Maggie’s Excessive force? Maybe? Maybe not?

Phezzik

Phezzik

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 5, 2007
213
0
Oklahoma
#1
#4
I bet there is some relevant backstory to this. I don't think that group of officers was a patrol squad who happened upon a guy asleep and decided to shoot him. The guy apparently had some mental disorder; the first thing he says on the video to the officers is that if they were at a bar right now he could kill him..wtf? Their tactics with the flash bang may or may not have been the best course of action, but it's real easy to come up with a good plan for dealing with a crazy person with a knife while you're sitting at home typing on the internet rather than standing on the side of a mountain with some nut talking about killing you.
 
#5
Excessive force? Maybe? Maybe not?

On the one hand, the man had armed himself with at least one and maybe two knives in his hands. Those are deadly weapons.

On the other hand, it looks like he was shot in the back when he turned away from the officers and was not involved in any active aggression at the time.
 
#8
I agree with Graham there were no signs of aggression and i do agree that there is more to this story than the short video shows BUT you wonder why cops have a bad name?
if that was Corupecticut they would have rapped him after they shot him
 
Last edited:
#10
Looks to me like the K9 went after the thrown flashbang and may have slipped out of the handlers grip. Not a very good toss either. Doesn't even seem to effect the perp.

From there things went downhill fast...
 
#15
Who obtained this video and by what means?

I'm thinking if I had a bulk FOIA request in or something similar, where I could request all dash cam/officer cam footage on a daily basis, then run it through some software that looks for acoustic impulses/gun shots, and clips out the segments containing them, I could put this in a data base and sell access to the media. They could then find the most provocative clips and put it on their websites and television programs, obtain more viewers attracted to the dramatic content, who then go on and post it to forums or email it to friends/families, yielding even more viewers. The increase in ad revenue should be enormous.

We could probably just sell monthly access to the database. We could borrow from the porno industry where they generate pages of low res thumbnails to show the video content. The initial investment would be relatively small, depending on scale we could get something going for about 200k and more yields a better initial product.

PM if you're interested.
 
#17
He has knives. Force is + 1 level...suspect is at lethal. Tasers don't work on heavy clothing and distance accuracy is poor.

They showed restraint for 3 hours.
 
#18
Excessive force? Maybe? Maybe not?

lw8 said:
He has knives. Force is + 1 level...suspect is at lethal.
Click to expand...
Deadly force is not +1: Self defense is a defense to what would otherwise be a crime.

Totality of the circumstances:

Possession of a knife doesn't get you to deadly force. If it did, the police could go around shooting people who had knives on them.

And waiting for three hours is a factor that weighs against the officers, not in their favor: No urgency.

The police have the argument that he was armed with a deadly weapon and refused commands to drop it.

Is that sufficient to open fire? Was it sufficient in this case, at the time they opened fire?

They still must articulate the reasonableness and the honesty of their belief in the threat of IMMINENT serious harm or death, meaning the reasonable necessity to use deadly force to defend themselves when they shot him.
 
Last edited:
#19
The local news reported that the guy had been arrested previously for cutting a guy with a knife. He had also been previously arrested punching a female officer, breaking her nose. The police definitely needed to keep their distance, and be cautious since the guy had his knives out.

Still, I think they could have taken him into custody without killing him. He had nowhere to run, there was lots of space before he could harm anyone else, and lots of cops already on the scene.
 
#20
Excessive force? Maybe? Maybe not?

Abq-Defense said:
Still, I think they could have taken him into custody without killing him. He had nowhere to run, there was lots of space before he could harm anyone else, and lots of cops already on the scene.
Click to expand...
What the police could have done is not relevant.

But if they knew at the time that he had a history of violence against police officers and a history of using his knives to attack people, that's a big factor in favor of the officers and one that you can't see on camera.
 
Last edited:
#22
Graham said:
Deadly force is not +1: Self defense is a defense to what would otherwise be a crime.

Totality of the circumstances:

Possession of a knife doesn't get you to deadly force. If it did, the police could go around shooting people who had knives on them.

And waiting for three hours is a factor that weighs against the officers, not in their favor: No urgency.

The police have the argument that he was armed with a deadly weapon and refused commands to drop it.

Is that sufficient to open fire? Was it sufficient in this case, at the time they opened fire?

They still must articulate the reasonableness and the honesty of their belief in the threat of IMMINENT serious harm or death, meaning the reasonable necessity to use deadly force to defend themselves when they shot him.
Click to expand...

Totally incorrect.

LE UoF is always applied one level higher than the level of resistance by the suspect. The fight is never supposed to be fair and the Police are supposed to win.

The Police applied multiple levels of intermediate force including beanbags and shotgun launched tasers which failed. At that point, it was headed downhill fast.

In the end, the subject met all 3 points of the Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy triangle that are required for use of deadly force. He had two knives, was within 21 feet, and refused multiple calls for surrender, instead choosing to draw knives.

Good shoot.
 
#23
No winners here....


Assuming his history, as detailed here, is correct I am still struggling with the action of the officers. Even in the fog of conflict I would think that they would have Less than Lethal protocol given the circumstances. Agreed that protocol for capabilities is force +1 for safety of all. However its my understanding that its there as a capability but not as a first option. Still not sure why, given the low risk to others that other options could not be used. While the subject appears to have a violent past it does not mean that he could not be dealt with force at a LTL level.

Not on a witch hunt. A long time ago I moved from the thinking that LEO's could do no wrong to LEO's are mostly good/just/right. After years of holding that line of thinking, I find myself, over the last 5+ years, slowly, starting to question if/how/why it seems that the actions of LE are becoming much more aggressive when it need not be.

Input to help my thinking along, in any direction, is appreciated.

lw8 said:
He has knives. Force is + 1 level...suspect is at lethal. Tasers don't work on heavy clothing and distance accuracy is poor.

They showed restraint for 3 hours.
Click to expand...

I see IW8 has replied while I was responding. Understood about the force and the triangle you describe. That being said he was within 21 feet, based on what I saw in the video, because LE moved into that space. I see the rationale for Ability and opportunity. I seem to be missing something in the Jeopardy criteria. Help me understand because, frankly, I am not seeing anyone in imminent risk of personal injury. Am I missing a risk component based on time?

Regards....
 
Last edited:
#24
Excessive force? Maybe? Maybe not?

lw8 said:
Totally incorrect.

LE UoF is always applied one level higher than the level of resistance by the suspect. The fight is never supposed to be fair....
Click to expand...
Oh boy...

I suppose I'm just going to have to defer to your superior knowledge and experience, then.??
 
Last edited:
#25
Pester said:
No winners here....


Assuming his history, as detailed here, is correct I am still struggling with the action of the officers. Even in the fog of conflict I would think that they would have Less than Lethal protocol given the circumstances. Agreed that protocol for capabilities is force +1 for safety of all. However its my understanding that its there as a capability but not as a first option. Still not sure why, given the low risk to others that other options could not be used. While the subject appears to have a violent past it does not mean that he could not be dealt with force at a LTL level.

Not on a witch hunt. A long time ago I moved from the thinking that LEO's could do no wrong to LEO's are mostly good/just/right. After years of holding that line of thinking, I find myself, over the last 5+ years, slowly, starting to question if/how/why it seems that the actions of LE are becoming much more aggressive when it need not be.

Input to help my thinking along, in any direction, is appreciated.
Click to expand...

The real problem is mental health in the US. Now that asylums are largely closed, the population of those facilities ends up homeless and on the street. They need mental help...but they get the Police bcc that's what is available. The Police have few tools and are not social workers.

It's a recipe for disaster.
 
#26
Excessive force? Maybe? Maybe not?

lw8 said:
The real problem is mental health in the US.
Click to expand...
Whether or not the use of force by the police was lawful and/or permissible has nothing to do with mental health and everything to do with the totality of the circumstances as they appeared to the officers at the time they used force.
 
Last edited:
#27
A quote on the shooter from an article
"Officer Sandy, who was involved in the shooting, was fired from the New Mexico State Police in 2007 over accusations of fraud. He was allegedly making money doing private security work while also on the force, KRQE reported.

When Sandy joined the APD, the department said he would be a civilian employee and wouldn't have a gun or badge. Sandy continued rising through the ranks, eventually joining the Repeat Offender Project Team."

Hes a fucking trigger happy piece of shit that had no business running around dressed up as a mall ninja with a badge and automatic weapon.
 
#28
IW8, I think Grahams point is right. Do we have a growing mental health problem in the US? Yes. Does it impact all of us and especially those charged with protecting the masses? Yes. Is it going to get better soon with greater numbers of people doing anything to escape reality? No.

Your comment "The Police have few tools and are not social workers." helps narrow my thinking...perhaps. I cant say I am an expert on the difference in roles between a Police officer, a Peace Officer, Sheriff, etc however I think names are chosen as a descriptor for a role. If I can assume that a Police officer is to police the laws and the tools/protocols are limited then I can see this result being more common. If the goal of the officers is different and includes public safety etc AND they are given greater tools/training to work through issues such as this then I would think the outcome could have been very different.

It is a disaster and I am not castigating all LOE's. My fear is that we are moving from a place where too many LEO's view thier role is to control a situation rather than manage a situation. Using your valid example.....if these guys were not social workers why could they have not backed off, contained the situation and called for social workers or mediators to assist. I get it....no budget....just cant help that shooting at that point was a step backwards.

Thanks for your replies and helping me understand.

Now I am off to self medicate because I publically agreed with Graham......Lord help me
 
#29
Not going to attempt to justify the shoot, we clearly do not know the entire circumstances leading up to this. Hopefully more info will become available in the coming weeks. Based on what is currently known, I don't think I would have acted with the same level of force in that particular situation as I tend to a bit more on the conservative side with the application of force.

Rationalizing with someone in that mental state armed with a weapon is not an easy task nor is it one that the mental health care workers will get themselves into until the situation has been made safe. The mental health system is completely and utterly fucked. We have a growing mental health problem that is getting worse due to an aging population and the consequences of rampant drug abuse.

As far as everyone claiming that these incidents are becoming more common, I don't believe that is a fair argument as there has been no statistical data to support the claim either way. With the internet and social media playing such a huge role in people's day to day lives I believe it makes it easier for incidents such as these to be brought to the attention of a larger audience.
 
#30
QUOTE=ZombieMonkey;3032644]Rationalizing with someone in that mental state armed with a weapon is not an easy task nor is it one that the mental health care workers will get themselves into until the situation has been made safe. The mental health system is completely and utterly fucked. We have a growing mental health problem that is getting worse due to an aging population and the consequences of rampant drug abuse.

As far as everyone claiming that these incidents are becoming more common, I don't believe that is a fair argument as there has been no statistical data to support the claim either way. With the internet and social media playing such a huge role in people's day to day lives I believe it makes it easier for incidents such as these to be brought to the attention of a larger audience.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough on case/mental health workers stepping until the situation is under control.

I struggle with so many people self medicating to the point of losing control. This burden falls directly on LEO's and its jacked up. Whether is beer, crack, etc its just another way of avoiding reality and reducing ones ability to respond appropriately to any situation. It then seems as if LEO's have to take a harder line because we have more cases where people are not using all of their faculties which, in turn, means that LEO's become patterned in their actions.

I dont have any way to quantify my suspicions in terms of this being more common however, as you state, increasing drug use, aging population, lack of mental health support and break down of nuclear family structure all leads to increased numbers that Law Enforcement needs to deal with. All that being said, I think there are a greater number of LEO's that are taking a more aggressive approach. No proof to that.

Thanks for the perspective
 
#31
Graham said:
What the police could have done is not relevant.

But if they knew at the time that he had a history of violence against police officers and a history of using his knives to attack people, that's a big factor in favor of the officers and one that you can't see on camera.
Click to expand...

Actually, "what the police could have done" is very relevant. If police are in imminent danger then, they of course they need to defend themselves. If a suspect can be subdued without deadly force, they should be. You don't just shoot someone because the law says you can, UNLESS you have to protect yourself or the public.
 
#32
Not the first time I saw this video. Not the first time I had questions about it.

This video does not show everything that lead up to the incident. Having said that, I can't see from the video that the officers allowed the first steps to take effect before the officer (who has been identified as a corrupt cop previously, and isn't "supposed to have a gun") shoots and kills the "victim." I'd definitely want a full investigation of this incident from a non-involved source.
Any way you cut it, without a full investigation, this video raises questions that need answers. The kind of questions, I might add, which don't do LEO's any favors.
 
#33
Excessive force? Maybe? Maybe not?

Abq-Defense said:
Actually, "what the police could have done" is very relevant. If police are in imminent danger then, they of course they need to defend themselves. If a suspect can be subdued without deadly force, they should be. You don't just shoot someone because the law says you can, UNLESS you have to protect yourself or the public.
Click to expand...
Everything is relevant to something... But in the legal world you can't argue that something is relevant unless you first state to what it is relevant.

If the police officers were justified in shooting the suspect in self defense, then the prosecutor or judge cannot substitute his reasoning for that of the officers, regardless of what else the officers could have done.

What the officers could have done speaks only to the reasonableness of their actions at the time. The court isn't going to permit that inquiry to go too far.
 
Last edited:
#34
I think the comment about mental health could also be applied to a certain number of people that go into law enforcement. I am not talking about stark raving insane, this is more about anger issues and narcissism. People that do not have the emotional maturity or rational to interact with potential criminals without inflict severe physical damage. Also, there are sadists that wear badges.

Police actions have gotten progressively more aggressive and violent over the past few years. The comment about "the police are supposed to win" is interesting in itself. This type of approach is what is leading us to a police state. We are better with cops than without BUT this type of aggressive, violent behavior should not be acceptable.


lw8 said:
The real problem is mental health in the US. Now that asylums are largely closed, the population of those facilities ends up homeless and on the street. They need mental help...but they get the Police bcc that's what is available. The Police have few tools and are not social workers.

It's a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
 
#35
Mwalex said:
I am not talking about stark raving insane, this is more about anger issues and narcissism. QUOTE]

While I generally agree with this I think the changes I am seeing are more akin to a structural or cultural change that enables this sort of behaviour. My concern is that between lawsuits, anti police groups, police unions, increased population that are whacked out of their heads, loss of respect for LEO's and politicized LE leaders those that would be great LEO's will just say "Screw it. I am not going to subject myself to that environment.". Then the people that make it in are not capable of artfully handling difficult situations.
Click to expand...
 
#36
Graham said:
Everything is relevant to something... But in the legal world you can't argue that something is relevant unless you first state to what it is relevant.

If the police officers were justified in shooting the suspect in self defense, then the prosecutor or judge cannot substitute his reasoning for that of the officers, regardless of what else the officers could have done.

What the officers could have done speaks only to the reasonableness of their actions at the time. The court isn't going to permit that inquiry to go too far.
Click to expand...

You obviously are looking at this from a legal perspective. And from that perspective, the officers probably won't be convicted of any crime.

Others are simply asking if the force was excessive? Did the police need to kill this man in order to protect themselves and the public? The answer seems to be no, they could have subdued him, given more time.

The courts may only ask if it was justified. The people will ask if it was justified and necessary.

Apparently, the question of weather this was excessive force may come down to weather you look at this from a legal, or moral, perspective.
 
#37
lw8 said:
Totally incorrect.

LE UoF is always applied one level higher than the level of resistance by the suspect. The fight is never supposed to be fair and the Police are supposed to win.
Click to expand...

That is very similar to what I was taught at the academy. Essentially, we were told that we were justified in going one (or more depending on the circumstances) level of force than the suspect was using in order to give us an edge.

With that having been said, I would find it very difficult to convince a jury I was in fear for my life so I shot someone in the back. I would find it much easier to convince the jury I feared for my life if someone was coming at me, and facing me.

However, I don't have all the facts, so I am unwilling to condemn the officer involved. That is what inquests, and courts are for.
 
#38
Mwalex said:
I think the comment about mental health could also be applied to a certain number of people that go into law enforcement. I am not talking about stark raving insane, this is more about anger issues and narcissism. People that do not have the emotional maturity or rational to interact with potential criminals without inflict severe physical damage. Also, there are sadists that wear badges.
Click to expand...

Based on what statistical data? Do some bad people slide in? Sure. But most agencies require extensive background checks, interviews, polygraph examinations, and a long session with a psychologist doing a one-on-one eval and a number of personality battery tests lasting hours. There is more screening going into the people being hired today than there ever has been.
 
#39
Pester said:
For the LE folks here....seems like a logical protocol could be bean bags, flash bang, taser and then shooting if in self defense. Why not employ a taser prior to shooting?
Click to expand...

Lethal force is met with lethal force. The "one level higher" on the force continuum is taught from day one. Just like you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, in most cases you wouldn't bring a taser to a knife fight.

The linked article in the OP should change it's title from "Cops gun down homeless man for illegally camping." To "Cops shoot and kill violent homeless man with a history of mental illness after he threatens to kill police and pulls out two knives."

But I guess they have to sell papers.
 
#40
Pester said:
For the LE folks here....seems like a logical protocol could be bean bags, flash bang, taser and then shooting if in self defense. Why not employ a taser prior to shooting?
Click to expand...

Take some time to google the event..... in the hours prior to the shooting- the taser was used... Funny how thick camping clothing and other factors made it ineffective
 
#41
Excessive force? Maybe? Maybe not?

Slapchop said:
The "one level higher" on the force continuum is taught from day one.
Click to expand...
It is, but it is so often taught incorrectly, to the detriment of officers who later make mistakes because they never learned the law as it exists in their state regarding the use of deadly force in self defense.

You are correct that a deadly force assault can be met by deadly force in defense of life or serious bodily harm.

But it is not a defense to using deadly force in self defense that a police officer was told that he can use a "+1" level of force.

When I hear that, like when I hear about ability, opportunity and jeopardy, I know I am dealing with an academy-level knowledge of the subject, on which an officer should not rely to protect his job and his freedom.
 
Last edited:
#42
ZombieMonkey said:
Based on what statistical data? Do some bad people slide in? Sure. But most agencies require extensive background checks, interviews, polygraph examinations, and a long session with a psychologist doing a one-on-one eval and a number of personality battery tests lasting hours. There is more screening going into the people being hired today than there ever has been.
Click to expand...

I haven't dug through stats nor am I going to. You don't need stats too see what is happening with police these days. "Some" I think underestimates the number of police with issues. As far as the testing goes, the results probably fall within a statistical acceptable range. Someone falls into a given quartile and they have the job. Two things about that - most people can breeze through those tests well enough to fall into an acceptable range, Secondly, I would guess that those criteria get relaxed periodically because of the need for more police and strings being pulled. Don't get me wrong, the testing does weed out problematic individuals but the testing does not ensure that maladjusted people aren't carrying a gun and a badge.

I am not going to get into a argument here. I simply stated my thoughts based on what I have seen in the local and national news. Cops have a hard job, harder than many of us, and they are subjected to a lot of mental and emotional stress. That takes it's toll. Regardless of that, the use of excessive force cannot be tolerated by citizens because it will only escalate over time.
 
#43
Graham said:
It is, but it is so often taught incorrectly, to the detriment of officers who later make mistakes because they never learned the law as it exists in their state regarding the use of deadly force in self defense.

You are correct that a deadly force assault can be met by deadly force in defense of life or serious bodily harm.

But it is not a defense to using deadly force in self defense that a police officer was told that he can use a "+1" level of force.

When I hear that, like when I hear about ability, opportunity and jeopardy, I know I am dealing with an academy-level knowledge of the subject, on which an officer should not rely to protect his job and his freedom.
Click to expand...

I never said that it was taught as a defense/justification to be used in a court of law. I merely wrote that because there was concern/questions as to why the level of force was escalated in this incident. I don't see how its taught incorrectly becasue again, we're not told to use that in court as a defense for using deadly force. Instead, it's something that is taught for the survival of street level encounters. Too many officers think that they have to match a suspect's level of resistance and that is simply just not the case.

As for what to say in court of law, I usually leave that up to the lawyers to figure out.
 
#44
There is a metric shit ton more information about use of deadly force and the force continuum than is taught at the academy. I am sort of siding with Graham on the notion that any officer who relies ONLY on the basic information taught at the academy is risking a great deal of their future.

I found it worthwhile to also look into court decisions, the logic behind the force continuum, the actual state laws on the subject, what they really meant by the requirements of means, opportunity, and intent, and how that related to use of force.

Just having an instructor at the academy said I can do "X", wasn't enough information for me to be content with.
 
#45
Excessive force? Maybe? Maybe not?

I once heard a police instructor at a large department, who was in the process of teaching a use of force class, state that the 'new guys' in the class are not yet 'authorized' to use deadly force.

.....007 ??
 
#48
Graham, I know what you mean about some of the stupid shit you hear coming from instructors. Some of the internal agency training classes I've been to I am shocked at the lack of knowledge some officers have. Thankfully there are also plenty of knowledgeable instructors out there as well. Hopefully peer reviews of the instructors are actually monitored by each agency to ensure that where there is an issue they address it.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
 
#49
One of the items I found interesting in the deadly force classes, was that it wasn't what the threat was ACTUALLY doing, rather, it was what the officer BELIEVED the thread was doing or carrying. For example, if the officer actually thought the threat had a gun and it turned out later to be a tool of some kind.

However, the officer still needs to sell what he believed to the jury. I think it would be dammed hard to convince a jury that you thought the threat was coming to kill you when you shot him in the back.
 
#50
In most states the same applies to non police, if a person believes he is in danger he can protect himself by whatever means necessary. The difference here is that its the state killing a citizen, a crazy one, but still, a citizen. Going by this rule of one force level higher, instead of a criminal pulling a knife on a cop or fighting with them they would be better off pulling a gun and use it as the result will be the cops shooting them dead as soon as one of them gets scared anyway. This is insane training. I think removing the ability for officers to use their own reason/judgment by training to shoot so quickly will create a default position of shoot whenever you get scared, the training needs to be changed and they need to stop hiring pussies that get scared at the sight of a knife 30 feet away. Its a goddam shame the guy is dead, even more of a shame that more public trust is being lost in our LEO's by their natural core supporters. Not good for Joe Public and definitely not good for Joe LEO.

Unknown said:
One of the items I found interesting in the deadly force classes, was that it wasn't what the threat was ACTUALLY doing, rather, it was what the officer BELIEVED the thread was doing or carrying. For example, if the officer actually thought the threat had a gun and it turned out later to be a tool of some kind.

However, the officer still needs to sell what he believed to the jury. I think it would be dammed hard to convince a jury that you thought the threat was coming to kill you when you shot him in the back.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LuckyDuck
Maybe you had to be there- otherwise (now) funny stories you were able to witness
Replies
47
Views
1K
LuckyDuck
LuckyDuck
PatMiles
Amish Georgia Judge Accused of Assaulting Cop at Club Claims She Was ‘Set Up’
Replies
21
Views
1K
akmike47
akmike47
PatMiles
Illegal aliens are killing Colorado’s second-largest hospital
Replies
63
Views
2K
jakelly
jakelly
PatMiles
Texas Governor Hands Biden Scathing Letter During Border Visit
Replies
9
Views
627
mvphilly
M
M
Excessive bullet seating force despite using mandrel expander
Replies
104
Views
4K
Feniks Technologies
Feniks Technologies
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts