Posted this earlier, but when I finished the topic was on the second page already when I the topic was still on the first page.
I'm not sure if this information was posted before due to the deletion. Understand I am not trying to form an opinion about the shooting since I was not there. I would like to provide some information that may lead to understanding of why this could happen.
First, at least in my state law enforcement officers are taught to "shoot to stop", not shoot to kill. They are taught to aim center mass for several reasons. Some are, well it should be the biggest part of the target. Also when shooting to stop, at center mass the human body has some large arteries and things in that area. If the bleed out they will be stopped, by passing out due to blood loss and yes, death. Another reason is that in a stressful situation people will get tunnel vision, fine motor skills go out the window etc., mostly due to the sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous system response.
They are never taught to shoot the leg or arm. I agree that a good shot to the leg could immobilize someone or slow them down, but they can still be a threat. As I am sure most of you know certain drugs allow the pain threshold of a person to increase making them more of a threat. To comment on the baton, hitting in the head is a no-no and of course off limits.
Another thing I would like to point out is that it is an accepted belief that a person with a edged weapon is a credible threat up to a distance of 21 feet. I have seen videos where they would hand someone a felt marker (sharpie) and place them 21 feet from someone with a training gun in a holster. They would tell the guy with the gun (who simulates the police) that the guy with the sharpie is going to come towards him. The sharpie represents the knife. Every time, even with the "cop" having prior knowledge that the other person was going to rush him, could cover the 21 feet and mark all over the "cop" to simulate edged weapon injuries, before he could draw his weapon. Understand that the holster used by law enforcement is usually a level three security holster which requires three actions to remove the weapon. I hope this can try to explain why the choice for deadly force was made when the girl had a knife, IF it happened the way I have read in the media. However I will be the first to admit that the media in the U.S. is full of lies and I don't think it ever relates all the information about a story, nor do I believe it is un-biased.
Even though the girl was 5-04 in height, and 120lbs (I believe), she could still kill someone just as quickly as a grown man who weighed 220lbs., or a 70 year old man. Even if one of the officers tried to disarm her, if he was unable to grab her arm in that instant she could have cut him in the neck, even or stab him. If you try to fight someone bare handed when the other on has a knife, your going to get cut. A threat is a threat regardless of their size in the realm of law enforcement. This borders on over simplification, but to add the rest would be quite lengthy. If the person was unarmed, then subject factors such as size, and number come into play along with officer factors such as their size compared to the suspect, experience, training, etc. What it boils down in my state, based on statute is was the officer in fear of great bodily harm or death when the choice for deadly force was made. Now the tricky part of this is would another officer with similar experience and qualifications make the same choice.
I doubt that the officers wanted to fire their weapons, but if they perceived her as a threat when she supposedly lunged towards them they only had less than a split second to make a decision that could affect whether she lived or died, or they lived or died. Surely their choice will be second guessed for several years when again they only had a very small amount of time to decide.
I would like to think or hope that if a less than lethal option was available they would have used that instead. Based on what I have been able to find it was not available to the officer at the time.
I have no doubt that there are officers that abuse their authority, and they suck. Not all of us abuse it though. I have always preferred to talk my way through something instead of using force if I can. The chance of injury in the use of force is equal for both the police and the suspect. I honestly hope that the day I have to use mine never comes because having to end one's life I think will have negative lasting effects for EVERYONE involved.
All of the information above should, or must be considered when deadly force is used. The down side to this is the time given to make the choice since you are reacting to the actions of the other person. This kinda puts you behind in the scheme of things. I will not contest that bad decisions are made, and if the officer's made a bad one everybody will know.
This post again, is not in support of or against the actions of all involved in this tragedy. I wasn't there, and I don't think I would be qualified to render and judgment on what happened, since nobody ever gets the "whole" story. I just wanted to add to some of the posts here since some very good points were made.
Also, if my train of thought jumps around, I apologize. I have edited a couple of times when thoughts have came to me. If it turns out these guys were wrong, and their negligent acts obviously caused this girl's death they should and will answer for it.
Last edited by F.I.D.O. (2006-09-17 05:55:41)