quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Lauderhill officers justified in shooting man 20 times, grand jury says
Every once in awhile a similar story appears in the news. Four police officers fired 41 rounds in six seconds at a 21 year old wielding a knife.

When Telasco called 911 after 1:30 a.m. he reported that a man with a knife was standing in his doorway and said "just come and do what you have to do." The description he gave was of himself.

Telasco ignored numerous demands to drop the knife and came within 15 feet of Officer Cella waving the knife in "a threatening manner," according to the grand jury's June 19 report.

"[All four officers] fired their department-issued weapons based upon the reasonable fear that Officer Michael Cella was in life-threatening danger due to the actions of Cedric Telasco," the report said.

Isn't there a more humane way of handling these situations?

Do you agree with grand jury's conclusion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

No one's mentioned a word that leapt out at me in the very first sentence--"schizophrenic." Poor Cedric Telasco may not have been entirely clear-headed, especially since his meds had been adjusted the day before. This may help explain why he didn't heed warnings that would have stopped many other folks.

I don't know enough about police procedure to weigh in on what other options the cops may have had.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I don't see why they can't use crowd control shields or tasers or wooden pellets in this kind of situation.

Invariably, the grand jury finds in favor of the police.

Does the militarization of police mentality pose a creeping threat to people?

quote:

Or flip it around. It's one of your loved ones in the room with the knife wielding person. How many times is it acceptable to you for them to get cut or stabbed while the police try your suggestions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Or flip it around. It's one of your loved ones in the room with the knife wielding person. How many times is it acceptable to you for them to get cut or stabbed while the police try your suggestions?

This incident took place outside, not in a room. No one was cut or stabbed. The grand jury exonerated the police on the appearance of danger. Not even on the assumption of imminent danger. WTF does that mean? How do you judge the appearance of danger with four guns surrounding one knife? What are the rules of engagement here? Shoot if he looks mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NotTellingUAgain

Here's an IDEA

AFTER PULLING OUT THEIR GUNS and SCREAMING "Drop The Knife" "numerous" times... Perhaps REALIZE that you are dealing with someone "Not Quite There" AND BACK THE FUCK OFF
THEN call the FIRE DEPT and HOSE THE GUY DOWN

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

In the article linked in the OP it sounds as if the department knew of the guys schizophrenia, but I do wonder if the officers on scene knew about it, or whether they had any special training for such situations.

That said, one evening in class while obtaining my CCW permit the officer teaching the class stated that a person 15 ft. or more away, with a knife, was most likely not enough of a threat to warrant shooting them "in self defense". So, I have to wonder, if a private citizen shot a person with a knife that was 15 feet away, would a grand jury let them off? My guess is that they would not, and if that is the case, then why would they let these guys off just because they are cops? Also, if the guy was standing in the doorway and the cops came to within 15 feet, then they placed themselves in the danger zone.

Now, if the person with a knife was at a full run toward the officers, instead of standing in a doorway, then at 15 feet it would probably be a reasonable distance to open fire, but I don't get the impression that that was the case here.

So, considering that all there is to go on is what is written in the article, my own opinion is that the situation was not handled well by the officers and that they should have, in some way, been held accountable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I don't see why they can't use crowd control shields or tasers or wooden pellets in this kind of situation.

Invariably, the grand jury finds in favor of the police.

Does the militarization of police mentality pose a creeping threat to people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I don't see why they can't use crowd control shields or tasers or wooden pellets in this kind of situation.

Invariably, the grand jury in favor of the police.
Does the militarization of police mentality pose a creeping threat to people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I don't see why they can't use crowd control shields or tasers or wooden pellets in this kind of situation.

Invariably, the grand jury in favor of the police.
Does the militarization of police mentality pose a creeping threat to people?

We have had similar incidents here. In one case, police shot and killed a knife-wielding man in the water at Bondi Beach a few years ago. One wonders why the police couldn't have physically over powered the man - there was 3 or 4 of them at the scene. Perhaps they didn't want to get their uniforms wet ..... Later we found out that the poor man was intellectually challenged.

Tasers were introduced to avoid similar outcomes. The police killed a few people by tasering them up to 50 times. It turned out that the 'cure' was as bad as the 'disease'.

To me incidents like this suggest that there is something seriously wrong with the ways police are trained in the use of these weapons, and in the manner in which they are trained to respond to such challenges.