Oklahoma City police officer shoots, kills man holding metal pipe

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nah. The dismissal tactic is a favorite of some, and they like to wear it out. Maybe they think it's super dramatic and impressive?

To your point about having guns secured in the vehicle: sure, it probably would impact some shootings. Or stop them from happening. The flip side of that coin, however, is that it would also impact officer safety. There's not many other countries in the world where an officer can pull somebody over and there's a decent chance there's a gun in the vehicle. There's not many other countries in the world that an officer can go up to a door answering a domestic call and there's a good chance there's a gun in the residence. It's not, in my opinion, a black and white issue. There's an immense amount of gray.

As to training for non-lethal "takedowns": that's not a police issue, that's a government issue. In that it comes down to money. Show me an officer that has great hands-on skills and I'll show you an officer that's paid for it out of his own pocket. People want all officers to be expert handgun shots and expert rifle shots and experts in hand to hand combatives, but they don't want to pay for it. Which leaves officers with a choice: pay for it on their own, or work with what they've got.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

There are a thousand and one avenues of deescalation that I'd attempt before thinking that a gun would be necessary. There is Pepper Spray for one. There is listening to the people yelling at you about the man's handicaps for two.

There's armchair, Monday-morning quarterbacking, for three...

Again, we know next to zero details. Deescalate your assumptions and chill...

Here's an idea:

Dude comes at me with a metal pipe. I have a gun. I also have another cop with me. That other cop has a taser.

What can I do?

Back the hell up and give the guy some space. Give myself and my backup cop some time to think of a non-lethal way to deescalate the situation, and avoid a death.

What in the hell is so wrong with retreating and giving the dude with the pipe some breathing room, assuming he's not making overtly aggressive gestures at any bystanders?

This isn't Thermopylae. These cops aren't the 300 Spartans.

Maintaining some distance and a perimeter by giving the guy ground would likely have resulted in figuring out the guy's intentions, and someone not dying.

a reply to: vonclod

Ok, cool

a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

They do cops are normal citizens also

a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

If they put themselves in that situation that is on them

a reply to: vonclod

Thanks for pointing that out.

Of course, involvement in a prior incident is irrelevant when you're walking toward officers with a metal pipe in your hand while they're obviously communicating to you--through both audible and visual commands--that stopping what you're doing is probably in your best interest.

Mental issues or not, a threat is a threat.

Again, I'm not defending the shooting as correct, but what I'm saying is that there is more involved here than just a presumed untrained cop with an itchy trigger finger. The actions of ALL involved matter, and we are lacking all pertinent details.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

Not about being scared it is about going home at the end of your shift

Career choices. We all make them.

I don't enjoy the idea of being a bullet sponge, so I didn't enlist in the army.

If you don't want to worry about being able to "go home at the end of your shift" -- perhaps another line of work might be in order.

There are legitimate bad, bad dudes -- and the job does certainly carry inherent risks....but these risks are known and willingly accepted by anyone deciding to make law enforcement their career of choice.

Being a cop apparently isn't for everyone, and we (as a society) should be doing a better job screening, training, and preparing the people we trust with weapons on our streets.

This is one of the many reasons we pay taxes, taxes I'm happy to pay.

a reply to: Kettu

Back the hell up and give the guy some space

Now there's a thought, back up a bit..the guy had a pipe, not a gun.

The man was on his porch and then in his yard. Officers just went into the typical mode of hassling someone.

Haven't found out if they got him into the street.

a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

You're speaking out of ignorance. Do you know if the officer was trained, certified, and armed with a non-lethal weapon? Do you know the amount of time that transpired between Mr. Sanchez advancing toward the officers and him being both non-lethally and lethally engaged by the officers? Did the tazer work to stop Sanchez, or not? Do you consider commands and warnings (whether or not the suspect can hear) non-lethal attempts at diffusing a situation? Do you understand the laws of Oklahoma and the SOP of the OCPD that govern appropriate use of lethal force? Do you have any remotely pertinent details surrounding the events that led to the use of the firearm?

No, you're speaking out of ignorance and making assumptions based off of a clearly evident bias, at least in this incident.

The problem with my videos is that you failed to get the point--using tazers is not 100% effective. Did you see the part where multiple uses of tazers didn't subdue a suspect? Did you see how long it allowed a suspect to fight back when they don't work? Can you imagine how much damage any of them could have done if they had a metal pipe in their hand at the time?

Yes, you missed the point entirely, as well as you miss the point of the value of remaining objective in these incidents, especially when nearly no details are known.

But, carry on...you don't live in St. Louis, by chance, do you? If so, I could at least partially excuse your viewpoint a little.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree we can use more details, but clearly one cop thought non lethal options were worth a try..I'm in that guys corner all day long.
The other cop..not so much, I get a pipe could be lethal but the defence is as simple as backing up as Kettu pointed out.

During a press conference, Mathews said Sanchez was approximately 15 feet from the officers when they fired. Neither of the officers were wearing body cameras.
...
Police said they arrived to Sanchez's house to investigate a hit and run involving Sanchez's father, who initially called police and told them his son had hit his vehicle.

www.upi.com...

A little more clarification.

a reply to: Kettu

Here's an idea:

Back the hell up and let details come out before already concluding that the LEO is in the wrong.

You have no details about the incident, therefore all of your hypotheticals mean literally jack sh*t until we know more.

The propensity of many of you to come in and just start spouting possibilities and maybes while at the same time automatically condemning the officer is an affront to denying ignorance.

But, there's room to admit that you could be correct...but let's wait and see before implying that the officer could have and should have responded differently. I prefer your approach, but I also understand that it's not always an option.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree we can use more details, but clearly one cop thought non lethal options were worth a try..I'm in that guys corner all day long.
The other cop..not so much, I get a pipe could be lethal but the defence is as simple as backing up as Kettu pointed out.

There is no "clearly," here, as we don't even know if the non-lethal officer had lethal means on his person at the time, and vice versa with the lethal officer.

There's nothing simple about defending against a pipe/stick...trust me, I train in the art myself (Eskrima). Of course, I agree that distancing is pertinent both to defending one's self and avoiding an attack altogether, but again, we don't even know what ability the officer had to back up at the time...well, at least I don't. Maybe I'll search for updated stories with more detail after I go to lunch.

a reply to: Kettu

There's a difference between being willing to put your life on the line to save somebody and putting your life on the line because a bunch of people who weren't there might second guess how you handled things.

Sorry (not sorry), but I'm willing to run towards the sound of gunfire to save somebody. I'm not willing to take a steel pipe to the dome before I (try to, hoping I haven't already been incapacitated) shoot somebody so that people on the internet can feel better about what happened (even though somebody will still complain). Nor am I willing to get stabbed so that everybody can know the guy with the knife really, really meant business before he got shot.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm off to work myself..will check in later.
Peace

a reply to: roadgravel

Thanks for the update. Still missing pertinent information, IMO (like, was he even holding the pipe threateningly, did he ever start running versus walking toward the officers, etc.). I'll say, though, since both officers fired at the same time, it seems pretty apparent through deductive reasoning that there was an imminent threat.

This doesn't appear to be like the Justine Dammond shooting, where one officer seems exceptionally out of place shooting and the other officer was completely surprised and baffled by the shooting. I still think that there's much more at play here that we need to understand before considering criminal culpability on the lethal officer's behalf.

I know some people will argue against this, but 15 feet is really damn close for someone with a pipe who is advancing toward you--I just really want to know how threatening Mr. Sanchez's posture was while walking toward them. To me, that's the key.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Why people cannot separate the two approaches is beyond me.

When I was in the military, I was willing to deploy if I had to, but I sure as hell didn't want to. I was more than willing to fight and possibly die while in service, but I wasn't going to deploy and just stand there and let the opposition assault me at will prior to deciding to fight back.

People don't understand what it's like to have their safety and lives and family's livelihood on the line on a daily basis, and so it's easy for them to bitch and moan about (please read this in the voice that Eddie Murphy uses when he mimics a white guy about bananas in tailpipes), "Well, they knew what could happen and the dangers of the job, so there's no excuse to use a firearm and they should keep them locked in a trunk."

Hell, I don't understand what it's like anymore, as both my wife and I are so far removed from that reality (we both served, she actually had to deploy...it's been 11 years, though), but I can empathize and understand that, in today's climate, it's actually scarier to be a police officer than a Soldier.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

If they put themselves in that situation that is on them

Really?
So the lady shot by the cop from inside the cop car's passenger seat put herself in that situation?

A man shot repeatedly in the back as he's running away from the cop put himself in that situation?

How about another deaf man several years ago gunned down in the street because he wasn't looking at the cop an couldn't hear the cop's orders to drop the knife he was whittling with?

I can keep doing this all day.