 27th May '11 7:41:05 PM by Swish

You could say the same thing about everyone who walks around with a pen, keys, or any number of utterly mundane yet surprisingly sharp objects that can tear open your throat or gouge your eyes out.

edited 27th May '11 7:40:49 PM by Pykrete

If there was somebody, don't you think it'd have been mentioned in one of these reports?

And I think you're the one who is naive, especially in regards to what you just said. You're digging a deeper and deeper hole, and apparently don't even realize it.

edited 27th May '11 7:42:09 PM by blueharp

True, but an officer would have no reason to try to stop someone carrying around a pen or keys... Some guy walking around town with a knife out should be stopped. Just as if he was carrying a gun. (Edit:Note, not harassed, just assessed to see why the person is carrying it out in the open and such... public safety.)

I take it from the lady who says "he wasn't doing anything," that there was someone near the guy at the time of the shooting... Since it really doesn't seem like the lady that was on camera as the shots were fired was saying that. If that's the case, then the officer may feel himself justified in taking the shots, because he felt the man was dangerous.

edited 27th May '11 7:49:13 PM by Swish

That seems a rather broad assumption to make. If you can find any mention of such a woman in any report, go ahead, but it looks to me like you're fabricating her out of thin air just to justify the conduct.

If you can find it in this report please show us where.

I see them saying the exact opposite.

And really, there's a difference between "stop" and "shoot to death from behind" though really, some people have a problem with the stopping too.

edited 27th May '11 7:57:10 PM by blueharp

The reason he was carrying it is apparent. He was whittling. In plain sight.

Furthermore, carrying a knife is nothing unusual. They're used for a bit more than stabbing people.

edited 27th May '11 7:54:25 PM by Pykrete

Thank you for that report. It would have been nice to have seen it on the first page(or through one of the links in the first page). So you would be correct in there being no real justification.

I disagree that it's apparent, since I don't see him whittling in the 10 seconds he's on camera, I see him stabbing at the wood....

And, I agree, carrying a knife isn't unusual. Walking around with it in hand is...

Have you ever whittled before? There are ways that include such techniques.

edited 27th May '11 8:07:21 PM by blueharp

Whittling does tend to involve taking a knife to wood, yes. And the video doesn't look like he's "stabbing" anything.

edited 27th May '11 8:13:35 PM by Pykrete

@Blue: "Well, next time perhaps you might try another approach like: "I believe you're being a bit over-broad in your statement here" or some such neutral statement, and avoid bringing up things that aren't factors in this case. You didn't refute his argument, you came up with an extraneous one of your own. Just avoid that next time. It will be less likely to come across as trying to justify the conduct here."

I certainly will, since I want to be as persuasive as possible. I might advise you in turn to please, if you wish to dispute something specific that someone has said, to reference exactly what you wish to object to and to avoid accusatory language.

From the Wikipedia page Blueharp linked to on Tennessee v. Garner: "Justice White wrote for the majority, first agreeing with the Sixth Circuit's determination that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure, then framing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. In order to determine the constitutionality of a seizure, White reasoned, the court must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against the government interests which justified the intrusion."

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to tell us much, without knowing all the facts of the case. It does seem to imply that shooting someone could be reasonable, if the government can show an over-riding interest.

But even if the government cant show that, it doesn't mean the officer committed murder. It only means he was unjustified in shooting the victim. What punishment that deserves seems to me to be open to debate.

Then we have a difference of opinion, because I see him stabbing at the wood.

He's not even using his elbows.

If you're expecting whittling to be 100% those grand sweeping motions flaking off strips of veneer like you see in hillbilly scenes in movies, it doesn't work that way.

edited 27th May '11 8:16:03 PM by Pykrete

Yeah those are swipes. He's shaving the wood.

In my experience, I have found that singling out particular pieces of people's posts to be more accusatory and confrontational.

So no, I think I'll decline your technique, as I feel it achieves the opposite effect, by being far more hostile as it picks apart what a person says rather than appreciates the scope of it.

But I should note, that though I don't agree with you on your suggestion, I came to my opinion on the piece-meal quoting completely independent of anything you have to say on the subject. So I'm not holding it against you, I'm just sticking with something I already believe, and have followed for years. Not always, sometimes I do quote like you suggest, but I usually find it best to avoid it. Whether or not you follow the same is up to you, but I do hope you take my other suggestion with consideration.

Regarding the rest, even if you don't want to call it murder, it may still be a crime. And no, there is no justification, because the people who did have full access to the facts did not find it. It's in the report I just linked.

Which was mentioned in the original posting, though perhaps it was not explicit enough for everybody? Or was I the only one who looked for it?

Stabbing is fine in whittling sometimes.

edited 27th May '11 8:24:19 PM by blueharp