7 ms·

I watched the video ten times and I don't understand how this is a good shoot. You have two cops against a guy with a _hammer_ and the immediate solution is to

• GrinningFool 11y ago
  He's not dead. Aside from that, the allegations are that that the guy had been randomly attacking people with hammers. And as we see here, he immediately attacked the officer, on sight. Was it the best choice? No. But the whole thing happened in just a few seconds, start to finish. I can't fault them or say it was a bad choice - I would likely have done the same upon seeing someone I worked with being beaten about the head with a hammer.
  • Kesty 11y ago
    >But the whole thing happened in just a few seconds The problem here is that the hist first reaction was take out the gun and shoot him. It shouldn't be his first choice. In this case it's hard to argue that a person randomly hitting people with an hammer on their heads didn't deserve it, but it's more a bad trending that can only domore harm than good
    • sp332 11y ago
      If someone is about to bash someone else with a hammer, what would your "first choice" be?
• themartorana 11y ago
  I'm personally of the belief that if you assault someone with a deadly weapon, you have forfeited your right to live. Hell, if you assault someone in my family without a weapon you've forfeited your right to live. I realize some may hold cops to a different standard, and I most certainly hold them to the same standard as I do anyone (and the recent spat of cops killing unarmed men or kids with toys on park benches have been atrocious) but this guy was out to murder a cop, so, boom you're dead. I know others may have a different opinion, but don't imagine a stranger - imagine someone you know is being assaulted with a hammer. Would you not put the assailant down on the spot, even if you had police/military/marshal arts training? I would.
  • thfuran 11y ago
    What might be done in the heat of the moment and what is reasonable or just are not necessarily the same. I think suggesting considering assault of one's family instead of a stranger is precisely the wrong approach. Consider your response to harm to a stranger. I don't see how holding different positions on retaliatory use of lethal force depending on whether someone is related to you or not is a tenable position. If shooting a stranger in the head after you witness them slapping another stranger isn't just, neither is shooting them in the head after witnessing them slapping your wife/child, though the latter is perhaps more understandable.
    • themartorana 11y ago
      I disagree, respectfully. I think people are so fast to condemn something that they have no way of understanding. It is so much easier to make judgements in a disassociated fashion. Cops are usually extremely close to their partners. They take the responsibility of the other's life quite seriously. So if you want to even pretend to understand what happened, you have to imagine someone was attacking a friend/loved one with a hammer. Personally, as you can no doubt tell, I think the cop was right to shoot the guy completely disassociated. But it's because I know what my reaction would be in the most extreme situation that I don't stand back and place judgement.
      • 11y ago
• smtucker 11y ago
  Manslaughter? To me it looked like from the point in time that the assailant brandished the hammer to when he was shot the female police officer was within inches of having her head bashed in. If I were in any danger I would not like you to be the one keeping me safe.
  • chernevik 11y ago
    On reflection, manslaughter is probably the wrong term. As tpacek points out, this is probably well within the standards and training of the department. But I think those standards are a problem.
• ohitsdom 11y ago
  I read your comment and largely agreed with you. Then I watched the video. It happened so fast, everyone was basically running during the attack (including the attacker and cops). It looks highly unlikely that the cop who shot could have grabbed the attacker before his partner got bludgeoned. And I don't know what prior information they had, but with a guy moving that quickly it'd be hard to distinguish a hammer from a knife. My point is, this was a very fast-developing dangerous situation and I believe the cops responded well. Yes, cops are trained to handle dangerous situations but I don't think we can expect them to disregard other people's safety and lives to protect a very violent attacker.
  • perfTerm 11y ago
    Yea, when someones 8-10 feet away they can close that gap in an instance. I didn't watch the video but if that's true it's amazing the office got their weapon out in time.
    • getsat 11y ago
      Yep. 21 foot rule: an attacker with a knife can close a 21 foot gap and stab you in under two seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KJ1R2PCMM
      • zimpenfish 11y ago
        The key word here is "can" - it's not "will". See section 2 of this - http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/102828-Edged-Weapon-Defense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-1/ http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/102828-Edged... "In real-world encounters, many variables affect time, which is the key component of the 21-Foot Rule. What is the training skill and stress level of the officer? How fast and agile is he? How alert is he to preliminary cues to aggressive movement? How agile and fast is the suspect? Is he drunk and stumbling, or a young guy in a ninja outfit ready to rock and roll? [...continues for a while...]"
        • 11y ago
• DEinspanjer 11y ago
  I believe it is very hard to judge the officer that put him down too harshly. Here are my reasons for feeling this way: 1. The circumstances of the attack. The assailant was in a crowded public place and suddenly went berserk and attacking police officers with a deadly weapon and apparent intent to kill. Does not seem to be in a frame of mind to comply with an arrest in any way. The police were looking for him because of three previous attacks against pedestrians. He was believed to be mentally unstable. 2. He saw his partner struck in the head with a hammer, and I don't believe he had cause for confidence she could support him in a physical takedown. 3. If the officer closed to take him down by hand, and the assailant struck the officer with the hammer, he could be put out of commission and then the assailant would potentially have a pistol to use in a crowded street. Police rarely approach a person still armed or still having the intent to attack. They need control of the situation before doing so. 4. The officer did not continue firing after the assailant went down. The man lived.
• sp332 11y ago
  > Or whack him in the back of the head with a nightstick? That might be somewhat less lethal than shooting him, but still has a good chance of causing death or permanent disability. In addition, it would require being in striking range of his hammer which is the opposite of where you want to be. I don't think you have a good grasp on this at all.
• crystalmeph 11y ago
  He was inches away from the officer, actively swinging a hammer at her head, and it seems like you expect her partner to use nonlethal means because it's "just" a hammer. Would it have been different if he was using a knife or a machete, or would he actually have to be wielding a gun for you to call this justified? At that close range, a hammer is just as deadly as a firearm. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon, and you, or cops, or anybody, are allowed to use deadly force against someone actively using a deadly weapon to attempt to kill another person. Any other policy effectively allows murder to happen.
  • vidarh 11y ago
    I think the biggest problem is with the way he was approached in the first place. Most places with unarmed police, more officers would have been sent, and the first step would have been to tell passers by to step away, while officers would have kept their distance from the suspect. Once he is attacking the first officer I agree the shot was probably justified, but that police officer should not have approached someone who was wielding a weapon that way in the first place. A deadly weapon is only deadly if you allow officers to get into range without adequate protection. I think this is a large part of the problem with weapons use for US police: They have a lethal weapon as easy backup, so they're taking risks that would be downright stupid and against every instruction for someone who has to go back to their car to unlock a sealed box to get at their firearm, or call for backup from a specialist firearms squad (depending on country).
    • chernevik 11y ago
      I don't think this is fair. This was an ambush -- the cops were just crossing the street and the guy went after them. There isn't anything in their approach to the guy that could have been changed.
  • chernevik 11y ago
    Once the attacker misses with the first swing, a hammer is a pretty bad weapon. Do I want someone coming at me with one? No. Is it likely that I'll let them hit me in the head with it? No.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• hso9791 11y ago
  A single blow of a hammer to the head may cause a cracked skull and/or massive hemorrhaging. It could be instantly lethal, or cause death even after medical attention is given. Even with survival, there's a distinct risk of later disabilities - mental or motoric. In this particular ambush, the only right thing is to shoot the assailant. If some cops could handle this situation without their firearm (and they were confident enough this wouldn't risk their partner's life or health), then that would surely be the exception rather than the rule.
  • pjc50 11y ago
    UK police seem to be quite capable of dealing with this kind of thing with the side-handled baton or occasional taser. Partly because they have extensive training in de-escalation.
    • vidarh 11y ago
      UK police also usually wouldn't respond with two officers for a situation like this. There was an assault outside my house a few months back, and they sent 3 cars and 6-7 officers despite no indication weapons were involved. People tend to respond very differently when thy face a group of officers spread out - turn towards one of them in a threatening manner and three others will be slamming you to the ground. What struck me about the video in the article was how there were just two of them, and despite that one was getting in the suspects face. You don't get in the face of an expected dangerous assailant if you want to avoid violence.
• talmand 11y ago
  If an assailant has shown intent to cause harm upon another person with a deadly melee weapon only a damned fool would get within striking distance of that weapon. If that damned fool was armed with a potentially even deadlier weapon then he is an extremely dangerous damned fool. The reason the answer is to shoot the guy is because putting more people in danger is not a good solution. It can easily be shown to be an incredibly bad idea. If we're talking about taking the guy down with a non-lethal projectile then that's a different matter. Because it keeps you out of striking range of the melee weapon. It's kind of difficult to perform your duties as a police officer with a claw hammer sticking out of your head.
  • vidarh 11y ago
    That makes the police officers damned fools for approaching in the first place. If that's what you mean, then I agree. The answer first became to shoot the guy because the officers were reckless enough to get that close without more backup rather than getting pedestrians to back away and trying to de-escalate the situation.
    • talmand 11y ago
      I watched the video. I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment. What I saw was two officers crossing the street in normal foot traffic. As they got close to the attacker, who was standing there non-threatening in the crowd, he lunged at them with a weapon that was likely difficult to see from their perspective or was hidden. The man attacked one officer repeatedly spilling out into the street. The other officer shot him. That's about as clean a shoot you can get. There was no way that situation was going to be deescalated by talking him down. He attacked them before anything had escalated in the first place. What would have been an incredibly stupid thing to do was for the second officer to engage the attacker by physical means instead of drawing his weapon and shooting him. An incredibly stupid thing that you seem to suggest should have been done. Or maybe you mean the second officer should have deescalated the situation before falling back on drawing his weapon even though the situation was the attacker beating his partner to death in the street right in front of him.
• tptacek 11y ago
  This is spelled out in the General Order documents of every US police department. Virtually all police are authorized --- in fact, trained & required --- to use deadly force to "protect themselves or another person from imminent death or serious bodily injury". A credible hammer swing to their partner's head obviously qualifies. Unlike in other situations, they aren't supposed to carefully judge the minimum possible level of force. If "imminent death or serious bodily injury" is at stake, they are trained to use firearms. No cop in that situation wants to try to grapple with the attacker --- he's about 8-10 feet away from the officer when he brandishes his weapon --- only to fail to prevent the hammer strike that paralyzes his partner. There's a legit public policy debate to be had about whether US foot police should be outfitted and trained more like UK police, so that most of them don't have firearms at all. But it's not fair to single these officers out. If we're going to evaluate this incident under the rubric of "a good shooting", as you did, it's hard to see how this doesn't qualify.
  • jobu 11y ago
    I think the point chernevik was trying to make is that the officer appears to be shooting the attacker when the attacker is between the officers. Unless that bullet hits a bone it's going to pass through the guy and hit the other officer or possibly an innocent bystander. Even if it does hit a bone it could pass through the guy expanded or fragmented and still cause significant damage. (Unless they're using frangible bullets, but I haven't heard of that outside air marshals.)
    • tptacek 11y ago
      That is a general problem with having armed police in heavily populated areas, and one I recognize and agree with (I don't like guns). That said: the NYPD General Order doesn't exempt police in NYC from using firearms to prevent imminent death or bodily harm. I've known police from other states who visited my family in Chicago and carried their firearms with them. (Again: I don't like guns). When I asked why they had them, I got a speech about how they were required to carry them.
  • XJOKOLAT 11y ago
    In many cases, I've always wondered this: Why not just shoot the legs? Why does it have to be "deadly force"? Just asking. My knowledge of this subject ends at watching Schwarzenegger target legs in T2.
• dionidium 11y ago
  You seem to be emphasizing _hammer_ as a means to trivialize it. Did I read that right? If someone were attacking me with a hammer, I would interpret that as a deadly threat.