The Equalizer - What role do weapons serve?

[Gerry Seymour]

Makes sense, and I really appreciate the thoughtful answer. I can totally see your point where there are no weapons, or even where non-lethal weapons, are involved. In the case of most weapons, sharp ones, pointy ones, or ones that fire projectiles, overwhelming force is often pretty definitive, regardless of whether you are exercising sound judgement or not.

What prompted the question is actually something I heard about in the news just this morning. For the second time in a week, the Seattle PD shot and killed someone, and when I read the term "overwhelming force" it reminded me of how cops approach situations. And I have to say, sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes, it just seems like cops were the wrong tool for the job.

First time, last week (2/9/21) a guy shoots two people, killing one of them, and then later points the gun at the cops who shoot him.

This time, just last night, a guy was "in distress" (the phrase used in multiple articles), was walking down a deserted street (for those that don't know, the Seattle waterfront right now is pretty well deserted after dark, particularly in that area south of the ferry terminal) carrying a kitchen knife he had used to cut himself. They don't say he was a threat to others, though clearly he was a threat to himself. According to the articles I've read, the cops tried to use non-lethal force and that "didn't work". The man then "came at them" so they shot him and killed him.

Police: Officers fatally shoot man armed with knife near Seattle Waterfront

My point in bringing these two up is that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. These are two very different situations, where in one a person ended up dead because cops got involved, not in spite of it. In other words, the cops engineered a "self defense" situation where they then used overwhelming force with a predictable outcome.

In my opinion, if your version of overwhelming force includes a gun, once you feel threatened, you will probably end up killing someone or being killed yourself. This is true whether you are right or wrong.

One of the problems for cops is that they - from discussions I’ve had with quite a few - are trained to focus on eliminating threats. This seems to sometimes translate to eliminating threats that are not imminent.

This is part of the problem in asking people to deal with mental health issues, when their training is oriented at dealing with intentional threats.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

One of the problems for cops is that they - from discussions I’ve had with quite a few - are trained to focus on eliminating threats. This seems to sometimes translate to eliminating threats that are not imminent.

This is part of the problem in asking people to deal with mental health issues, when their training is oriented at dealing with intentional threats.

The other issue is that, mental illness or no, a guy with a knife isa guy with a knife... The knife isn't suddenly any less deadly because the guy who holds it isn't fully aware of his actions.

Also, and @Kemposhot can speak to this, most cops get minimal unarmed training, which means that, unless they can stop a threat with less-lethal weapons like a TASER, they're more likely to opt in favor of lethal force (which, coincidentally, the average patrolman doesn't get enough training with, either).

 

[Steve]

That's because sometimes they are. In an ideal world, calls involving mental health issues would be handled by someone actually trained to deal with mental health emergencies. Some police forces are making some moves in this direction, but it's a long way from being fully implemented even in those areas.

whoa. Be careful. That's anti cop speech.

Saying they "engineered" the situation makes it sound as if their goal was to kill this man. I really doubt that's true.

not exactly. It means they created it by virtue of being a hammer. They approached a person in distress who was a danger to himself, tazed him (or something like that) and then, shockingly, felt threatened by the guy. They saw something and treated it like a nail. The end result was sadly predictable.

That assumes that your version of overwhelming force has no options other than shooting someone. That's an unwarranted assumption. A gun is absolutely an option in my response to a threat. It has been for lots and lots of years. But it's not the only option, and I haven't had to shoot anyone.

curious, have you pulled it out and pointed it at someone?

 

[Steve]

To be clear, my point is simply that whether good judgement is exercised or not, whether there is real threat or self created threat, or actually no threat at all, if a weapon is involved and someone wielding that weapon FEELS threatened (ie, is afraid), the result is predictable. In the two cases that happened to occur here within a week, one situation appears well justified and the other really seems avoidable. Ultimately, the end result is the same.

So the idea of overwhelming force until the person is no longer a threat just hits me differently than it does you, clearly.

 

[Steve]

One of the problems for cops is that they - from discussions I’ve had with quite a few - are trained to focus on eliminating threats. This seems to sometimes translate to eliminating threats that are not imminent.

This is part of the problem in asking people to deal with mental health issues, when their training is oriented at dealing with intentional threats.

that's exactly the rationale behind "defunding the police" in order to fund people better prepared and better trained. But cops seem to take that sort of thing personally. FWIW, I think you and dd are very reasonable, but in some places, what you're saying will be perceived as anti-cop.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Also, and @Kemposhot can speak to this, most cops get minimal unarmed training, which means that, unless they can stop a threat with less-lethal weapons like a TASER, they're more likely to opt in favor of lethal force (which, coincidentally, the average patrolman doesn't get enough training with, either).

But they make up for this by knowing genderless pronouns and learning how to show empathy to felons who are victims of society.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The other issue is that, mental illness or no, a guy with a knife isa guy with a knife... The knife isn't suddenly any less deadly because the guy who holds it isn't fully aware of his actions.

Also, and @Kemposhot can speak to this, most cops get minimal unarmed training, which means that, unless they can stop a threat with less-lethal weapons like a TASER, they're more likely to opt in favor of lethal force (which, coincidentally, the average patrolman doesn't get enough training with, either).

Agreed. And we don't have specific details on what transpired here. It's possible the cops were containing the situation and trying to talk him down, and he suddenly charged with the knife. In a case like that, he quickly becomes an imminent threat to the officers.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But they make up for this by knowing genderless pronouns and learning how to show empathy to felons who are victims of society.

I'm not sure what the point of this comment is, nor how it pertains to the post you quoted.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

There are definitely valid, non-political topics within the usefulness of weapons/guns, but as a reminder try to stay away from the political aspects of those discussions.

 

[Steve]

Agreed. And we don't have specific details on what transpired here. It's possible the cops were containing the situation and trying to talk him down, and he suddenly charged with the knife. In a case like that, he quickly becomes an imminent threat to the officers.

The full story will come out, but this guy was by himself, threatening only himself. This is consistent among all accounts so far, including from the police. The Port of Seattle police apparently tried some kind of non-lethal force. The guy became more agitated and then he ended up being shot several times by more than one cop.

To be very clear, my point isn't that cops are bad or cops are good. I get that they are doing a job and want to get home. I am very simply making a point that when "overwhelming force" comes to bear, the results can quickly escalate beyond what is reasonable or necessary. And, I believe, "overwhelming force" can actually cause the situation to escalate.

@Dirty Dog suggested the following:

Not necessarily. I've seen a couple studies (of the records search kind) that showed drawing a gun could end a confrontation without a shot ever being fired roughly 75% of the time. Likely because if it's obvious you've got overwhelming force, the other side probably has the sense to realize it. At which point self-preservation encourages them to stop.

I'm not sure how reliable this is, but it raises a question I have for those of us who are not professionally violent (i.e., not a cop, bouncer, mob enforcer, soldier of fortune, etc). I'm curious if anyone here has ever actually, in real life, personally (i.e., you and not someone you know or your teacher), brandished a weapon along the lines of a knife or gun (i.e., more serious than a stick, or something generally considered to be "non-lethal" such as pepper spray). And if so, did you actually use the weapon? Did the person run away in terror as described above?

 

[Steve]

There are definitely valid, non-political topics within the usefulness of weapons/guns, but as a reminder try to stay away from the political aspects of those discussions.

Yeah, @Dirty Dog and @gpseymour. Watch that 'defund the police' stuff.

 

[Steve]

Agreed. And we don't have specific details on what transpired here. It's possible the cops were containing the situation and trying to talk him down, and he suddenly charged with the knife. In a case like that, he quickly becomes an imminent threat to the officers.

I mean, they did taze him first. I think, based on what we're hearing now, it's pretty likely he acted unpredictably and was potentially a danger to the cops, after they "unsuccessfully applied non-lethal force" that "didn't work." For what it's worth, I've shared what we know from the reports.

The salient point here has to do with skills, preparation, problem solving, and intended or predictable outcomes. Cops do what they do and know what they know. Just like all of us. Not that we all have the same training; rather, that our reactions in a crisis are a product of what we know and what we can do. We all have training and experiences that lead us to react in situation. While some cops have specialized training, the way cops handle situations is within a predictable spectrum.

A question is, for folks with a gun, is there a similar escalation that some (most?) folks are even less prepared to de-escalate than cops. Or, looking at it from another perspective, is it fair to say that this guy felt threatened by the cops who brought overwhelming force to bear? Probably. Does that matter?

 

[Dirty Dog]

whoa. Be careful. That's anti cop speech.

Not really. Or at least, our son the cop doesn't think so. He'd be delighted to let someone trained in psych deal with psych calls. He'd likely be there are backup (which makes sense, given the potentials...) but having someone who knows what they're doing take lead would be fine with him.

curious, have you pulled it out and pointed it at someone?

Yes. Once. The kid I mentioned above was out seeing friends in our neck of the woods, and decided he was too tired to drive back home. But he forgot to text me and let me know he was coming. So... 0200-ish my Rowdy perks up and woofs. Then I hear the front door. I grabbed the bedside gun and stepped to the doorway, where I would be able to see the hall. Flashed the light. Recognized our son.
Other than that, there have been a couple times when I've had my hand on the grip (it sits at 4 o'clock, right behind my hip) prepared to draw, but did not have to.
In one case, a guy followed me to work, pissed off because I passed him. I didn't cut him off or anything, I just passed him. I was no doubt speeding. I generally do, but we're talking less than 10 MPH above the limit on a lightly traveled 4-lane divided highway. He accosted me in the parking lot and was screaming and carrying on, and making verbal threats, but did not approach. Another staff member parked, saw/heard, went in, and called security. They came out. He bolted. I took my hand off my gun.
In the other, Sue and I were driving home from visiting kids and stopped at a Loves to get gas and Subway. We're sitting there eat, and Sue tells me to look over my shoulder. Homeless guy is looking in the window, staring at a 8-10 year old girl, masturbating. I went out the door with one hand behind my hip and my cell phone on the other. Snapped his face. Dialed 911 and spoke loudly. He bolted. I took my hand off my gun.



And no, our son was never in any danger. The booger picker doesn't touch the boom stick until you've identified a target and are ready to shoot.

 

[Steve]

Not really. Or at least, our son the cop doesn't think so. He'd be delighted to let someone trained in psych deal with psych calls. He'd likely be there are backup (which makes sense, given the potentials...) but having someone who knows what they're doing take lead would be fine with him.

It was a joke, big guy. I think it's great that the overton window is moving in the right direction on this topic. Genuinely, I don't see this as being controversial, but the topic has been overtly politicized over the last few years, which has made practical discussion dicey. Simply put, cops who recognize what they are good at and what they aren't is a great thing.

Yes. Once. The kid I mentioned above was out seeing friends in our neck of the woods, and decided he was too tired to drive back home. But he forgot to text me and let me know he was coming. So... 0200-ish my Rowdy perks up and woofs. Then I hear the front door. I grabbed the bedside gun and stepped to the doorway, where I would be able to see the hall. Flashed the light. Recognized our son.
Other than that, there have been a couple times when I've had my hand on the grip (it sits at 4 o'clock, right behind my hip) prepared to draw, but did not have to.

Okay. So, just to be clear, the one time you drew your weapon and pointed it at someone, it was your son. I'm glad that didn't turn out to be a tragic story.

In one case, a guy followed me to work, pissed off because I passed him. I didn't cut him off or anything, I just passed him. I was no doubt speeding. I generally do, but we're talking less than 10 MPH above the limit on a lightly traveled 4-lane divided highway. He accosted me in the parking lot and was screaming and carrying on, and making verbal threats, but did not approach. Another staff member parked, saw/heard, went in, and called security. They came out. He bolted. I took my hand off my gun.

In the other, Sue and I were driving home from visiting kids and stopped at a Loves to get gas and Subway. We're sitting there eat, and Sue tells me to look over my shoulder. Homeless guy is looking in the window, staring at a 8-10 year old girl, masturbating. I went out the door with one hand behind my hip and my cell phone on the other. Snapped his face. Dialed 911 and spoke loudly. He bolted. I took my hand off my gun.

View attachment 23650 View attachment 23651

And no, our son was never in any danger. The booger picker doesn't touch the boom stick until you've identified a target and are ready to shoot.

Cute dog.

 

[Dirty Dog]

It was a joke, big guy. I think it's great that the overton window is moving in the right direction on this topic. Genuinely, I don't see this as being controversial, but the topic has been overtly politicized over the last few years, which has made practical discussion dicey. Simply put, cops who recognize what they are good at and what they aren't is a great thing.

Agreed, and it would be nice if people would stop trying to turn everything into clickbait.

Okay. So, just to be clear, the one time you drew your weapon and pointed it at someone, it was your son. I'm glad that didn't turn out to be a tragic story.

There was never any chance of that. It was pointed because that was necessary to use the light.

Cute dog.

He's a good boi!

[Edit to add] If I had been carrying when I lost my eye, I would absolutely have been willing to use it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The full story will come out, but this guy was by himself, threatening only himself. This is consistent among all accounts so far, including from the police. The Port of Seattle police apparently tried some kind of non-lethal force. The guy became more agitated and then he ended up being shot several times by more than one cop.

To be very clear, my point isn't that cops are bad or cops are good. I get that they are doing a job and want to get home. I am very simply making a point that when "overwhelming force" comes to bear, the results can quickly escalate beyond what is reasonable or necessary. And, I believe, "overwhelming force" can actually cause the situation to escalate.

@Dirty Dog suggested the following:
I'm not sure how reliable this is, but it raises a question I have for those of us who are not professionally violent (i.e., not a cop, bouncer, mob enforcer, soldier of fortune, etc). I'm curious if anyone here has ever actually, in real life, personally (i.e., you and not someone you know or your teacher), brandished a weapon along the lines of a knife or gun (i.e., more serious than a stick, or something generally considered to be "non-lethal" such as pepper spray). And if so, did you actually use the weapon? Did the person run away in terror as described above?

I’ll give an anecdote from the other side. My dad had a gun pulled on him once. It absolutely stopped him in his tracks without being fired. Thankfully, the guy didn’t know how the gun worked (stolen from my dad’s car) and was unable to fire.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

I've pulled my weapon once when threatened by a dude with a blade, but, by that point, I was barricaded in a room with the police on the phone, waiting for the police to arrive, so there was no opportunity for it to act as a deterrent.

In another situation, I was on vacation, and bringing my bags out to my car. The people in the cabin next to mine had a dog that had already snarled at me and chased me once that day. So, I close my trunk, go to walk down the steep staircase down the hill to my cabin, and, at the bottom of the steps, their dog is snarling at me. I call out to the owners:

"Excuse me, can you please control your dog?"

They say "what?" and laugh it off. Dog continues to snarl. I reach behind me and grip my concealed pistol in its holster (5 o'clock position). Owners see this, and their attitude immediately changes.

"MOLLY, COME NOW MOLLY!" Dog returns to owners, I return to my cabin without further incident.

Now, understand, I'm a dog lover... I had precisely zero desire to shoot this family's dog on vacation. However, I also had precisely zero desire to get stitches and/or a rabies shot. My assuming of a posture that communicated my ability to escalate force caused them to modify their behavior. Not the exact same as drawing on somebody, but I can absolutely see that staring down the barrel of a weapon will make you question your life choices real fast.

 

[Steve]

I’ll give an anecdote from the other side. My dad had a gun pulled on him once. It absolutely stopped him in his tracks without being fired. Thankfully, the guy didn’t know how the gun worked (stolen from my dad’s car) and was unable to fire.

I've had knives pulled on me several times. I survived all of those times without being stabbed, and both I and the other guy lived to tell the tale. I think both I and the other guy lived, to be honest, because I didn't have a gun and respond with overwhelming force. Said the other way, I think if I had a gun, either I would have been killed by him or someone else, or I would have killed the guy. I really do believe that. Whether it was in West Berlin at the tail end of the cold war, when I worked daily with people who were abusing drugs or alcohol, often homeless and disabled, when I was asked to break up fights outside of the McD's I worked at in high school, or while going to school in the CD in Seattle in the 80s, when gang activity was high and weapons were common. In each of these contexts, I've been threatened with weapons. That's kind of what I'm getting at, as a bit of a thought exercise.

If I had responded to the threat with overwhelming force, would that have changed the outcome? And if so, would it have changed the outcome for the better or otherwise? I mean, I was pretty young. If I had been carrying a gun, which would have been easy to do at the time, I think I probably would have shot the dudes. I know I would have in one case. Might have killed him... or someone else on accident. What would that have done to me? It's this idea of "overwhelming force" that just... I don't know guys. I don't like it. Doesn't feel right to me. Feels like an attitude that is more harmful than helpful.

And just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about warzones or cops or stuff like that. I'm talking about regular people doing regular things.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

I've had knives pulled on me several times. I survived all of those times without being stabbed, and both I and the other guy lived to tell the tale. I think both I and the other guy lived, to be honest, because I didn't have a gun and respond with overwhelming force. Said the other way, I think if I had a gun, either I would have been killed by him or someone else, or I would have killed the guy. I really do believe that. Whether it was in West Berlin at the tail end of the cold war, when I worked daily with people who were abusing drugs or alcohol, often homeless and disabled, when I was asked to break up fights outside of the McD's I worked at in high school, or while going to school in the CD in Seattle in the 80s, when gang activity was high and weapons were common. In each of these contexts, I've been threatened with weapons. That's kind of what I'm getting at, as a bit of a thought exercise.

If I had responded to the threat with overwhelming force, would that have changed the outcome? And if so, would it have changed the outcome for the better or otherwise? I mean, I was pretty young. If I had been carrying a gun, which would have been easy to do at the time, I think I probably would have shot the dudes. I know I would have in one case. Might have killed him... or someone else on accident. What would that have done to me? It's this idea of "overwhelming force" that just... I don't know guys. I don't like it. Doesn't feel right to me. Feels like an attitude that is more harmful than helpful.

And just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about warzones or cops or stuff like that. I'm talking about regular people doing regular things.

You bring up a good point, and it's ultimately a matter of morality that has to be addressed by the individual. However, I will posit a hypothetical to you: let's say one of those guys wielding a blade didn't back off, and instead inflicted a lethal wound on you. Would you still agree, as you lay there bleeding out, that it was better that you didn't have a weapon. I ask because a lot of defensive tactics doctrine relies on acting violently enough, quickly enough, to prevent the violent act from occurring. In hindsight, that was unnecessary in the scenario you described, but it could have easily gone the other way.

I know that I'm glad I didn't shoot the guy who pulled a blade on me, but I also know that, had he breached the room I retreated to, I would have. I made a decision that night that I was going to see my friends and family again, and I am comfortable with that decision.

 

[Steve]

You bring up a good point, and it's ultimately a matter of morality that has to be addressed by the individual. However, I will posit a hypothetical to you: let's say one of those guys wielding a blade didn't back off, and instead inflicted a lethal wound on you. Would you still agree, as you lay there bleeding out, that it was better that you didn't have a weapon. I ask because a lot of defensive tactics doctrine relies on acting violently enough, quickly enough, to prevent the violent act from occurring. In hindsight, that was unnecessary in the scenario you described, but it could have easily gone the other way.

I know that I'm glad I didn't shoot the guy who pulled a blade on me, but I also know that, had he breached the room I retreated to, I would have. I made a decision that night that I was going to see my friends and family again, and I am comfortable with that decision.

Several of them didn't back off. I didn't roll over on my back and show my belly, for Pete's sake. Every one of them played out differently. The point, though, is that in none of those situations did I react with overwhelming force. Instead, I reacted with appropriate force in order to keep myself and others safe, without doing more damage to the other guy than necessary. AND, if I had a gun, I'm not sure that would have been possible.