For those of you who have not heard John Winkler (production assistant of Tosh.o) Had been killed by police officers when attempting to help neighbors who were attacked by a man with a knife. When Winkler left the building he and another man who had been stabbed were shot by frenzied police officers. The man stabbed in the neck was shot and in the leg and survived however Winkler was not so lucky. Although I'm a little fuzzy on the details I encourage people to research this story of irisponsible officers of the law. One more thing I am an advocate of non lethal weapons and I feel like better use of them could have prevented this.
What I can't figure out is why they shot him four times and the other man once if they were already under the impression that the other man was a victim and John was the assailant.
So, this wouldn't have happened if the cops didn't have guns?
I think his point is that, when your job is to protect people, using lethal means isn't always the best choice. Especially when it comes to situations where you aren't sure who is the aggressor.
I'm not sure what alternative weapons might be available, tazers, tranquilizers, or things like rubber bullets and tear gas, but none of the ones I know of can immediately put down someone and have range with stopping power and the ability to be quickly refired. Well, tranquilizers maybe, if they act extremely fast.
What I can't figure out is why they shot him four times and the other man once if they were already under the impression that the other man was a victim and John was the assailant.
It probably wasn't an intentional hit. They would have been relatively close together, running, and it was dark.
So, this wouldn't have happened if the cops didn't have guns?
In this situation, yes. It's kind of hard to accidentally shoot someone without a gun. However, you're the one making the strawman, hasty generalization argument that the police should not have guns because of an accident.
Yet again a play made to blame guns for people using them irresponsibly,
It wasn't irresponsible. It was an accident. Samiel has a point that if a non-lethal means to subdue the presumed aggressor had been used, an innocent person wouldn't be dead. This doesn't mean the police shouldn't have guns or that there is never a place for them, but in this instance, it would have been a different outcome.
-Haven't seen cops with tazers in a while, but in a dangerous situation I would expect them to use a more powerful stopping tool
I haven't ever seen cops using anything, but I've seen them carrying tazers. The biggest problem is you only get one shot in a situation and they aren't as accurate as a gun.
-Tranquilizers? Fired from what, a crossbow? That would involve a projectile needle and you can't just carry around a bolt-action rifle.
Er. Gas cartridge or pressurized chambers? I'm pretty sure they have semi-automatic tranquilizer guns, or could make them if they didn't already.
-A police-issue "rubber bullet" is usually a 40-millimeter metal shell coated in rubber. Yes, a metal bullet coated in rubber. Police-issue "baton" rounds are also popular in 12-gauge form, which delivers 105 pounds of energy into a target zone one inch square. They have caused permanent physical damage...and death.
Yeah. But they aren't as lethal as a bullet. Any idea how effective they are at making a person fall to the ground and staying there?
Yes, a cop has a better chance of killing someone by using a firearm, but I think at some point the person operating the firearm needs to be "dealt with."
In the situation the article outline, I can't really fault the officers involved. They were responding to a call and saw two people burst out a door. One was bleeding and the other was apparently close behind. They probably knew the attacker had a knife and, being around 9:30pm, it was dark.
This wasn't an accident. They made a false assumption and opened fire on a man without waiting for compliance or an explanation.
Yes, they were wrong about their assumption. But they had reasons to make that assumption. That's sort of why we call it an accident.
Seriously, they put four bullets in him. You can't write that kind of accuracy off as an accident, and I wouldn't be willing to forgive them so quickly.
There's no doubt they intended to shoot the guy. That was never up for debate. I wonder how many officers were present and how many bullets were fired though? One person shooting 5+ rounds would be very questionable. Three or four officers each firing one or two rounds at the same time would explain it.
I'm not "forgiving" them either. From the available information I have, there's no outright reason to condemn them. As other details surface that may change. I'm neutral about it.
Given the above details I listed on some LTL weapons, what weapon would you have wanted on-hand if you, as a police officer responding to a call, saw a man running behind another man who was bleeding heavily?
A tranq gun (they exist, I looked them up, and there are pistol sized ones) or rubber bullet would have been the only thing with reliable stopping power and accuracy from a distance. The problem with the tranquilizers though is they aren't instantly effective. So at this point in time, probably rubber bullets.
My point is if police officers were to use say a tazer or a bean bag gun it might have made a little more sense and could have prevented this. Let's not make this about something it isn't the police made a mistake and now we have a problem to fix. I just think we should fix it with non-lethal weapons. Consider what happened for a minute and think what you would do if you thought a violent attacker was approaching you. I don't know about you but I think I would shoot now it comes down to this and what makes all the difference is the weapon in your hand. .40 cal Glock and the man is killed. Tazer and the man gets an unsafe distance near officers before being incapacitated. Bean bag gun and the man has the wind knocked out of him and passes out. Now what do you think police should have used?
I think ultimately, guns are not the issue in this case. Police officers going over-zealous has likely a different cause than just carrying a weapon. Because usually when there is a news article about police shooting people, it is not only the fact they shot, but almost more importantly how often they shot and where they hit. And even without guns police officers sometimes are faced with accusations of being too repressive, like in certain mass demonstrations. There's probably something with stress and other psychological thingamajicks.
I'm not "forgiving" them either. From the available information I have, there's no outright reason to condemn them. As other details surface that may change. I'm neutral about it.
If this had been a group of legally armed civilians, you'd say "We need more regulation and restrictions so morons like these don't kill innocent people." Why the double-standard based on their profession?
If this had been a group of legally armed civilians, you'd say "We need more regulation and restrictions so morons like these don't kill innocent people." Why the double-standard based on their profession?
You may be right, but that's only because of some underlying assumptions I associate with a police officer and a civilian. Owning a gun for a civilian requires no training whatsoever. Police officers are trained to react in situations like this and it's their job to do so. While the judgement call in this scenario was wrong, a police officer is generally going to react better than a civilian in a hostile situation - they likely have more experience and training.
In other words, it's the difference between a professional and an amateur. I'm going to, on the surface, give the benefit of the doubt to the trained agent making a mistake, as opposed to a vigilante who has no legal authority to make those kinds of calls to begin with.
In other words, it's the difference between a professional and an amateur.
So the trained "rofessionals" are somewhat excused when they screw up because they have more experience? There is literally no job in which that makes sense. If an untrained group makes the same judgment call as the trained group, what does that say about the training?
So the trained "rofessionals" are somewhat excused when they screw up because they have more experience?
If you want to phrase it that way. The other way of looking at it is that the situation was so ambiguous that a trained and likely experienced person/persons (I don't know how many officers were present) felt there were sufficient reasons to shoot. No one is omniscient.
Honestly, I think Samiel hit this on the head from the start. If the police had a policy of using LTL weapons in uncertain situations, these accidental deaths wouldn't happen. There would still be people who were hit by LTL weapons who were innocent, but more likely than not, it wouldn't be fatal/permanent damage. No matter what, there will always be a few mistakes, especially when you introduce that many individuals into a bunch of different situations where tension and adrenaline and multiple unknowns are all confusing factors.
If an untrained group makes the same judgment call as the trained group, what does that say about the training?
If it was the same rate, then that would imply training is useless. This obviously isn't the case though. People aren't perfect. Training does help, but everyone can still make mistakes. Unfortunately, some mistakes have more serious consequences. As a whole though, a police officer is going to react better than any random schmo with a gun.
