Chicago Police Kill Teen Armed With A Knife

Thanks Vince (and others) for explaining. It does make sense, of course. My instinctive gut-response to things like this is a horrified "but why?", since the loss of life is so serious. But I wholeheartedly agree that no one, police officer or civilian, should have to get hurt before extreme measures are taken.

cmhbob said:

Why should modern technology change this? You've indicated by your choice of weapons that you're willing to kill me. Why should I have to do anything less-than-lethal?

Click to expand...

Because we should be able to expect better than that.

No crime comes with a minimum penalty of death. At least not anymore.

Our justice system can do better than an eye-for-an-eye.

(Besides, being "armed" doesn't necessarily indicate any intention to use it as a weapon or any desire to hurt anyone at all... I can think of a certain woodcarver...)

Edit: If he did actually attack with the knife, then I can understand the use of deadly force. But it seems to me simply refusing to drop a knife should meet a more reasonable response than being shot.

kuwisdelu said:

Why's that? Seems perfect for taking down someone with a knife.

Non-lethal, and you have longer range than they do.

I thought that was what they were designed for.

Click to expand...

What, have you not seen James Coburn in the Magnificent Seven?

Also, cops aren't the Lone Ranger...they don't have the skill to shoot knives out of assailants hands.

And as to the original thread title:

One bright day, in the middle of the night,
Two dead boys got up to fight,
Back to back, they faced each other,
Drew their swords and shot each other,
A deaf policeman heard the sound
And came and shot the dead boys down.

Click to expand...

We used to recite this as kids, I'm not sure who the author was...

kuwisdelu said:

Because we should be able to expect better than that.

No crime comes with a minimum penalty of death. At least not anymore.

Our justice system can do better than an eye-for-an-eye.

(Besides, being "armed" doesn't necessarily indicate any intention to use it as a weapon or any desire to hurt anyone at all... I can think of a certain woodcarver...)

Edit: If he did actually attack with the knife, then I can understand the use of deadly force. But it seems to me simply refusing to drop a knife should meet a more reasonable response than being shot.

Click to expand...

The problem with your response is that you're looking at their actions as punitive. "He's got a knife, he deserves to die" is how you're reading their mentality. If a person shoots at a police officer, it's not license to execute. This was an action born out of defense. Their defense used deadly physical force because that was the most reasonable way to protect them. If they had wounded him and he fell to the ground, dropping the knife, they don't get to finish the job.

You also I think don't understand how quickly someone with a knife can kill someone. They're not going to wait until he's coming at them, now a moving target. Even if they shoot him, his momentum and body strength can still propel him to get close enough to use the knife, injuring or killing you.

kuwisdelu said:

Edit: If he did actually attack with the knife, then I can understand the use of deadly force. But it seems to me simply refusing to drop a knife should meet a more reasonable response than being shot.

Click to expand...

Well, he was actively using the knife. And he used it on one of the squad cars. So "simply refusing to drop a knife" is not accurate in the least, even if one questions whether or not he attacked.

Diana Hignutt said:

Also, cops aren't the Lone Ranger...they don't have the skill to shoot knives out of assailants hands.

Click to expand...

I never said they do. I said I thought handling situations like this without resorting to lethal force was the whole point of designing new technologies like taser guns. It appears I was mistaken, but it seems to me that's still a noble goal to pursue, and something we should be doing. I'm honestly surprised that's not their intended purpose.

If resolving otherwise lethal situations non-lethally isn't their point, then what is? Escalating non-lethal situations?

kuwisdelu said:

If resolving otherwise lethal situations non-lethally isn't their point, then what is? Escalating non-lethal situations?

Click to expand...

Resolving situations where the suspect doesn't necessarily pose a threat to someone's life or health, but still requires the use of force, with minimal harm to both suspect and officer.

Before Tasers, the only options a cop had in between his bare hands and his gun were batons and OC spray. Both require the officer to be very close to the suspect and both cause lasting discomfort and injuries (with OC spray possibly also to the officer.)

Getting tased sucks, but it lasts five seconds and that's it. Typically no lasting damage. Isn't that preferable to spraying someone with an inflammatory chemical or beating them with a stick?

cmhbob said:

I've posted on TASER procedure before. Knives are lethal weapons. You don't face a lethal weapon with a LTL device. That's a standard TASER policy.

You could also Youtube the training video "Edged Weapons" or Google "Tueller rule" or "Tueller distance," and learn how it easy it is to kill someone with a knife even when you're twenty-one feet away.

Click to expand...

As usual, it all depends on the situation.

If you are alone, facing a man with a knife, you shouldn't even think about using the taser. You are facing potentially lethal force and not only policy but common sense dictates that you employ your firearm.

On the other hand, if you have four or five officers surrounding a man who is not actively threatening them with a knife but simply holding it and refusing to drop it, that's a different story.

You can have officers with their guns trained on the man and at the same time have an officer use a taser on the suspect in an attempt to disarm him. As the OP says, without a lot more information on the exact circumstances of this case, it's impossible to say whether or not the shooting was justified.

asroc said:

Getting tased sucks, but it lasts five seconds and that's it. Typically no lasting damage. Isn't that preferable to spraying someone with an inflammatory chemical or beating them with a stick?

Click to expand...

No. I would think unarmed vs unarmed is most fair. That's what the training is for, no?

And it only lasts five seconds until more than five seconds is needed to keep you down.

kuwisdelu said:

No. I would think unarmed vs unarmed is most fair. That's what the training is for, no?

Click to expand...

No. This is the real world. It's not supposed to be fair.

asroc said:

No. This is the real world. It's not supposed to be fair.

Click to expand...

And IMO it's the purpose of the law to try to balance and counteract that. To make the world more fair.

kuwisdelu said:

No. I would think unarmed vs unarmed is most fair. That's what the training is for, no?

And it only lasts five seconds until more than five seconds is needed to keep you down.

Click to expand...

So cops should give the guy with the knife or gun a fair chance to kill them? Really?

Vince524 said:

So cops should give the guy with the knife or gun a fair chance to kill them? Really?

Click to expand...

asroc asked about unarmed confrontations. I replied about unarmed confrontations.

I didn't ask about unarmed confrontations. I tried to explain where Tasers fall in the use of force continuum.

asroc said:

I didn't ask about unarmed confrontations. I tried to explain where Tasers fall in the use of force continuum.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I misinterpreted.

Armed Knife With Police Teen Kill A Chicago

Exactly.

kuwisdelu said:

Sorry. I misinterpreted.

Click to expand...

No problem.