Oklahoma City police officer shoots, kills man holding metal pipe

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Since the father called, I would imagine that gave the officer a reason to be on the property. It just put things into motion that turned out badly but can most likely be justified.

a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

Not one of those situations are similar to each other, nor to this incident.

I'm sure that you could make false equivocations all day, but let's stop now before it waters down what could be a logical debate on this thread.

a reply to: roadgravel

Regardless, it sucks all around, for all involved. That's the reality of it...that's the reality of all of these incidents.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

St. Louis born and raised. Lived there for almost 3 decades before moving away from it. I didn't miss the point of your post, you missed the point of mine.

Now it's what if the officer wasn't trained on a tazer?? One of the officers had one drawn did he not? Are cops allowed to carry and deploy equipment they aren't "trained" on? Did they even attempt to subdue the guy with it before itchy trigger finger killed him?

a reply to: Shamrock6

I would prefer if police departments focused less on gun marksmanship and focused more on hand-to-hand combat/disarming techniques. I'd much rather prefer a cop gets his nose busted in from an errant punch than an innocent person is shot because the cop can't handle himself without a gun.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

Not one of those situations are similar to each other, nor to this incident.

Bet they still wanted to go home.

originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
a reply to: SlapMonkey

St. Louis born and raised. Lived there for almost 3 decades before moving away from it. I didn't miss the point of your post, you missed the point of mine.

No, I got your point, it was just pointless.

Now it's what if the officer wasn't trained on a tazer?? One of the officers had one drawn did he not? Are cops allowed to carry and deploy equipment they aren't "trained" on? Did they even attempt to subdue the guy with it before itchy trigger finger killed him?

Read the newly-added link to this thread--both officers fired at the same time. The new link has a slight bit more information, but still not enough to explain the need for either officer firing, let alone at the same time.

Mr. Sanchez was 15 feet away at the time of the shootings (lethal and non) while advancing toward them. My concern is the posturing of the pipe and whether or not it was threatening, and whether or not he advanced from a walk to a quicker pace the closer that he got.

Yes, training on non-lethal weapons matters, because not all PDs mandate the training and use of the weapons, but I don't know a single PD that allows their officers to tote around weapons on which they have not been trained or certified.

ETA: BTW, St. Louis' kids museum is amazing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Officers already get a woeful amount of firearms training.

Considering that the average academy offers only “a mere 60 hours” of firearms training and in-service perhaps 12 to 16 hours or less a year, it’s currently difficult if not impossible for officers to reach that level of expertise without supplementary training and experience on their own, Lewinski points out.

That's 60 hours to go from looking at what a proper sight picture is on a whiteboard to punching holes in paper.

Cutting that even further takes marskmanship down a pretty dangerous road.

So...my point stands. It's money. Money for training is finite. To put more into one area, it has to come out of another area.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Shamrock6

I would prefer if police departments focused less on gun marksmanship and focused more on hand-to-hand combat/disarming techniques. I'd much rather prefer a cop gets his nose busted in from an errant punch than an innocent person is shot because the cop can't handle himself without a gun.

Define "innocent."

Just wondering, because not everyone who you have claimed is an "innocent" victim of police shooting has been shown to be innocent of actions that brought on the police response.

That said, I agree that hand-to-hand combatives needs more prioritization, regardless of the budget woes. I'm pretty sure that most citizens in a municipality would be happy to pay a slight bit more in order to have a PD that was better trained in non-lethal (not that hand-to-hand combatives can't be lethal) tactics.

I would be...but the budget issue is real. My martial arts school has reached out to many area police departments with minimal luck for training, and it all comes down to budget, usually.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Since the father called, I would imagine that gave the officer a reason to be on the property. It just put things into motion that turned out badly but can most likely be justified.

and the disabled man was actively looking to kill police that day, which is why he posed a threat on his own property...

I always carry just in case a Leo mistakenly take me for a threat and becomes a threat him/herself

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well what about making it so not every officer is equipped with a firearm? Most officers travel in partners right? Well how about they share a gun between the two of them? Give the more experienced officer the weapon and the less one has to put in hours and time training in order to qualify in order to use one.

I'm mostly spit balling here, but the current situation is unacceptable. I'm sick of seeing all these police officer kills innocent person stories and things never change to fix them.

a reply to: odzeandennz

and the disabled man was actively looking to kill police that day, which is why he posed a threat on his own property...

And that was reported from credible persons there?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well for one, the guy shot in the OP was innocent. They were looking for his father. Not him.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Far more officers ride alone than there are officers doubled up. As in the overwhelming majority of patrol officers are solo. Because, again, budgets.

And that idea sounds like something out of Enemy at the Gates, to be honest.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well I'm not saying to implement it due to gun droughts though. I want it implemented because more experienced officers will have a better handling on how to deescalate a situation without firearms and won't necessarily think to immediately go to their firearm whenever they feel threatened. If you had to spend the totality of your rookie years minus a gun, you have to learn how to be creative to navigate the various issues you come across.

If the idea of having all officers doubled up is a bad one, then what about just the rookies then? I'm sure they are already all doubled up as it is. Well don't issue them a gun for a few years and make them go through a bunch of on the job training and weapons safety courses first. Lock the ability to use a gun behind a certain promotion even.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The point of your videos was that non lethal means don't always work which I not only understand but agree with. My point is that they at least tried it. I don't find that pointless. I have no issue whatsoever with the use of deadly force IF all other options have been exhausted, or there simply isn't time to deescalate the situation.

If we find that this man was approaching in a threatening manner with the pipe raised over his head or in a position to swing it, my opinion will change accordingly.

I'm not familiar with the kid's museum, unless you're referring to The Magic House, which is pretty awesome

a reply to: vonclod

You saying that is akin to President Obama when , during the Henry Gates incident, said “ we don’t know all the facts , but the police acted stupidly”. You can't say clearly we need more details then make an assertion.

a reply to: Simon_Boudreaux

We are not talking about those. You realize each case stands or falls on their own evidence and situations right? You can’t compare one to the other

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sounds like you only know policing from tv shows. Make them share a gun? Seriously? And no most police are 1 man units that partner crap is tv cop stuff. Reason is again due to budget you cover more area with 1 man units than two cops to a car. You have no idea what you are talking about

Actually he was not only deaf but mentally impaired or "dumb". The neighbors knew him and did not feel threatened by his habit of carrying a pipe to chase dogs away.
Apparently when a LEO is scared and has 'tunnel vision" they are unable to access any other input. What if the neighbors were shouting there is someone with a gun over there; could they hear that?
Hopefully our armed forces are trained better and observe the whole situation.
It appears as though the deaf community should be advised that when there are LEOs around they should immediately lie down and place their hands above their heads if they do not wish to be shoot. Maybe blacks and Latinos too. Heck we should ALL lie down for the LEOs so they feel safe.
Once I was walking from the back of my parents house while holding a tire iron in my right hand while smacking my left hand with it. Turns out the local cop (alone) was in his squad car in front of the house. I advanced towards the car OMG! Told the cop I was going to the local bar, a block away. and clean house. He laughed and I laughed. 20 years ago. Today I might be dead.