4 ms·

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"

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.

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.