tweakabelle -> RE: Kajime powells death by cop caught on tape (8/22/2014 4:37:09 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Even if this person was making "a move' towards the two officers, does this justify killing him? Not only is the guy outnumbered but presumably the cops are also armed with nightsticks, Tasers and (possibly) disabling gas sprays. They are also trained in self defence and subduing troublesome and aggressive people. So they had plenty of non-lethal options available to them, which they declined to use. So, again, how does all of this somehow justify killing this guy? I've been looking ever since Ferguson hit the news, and I can't find any mention of police (in that area) being armed with Tasers. I'm not saying that they're not, but I can't find anything that says that they are either. [....snip ....] ETA: Ok, watched the video again looking for Tasers. Out of all the officers walking around, a dozen or so, I only saw two. I wasn't able to see if either of the 1st responders had one, they never got close enough to the camera to tell for sure. St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson seems to confirm that Tasers were available to officers who chose not to use them: "Certainly a Taser is an option that's available to the officers, but Tasers aren't 100 percent," Dotson said. "So you've got an individual with a knife who's moving towards you, not listening to any verbal commands, continues, says, 'shoot me now, kill me now.' Tasers aren't 100 percent. if that Taser misses, that [individual] continues on and hurts an officer." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html (my emphasis) The general point I was making is that there were non-lethal options available to the police in question, who chose not to use them. I appreciate that it all took place in a matter of seconds but even so it appears that the police's first and only strategy was to (a) rely on firearms as soon as they were out of the car; and (b) to shoot first and ask questions later. Here in Sydney police have told me that they are trained to take immediate control of a situation and, once they commit themselves to a 'line in the sand' to never ever back down. It seems that the police in question here adopted a similar strategy. They tried to dominate the situation at gun point from the get go. That seems to have made a confrontation and the outcome (given the dead man's mental health problems) inevitable. One can only speculate as to what might have happened if the police hadn't taken such a hard line from the outset. It could have placed the officers in jeopardy, or it could have resulted in the situation being defused without lethal force being employed. We will never know. Whichever way I look at it, I can't help wondering why non-lethal options were not used as a first resort. The police outnumbered this guy and had non-lethal options available to them. Even given the 'never back down' policy of the Aussie police, incidents such as this are very rare here. The police here are armed at all times, but rarely draw their weapons. Is it the case that, in this instance, the police were far too hasty in drawing their weapons and using those weapons?
|
|
|
|