Suspect Had His Hands Up When Officers Opened Fire

a reply to: Ceeker63
I will be the first person to call out police brutality when I see it, I think the article is meant to get reads in a disingenuous way.
If he stood there with a knife in his hand, acting like he couldn't understand the command, then he should not have been shot immediately. To me, it looked like he made a dash at them. Suicide by cop or other mental issues.
I could hit someone within a near 6" group with a throwing knife from that range, no problem. If I can do it I know others can too.
I understand most people can't, but if I am in their shoes, I am shooting in this situation.
His odd behavior of returning to the scene armed, was not smart. It would have been nice to be able to taze him, but those jerky, lunging movements at the end did him in, at that point.
Having been stabbed and sliced up before, I have zero tolerance to the knife vs gun argument. I almost prefer being shot over stabbed. You at least know to look for a hole when you hear a gunshot, I didn't even know it until I collapsed 10min later. Neither are situations you want to be in. You can tell they didn't want to do it by their oh fk response. It looks like a firing squad, but no one can hesitate at that point or no one will respond in time to stop the attacker. Scary situation regardless.

a reply to: Ceeker63

you left out that at 6:57 he moves towards the officers. and that the view at initial contact is blocked for about 6 seconds because of the woman standing in front of the camera.

seriously, if you can't see that he moves towards the officers then I dunno what to tell you. it's plain as day to me

not sure why you can't get on the ground in less than 4 seconds unless you have a medical condition. I can get on the ground PDQ if I have a reason to, in way less than 4 seconds. but...is 4 seconds enough time for you to drop something? say, a knife?

a reply to: Shamrock6

And why can't a tazer be used instead of a gun?
Of course I will get " sometimes it doesn't work".
So sick of hearing that and then watching cops use it on any and every one that won't comply.
Tazers work and there is a reason cops have them.

a reply to: Sremmos80

A knife is a lethal weapon. You don't respond to a lethal weapon with a less lethal weapon.

Not every cop has a TaSer. Not every person who resists gets hit with a TaSer. Yes, TaSers do work most of the time. Yes, TaSers can fail. So can guns. So can OC spray. So can batons.

So sick of generalizations and blanket statements

a reply to: Shamrock6

Then what is the point of non lethal tools if they are only used for non compliance and not for taking some one down without killing them?

The broad and generalizing statement is saying that since sometimes TaSers don't work, it can't be used.
I guess the idea of moving out of the way of a guy with a knife is to complicated of a tactic to teach cops.

All any one ever wants to talk about is the 21 foot rule, which always has the person just standing there waiting to be killed.
If that person can get to you in 21 feet, then you can be 21 feet away from him in the same amount of time.

a reply to: Sremmos80

A) a Taser is NOT a non lethal tool. It is a LESS lethal tool. That means it is LESS likely to kill a person than a firearm is. OC spray is a non-lethal tool. There is a vast difference between the two categories. So they Tase him. He falls and splits his head open and dies after a week in a coma. Then what? No more Tasers? Or is everybody going to say oh well, at least they just Tased him? No...then the crying comes out about Tasers. Again, a knife is a lethal weapon. There is no school of thought that one would answer a lethal weapon with anything other than a lethal weapon. Not in real life, anyway.

B) I'm not sure who has said since Tasers don't work 100% of the time, they can't be used at all. They're a perfectly valid tool. But again, not every officer carries one. And a Taser isn't the answer for every situation. When faced with lethal force, an officer is justified and obligated to meet that force in equal amount. So we're back to "you don't meet a lethal threat with a less lethal response."

C) If you really believe that a person can move just as fast backwards as somebody can moving forwards, you've watched too many action movies. And don't tell me the officer can turn and run. An officer isn't going to, and shouldn't be required to, turn his back on a threat. An officer isn't required to, and shouldn't be obligated to, let somebody chase them around for a while till somebody gets tired and quits.

But let's run with your suggestion that somebody can move backwards as fast as somebody else can move toward them: so he moves towards officers, and they retreat to create distance. Oh, crap, well now he's at the door of the 7-11 and strolls inside, where the person he stabbed to begin with is, as are a bunch of unarmed employees and bystanders. Oh well, no big deal. Least nobody got shot right?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Why does it have to backwards and not sideways?
I never said turn their back you are the one that made that assumption.
You just have post filled with hypothetical situations to prove a point you are trying to make.

And a Taser isn't the answer for every situation. When faced with lethal force, an officer is justified and obligated to meet that force in equal amount. So we're back to "you don't meet a lethal threat with a less lethal response."

Which puts me back to cops are being trained to kill people.
Why are they not being trained how to disarm with out killing and without getting killed in the process?

So they Tase him. He falls and splits his head open and dies after a week in a coma. Then what? No more Tasers? Or is everybody going to say oh well, at least they just Tased him?

Lets cross that bridge when we get to the water.
Hypothetical is hypothetical

a reply to: Sremmos80

Meh. You say hypothetical, I say reality. There's three officers. Were they all supposed to step sideways into the parking lot? How does that get rid of the threat? Step sideways and all I have to do is change my direction a couple of degrees and I'll still be coming right at you. Not really sure how you think lateral movement is going to get you away from somebody. There was one direction of travel available to the officers, and that was out into the parking lot, which puts the guy with the knife between them and the doors with unarmed people and a stabbing victim behind them.

It takes a good deal of training to become proficient in unarmed versus armed combat. Not all officers are ninjas. And as an aside: in a knife fight, it's not a matter of "if" you get stabbed or cut, but "when" and "how often." Training requires funding. Funding requires taxes. Again, it's not the movies. Not all cops are Jason Bourne, and to expect them to be is, frankly, ludicrous.

It's actually not a hypothetical at all. Several people have died from Tasers being applied, and there's been an outcry about it in many of those cases.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

And why can't a tazer be used instead of a gun?

Why couldn't Arenas use his fist instead of a knife?

So sick of you bleeding hearts defending criminals...

a murderer in this case too. Go figure.

I love how the idea of "use of deadly force only due to imminent threat to life" has changed to "he didnt listen, and even though he was not in a threatening position, he didnt drop the knife, and he was within 25 feet, so its fair game to kill him"

Cops and those who have been brainwashed by the culture that surrounds it sure have moved the goalpost...

a reply to: Sremmos80

Which puts me back to cops are being trained to kill people. Why are they not being trained how to disarm with out killing and without getting killed in the process?

And this is where the cognitive dissonance of most people comes in.

Most people will simply look at whether or not cop rules make the shoot legal.

A SMART person asks why the rules have changed the way they have to make questionable shoots legal.

Props for being one of the few.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So your long story short is the easiest and cheapest option is to just shoot and kill the person.

I would say that is part of the problem.

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's actually not a hypothetical at all. Several people have died from Tasers being applied, and there's been an outcry about it in many of those cases.

Wait, did I seriously just read that?!?

So, tazers have killed a few people, and THAT is why you defend the use of a gun?

ARE YOU FRICKIN SERIOUS? Do you REALLY want to compare the death rates of guns versus tazers?

This has GOT to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Try reading everything instead of cherry picking. That comment was made in response to the other commenter stating that injuries and deaths from Tasers are a hypothetical at this point.

So no, I'd say your own comment takes the cake there dude.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Or is everybody going to say oh well, at least they just Tased him? No...then the crying comes out about Tasers. Again, a knife is a lethal

More of your own words.

I like the backpeddling, though.

You are defending the use of a gun over a tazer. Nice try though.

a reply to: Sremmos80

If that's how you want to look at it, go for it. Clearly nothing is going to change your mind, and it's easier to ignore questions than think the answers all the way through, and then come up with some snarky over-simplification as a response.

Never let common sense get in the way of your own agenda

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Mmm nope still failing. I'm firmly planted in my chair. That comment demonstrates how people don't all think Tasers are the end all be all for armed confrontation.

Good game though, seriously. When you take tiny little snippets and cut them down so they sound how you want them to, anything can sound like anything. It was fun.

Oh, and yes I am defending the use of a gun against a knife. Lethal threat gets lethal response. But the comments you're slicing up to quote aren't about that.

So..... the guy stabbed a college student to death and then returned to the scene of the crime later on to turn himself in according to the article.

Seeing how he had plenty of time to drop the knife, was advancing on the police officers and had already stabbed someone to death I'm going to agree with everyone who's saying "Clean Kill". This wasn't an innocent bystander, he was a murderer who was still brandishing the murder weapon. I've got no shame in saying I'd of probably done the same thing.

My only issue is the fact that they shot to kill, Counting off the gunshots it sounds like they fired on him 10-12 times, kinda excessive when you take into consideration that shooting him in the leg would have "Neutralized the Threat" just as effectively.

"Don't bring a knife to a gunfight"

a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh, and yes I am defending the use of a gun against a knife.

And yet youve spent three posts claiming that you are not defending the use of a gun over a tazer.

Fair enough

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
I don't understand why just having a knife warrants immediate execution, what is this mentality of "he has a knife, so it's ok to kill him without attempting anything else"

Here you have a man that ran over a bunch of people, waved a gun around, and was simply arrested for it.

www.stltoday.com... b84e.html

So why could the cops not taze him, pepper spray him, or maybe just shoot him once?
oh right, he was black, i thought he was people.

You do realize someone 10ft away can be on you in a second and even if shot can still do damage to you. If the assailant was shot somewhere other then heart or head he could taken several bullets and still be a threat that's why cops will always shot especially when someone is still armed and moving towards them. Looks like suicide by cop to me.