Oklahoma City police officer shoots, kills man holding metal pipe

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes the guy with a knife that also went towards the officers while yelling shoot me, they were justified to use lethal force there as well. That was suicide by cop in that instance.

a reply to: Krakatoa

If there was a non-lethal option, it obviously should have been the first attempt with time to assess if it worked.

That said, I don't give a Hell's Cerberus if the dude was deaf--if you are involved in a hit-and-run, and you are approached by officers with weapons drawn and obviously shouting at you as you are progressing toward them with a weapon in your hand, you are knowingly making a potentially life-changing or life-ending choice to do so. A VERY appropriate rule of thumb (a phrase derived from Ancient Rome, I believe...but I digress) is to never advance on anyone, but especially a police officer, if they have a firearm pointed at your body and are ready to fire. That is absolutely an irrational thing to do.

Being a practitioner of Cacoy Doce Pares Eskrima, I have learned that a stick/pipe/any relatively long object can be exceptionally lethal, even by people not trained to use them well. The officers both certainly had reason to possibly fear for their lives, from the tiny bit of information contained within this story. More info may come out to negate that, though.

All of that said, I prefer to hear the statements of the witnesses before I fully condemn the officer who fired the firearm and killed Mr. Sanchez, but it's not looking good since there was non-lethal force available.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes the guy with a knife that also went towards the officers while yelling shoot me, they were justified to use lethal force there as well. That was suicide by cop in that instance.

Because a multi-tool with a 1.5" "blade" is a deadly weapon that two cops faced with a disturbed student can't handle?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: sine.nomine

If two officers have their weapons drawn and you continue to advance on them with a pipe, seems to me your handicap might be being "dumb" and not deaf.

You win for the most logical sentence of the thread.

a reply to: norhoc

He was deaf and mentally impaired. Plus a bystander kept telling the cops that the guy couldn't he them, but was ignored.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: RadioRobert

Agreed. We can't tolerate that at all. Seriously though, I'm just getting tired of cops getting away with murder. And you're right, there's a good chance it was "justified," but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

But justification makes it 'not murder.'

Just because you feel like cops get away with murder doesn't make it so. I'm willing to bet that you don't fully understand the elements of the laws in each state nor the full details surrounding all incidents that go to trial and end in acquittal or the ones that don't make it to trial at all.

Being a juror in the court of public opinion does not validate your perception that cops are getting away with murder too often.

a reply to: Grik123

You don't need to hear a LEO (or two) who have their weapons trained on you and are obviously telling you to do something in order to think, "Oh, I should probably drop this pipe in my hand and stop advancing toward them."

His hearing impairment does not create a defense of his actions.

The amount of people automatically disregarding the possible justification of lethal force based on it being "just a pipe" is very telling to their understanding of weapons and deadly threats.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
You would maybe have a point if there wasn't a second officer prepared to take the guy down with a taser at the scene too. If one officer felt like that was justifiable force to detain the suspect, then why not the other guy?

a reply to: Krakatoa

When weapons are involved, they don't have to use a taser, it's an option. Also, if he was deaf, did he not SEE weapons pointed at him?

Tragic yes but no laws seem to be broken.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe you didn't read my initial comment on this thread, where I stated:

If there was a non-lethal option, it obviously should have been the first attempt with time to assess if it worked.

But having said that, we don't know enough (or any, really) details to determine if there was even time to assess if non-lethal options would have worked, and as I understand it and have seen stated from many LEOs, on here and in person, not every LEO is certified in the use of and armed with non-lethal means. If his firearm is the only option that he had, that is why he would use it in that situation.

Obviously it was serious enough for both officers to use a weapon, so I can't condemn the officer who fired and killed Mr. Sanchez just yet.

Also, just because one officer has a taser doesn't mean that negates the justification of another to use lethal force in the same situation. Just because we may prefer the method of the taser first doesn't mean that it was the appropriate weapon at the time.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No I didn't read any of your posts but the one I responded to. It's a long thread, sorry. Though keep in mind that the witnesses in the area were yelling at the police officers that he was deaf.

Instead of doing that, Sanchez kept moving toward officers, Mathews said. Lindsey and Barnes ordered him to "drop the weapon and get on the ground."

That's when witnesses started yelling "he can't hear you," according to Mathews.

Source
All they had to do was stop and listen to the people in the area for about a second or two.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Like the Georgia Tech student that was killed earlier in the week for holding a multi-tool.

New York Times

Yup... a closed multi-tool.

I remember when pretty much everyone carried a blade. If not a pocket knife, then a Buck knife. My dad gave me my first pocket knife for my 9th birthday. We whittled together. When my dad died, I asked for his super duper BSA pocket knife with all the bells and whistles and I will treasure it forever. I gave my husband a Buck knife and belt case our first Christmas together. They were tools more than anything else. And LEOs didn't presume you wanted to kill them just because.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope, as others have noted, being deaf doesn't absolve you from the stupid decision of advancing on police officers while holding a weapon while the officers have their weapons trained on you and are obviously--even to a deaf guy--assertively communicating with you.

Dude chose to do that, the officers didn't force him to. Maybe if Mr. Sanchez had taken a second or two and thought about what he was doing, it wouldn't have escalated as it did, either.

But like I said, I want to see witness statements, because the "how" concerning the advancing toward the officers matters to me...also of importance is how he was holding the pipe, IMO.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: TobyFlenderson



Your father was a cop in a whole different era than today buddy, And last I checked a metal pipe can kill you.

Last I checked a tazer is an effective means to stop someone. While it may be a different era, I would put cops from 20 years ago against cops today and bet money on the cops of the past. Cops today are cowards afraid of their own shadows.. nothing more.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It should. I refuse to believe that the police officer needed lethal force to handle that situation. His partner is proof enough for me, but the witnesses yelling that he was deaf should have been a signal to the officers to attempt a different avenue of communication than to just start pulling the trigger. Now we have an officer slaying story that looks really bad, but if the one officer had shown better judgement than things would have been different. At the end of the day the officer was the only one with the gun. He gets the most ire from me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But you don't even have enough details to logically tell you one way or the other.

Why the rush to judgment? Perception only matters to those jurors in the (usually ignorant) court of public opinion.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be skepticism and concern and ire surrounding the shooting, but with that there should also be the realization that witness statements should be amassed and reviewed prior to 'refusing to believe' anything.

In these instances, belief clouds appropriate judgment.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

as I understand it and have seen stated from many LEOs, on here and in person, not every LEO is certified in the use of and armed with non-lethal means. If his firearm is the only option that he had, that is why he would use it in that situation.

That's a big problem which I think contributes to these unnecessary deaths and must be addressed. Each and every single solitary LEO should be trained and armed with any and all means appropriate to not only ensure that they don't create a potentially dangerous situation, but armed with any and all less-than-lethal means to de-escalate an already potentially dangerous situation. A lethal firearm should NOT be the ONLY option that this officer had, or any officer has.

I want our LEOs to have every possible defensive protection so that they don't have to fear for the lives and don't even feel a need to use their firearm. There is no good reason for our LEOs to have freaking military grade equipment to attack the people... but not simple defensive protection for themselves.

Obviously it was serious enough for both officers to use a weapon, so I can't condemn the officer who fired and killed Mr. Sanchez just yet.

I will withhold judgment until I know more about the exact circumstances, but I'm not convinced that it had to get to that point -- "serious enough...to use a weapon" -- at all.

Too often LEOs are not trained in ways to avoid and minimize potential threats, thus actually creating situations which leave them vulnerable to someone with evil intentions...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Because I don't approve of police carrying side arms so easily accessible on their person. If they were required to lock their weapons in the trunk of their car and only get them when absolutely necessary, I bet these shootings would decrease drastically. Why is it that other police forces around the world are able to operate without firearms but they are declared essential here in the states? Because of gangs? Well the gang problem would be quickly fixed if we legalized drugs, which shouldn't be illegal in the first place. So whenever I hear about an officer killing someone in a way that is questionable, I ALWAYS side against the officer as a matter of principle. If you want my sympathy, fix the gun issue first.

You mention that not all officers are certified with non-lethal force. Well why is that even the case to begin with? All officers get handgun training but not all get non-lethal force training? How does that make sense in any logical way?

originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
Last I checked a tazer is an effective means to stop someone.

Last I checked (which must be more recently than you, apparently), tazers don't always incapacitate a suspect, nor are they always an appropriate first choice of weapon. Like too many others in this thread (including everyone), we don't know enough details to make a proper assessment of the appropriateness of firearm versus tazer.

While it may be a different era, I would put cops from 20 years ago against cops today and bet money on the cops of the past. Cops today are cowards afraid of their own shadows.. nothing more.

You generalize way too much. What's your profession? I doubt that it's one that puts you in possible mortal danger every day that you get dressed for work...but maybe it is, who knows. If it is, though, and even if it's not, calling all modern cops "cowards" is an ignorant approach to this discussion.

And just for fun:


Go to 2:04 in this next one

this one is a compilation

Ah, hell, it's not worth continuing. My point is that you can't always assume that a tazer (or any electrical tool) will work without fail, and without knowing where Mr. Sanchez was in relation to the officers and how quickly he was advancing, we don't know if a firearm was more appropriate than a tazer. That said, we don't even know if the tazer worked or would have worked, or how far apart the weapons were used, or any of that.

Yes, tazers are effective, but only when they are effective. The same with a firearm.