Add another one to the "tally" for Seattle Police officers

http://heraldnet.com/article/20101125/NEWS03/711259886

"Police said three officers fired a total of five rifle shots at a man who had been holding a gun inside a stolen car in Seattle."

"Police said the man had been holding the gun to his head and moving it in out of sight, creating a dangerous environment."

No doubt the area was secure and there was no indication he had a hostage so what was the concern? That the man might shoot himself?

How many does that make for shooting deaths at the hands of SPD officers in the last year. Even if every one of them was totally justified, isn't this a little strange that there would be so many (or least the appearance)?

As long as they're justified and rightfully so.

SPD policy is to NOT shoot a suspect only threatening harm to himself..

The whole ' we couldn't see the gun, he might be pointing it at us' argument will be used.

I can't say I would disagree with them.

Good riddence. the guy in the car was not complying. Why waste tax payers money babysitting an idiot. It's called thinning the herd, only the strong survive, so on, so forth...

I feel sorry for whoever the car belonged to. Hopefully they had full coverage.

amzbrady said:

Good riddence. the guy in the car was not complying. Why waste tax payers money babysitting an idiot. It's called thinning the herd, only the strong survive, so on, so forth...

I feel sorry for whoever the car belonged to. Hopefully they had full coverage.

Click to expand...

Are you advocating willie-nillie killing of the local scum at random?

I'll leave that sort of stuff up to the "Rain City Superhero's"

There was a hostage...himself. They gave this guy exactly what he wanted and could not give himself, death. Unfortunate how these things work out...someone dials 911 because there is a person who is in need of help and they help him by shooting him. I am not saying the police were wrong, just ironic.

whoa,,,

Beretta92FSLady said:

There was a hostage...himself. They gave this guy exactly what he wanted and could not give himself, death. Unfortunate how these things work out...someone dials 911 because there is a person who is in need of help and they help him by shooting him. I am not saying the police were wrong, just ironic.

Click to expand...

it isnt lawful to kill a guy just cause he wants to commit suicide.
it is unlawful to commit suicide,,, it is also unlawful to help!!
the OP never said the guy threatened anyone else.
there was really no reason for anybody to do anything,
except maybe to try to understand and listen and empithize and comiserate with the sad guy.
YOU know that suicide is very hard on the folks left behind.
it doesnt punish those that die, it hurts those left behind!

Beretta92FSLady said:

There was a hostage...himself. They gave this guy exactly what he wanted and could not give himself, death. Unfortunate how these things work out...someone dials 911 because there is a person who is in need of help and they help him by shooting him. I am not saying the police were wrong, just ironic.

Click to expand...

1245A Defender said:

it isnt lawful to kill a guy just cause he wants to commit suicide.
it is unlawful to commit suicide,,, it is also unlawful to help!!
the OP never said the guy threatened anyone else.
there was really no reason for anybody to do anything,
except maybe to try to understand and listen and empithize and comiserate with the sad guy.
YOU know that suicide is very hard on the folks left behind.
it doesnt punish those that die, it hurts those left behind!

Click to expand...

The reason I posted this article is to ask the question "Doesn't it seem like Seattle Police Department is a little too willing to use deadly force? What about all the other options. A barricaded suspect often gets to talk to a negotiator first. Most places attempt to work towards a peaceable ending. Is it just coincidence that there have been so many deaths at the hands of an SPD officer or is it a deeper issue. One where they justify the use of deadly force early in an encounter rather than making it a last resort?

It would certainly have a better appearance if they had just cleared the area, attempted to "talk down" the person, and if in the end he went ahead and shot himself, it would not have been a direct result of the Officer's actions, ie: shooting him. What was the immediate threat to the public?

amlevin said:

The reason I posted this article is to ask the question "Doesn't it seem like Seattle Police Department is a little too willing to use deadly force? What about all the other options. A barricaded suspect often gets to talk to a negotiator first. Most places attempt to work towards a peaceable ending. Is it just coincidence that there have been so many deaths at the hands of an SPD officer or is it a deeper issue. One where they justify the use of deadly force early in an encounter rather than making it a last resort?

It would certainly have a better appearance if they had just cleared the area, attempted to "talk down" the person, and if in the end he went ahead and shot himself, it would not have been a direct result of the Officer's actions, ie: shooting him. What was the immediate threat to the public?

Click to expand...

Shooting the person is the absolute alternative to going through the process of attempting to talk a distraught person down from being suicidal. Three months ago, within two days of one another, I had friends that were attempting suicide. The last one was successful, unfortunately. The first one was talked off of Aurora bridge...I happen to be driving by when she was standing out on the bridge and the police were trying to talk her back onto the other side of the rail.

If the LEO acknowledges that the person was not a threat than they were not justified morally. Legally, they are more likely than not to get away with murdering someone.