What is this, I don't even...
I really hope there are some huge details missing from this story, or else this is both ridiculous and unconscionable. The spokesperson's comments only serve to make it sound worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the first problem here was sending SWAT, the guys who're trained in taking down terrorists, armed robbers, arms dealers, and other people who're likely to shoot back, to help this guy.
SWAT are badass men and women of action, not field psychologists. It's Special Weapons And Tactics, not Suicide Watch And Talkers. (sorry for awful acronym)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other big problem is casting governmental authorities as "parental figures" who actually want to help you. They're not. They are just doing a job and collecting a pay-check, and waiting for a chance to use their cool guns.
.
The other big problem is casting governmental authorities as "parental figures" who actually want to help you. They're not. They are just doing a job and collecting a pay-check, and waiting for a chance to use their cool guns.
That seems like a tie in to the "no duty to protect" thread.
Although, there are some government officials who do want to help. Some even want to protect people from themselves, and eliminate what they see as poor choices from even being an option.
Yes, we all should be worried about benevolent bureaucrats trying that sort of nonsense.
There is a British journal I follow that is all about this - there are many examples of it in GBR.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very sure there are lots of detail missing from that story as it reeks of an anti-law enforcement ranting. Here's the deal, if someone calls 911 and says "I'm going to kill myself" law enforcement are required to respond by law. Fire and EMS personnel will not approach a suicidal subject until LE is on scene and determines the scene to be safe.
Likely the story is as follows: subject calls 911 says I want to kill myself. Officers show up, guy has a gun/weapon, SWAT team is deployed, which is the proper response to an armed barricaded subject. We happened after that is unable to determine until we hear the full story; it could be the subject displayed a weapon the SWAT team and they responded with deadly response (which is not wrong), or it could even have been one of the SWAT members fired a non-lethal round at the subject and it was mistaken by another member of the team and they opened fire. (I truly hope that is not the case; however, it has happened in the past. It is a terrible thing to happen.) The thing is, the number of scenarios that anyone can come up with is likely what could have happened. We don't know, as we were not there.
So until you were there and know the full story, don't automatically assume the officers were there to murder an unarmed subject, because believe it or not, that type of thing is not how police do their work. (Yes, I agree there are bad cops out there who have done such things, and I believe they should be hammered harder than anyone else for such actions. But most cops are good people who put their lives on the line to protect you from the wolves in society who thrive on your pain.)
I work in the mental health field, and yes, the cops are supposed to show up with/before ems. Not swat. Something is missing from this article.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I work in the mental health field, and yes, the cops are supposed to show up with/before ems. Not swat. Something is missing from this article.
I completely agree, Freehold. I would really like to know the full story here and not just the anti-LE. If this police department simply sent the SWAT team out for a suicidal subject, then this situation was grossly mishandled by the department. However, if a patrol officer responded to the scene and was confronted by an armed/barricaded subject, then SWAT response was appropriate.
Whatever happened to responsible, non-agenda pushing journalism? *Sigh*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other big problem is casting governmental authorities as "parental figures" who actually want to help you. They're not. They are just doing a job and collecting a pay-check, and waiting for a chance to use their cool guns.
Government agents are people to. They don't grow them out of a cloning vat. Some of them do want to help.
For those who are concerned about this source, here's the local Fox affiliate on the event. They confirm that the other people in the home left and were not home at the time the police arrived, so no hostage situation. This version still reads as "man calls suicide hotline for help, police shoot him." It doesn't seem surprising that a person who is in immediate risk of suicide might have a gun. The surprising part (to me) is that the police response to a suicidal person is to shoot them. When a person threatens only themselves, the result of a failed negotiation should be that they hurt themselves, not that the police hurt them.
If police aren't trained to deal with someone like this, which is a fair statement, one wonders why sending them out is standard procedure.
I work in the mental health field, and yes, the cops are supposed to show up with/before ems. Not swat. Something is missing from this article.I completely agree, Freehold. I would really like to know the full story here and not just the anti-LE. If this police department simply sent the SWAT team out for a suicidal subject, then this situation was grossly mishandled by the department. However, if a patrol officer responded to the scene and was confronted by an armed/barricaded subject, then SWAT response was appropriate.
Whatever happened to responsible, non-agenda pushing journalism? *Sigh*
even that I don't buy immediately. Swat should be called in case of hostage situations, sure, but it's not immediately clear who, if anyone, was being held
hostage.
The surprising part (to me) is that the police response to a suicidal person is to shoot them. When a person threatens only themselves, the result of a failed negotiation should be that they hurt themselves, not that the police hurt them.
Just this.
Well guys, I'm not going to get into this anymore with you all. As a police officer, I know more about the type of situation than you ever will. And to be honest, I'm tired of defending officer's decision against a public that already made their mind up about the matter. I will leave you with this to think about though.
Action is faster than reaction. An armed subject can lift a weapon from their side, aim, and fire faster than you can recognize the action, process it, and then respond. This is a scientifically proven fact... If you guys are interested in this type of thing, check out This Website for a wealth of knowledge on the subject, it's a very interesting field. Perhaps it might make you think about situations like this a little differently. Or maybe not, but that's your decision.
So what happened? It sounds like the guy pointed the gun at the cops to suicide by cop instead of blowing his own brains out (which is kind of selfish and not really fair to the office involved)
Well guys, I'm not going to get into this anymore with you all. As a police officer, I know more about the type of situation than you ever will. And to be honest, I'm tired of defending officer's decision against a public that already made their mind up about the matter. I will leave you with this to think about though.
Action is faster than reaction. An armed subject can lift a weapon from their side, aim, and fire faster than you can recognize the action, process it, and then respond. This is a scientifically proven fact... If you guys are interested in this type of thing, check out This Website for a wealth of knowledge on the subject, it's a very interesting field. Perhaps it might make you think about situations like this a little differently. Or maybe not, but that's your decision.
if anyone was hurt at all - or even looked as if they were in danger beyond the individual committing suicide, I'd buy this too. It's a dangerous job, and they have the right to defend themselves. But it looks like noone was in danger here. Again, stuff is missing. Lots of stuff.
Been thinking this one over.
7 hours is a LONG time, and it looks like a good chunk of that was spent with negotiators on scene. On top of that, SWAT were obviously called in at some point, and there's no reason to believe that they were the first response.
Not going to make any judgement without further details, but I'm just saying that the guy committing suicide by cop seems more likely the longer you think about it. It's not like police are just itching to shoot people at the slightest excuse, there has to have been a reason particularly if SWAT was involved. So... yeah.
Hmm, definitely missing a ton of information here. My thoughts kind of echo Fueldrop above me here. For what it's worth, the majority of my interactions with officers (even when i had been the offending party) have been positive to neutral at worst.
Faelyn and Barcas, thanks for your service to the community.
I disagree to an extent - they have been a major help at my main job. Saw them save a life once, taking someone down and in handcuffs quick, neat, and without excess violence. That said, I am wondering how SWAT got involved - this isn't their game.
Yeah, there is absolutely no way that anyone sane would send SWAT in first on a case like this. I can see SWAT getting called in if, after 7 hours of failed negotiations, the guy starts taking shots at the cops parked outside his house and they needed specialists to enter the house and stop the guy before he hurt someone.
Even then, I'm surprised the guy was killed. SWAT are a life saving organization, and have access to plenty of less lethal weapons for just this kind of situation. There's more going on here than we've been told.
Okay, this is what I've found out thus far.
The police were called in after the man called a suicide line around 4 AM. They went there to find the house barricaded (and from what I can tell, the other inhabitants still in there behind the barricades with the man). They called in the Weber SWAT team. The other inhabitants left the house (whether that was from their own free will, negotiations, or the SWAT team as an element, I can't tell).
After that, several hours later, the shooting started. From the sounds of the investigation, which is now being handled as a suicide by Cop (meaning IMO he pointed the weapon at the cops, probably with no intention of actually firing, but with the intention of them shooting and killing him), it sounds like there was a provocation.
One of the officers has been placed on administrative leave pending the investigation.
Edit: I was mistaken, two officers have been placed on administrative leave pending review.
Well guys, I'm not going to get into this anymore with you all. As a police officer, I know more about the type of situation than you ever will. And to be honest, I'm tired of defending officer's decision against a public that already made their mind up about the matter. I will leave you with this to think about though.
Action is faster than reaction. An armed subject can lift a weapon from their side, aim, and fire faster than you can recognize the action, process it, and then respond. This is a scientifically proven fact... If you guys are interested in this type of thing, check out This Website for a wealth of knowledge on the subject, it's a very interesting field. Perhaps it might make you think about situations like this a little differently. Or maybe not, but that's your decision.
Ah, ye olde argumentum ab auctoritate. I saw this a few days back. It must be hard when you don't know all details of the case, weren't there, insist you are right AND THEN people disagree with you. My sympathies.
"Action is faster than reaction. An armed subject can lift a weapon from their side, aim, and fire faster than you can recognize the action, process it, and then respond".
If this were true, and it is not, humans would be too slow to respond to any sort of attack. By aim, how long do you mean? Two seconds? Three seconds? How slow do you react? It is a foolish claim to make, that no one has ever reacted while being aimed at, and before they have been shot.
Action is not always faster than reaction, the faster person is faster. ;)
Action is faster than reaction. An armed subject can lift a weapon from their side, aim, and fire faster than you can recognize the action, process it, and then respond. This is a scientifically proven fact... If you guys are interested in this type of thing, check out This Website for a wealth of knowledge on the subject, it's a very interesting field. Perhaps it might make you think about situations like this a little differently. Or maybe not, but that's your decision.Science isn't with you on that: The quick and the dead: when reaction beats intention
Further reading:
Changing the “When” and “What” of Intended Actions
and
Internally generated and externally triggered actions are physically distinct and independently controlled (Paywall)
Yep, or for actions solely involving hand weapons and not firearms, anyone that parried and riposted an attack, ever.
Don't the police teach their officers how to disarm a perpetrator of a weapon being raised and aimed at them? I know Krav Maga and military martial arts do. If no one is ever fast enough to do something about that, why do they teach the moves that are impossible to do? :)
If no one can respond fast enough to seize the rising weapon, how do they even do the drills? /error
:D
Okay, this is what I've found out thus far.
The police were called in after the man called a suicide line around 4 AM. They went there to find the house barricaded (and from what I can tell, the other inhabitants still in there behind the barricades with the man). They called in the Weber SWAT team. The other inhabitants left the house (whether that was from their own free will, negotiations, or the SWAT team as an element, I can't tell).
After that, several hours later, the shooting started. From the sounds of the investigation, which is now being handled as a suicide by Cop (meaning IMO he pointed the weapon at the cops, probably with no intention of actually firing, but with the intention of them shooting and killing him), it sounds like there was a provocation.
One of the officers has been placed on administrative leave pending the investigation.
Edit: I was mistaken, two officers have been placed on administrative leave pending review.
A lot of PDs have a standard 'officer goes on administrative leave' for all officer involved shootings (no matter the cause or outcome).
That first article is written by someone that if a non police officer were sent in to talk and was killed, he would complain that the police weren't doing their job. The only way he would be happy is if the police were killed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another article by the same author:
Officer Pulls Woman Over. Instead of a Ticket, He Showed His Humanity
Not a very exciting article, I admit, but not exactly one you'd expect to see written by someone who would only be happy if police officers are killed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't the police teach their officers how to disarm a perpetrator of a weapon being raised and aimed at them? I know Krav Maga and military martial arts do. If no one is ever fast enough to do something about that, why do they teach the moves that are impossible to do? :)
If no one can respond fast enough to seize the rising weapon, how do they even do the drills? /error
:D
I think the first thing would be how far away the perpetrator is.
Secondly, Police are not necessarily martial arts masters in the US.
That said, I was always taught...considering the dangers of weaponry...
A man with a gun should be considered ten belts higher than a man with a sword.
A man with a sword should be considered ten belts higher than a man with no weapons.
Even the highest black belt can be killed rather easily with a gun. The better course of action is always to avoid the situation or evade the situation rather than confrontation. It doesn't matter if you are the greatest black belt ever, a gunman 20 feet away will be able to shoot several times before you are even able to get within arms reach, and if they are even a decent shot, you probably won't make it that far.
And police in the US aren't normally trained to those extremes in hand to hand from what I understand.
Another article by the same author:
Officer Pulls Woman Over. Instead of a Ticket, He Showed His Humanity
Not a very exciting article, I admit, but not exactly one you'd expect to see written by someone who would only be happy if police officers are killed.
True, but it was also an officer violating their sworn oath.
Similar situation, happier outcome. But every situation is different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but it was also an officer violating their sworn oath.Another article by the same author:
Officer Pulls Woman Over. Instead of a Ticket, He Showed His Humanity
Not a very exciting article, I admit, but not exactly one you'd expect to see written by someone who would only be happy if police officers are killed.
Not the same author, I grant you, but from the same anti-law enforcement ranting website. Again, though, not terribly exciting:
Did that Cop Just Say “We’re here to protect your rights, not violate them”? Yes, Yes He Did!
A rare police encounter was recently captured on video which shows officers upholding their oaths to the Constitution.
True, but it was also an officer violating their sworn oath.Another article by the same author:
Officer Pulls Woman Over. Instead of a Ticket, He Showed His Humanity
Not a very exciting article, I admit, but not exactly one you'd expect to see written by someone who would only be happy if police officers are killed.
*sigh*
Similar situation, happier outcome. But every situation is different.
similar situation to the one I was talking about earlier. Very professionally handled.
Don't the police teach their officers how to disarm a perpetrator of a weapon being raised and aimed at them? I know Krav Maga and military martial arts do. If no one is ever fast enough to do something about that, why do they teach the moves that are impossible to do? :)
If no one can respond fast enough to seize the rising weapon, how do they even do the drills? /error
:D
Real life is dangerous. It is easy to bet with someone else's life. If he or she can pull something like that off, I'm glad. But sometimes it makes more sense to shoot someone. Don't judge an officer for their choices unless you can understand what it is like to have to make a similar choice with your own life hanging in the balance.
So we're not allowed to debate the ethics of situations we've never been a part of?
If the devs say you're not allowed to do so, then it is their call. This is their website.