Seattle officer shoots man with knife

joejoejoe said:

I agree. I don't know what led to the police officer approaching this man. I also don't know what led the officer to shoot the man. Did the guy with the knife lunge at him. The officer claimed he "felt threatened" by the man with the knife. I want to know what threats were issued. If it was the mere sight of a knife, then this man isn't fit to be an officer.

Could he use mace? Could he use a baton and hit the guy's hand over and over again? Does he have any self-defense training against a knife? Could he have at least shot the guy in the leg? It seems like he thought killing him was the only option. If the man with the knife made an advancement on him that seemed life-threatening (which is all perspective anyways), then OK. If he killed him because he wouldn't put the knife down...

Joe~

Click to expand...

We (OCers) do not shoot in the leg. LEO do not train nor are taught to shoot in the leg. There is only one type of shot, center mass, to STOP the threat. Don't let this 'hollywood' argument that the anti's make infiltrate our thinking.

Three questions:

Was the suspect armed with a deadly weapon? (I would say yes)

Was the suspect a threat to the officer or another person? (We don't really know the answer)

Was the proper force used to STOP the threat? (I would say yes, if the suspect was a threat.)


I don't like the story, it doesn't seem right. However the 3 questions above will determine the outcome, IMO.

gogodawgs said:

We (OCers) do not shoot in the leg. LEO do not train nor are taught to shoot in the leg. There is only one type of shot, center mass, to STOP the threat. Don't let this 'hollywood' argument that the anti's make infiltrate our thinking.

Three questions:

Was the suspect armed with a deadly weapon? (I would say yes)

Was the suspect a threat to the officer or another person? (We don't really know the answer)

Was the proper force used to STOP the threat? (I would say yes, if the suspect was a threat.)


I don't like the story, it doesn't seem right. However the 3 questions above will determine the outcome, IMO.

Click to expand...

You are not the only one that doesn't like it. Seems like there were three witnesses to the event that didn't see it at all the same way the officer did. A two-year officer may well have "stepped in it". Has even changed his initial account of the event after the witnesses were interviewed. This incident has all the characteristics of dog doo-doo. This officer has stepped in it, it's going to stick to his shoe for a long time, and will smell terrible whenever the heat is turned on.

Let's see how it turns out.

gogodawgs said:

We (OCers) do not shoot in the leg. LEO do not train nor are taught to shoot in the leg. There is only one type of shot, center mass, to STOP the threat. Don't let this 'hollywood' argument that the anti's make infiltrate our thinking.

Three questions:

Was the suspect armed with a deadly weapon? (I would say yes)

Was the suspect a threat to the officer or another person? (We don't really know the answer)

Was the proper force used to STOP the threat? (I would say yes, if the suspect was a threat.)


I don't like the story, it doesn't seem right. However the 3 questions above will determine the outcome, IMO.

Click to expand...

amlevin said:

You are not the only one that doesn't like it. Seems like there were three witnesses to the event that didn't see it at all the same way the officer did. A two-year officer may well have "stepped in it". Has even changed his initial account of the event after the witnesses were interviewed. This incident has all the characteristics of dog doo-doo. This officer has stepped in it, it's going to stick to his shoe for a long time, and will smell terrible whenever the heat is turned on.

Let's see how it turns out.

Click to expand...

While I do not like the story, I want to add that 'eye witness' accounts are the LEAST RELIABLE of any accounts of evidence.

Radio today said the guy was carrying a naked blade. I think that could be considered brandishing. But who knows which direction this will all go.

Maybe the deceased didn't respond to the officer's commands because he couldn't hear/understand them. People who knew him allege that he was deaf in his left ear and also had a propensity for wearing headphones.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/102010323.html

The knife was a 3" folder. Legal to carry in Seattle. The man was homeless and in the past sold carvings for pocket change. He was also deaf in one ear, supposedly. Of course the officer wouldn't know this but still, I find the shoot and especially his tactics questionable.

gogodawgs said:

While I do not like the story, I want to add that 'eye witness' accounts are the LEAST RELIABLE of any accounts of evidence.

Click to expand...

Well, eyewitnesses make or break all cases. Personally, I think they are the most reliable. I don't think any of the eyewitnesses have any reason to get the officer in trouble. And when interviewed separately, that is when the "reliability" comes in to play. If they line up, I think you can call it pretty reliable. If they are all off, then clearly they aren't.

Joe~

fight4your_rights said:

Of course the officer wouldn't know this but still, I find the shoot and especially his tactics questionable.

Click to expand...

According to some news accounts this person was well known in the downtown area. I'd wager that among those to whom he was well known would be the Police in the area.

daddy4count said:

It is very easy, and very bad form, to second guess decisions made by officers/agents/soldiers in the field.

Click to expand...

Officer and soldiers is a bad analogy in my mind? Unless our LEO are at war against civilians and are not considered civilians.

Officers are public servants and our job is to scrutinize them and their actions in the field.

Just My POV.

As to this case I don't have enough info to make a personal judgment, although I wonder how this case will go and would it go the same for a regular joeschmoe who wasn't an officer.

joejoejoe said:

Well, eyewitnesses make or break all cases. Personally, I think they are the most reliable. I don't think any of the eyewitnesses have any reason to get the officer in trouble. And when interviewed separately, that is when the "reliability" comes in to play. If they line up, I think you can call it pretty reliable. If they are all off, then clearly they aren't.

Joe~

Click to expand...

I think you would be in the minority on that among people who actually deal with eye witness testimony. Just like in the LV shooting at Costco there were several eye witnesses and each with a different version of what happened. When each one sees thiings totally different which story do you believe?

I agree....isn't this in part why the police use dash camera's, recorders, 911 recording,

PT111 said:

I think you would be in the minority on that among people who actually deal with eye witness testimony. Just like in the LV shooting at Costco there were several eye witnesses and each with a different version of what happened. When each one sees thiings totally different which story do you believe?

Click to expand...

..and why we promote the recording and hat camera's of potential LEO contacts to protect ourselves or at least have an accurate "record"....

How many calls do we make to service departments of banks, credit card companies, or nearly any message center that doesn't start our with some version of "your call is being recorded for customer quality" or "for use for training".....

Memory is reconstructive, but isn't always accurate....Most days I drive my wife nuts, because I can't remember where I left my keys or cell phone.

......everyone remembers this one:

It seemed like an open-and-shut case. The George Holliday video, played on television so often that an executive at CNN called it "wallpaper," showed three Los Angeles police officers--as their supervisor watched-- kicking, stomping on, and beating with metal batons a seemingly defenseless African-American named Rodney King. Polls taken shortly after the incident showed that over 90% of Los Angeles residents who saw the videotape believed that the police used excessive force in arresting King. Despite the videotape, a jury in Simi Valley concluded a year later that the evidence was not sufficient to convict the officers.

(pasted from a website).

PT111 said:

I think you would be in the minority on that among people who actually deal with eye witness testimony. Just like in the LV shooting at Costco there were several eye witnesses and each with a different version of what happened. When each one sees thiings totally different which story do you believe?

Click to expand...

Everybody sees things differently, but you find the facts in between the view points.

sudden valley gunner said:

Everybody sees things differently, but you find the facts in between the view points.

Click to expand...

Yup, recent movie: "Vantage Point"....

Good, experienced investigators will sort out the stories, find the nuggets and hopefully piece together an accurate and comprehensive truth of what happend.

heresolong said:

Would it be wrong of me to point out that it is impossible to shoot someone with a knife? You have to shoot them with a gun. Or am I just grammar obsessed?

Click to expand...

Heresolong... I think you've been here too long...<grins>

jt59 said:

I agree....isn't this in part why the police use dash camera's,

Click to expand...

And then there is the tape from those cameras that is mysteriously "recorded over". Also, the "savy" officer that always seems to point his car in a direction that will not capture the "action" on the camera.

You don't think that officers are aware of the ways these cameras can record "nothing of value"? Once they stop the car the camera is only facing out the windshield. So they just move to the sides or rear of the car and no more video.

In the event under discussion, it will be interesting to see if any private security cameras or traffic management cameras caught anything. There are a surprising number of cameras catching things on the street today. Let's see if there are any that captured this event.

jt59 said:

Yup, recent movie: "Vantage Point"....

Good, experienced investigators will sort out the stories, find the nuggets and hopefully piece together an accurate and comprehensive truth of what happend.

Click to expand...

It's unlikely. Here's just one of many, many sourced and cited articles on the issues with eyewitness testimony:
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

And this:
http://www.caught.net/cases/eyewit.htm

and, of course, the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification

No disagreements here....I did add the caveat "hopefully" in its fullest meaning....Doink,Doink...(flip channel back to Law & Order season three opener)

Tawnos said:

It's unlikely. Here's just one of many, many sourced and cited articles on the issues with eyewitness testimony:
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

And this:
http://www.caught.net/cases/eyewit.htm

and, of course, the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification

Click to expand...

gogodawgs said:

W

Was the suspect a threat to the officer or another person? (We don't really know the answer)

Click to expand...

This question should be posed after the question of "why did the officer stop the man." It appears the officer drove by and seen the man carving wood with a knife, then proceeded to stop, get out of the car, and for whatever reason, demand that the man put the knife down. Standing there, minding your own business carving wood is on par with standing there with your sidearm OC'd, say, reading a flyer that is stapled on the side of a power-pole.

Why did the officer approach the man and attempt to disarm him, that is the question. It is not illegal to have a knife. I thought the officer had to have probable cause to stop you.

I typically back LEO's, but this one is worrisome. What is to stop the police from putting half a dozen rounds in your back because they can see your sidearm and later claim that you made a reaching motion for it. They are given the benefit of the doubt, but as a civilian you are given what?...your butt goes to jail, and you are forced to hope that the legal system works for you.

Just a thought

Back in 2007 it was in the news that Seattle needed a lot of new officers.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003560301_recruiting07m.html

Here we are with an incident involving a 2-year "veteran" of the SPD shooting someone described as "whittling on a piece of wood". Could there be any coincidence? Did Seattle have to "adjust" their standards in order to fill jobs due to the drain on experienced officers being called up for military duty? If so, did these adjustments in their standards contribute to this incidents outcome?

A vigil was held the other night for John Williams and attending were the Mayor, Police Chief, and City Attorney. At least one radio commentator has raised questions on their attending. My thought is simply that they may have a lot more information available to them than the public. Information that could well show that the officer was wrong. Their attendance was merely a political move at damage control and the City Attorney was there to see to it, as Ken Schramm calls him, Mayor "McPedal" didn't run off at the mouth too much.

Back to my opener, did Seattle end up with a bunch of substandard recruits because of a need to fill positions? Are shootings like this the result? Time will tell.

Correct.

I have been saying this in conversation, BUT I forgot to list it on the board.

FIRST and FOREMOST:

Why did the officer make contact? What was the RAS, was there a "crime afoot?"

If the answer to these questions is there was no RAS and there was no crime afoot, then the officer made a huge and tragic mistake in making contact with a citizen who at the time was law abiding.

gogodawgs said:

We (OCers) do not shoot in the leg. LEO do not train nor are taught to shoot in the leg. There is only one type of shot, center mass, to STOP the threat. Don't let this 'hollywood' argument that the anti's make infiltrate our thinking.

Three questions:

Was the suspect armed with a deadly weapon? (I would say yes)

Was the suspect a threat to the officer or another person? (We don't really know the answer)

Was the proper force used to STOP the threat? (I would say yes, if the suspect was a threat.)


I don't like the story, it doesn't seem right. However the 3 questions above will determine the outcome, IMO.

Click to expand...

Beretta92FSLady said:

This question should be posed after the question of "why did the officer stop the man." It appears the officer drove by and seen the man carving wood with a knife, then proceeded to stop, get out of the car, and for whatever reason, demand that the man put the knife down. Standing there, minding your own business carving wood is on par with standing there with your sidearm OC'd, say, reading a flyer that is stapled on the side of a power-pole.

Why did the officer approach the man and attempt to disarm him, that is the question. It is not illegal to have a knife. I thought the officer had to have probable cause to stop you.

I typically back LEO's, but this one is worrisome. What is to stop the police from putting half a dozen rounds in your back because they can see your sidearm and later claim that you made a reaching motion for it. They are given the benefit of the doubt, but as a civilian you are given what?...your butt goes to jail, and you are forced to hope that the legal system works for you.

Click to expand...