Police defend fatal shooting of UW student

[Andy Moynihan]

I came in on this late, but I wanted to mention something about the "use of force continuum."

Specifically, about the family of the student (I just can't bring myself to call him a "victim") who wanted to know why the police didn't "just taser him."

Not to blame the always-available hollywood scapegoat, but to make a point, my wife and I watch "24" and I use situations in the show to bring up differents points.

One of the things that really bugs me is the depiction of tasers on the show. About twice a season, somebody gets "tasered" and they magically roll their eyes back in their head and go unconscious. Then they conveniently stay unconscious for the required amount of time needed for the story line. In one case, a security guard stayed unconscious for about 30 minutes.

When I talked to my wife about it, she assumed that that was how tasers worked. That somehow they knock you out. If there was a weapon that you could point and fire, and guarantee instant unconsciousness for several minutes, with no lasting side-effects, then yeah, police should use that. I would certainly rather have that than a gun!

Unfortunately, people get upset because they expect police to have an option that doesn't exist. Like "setting your phaser to stun." It's science fiction. When people have this unrealistic expectation, it makes the police's job much harder. Particularly if the stupid people threated the cops expecting to get tasered, or shot with a tranquilizer dart, or something non-lethal.

It's also the same problem they face with the "why did they have to shoot them so many times" problem. People think getting shot with a gun = instant death, with a tell-tale geyser of blood, and the guy flying backwards from a single 9mm. shot.

And of course the old "shoot to wound" argument.

As long as the public doesn't know how this stuff works, we will continue to get people acting stupid in front of cops, people demanding ridiculous types of rules, and the police presence will become more useless, as people villify and shackle them. In response, the police will bond even tighter together, ensuring that there is no accountability for them, since they will believe that they are already held to an impossible standard, for not using fictional weapons to defend the public.

So, please we can help! When you hear someone talk about "just tasering them" talk to them about what a taser actually is, if you don't know the basics, it's not hard to learn.

Come to think of it, Maunakumu isn't the ONLY one thinking of writing a book..........

 

[Makalakumu]

Come to think of it, Maunakumu isn't the ONLY one thinking of writing a book..........

Go for it, Andy!

 

[Archangel M]

Besides what is probably viewed as mutual friction between some posters, this thread is producing some interesting conversation. I think thardey has a great point about the media/news and common expectations regarding use of force.

 

[Makalakumu]

The use of force is ugly, its nasty, and if you have to do it for real, you need to be mentally prepared for it. As martial artists, we talk about this in our dojos quite a bit. This is one of the reasons mental training was considered so valuable in certain warrior arts. Lots of people lampoon the meditation, the breathing exercises, and the visualizations, but, IMO, they are failing to recognize a very important aspect of violence. You need to actually be able to do it. If you can't stomach the thought of hurting another person and you are attacked, you are not going to be able to defend yourself as efficiently. You have to mentally prepare yourself.

For police officers, soldiers, anyone who has got to deal with violence, they've got to prepare their minds for it.

You know, a really good book about this is the Illiad. Take a look at how the soldiers depicted mentally prepare themselves for lives of violence. This book is important, I've read that the military is using it to help soldiers with PTSD. Basically, they use it to reform their self image away from what society expects and to what has always been expected of warriors.

 

[arnisador]

As to police in general.......the same can be said for the military, but even more so......there seems to be a theme in society of expectations of the police and military, based, I suspect, on movies and TV......that we should be fierce warriors in battle, and 5 minutes later, overcome with emotion, in tears, displaying our humanity for all to see. It's an unrealistic expectation, utterly and completely. The fact remains that social workers don't make good cops, and vice versa.

Situations like this call for men who, under the rules of engagement, have no problem putting accurate rounds on target when justified.......whether they feel suitably sad and contrite about the situation after the fact is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT if they acted properly........but some in society demand that they at least have a good case of PTSD so that everyone can feel better about the situation........it's bogus!

There are a lot of cops who can shoot another man in a righteous shooting, and still feel perfectly fine about it for the rest of the life, and that's OKAY! That doesn't make them a bad cop, to the contrary, that often makes them DAMN GOOD COPS! The key is whether the shooting is justified, not whether he cries in the psychiatrists office after the fact. Other cops have difficulty living with it, and THAT is okay too!

I see this, and it largely makes sense to me. (Not every LEO is the same, but I'm sure this is true for many of them.) It takes a certain degree of detachment, or a certain personality, to preserve one's sanity, and that's a useful defense mechanism against PTSD. Good.

But shouldn't the rest of us see the situation from a more middle-of-the-road perspective? Isn't that also appropriate?

 

[arnisador]

I respect your point, but perhaps a society that expects "softness and sensitivity" from its warriors is the one in error eh?

This is often said of the Japanese samurai, though, isn't it? Write a poem, kill a man, paint a picture of a flower? There are cultural issues at play here, including the value they placed on others' lives, but it isn't quite as simple as that.

 

[Makalakumu]

But shouldn't the rest of us see the situation from a more middle-of-the-road perspective?

What does this perspective look like?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm glad that people can be fine and healthy in the job that is an officer, with the need to shoot under the right conditions.

And as arnisador pointed out - it is one thing to be fine with it, to be justified in it, to be righteous (in fact, one must be). But it does come across as boastful, braggish and just plain wrong when it sounds or reads that some are celebratory. There is a line, clearly.

This is a forum where I assume we're discussing reality....do you want honesty or sugar coating?

If you want the sugar coated company line.....SURE, it's an awful tragedy, we regret EVER having to use lethal force against anyone, everyone deserves the right to live, no matter how stupid, or, in some cases evil.

You want reality? Not specifically in this case, as this kid was just dumb and a victim of his own stupidity.....but some people NEED to be shot, DESERVE to be shot, and we have no problem celebrating the deaths of evil men......likewise, we don't feel the need to feel sorry for folks who's own stupidity killed them. That's reality.

 

[sgtmac_46]

ABSO-FREAKIN-LOUTELY! There are plenty of good cops out there who are all screwed up because they think they have lost their humanity when they didnt feel all broken up after killing someone who deserved it.

I believe someone here has already implied that one is a "bad cop" solely due to making light of killing someone who rightly deserved it...that is my case in point.

Absolutely! I think it's too much that we require not only that an officer follow the law, precedent and department policy in such situations......but then, when declared perfectly justified in the rest, must adhere to some unwritten societal expectation, usually dreamed up by others with no experience doing what he's done, about how he should 'feel' about it all.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Perhaps this is a point for another thread but you bring up an interesting point. Somehow death makes everybody worthy of "respect" these days. I always notice that after the latest street killing of some thug, the news portrays him as the "loving father".."student"..."devoted son"...etc. and then they flash up a photograph of him in his thug clothes and bandanna flashing a gang sign. This type of thing seems to be a close cousin to the "become famous by killing a record number of people" thing. Cant seem to find honor in life so go looking for it in death.

Not the same circumstances as here, but an example of the same phenomena IMO.

My point exactly! There are some deaths and people who die who SHOULD be pointed out as a negative example, even in death.

However, unfortunately, in fact, in our society we not only FAIL to ostracize those we should, we sometimes end up GLORIFYING some in death, to the detriment of society......a prime example, and a topic for another thread, was our treatment of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.....

.......the ENTIRE country has spent YEARS trying to 'Understand' Harris and Klebold......sending the message to other young men (and women) that they somehow did something WORTHY of respect.

I provide as an example of this.......http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990503,00.html

There you have Harris and Klebold, in LARGE COLOR PHOTOS, smiling, CENTER OF ATTENTION........and their victims, in small black and white photographs, merely there as a border, a background, MERE PROPS for Harris and Klebold!

If we were a rational society we'd have never shown Kelbold and Harris' faces.........we'd never discussed their 'motives' (which was to get the attention they received!). If we were TRULY more rational than empathetic we'd have denied them marked graves, and treated their memory with the SCORN THEY SO MUCH DESERVED! Refuse to even speak their names, except as a curse.

Some acts are so evil (again not the dumb college guy who got him self killed i'm speaking of) that those who commit should be EX COMMUNICATED FROM SOCIETY, even in death.


Now what does that tell us about our guy in question with the Mauser? Well, he's not earned societal ex communication........but he certainly has earned a degree of ridicule for his actions, lest folks get the wrong idea that he is a VICTIM!

 

[sgtmac_46]

There's a certain amount of callousness that should develop if your job description may include taking another's life. Who can say how it will express itself. Maybe through humor. Maybe through cold acceptance. Maybe through substance abuse. I think that if you are truly concerned about that, it doesn't help to blame the people for doing their job. It would help, however, if we focused that energy of developing a society that minimizes the need for such callousness.

Black humor is common and healthy among not only cops, but firemen (perhaps some of the blackest humor!) and Paramedics, coroners/medical examiners, undertakers, etc..........one CANNOT by hyper-emotional and hyper-empathetic in such jobs for very long.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I came in on this late, but I wanted to mention something about the "use of force continuum."

Specifically, about the family of the student (I just can't bring myself to call him a "victim") who wanted to know why the police didn't "just taser him."

Not to blame the always-available hollywood scapegoat, but to make a point, my wife and I watch "24" and I use situations in the show to bring up differents points.

One of the things that really bugs me is the depiction of tasers on the show. About twice a season, somebody gets "tasered" and they magically roll their eyes back in their head and go unconscious. Then they conveniently stay unconscious for the required amount of time needed for the story line. In one case, a security guard stayed unconscious for about 30 minutes.

When I talked to my wife about it, she assumed that that was how tasers worked. That somehow they knock you out. If there was a weapon that you could point and fire, and guarantee instant unconsciousness for several minutes, with no lasting side-effects, then yeah, police should use that. I would certainly rather have that than a gun!

Unfortunately, people get upset because they expect police to have an option that doesn't exist. Like "setting your phaser to stun." It's science fiction. When people have this unrealistic expectation, it makes the police's job much harder. Particularly if the stupid people threated the cops expecting to get tasered, or shot with a tranquilizer dart, or something non-lethal.

It's also the same problem they face with the "why did they have to shoot them so many times" problem. People think getting shot with a gun = instant death, with a tell-tale geyser of blood, and the guy flying backwards from a single 9mm. shot.

And of course the old "shoot to wound" argument.

As long as the public doesn't know how this stuff works, we will continue to get people acting stupid in front of cops, people demanding ridiculous types of rules, and the police presence will become more useless, as people villify and shackle them. In response, the police will bond even tighter together, ensuring that there is no accountability for them, since they will believe that they are already held to an impossible standard, for not using fictional weapons to defend the public.

So, please we can help! When you hear someone talk about "just tasering them" talk to them about what a taser actually is, if you don't know the basics, it's not hard to learn.

Excellent point!

I had to laugh at the image of bringing a Taser to a MAUSER FIGHT!

:sniper:

 

[sgtmac_46]

I see this, and it largely makes sense to me. (Not every LEO is the same, but I'm sure this is true for many of them.) It takes a certain degree of detachment, or a certain personality, to preserve one's sanity, and that's a useful defense mechanism against PTSD. Good.

But shouldn't the rest of us see the situation from a more middle-of-the-road perspective? Isn't that also appropriate?

Certainly, and I see your point of view.......but the point here is that we're sharing honestly. I certainly wouldn't sit down with my local newspaper reporter and share these tid-bits because too many folks would NEVER get it........

What is the saying? If you like effective law enforcement and a good hotdog, don't look too closely at the process of producing either.......

......well I don't entirely think in a free society we should IGNORE how police protection is provided, but we DEFINITELY shouldn't bring extremely naive and unrealistic expectations to the table when we do so.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The use of force is ugly, its nasty, and if you have to do it for real, you need to be mentally prepared for it. As martial artists, we talk about this in our dojos quite a bit. This is one of the reasons mental training was considered so valuable in certain warrior arts. Lots of people lampoon the meditation, the breathing exercises, and the visualizations, but, IMO, they are failing to recognize a very important aspect of violence. You need to actually be able to do it. If you can't stomach the thought of hurting another person and you are attacked, you are not going to be able to defend yourself as efficiently. You have to mentally prepare yourself.

For police officers, soldiers, anyone who has got to deal with violence, they've got to prepare their minds for it.

You know, a really good book about this is the Illiad. Take a look at how the soldiers depicted mentally prepare themselves for lives of violence. This book is important, I've read that the military is using it to help soldiers with PTSD. Basically, they use it to reform their self image away from what society expects and to what has always been expected of warriors.

Good points.....and to add to this statement 'If you can't stomach the thought of hurting another person and you are attacked, you are not going to defend yourself efficiently'..........and not being able to defend oneself efficiently as an individual is acceptable, there are those who refuse to hurt others no matter what........but we have a word for that as a cop.....'DISQUALIFIED' FOR EMPLOYMENT!


The famous old Portland, Oregon PD entrance exam question consisted as followed.....

'You come upon a large fence that completely surrounds a property, it's too high to climb, you can't go around it, you can't cut through it, you can't go under it.........on the other side of the fence is a cop on the ground, unconscious, and a large man is kicking him in the head......what do you do?'

The appropriate answer is 'I pull out my gun, tell him to stop, if he doesn't I shoot him!'

Anyone who doesn't get that answer right was disqualified for employment........to paraphrase Col. David Grossman, police officers are the only civilian members of society who's job it is, under the appropriate circumstances, to take another human life......they are REQUIRED BY LAW to have the authority and duty to use force, including lethal force, to defend life........society expects it, and demands them to be ready to do so at a moments notice.

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is often said of the Japanese samurai, though, isn't it? Write a poem, kill a man, paint a picture of a flower? There are cultural issues at play here, including the value they placed on others' lives, but it isn't quite as simple as that.

Of course it's not simple, because we're human beings.......but ultimately it's as complicated as we make it.

I choose to simplify it in my mind......if your JOB is to defend the lives of others with lethal force, if you are charged with that duty......even beyond defending yourself........then you spend a great deal of time weighing that in your mind, and demanding of yourself that you be physically, mentally and spiritually prepared for that eventuality.......if you're smart, by the time you're called upon to do that thing for real, you've done it THOUSANDS of times in your own mind, experienced it, tried to create what it would feel like, to inoculate yourself to the effects.

Perhaps the trade off IS a degree of humanity.......but I think Nietzsche had it partially wrong......yes, be careful when fighting monsters lest you become one........but also, I think it takes a bit of a monster to fight them.........but so long as we never lose sight of the reason we do what we do in the first place, so long as we keep our HONOR INTACT, the danger is minimal.

 

[Archangel M]

Anyone who doesn't get that answer right was disqualified for employment........to paraphrase Col. David Grossman, police officers are the only civilian members of society who's job it is, under the appropriate circumstances, to take another human life......they are REQUIRED BY LAW to have the authority and duty to use force, including lethal force, to defend life........society expects it, and demands them to be ready to do so at a moments notice.

IMO, Ive always held an anecdotal opinion that Cops will more often kill people who truly "deserve" it than Soldiers will. Many times a military enemy is just another guy like you or me..he just happens to be on the "other side". Absent political/ideological/national differences we may just have been friends. The "lifer" out on parole who would rather kill you than go back to prison...were he has probably been most of his life...is a different animal.

One can "require killing" and another can "deserve it".. not in the legal sense of course...but in the way the survivor can rationalize it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

IMO, Ive always held an anecdotal opinion that Cops will more often kill people who truly "deserve" it than Soldiers. Many times a military enemy is just another guy like you or me..he just happens to be on the "other side". Absent political/ideological/national differences we may just have been friends. The "lifer" out on parole who would rather kill you than go back to prison...were he has probably been most of his life...is a different animal.

One can "require killing" and another can "deserve it".. not in the legal sense of course...but in the way the survivor can rationalize it.

I can see the point.......though i've got no personal frame of reference, having never fired on another soldier in combat, I really can't say for absolutely certain.......one thing does seem to be tree.......the different ROEs grant a lot more individual autonomy and discretion to the average police officer than the average soldier, and necessarily so.

 

[Archangel M]

Originally Posted by arnisador
I see this, and it largely makes sense to me. (Not every LEO is the same, but I'm sure this is true for many of them.) It takes a certain degree of detachment, or a certain personality, to preserve one's sanity, and that's a useful defense mechanism against PTSD. Good.

But shouldn't the rest of us see the situation from a more middle-of-the-road perspective? Isn't that also appropriate?

Im find this a bit confusing. Im reading it as "I understand why you say the things you do but I still expect you to say the things I want you to say."

I dont mean to be combative, I would just like to understand what it is you are trying to say here. Does the "rest of us seeing the situation" mean how you view the shooting or how you are reacting to the way the LEO's here have reacted to the shooting??

 

[Carol]

No, it means that because you are a cop and should expect that someone is going to claim a completely justified shooting was still your fault in some way, and you must not complain about it when it happens. (said with tongue firmly planted in cheek)

 

[sgtmac_46]

Im find this a bit confusing. Im reading it as "I understand why you say the things you do but I still expect you to say the things I want you to say."

I dont mean to be combative, I would just like to understand what it is you are trying to say here. Does the "rest of us seeing the situation" mean how you view the shooting or how you are reacting to the way the LEO's here have reacted to the shooting??

I actually think it has more to do with the notion that you 'should' feel bad about shooting someone, even if it's justified......and if you don't, then it makes many folks feel uncomfortable. I say that without sarcasm, as it's very true that it makes 'normal' folks feel uncomfortable if you're able to shoot someone and not feel devastated by it as they feel they would.

What it boils down to, and I do understand what is going on here, is that 'normal' folks feel......'uncomfortable' around killers and even the idea of intentionally killing someone else.....even if that killer has never killed anyone that he wasn't justified in killing......and that statements of remorse and regret about those killings, even if they were completely justified legally, ethically and morally, make them more palatable to 'normal' folks.

At the end of the day, the kind of callousness some of us take as a matter of course in the face of violence and death, is overwhelming, uncomfortable and a bit intimidating, or at least, very unpalatable to normal decent folks.......and as a result they view us askance.