Police Officers should not draw their guns on a suspect with a knife

[philip964]

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter ... dCFmesIJA/

Tip from a Vermont Police Chief.

Unarmed Police Officers retreat in this situation, they do not draw their guns. It de escalates the situation and criminals are more likely to not be killed or injured.

[Beiruty]

Tip is defective.It does it not work in Texas.

[Chemist45]

IMHO, an officer of the law should only retreat to preserve their own life or innocent lives.
If Johnny Stupid is dumb enough to bring a knife to a gun fight, he deserves what he gets.
If you threaten someone with a deadly weapon (A knife is a deadly weapon.) then you have earned the consequences.
Retreating just emboldens criminals.

[Excaliber]

Although the article presents the chief's thoughts with pretty muddy reasoning, I suspect what the chief is trying to get at is officers should get away from "leading with the gun" and use deadly force only as a last resort. It's the difference between "can I shoot him" thinking instead of asking oneself if there's any other reasonable way to protect innocent life. If that' s where the chief is going, I would agree with him. Leading with the gun is also often a major element in the cases where people who are doing nothing wrong are shot by police in their own homes.

I have personally confronted knife armed individuals who were threatening to harm officers or themselves and resolved the situations without gunfire, as have many of the officers I worked with. If no one other than the knife armed individual is in immediate danger, there's no immediate need to shoot. Moving citizens away, increasing distance and placing barriers between the subject and the officer so a sudden charge can't get inside the officer's OODA loop is not insanity, it's just good tactics. It provides time to assess the situation, communicate with the suspect, and understand his motivations and intentions so appropriate tactics can be used to get the knife out of his hands and him into custody without anyone getting hurt.

Not only is this the compassionate thing to do for these folks who are more often psychologically disturbed than criminally inclined, but it saves tons of paperwork, doesn't give local agitators a reason to burn the neighborhood down, minimizes the likelihood of threats against the officer and his family, and is much easier on the officer's psyche and conscience.

[Grayling813]

Although the article presents the chief's thoughts with pretty muddy reasoning, I suspect what the chief is trying to get at is officers should get away from "leading with the gun" and use deadly force only as a last resort. It's the difference between "can I shoot him" thinking instead of asking oneself if there's any other reasonable way to protect innocent life. If that' s where the chief is going, I would agree with him. Leading with the gun is also often a major element in the cases where people who are doing nothing wrong are shot by police in their own homes.

I have personally confronted knife armed individuals who were threatening to harm officers or themselves and resolved the situations without gunfire, as have many of the officers I worked with. If no one other than the knife armed individual is in immediate danger, there's no immediate need to shoot. Moving citizens away, increasing distance and placing barriers between the subject and the officer so a sudden charge can't get inside the officer's OODA loop is not insanity, it's just good tactics. It provides time to assess the situation, communicate with the suspect, and understand his motivations and intentions so appropriate tactics can be used to get the knife out of his hands and him into custody without anyone getting hurt.

Not only is this the compassionate thing to do for these folks who are more often psychologically disturbed than criminally inclined, but it saves tons of paperwork, doesn't give local agitators a reason to burn the neighborhood down, minimizes the likelihood of threats against the officer and his family, and is much easier on the officer's psyche and conscience.

[WildBill]

Although the article presents the chief's thoughts with pretty muddy reasoning, I suspect what the chief is trying to get at is officers should get away from "leading with the gun" and use deadly force only as a last resort. It's the difference between "can I shoot him" thinking instead of asking oneself if there's any other reasonable way to protect innocent life. If that' s where the chief is going, I would agree with him. Leading with the gun is also often a major element in the cases where people who are doing nothing wrong are shot by police in their own homes.

I have personally confronted knife armed individuals who were threatening to harm officers or themselves and resolved the situations without gunfire, as have many of the officers I worked with. If no one other than the knife armed individual is in immediate danger, there's no immediate need to shoot. Moving citizens away, increasing distance and placing barriers between the subject and the officer so a sudden charge can't get inside the officer's OODA loop is not insanity, it's just good tactics. It provides time to assess the situation, communicate with the suspect, and understand his motivations and intentions so appropriate tactics can be used to get the knife out of his hands and him into custody without anyone getting hurt.

Not only is this the compassionate thing to do for these folks who are more often psychologically disturbed than criminally inclined, but it saves tons of paperwork, doesn't give local agitators a reason to burn the neighborhood down, minimizes the likelihood of threats against the officer and his family, and is much easier on the officer's psyche and conscience.

Thank you for your assessment.

[G.A. Heath]

A few months ago we had a suspect shot and killed by a Deputy, after the deputy was stabbed. Suspect was from Georgia IIRC.

[Excaliber]

A few months ago we had a suspect shot and killed by a Deputy, after the deputy was stabbed. Suspect was from Georgia IIRC.

Different situations require different responses. If the answer to the question of whether there is any option other than deadly force for protecting innocent life in a given circumstance and the answer is no, then deadly force is the required response.

A suspect who suddenly draws a knife and charges the officer from close range is much different from one where an officer is responding to a call of a distraught individual holding a knife.

Many situations are not so black and white, and they require on the spot judgment calls with decisions on what level of risk is acceptable. How good that judgment was is ultimately determined only by the final outcome, and all such calls have to be based on very little if any information beyond what can be physically seen at the time.

Welcome to the world of police work where making the right decision in each and every case is required many times over the course of a career.

[rtschl]

A few months ago we had a suspect shot and killed by a Deputy, after the deputy was stabbed. Suspect was from Georgia IIRC.

Different situations require different responses. If the answer to the question of whether there is any option other than deadly force for protecting innocent life in a given circumstance and the answer is no, then deadly force is the required response.

A suspect who suddenly draws a knife and charges the officer from close range is much different from one where an officer is responding to a call of a distraught individual holding a knife.

Many situations are not so black and white, and they require on the spot judgment calls with decisions on what level of risk is acceptable. How good that judgment was is ultimately determined only by the final outcome, and all such calls have to be based on very little if any information beyond what can be physically seen at the time.

Welcome to the world of police work where making the right decision in each and every case is required many times over the course of a career.

If it is the one in Athens, GA, which I think was discussed here, you see the police officers responding to a report of a man with a knife - but repeatedly trying to talk the person down. I think the officers in this situation did everything possible to avoid shooting the knife wielding suspect. When charged, the officer shot suspect multiple times. But he still got back up and he attacked the officer when he was trying to switch to non lethal weapon. His partner shot the suspect while he was fighting with the first officer. https://www.classiccitynews.com/post/po ... r-shooting

I agree that each situation needs to be treated individually. I know that desk jockeys and lawyers like a written policy for everything, but dangerous situations need to be like jazz (improvisation), not an orchestra (follow every note exactly). Guidelines and instinct are important and should not be eliminated from how one responds to a dangerous situation.

[G.A. Heath]

The incident I referenced was done so to show the idiocy of the articles title that officers should retreat when confronted by suspects armed with a knife. In reality officers should, and be allowed, to use their best judgement at the time while keeping in mind that their actions will be reviewed.

Additionally the incident I referenced happened in Gaines County Texas involving a suspect fleeing from another state (Georgia i think) for murder IIRC. I am at work typing this on my phone so I can't really look it up.

Blanket policies are generally bad ideas and in law enforcement can cost people their lives. Officers need the training and support to deal with situations as they develop, especially if weapons are involved. At the same time the public needs to know that when an officer uses deadly force that it will be investigated fairly and with a bias to finding out the truth.