Suspect with crowbar killed by police - Page 78

On January 25 2012 08:44 Tula wrote:


That is pretty much standard procedure to a certain extent.

They take position so that the suspect cannot see them when he exits the building (mostly to avoid the suspect taking hostages) and then challenge them and give verbal warnings from a certain range (5-10m optimal range in Austria, not sure what they train for in the USA).

They need to be close enough to be clearly understood, and also to reduce the chance of bystanders to become involved. The video is not good enough to accuratly judge the distance, but it seems to be about 5m.

Anything beyond that range makes it almost impossible to tazer someone (unless he is in swim shorts). Even at the range he used the tazer failed because he did not hit correctly.

If they stand away more than that they cannot stop him from drawing a gun in many situations, it also becomes difficult to shoot accuratly with a handgun beyond 10m range.

To make my position clear again, i agree that 10 shots is too much, but i harshly disagree with the fact that it makes a difference. Once the situation has escalated to shooting level its almost certain the suspect being shot at will die. If a suspect attacks (or threatens to attack very clearly) a police officer with a deadly weapon, i have no sympathy for them.

Ps: Nowadays most police dogs are not actually trained to attack suspects, they are used to search for drugs, bombs, bodies etc.

PPS: German and Austrian police would have reacted almost the same if they had operated by the book. The only difference is they would likely not have brought a tazer in the first place, but if a suspect refuses to disarm and approaches a police officer with something close to a weapon they will be required to shoot for center mass by their training.

edit: From the sound it seems to me as if the shots were fired from two different guns. Possible different reaction speeds from the two officers present. Also note that we have absolutly zero knowledge what happened behind that car, from the way they kept their guns trained on him, it certainly doesn't seem to me as if the police officers considered him completly disabled or dead.

On January 25 2012 08:53 Tula wrote:


Yes, those are the basic arguments explained to me in my training. If you are shouting from 20m away you personally might be fairly safe, but there might be (and often are) quite a few bystanders far closer to the suspect.

I am not quite sure if the word can be used in English for this context, but in German it's called "Wirkungsraum", i guess the closest translation would area of intervention (instead of effect which would be literal). You need to be close enough to restrict the options for the suspect (run away, take hostage, take cover behind something before shooting etc.) without unduly exposing yourselve to risks (meaning definitly outside of meele range).

On January 25 2012 06:25 sMi.EternaL wrote:
I very rarely post in these types of threads. Emotions usually run high and opinions are always fickle beasts. That being said, since this is actually an area in which I am very familiar I will try to shed some light on the situation for those saying this is an unjustified shoot.

A little background first. I am a former Marine weapons instructor and am now a private sector weapons instructor. As someone that teaches officers what to do in this situation I can say that this is an absolutely justifiable shoot.

In the Law Enforcement/Military world you are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Stop the threat means exactly that. There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a "Body Alarm Response," your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don't even realize what was happening until after the fact. This officer did exactly what he should have done and fell back on his training and by doing so potentially saved the life of his partner. His initial burst did not drop the suspect, as you can see he's still standing, they have no way of knowing what kind of weapons systems he is carrying on his person other than the object in his hand. You either put the threat down and know you're safe or gamble with your life and the lives of those around you. How horrible would you feel if you were this officer, you shot your initial rounds and then stopped giving the suspect time to pull his pistol from his waistband and kill your partner? It happens, and so we train to make sure that does NOT happen.

I personally teach every student I've ever trained that his main priority is to make it home safe. Your wife/kids/husband/partner are expecting you & counting on you. If someone is coming at you/friend/family, you drop them absolutely. You never shoot to kill but you always shoot to stop the threat, in most cases this will kill the individual but that is never our intention. Hindsight and outside perspective is extremely skewed in these types of situations.

As far as being able to justify a shooting you have to be able to say to yourself, DAM! DAM is Desire, Ability and Means. This suspect displayed desire, he was well within range/had the capability to end that officers life and he definitely had the means.

Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense. If a person walks into a bank and tries to rob it in this manner he still gets assault with a deadly weapon/armed robbery etc charges. And those cases happen more frequently than you might think. In this case the suspect very obviously had a weapon and displayed an attempt to use it. Training kicked in and that was all she wrote.