Before we do, however, it’s also important to provide some tactical context, as it is within this context that the officers made their decision to use deadly force upon the non-compliant and knife-armed McDonald.
There is a sentiment being expressed “by some” that somehow there exists a great disparity in the lethality of a handgun and the lethality of a knife. In fact, at close quarters a knife is arguably a more lethal instrument than is a gun.
There has also been expressed the notion that because McDonald was not within arm’s reach of the police officers that he represented no imminent deadly threat. This notion is, of course, the result of ignorance.
I expect every police officer in the country has been taught a defensive doctrine called the Tueller Drill. The Tueller Drill was developed by Salt Lake City Police Officer Dennis Tueller, who among other things was a firearms instructor for his department.
Dennis trained uniformed police officers who were armed with pistols and who regularly encountered violent suspects armed with impact weapons, particularly knives.
He recognized that a knife wielder standing beside an officer could surely stab that officer before the officer could clear his pistol from his holster and engage the attacker with fired rounds.
Dennis also recognized, however, that at some greater distance an impact-weapon armed attacker would be too far to constitute an imminent threat to police officer. Absent an imminent threat, the officer would not be justified in using deadly force upon the attacker.
That begged the question, then, of what distance became the threshold at which an impact-weapon armed attacker did constitute an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm such that the officer would be justified in using deadly force. Was that distance 5 feet? 10 feet? 15 feet?
Dennis knew a pretty good time for an officer to clear his weapon from his holster and strike a target with two center-mass rounds was about 1.5 seconds. Once that time is known, the question of interest becomes how great a distance an attacker armed with an impact weapon can cross in that same 1.5 seconds. Whatever that distance, the aggressor became an imminent threat for self-defense purposes once he crossed that threshold.
After running a great many empirical tests, Dennis found that the distance that an impact-weapon armed attacker could cross from a standing start in 1.5 seconds was not just 5 feet, or 10 feet, or 15 feet. Rather, such an aggressor could consistently cross a distance of 21 feet, a full 7 yards, in the 1.5 seconds it would take the typical officer to draw his holster and engage that aggressor with aimed fire.
That suggested that an aggressor armed with an impact weapon becomes an imminent deadly threat even when he was as far away as 21 feet–a distance that astonished even many experienced law enforcement officers.
So a man with a knife is a deadly threat when they get within 21 feet and this means that the officers shooting could very well be justified.
As the perp is walking toward the squad car as it is pulling up, you can see him drawing his knife, unfolding it with a flick of his wrist (requires practice) and is holding it in a threatening manner. As the cop on the shotgun side opens his door and gets out you can see he has his gun drawn. One can opine he was probably telling the perp to either "drop the knife," or "get on the ground," or words to that effect. When the perp ignored his command, he was stopped from fleeing the scene with a deadly weapon and becoming a deadly threat to other innocents.
Case closed. Gene pool cleansed.
BTW, you won't hear Hannity or O'Reilly with this kind of politically incorrect analysis.
I hope I don't get within 21 feet of a cop because I always have a knife.
As long as you don't brandish it, and then use it to puncture a tire on a Cop car, while being followed for half a mile by said Cops.
Curious thing to me is that Chicago Cops apparently don't carry tasers although it seems likely young Laquan there coulda just shrugged 'em off as he was that night.
Cops' licenses to kill will be revoked if the sheeple ever figure out that the cops have no duty to protect them, and have a lot more latitude in protecting themselves, than us subjects have.
Liberals and other weaklings view the local cops as being representative of a mythical, all powerful, benign, "system" which somehow allows us to co-exist with our neighbors.
Promotion of this myth is perhaps the most successful propaganda campaign since Satan convinced a majority of folks that he doesn't exist.
I hope I don't get within 21 feet of a cop because I always have a knife.
Well, 7 yards is pretty close, so if you have a knife in your hand are acting like the guy was in a public place with civilians around and he tells you to DROP the knife and you don't, shoot till you drop...
I hope I don't get within 21 feet of a cop because I always have a knife.
You had better not cross that 21 foot barrier at night, with lights flashing and guns drawn. What does it take to let a rational person to understand restraint, or you could get hurt or killed?
Cops' licenses to kill will be revoked if the sheeple ever figure out that the cops have no duty to protect them, and have a lot more latitude in protecting themselves, than us subjects have.
Liberals and other weaklings view the local cops as being representative of a mythical, all powerful, benign, "system" which somehow allows us to co-exist with our neighbors.
Promotion of this myth is perhaps the most successful propaganda campaign since Satan convinced a majority of folks that he doesn't exist.
Cops' licenses to kill will be revoked if the sheeple ever figure out that the cops have no duty to protect them, and have a lot more latitude in protecting themselves, than us subjects have.
Cops have no duty to protect? How so as to the latter, we had (have) even more latitude in the armed forces, so what's your point?
what about the 15 shots he fired into a downed individual? i might be able to see the 1st one, but after that i'm thinking he was a little too into it.
I hope I don't get within 21 feet of a cop because I always have a knife
in my hand with the blade open and I refuse to put it down even when a cop is aiming a pistol in my face and screaming "put it down put it down put it down put it down put it down put it down put it down !!!!!"
it would make a difference to you if you were the one taking the rounds
If the cop was justified in firing one round he was justified in firing 15.
Once the threat is stopped, there is no justification for continuing to shoot. The first one or two shots had stopped the threat, and may not have killed him.
what about the 15 shots he fired into a downed individual? i might be able to see the 1st one, but after that i'm thinking he was a little too into it.
This cop was (politically correct) charged with Murder 1. Personally I think this was because he emptied his magazine into the perp on the ground. If it is shown he was legally justified in shooting the perp (even with one shot) that in itself will get him off the Murder 1 charge.
In Oklahoma we had a case where a white Pharmacist was assaulted in his store by two armed perps ([bleep]) and he pulled his .38 revolver and shot one (who fell inside the store) and chased the other out the door. When he came back inside his store to call the cops, he noticed the fallen perp (young teen) was still moving, so he shot him again as he lay on the floor. This was all captured on video tape.
The Pharmacist was convicted of Murder1 and sentenced to life with possibility of parole. Total BS in my opinion.
Two things, #1, the decedent was not approaching the cops, but rather walking past their position - and likely taunting them with a drawn knife. This may or may not be ruled a threat to them, since the video does not suggest the decedent was approaching, attacking or otherwise endangering the cops. He was, however, a crazy mutha.
#2, any round fired after the young man was down, was excessive. His knife no longer implied a threat of any kind.
That is, unless training has changed from the time I went through three police academies.
The kid was gunned down for a minor offense, the cop looked to me like he panicked and shot the kid, which is where the problem stems, he panicked. Improper training for todays world, old time cops would of smacked that kid with his baton, taken his knife and thrown him in jail, not now.....the same shyte just happened in Ontario, kid with a knife, nobody in danger at all, cop shoots him 9 times...WTF, why defend the cop? The kid in Ontario was not black so the race thing isn't an issue.
Why does race need to be the issue? maybe the cop simply panicked
Cops' licenses to kill will be revoked if the sheeple ever figure out that the cops have no duty to protect them, and have a lot more latitude in protecting themselves, than us subjects have.
Cops have no duty to protect? How so as to the latter, we had (have) even more latitude in the armed forces, so what's your point?
If that kid had been white, we would have never heard a word about this.
This is absolutely the case. Correcting for level of threat posed by the perp, whites are many times more likely to be shot, or otherwise abused, by police in the US, than are blacks. It just so happens that blacks are many times more likely to be violent felons than whites, and many times more likely, therefore, to find themselves in violent confrontations with cops than are whites, thus the stats that show blacks being shot or beaten by cops being in excess proportion to their numbers in the population. Based on stats, adjusted for percentages of violent felons by race, the numbers of blacks shot by cops should actually be much higher, which demonstrates that cops exercise less restraint when dealing with whites than they do with blacks.
Cops' licenses to kill will be revoked if the sheeple ever figure out that the cops have no duty to protect them, and have a lot more latitude in protecting themselves, than us subjects have.
Liberals and other weaklings view the local cops as being representative of a mythical, all powerful, benign, "system" which somehow allows us to co-exist with our neighbors.
Promotion of this myth is perhaps the most successful propaganda campaign since Satan convinced a majority of folks that he doesn't exist.
and then there are the morons that would prefer total anarchy............
Heres a case where the Police watched a man being stabbed and they locked themselves in a closet for their own safety. Then they lied and told the public that the police had subdued and captured the serial killer. After the lawsuit the city found the Police have no responsibility to protect citizens if they may encounter danger themselves.
What bothers me is that apparently two cops get out of their cruiser, and a perp with a knife is close.
Now, maybe I don't have enough banty rooster or testosterone in me, but I would get back in the cruiser......
Is it so absurd to think that de-escalation is more important than "stopping the threat"?
Unless the knife guy was about to walk into a girls only grade school yard at recess...... Get back in the cruiser, get behind the cruiser, call for a psych backup, and everyone lives another day.
Did the officer in the vid already have his gun drawn? If so, that 21 foot rule doesn't apply.
Where did you learn that?
As I recall it, the 21 foot rule assumes a holstered sidearm, absent even hand on gun.
When I took the class to renew my CHL several years ago one of the instructors (a retired cop) demonstrated the 21' foot rule for us. The instructor held a rubber knife and gave a plastic pistol to one the students (a young active duty soldier). He marked off 21' feet on the floor and had the soldier stand there with the pistol pointed at him. The instructor pointed out that 21' feet seems like a long way and you would think that it was a safe distanse from someone armed with a knife. The instructot then suddenly charged the sodier and stuck him with the rubber knife before the soldier could pull the trigger. I don't know what is being taught in police academys today but as for myself if anyone ever threatens me with any kind of lethal weapon I'm not going to worry about if they're within 21' of me before I start shooting.
There was a similar case in OK involing a non-LEO, I expect the jury to find the cop guilty by similar reasoning.
Pharmacist was robbed, shot one of the perps, chased the other outside. Shot perp was still squirming so he came back and finished him.
Prosecutor argued that there was no threat after the initial shooting and the jury agreed. Murder, the rest of his life in prison.
Personally, I don't care how many times a cop shoots a bad guy, but I imagine the Prosecuting attorney will drive home the fact that the original threat was neutralized and every shot after that was a "murder shot".
There was a similar case in OK involing a non-LEO, I expect the jury to find the cop guilty by similar reasoning.
Pharmacist was robbed, shot one of the perps, chased the other outside. Shot perp was still squirming so he came back and finished him.
Prosecutor argued that there was no threat after the initial shooting and the jury agreed. Murder, the rest of his life in prison.
Personally, I don't care how many times a cop shoots a bad guy, but I imagine the Prosecuting attorney will drive home the fact that the original threat was neutralized and every shot after that was a "murder shot".
Did the cop in the Chicago case shoot the perp, leave the area, come back and administer another shot to the kid?
Reading Bill lewinski study on this, it absolutely isn't true.
And the whole tueller (21 foot) rule is a guideline, as Travis said each use of force is unique, and the totality of the situation will be taken into account
Reading Bill lewinski study on this, it absolutely isn't true.
And the whole tueller (21 foot) rule is a guideline, as Travis said each use of force is unique, and the totality of the situation will be taken into account
I am very familiar with the Tueller Drill and the reasoning behind the guideline. The issue of whether the defender has or has not drawn his weapon or has his hand on the weapon isn't part of the criteria.
Reading Bill lewinski study on this, it absolutely isn't true.
And the whole tueller (21 foot) rule is a guideline, as Travis said each use of force is unique, and the totality of the situation will be taken into account
I am very familiar with the Tueller Drill and the reasoning behind the guideline. The issue of whether the defender has or has not drawn his weapon or has his hand on the weapon isn't part of the criteria.
If you were truly familiar with the drill, you would know it involves a holstered firearm.
There is no "21 ft rule" involved in the drill itself.
Regardless, the question in my mind is, how did we get to the point where a drugged out full-sized man (as far as anyone knew) staggering down the middle of a busy road who pulls a knife is a "victim?"
Cops' licenses to kill will be revoked if the sheeple ever figure out that the cops have no duty to protect them, and have a lot more latitude in protecting themselves, than us subjects have.
Cops have no duty to protect? How so as to the latter, we had (have) even more latitude in the armed forces, so what's your point?
I guess it was a hard question?
I just logged back on, Jorge.
Do YOU think cops have a duty to protect us? Courts have ruled otherwise, long ago.
I can't make sense out of the rest of your post. Want to try again?
All I was trying to convey was the fact military folks have even less constraints than cops do. Just an observation. As to the cops not protecting us as part of their duty, well I guess I just learned something new. No big deal, I do'n rely on them anyway
All I was trying to convey was the fact military folks have even less constraints than cops do. Just an observation. As to the cops not protecting us as part of their duty, well I guess I just learned something new. No big deal, I do'n rely on them anyway
" No big deal, I do'n rely on them anyway [/quote]"
I've never sent for one, myself.
As far as equating cops to the military, that's at the heart of L.E. abuses.
I know that YOU know that in the military, the mission is paramount. And there is an espirit de corp among elite units that allows them to put their own well being behind accomplishing the mission.
This is appropriate in a war where killing people and taking territory is the way the mission is accomplished.
When you give the same equipment, and employ the same tactics,to a group of civilians [COPS ARE CIVILIANS, YOU KNOW], and make individual safety paramount, rather than the mission, you are bound to wind up with what we have....Bureaucrats with badges and guns in search of an ENEMY.
Just FYI, I just saw an interview in that Colorado mess of where the officer (ette) said their first duty was the safety of the public. And as far as the enemy (Planned Parenthood notwithstanding) I would view perps as the enemy. Then again, I'm no LEO.
When you give the same equipment, and employ the same tactics,to a group of civilians [COPS ARE CIVILIANS, YOU KNOW], and make individual safety paramount, rather than the mission, you are bound to wind up with what we have....Bureaucrats with badges and guns in search of an ENEMY.
When you give the same equipment, and employ the same tactics,to a group of civilians [COPS ARE CIVILIANS, YOU KNOW], and make individual safety paramount, rather than the mission, you are bound to wind up with what we have....Bureaucrats with badges and guns in search of an ENEMY.
Their duty to protect ends when they are in danger or fear.
Some go above and beyond their duty.
Their "duty" to protect is interpreted the same as your "duty" to protect.
Meaning, you can't be prosecuted for the failure to do so.
Travis
The difference is that the folks hire the police to protect them. The Supreme Court decision in question nullifies the police end of that relationship.
Regarding the Tueller drill, it may or may not have started out with the defender's weapon holstered, but IMO it does not make a difference,
Even with the pistol drawn, it is extremely hard to react quickly enough when a perp is that close. Some of you may recall the videos of convicts inside prisons practicing how to get to a defender before he can react. The way shown was to do a somersault roll and come up from below. I am sure that you can find it if you are computer-savvy. The point was that they could defeat the defender almost every time.
Surely many LEOs are well aware of this and I am surprised that it has not come up in this discussion.
My view is that the video here can be quite misleading. The perp had been committing crimes, he was reported to be on PCP (and almost all Chicago police know well what that means) and his conduct, in flipping open his knife and moving erratically could be seen as deceptive.
That is the way I would read it, He was a danger and one or two 9s or more likely 40s might well have not been enough to immobilize him. Chicago police handling that part of town know this.
Was 16 shots too much? I could not say either way, not having been there. However, I understand that PCP turns pencil-necked geeks into gorillas. I have also seen reports that more than 16 was not enough in some cases.
This would appear to be a case where the officer needs an expert witness to bring up such points in his defense.
The difference is that the folks hire the police to protect them. The Supreme Court decision in question nullifies the police end of that relationship.
The difference is that the folks hire the police to protect them. The Supreme Court decision in question nullifies the police end of that relationship.
You're an absolute moron.
Travis
And he should tell that to the family of the slain officer who just died in Colorado whilst "not" protecting civilians...
Deflave, in the end, the police actually do not have a duty to any "one" particular citizen. The Supreme court decision reflected that while the women calling for help were certainly in need of police protection, the police weren't required to respond to their request over other calls in progress. The cops were exonerated and the victims were out in the cold. The court held that the cops have a duty to the citizenry at large, but that an individual did not have the right to "expect" the police to come to "their" aid independent of other calls, regardless the emergency nature of the calls. Most departments have a protocol that they follow, but the cops have a lot of leeway in this regard, that keeps them from having to defend themselves against that kind of complaint.
It was used in St. Louis some years back when a person had been robbed and a police Lt. drove right past them as they attempted to flag him down. He was on his way to another call (he said.)
what i was taught back in the dark ages, somebody coming at you with a knife, shoot them, same for somebody showing you how good they are with kung foo. They had to present a threat, 21feet, somebody waving a knife at 20yards isn't a threat at that point. You could only use that force needed to remove the threat, otherwise you were dealing with excessive force. Translated the first couple of shots might be righteous, but if he is laying on the ground bleeding out, not so.
Deflave, in the end, the police actually do not have a duty to any "one" particular citizen. The Supreme court decision reflected that while the women calling for help were certainly in need of police protection, the police weren't required to respond to their request over other calls in progress. The cops were exonerated and the victims were out in the cold. The court held that the cops have a duty to the citizenry at large, but that an individual did not have the right to "expect" the police to come to "their" aid independent of other calls, regardless the emergency nature of the calls. Most departments have a protocol that they follow, but the cops have a lot of leeway in this regard, that keeps them from having to defend themselves against that kind of complaint.
It was used in St. Louis some years back when a person had been robbed and a police Lt. drove right past them as they attempted to flag him down. He was on his way to another call (he said.)
That ruling was undoubtedly held in order to immunize police and cities from a multitude of lawsuits. I believe that most officers take their duty to protect and serve quite seriously.
Of course, it depends on the situation. Back in 1984(?) when Laurie Dann was holed up after shooting up a school in Winnetka and leaving poisoned juice around town (including directly across the street from me), the police opted to wait her out, assuming she would kill herself. They were right.
Dan, I have read your books and enjoyed them greatly.
The difference is that the folks hire the police to protect them. The Supreme Court decision in question nullifies the police end of that relationship.
The difference is that the folks hire the police to protect them. The Supreme Court decision in question nullifies the police end of that relationship.
[quote=Dan_Chamberlain] That ruling was undoubtedly held in order to immunize police and cities from a multitude of lawsuits. I believe that most officers take their duty to protect and serve quite seriously....Dan, I have read your books and enjoyed them greatly.
Anjin, No doubt the majority of police take their duties very seriously. I carried various law enforcement credentials for close to 25 years. I don't bash cops in general, but don't hesitate to bash certain ones in particular.
Thanks for the compliment on the books. I always enjoy hearing that.
