Cop acquitted after bean-bagging 95 year old man to death

[Gaidin]

Crazy question: would they be allowed to let knife wielding man be knife wielding man even in his own room if it's at a facility? Or would they, you know, have to do something about it, no matter how benign it seemed?

[Patroklos]

Does it matter if it is a military tactic or not? If not, please stop this. If yes, then explain why.

It was brought up in the context that it was inappropriate to do it by virtue of it being military. It may have been inappropriate in this case, but is not always inappropriate and labeling it as "military" is just word play evoke the images or other hot button police issues. That comparison is inappropriate hyperbole here. If going in was inappropriate it was so regardless of whether they "stacked" (also known as lining up, oh look at those military skillz!) or not or if that is "military."

[Thanas]

So it is totally immaterial to the issue at hand, so let us stop this tangent right here.

[Flagg]

You know how I know this was a "bad killing"? Because if the cop was really afraid for his life or the safety of others he'd have used his firearm. No question in my mind.

[Gaidin]

You know how I know this was a "bad killing"? Because if the cop was really afraid for his life or the safety of others he'd have used his firearm. No question in my mind.

That just means he pulls the trigger. The situation determines the weapon and you've been in enough of these threads to know this.

[Haruko]

I am afraid for my life of officers being afraid for their life.

[Enigma]

If crotchety 95 year old came at me with a knife, I'd just laugh at him. In no way would I feel threatened. Annoyed? Maybe, but not threatened.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If crotchety 95 year old came at me with a knife, I'd just laugh at him. In no way would I feel threatened. Annoyed? Maybe, but not threatened.

That's a personal choice you can make. However, I will caution you that you should never underestimate the damage someone can do with a knife, even an elderly man. There's an example of an officer from my department nearly bleeding to death after underestimating an older man, like in his 60s, armed with a knife and confined to a wheelchair.

You're also assuming that this 95 year old was like the guy from family guy. Not an unreasonable assumption but still an assumption.

[Kon_El]

If crotchety 95 year old came at me with a knife, I'd just laugh at him. In no way would I feel threatened. Annoyed? Maybe, but not threatened.

My grandfather is almost that old and I'm pretty sure he could kick my ass.

[Simon_Jester]

At the very least, anyone who can stand up and swing a (sufficiently sharp) knife could seriously hurt someone. As in, long time in the hospital, maybe one of your limbs or organs never works the same again kind of hurt. They could even kill someone; it's not a joke.

The real tactical question is, when is attacking a person with a knife appropriate, and when is retreating and pushing back spectators appropriate? The people who say "a 95 year old man with a knife isn't a threat" are being arrogant and overconfident. But the people who say "the police could have waited this guy out instead of choosing to attack him so aggressively" have a good point.

[Enigma]

If crotchety 95 year old came at me with a knife, I'd just laugh at him. In no way would I feel threatened. Annoyed? Maybe, but not threatened.

That's a personal choice you can make. However, I will caution you that you should never underestimate the damage someone can do with a knife, even an elderly man. There's an example of an officer from my department nearly bleeding to death after underestimating an older man, like in his 60s, armed with a knife and confined to a wheelchair.

You're also assuming that this 95 year old was like the guy from family guy. Not an unreasonable assumption but still an assumption.

Most if not all elderly people 80+ years of age that I've encountered would not be what I considered dangerous unless they possessed a firearm.

Besides, a 60 year old person in a wheelchair with a knife is a lot more dangerous than a 95 year old in a wheelchair.

Nevertheless, a 95 year old with a knife is not a danger to a police officer's life unless said officer was a quadriplegic.

[Enigma]

At the very least, anyone who can stand up and swing a (sufficiently sharp) knife could seriously hurt someone. As in, long time in the hospital, maybe one of your limbs or organs never works the same again kind of hurt. They could even kill someone; it's not a joke.

The real tactical question is, when is attacking a person with a knife appropriate, and when is retreating and pushing back spectators appropriate? The people who say "a 95 year old man with a knife isn't a threat" are being arrogant and overconfident. But the people who say "the police could have waited this guy out instead of choosing to attack him so aggressively" have a good point.

I'm not being overconfident. I may not be physically fit but I have better reflexes and agility than a 95 year old. At least I certainly expect so. While I would not throw caution to the wind, I would not vaguely feel like my life would be in danger if I was attacked by a man who could be mistaken with the Crypt Keeper.

I just don't see how a "properly" trained police officer would ever think his life was in danger.

[Gaidin]

Nevertheless, a 95 year old with a knife is not a danger to a police officer's life unless said officer was a quadriplegic.

Ehh....it doesn't take a lot of force to puncture skin with a knife. And if you're in enclosed space with anybody with a knife, no matter the age. The age is why the situation probably had them arming with bean bag rounds instead of standard issue, or so I'd guess.

[Kon_El]

Another Source
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/02/04/ ... r-old-man/

[Highlord Laan]

Nevertheless, a 95 year old with a knife is not a danger to a police officer's life unless said officer was a quadriplegic.

Ehh....it doesn't take a lot of force to puncture skin with a knife. And if you're in enclosed space with anybody with a knife, no matter the age. The age is why the situation probably had them arming with bean bag rounds instead of standard issue, or so I'd guess.

Because shooting an old man, or anyone for that matter, at close range with five beanbag rounds is safer for the victim than using that hand to hand training blue thugs are supposed to receive. Safer for the thug, certainly. Especially since "cop" and "consequences" never appear in the same sentence without the "never receives" portion. And really, it's not like cops care if the rest of us die in the line of their duties, since they "fear for their lives." Those poor cops. Those poor, armored, armed, trained and volunteer cops.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Nevertheless, a 95 year old with a knife is not a danger to a police officer's life unless said officer was a quadriplegic.

Ehh....it doesn't take a lot of force to puncture skin with a knife. And if you're in enclosed space with anybody with a knife, no matter the age. The age is why the situation probably had them arming with bean bag rounds instead of standard issue, or so I'd guess.

Because shooting an old man, or anyone for that matter, at close range with five beanbag rounds is safer for the victim than using that hand to hand training blue thugs are supposed to receive. Safer for the thug, certainly. Especially since "cop" and "consequences" never appear in the same sentence without the "never receives" portion. And really, it's not like cops care if the rest of us die in the line of their duties, since they "fear for their lives." Those poor cops. Those poor, armored, armed, trained and volunteer cops.

Police are trained in techniques to deal with an attacker armed with a knife. The training is for those situations in which you are unable to access a weapon before the attacker is upon you and they all involve the officer shooting the attacker. This is because a knife is considered a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting serious injury or death. I quoted the law for you. What did you not understand about it?

Yes, it is safer for the police officer. I've posted the priority of life on this board numerous times. What do you not understand, Highlord?

Are you seriously claiming that police officers are never held accountable for illegal actions?

[Tiriol]

Nevertheless, a 95 year old with a knife is not a danger to a police officer's life unless said officer was a quadriplegic.

Ehh....it doesn't take a lot of force to puncture skin with a knife. And if you're in enclosed space with anybody with a knife, no matter the age. The age is why the situation probably had them arming with bean bag rounds instead of standard issue, or so I'd guess.

Because shooting an old man, or anyone for that matter, at close range with five beanbag rounds is safer for the victim than using that hand to hand training blue thugs are supposed to receive. Safer for the thug, certainly. Especially since "cop" and "consequences" never appear in the same sentence without the "never receives" portion. And really, it's not like cops care if the rest of us die in the line of their duties, since they "fear for their lives." Those poor cops. Those poor, armored, armed, trained and volunteer cops.

Hand to hand training isn't much of a comfort when dealing with someone armed with a proper knife. And first rule of any unarmed self-defense is that it is best to avoid such confrontation. If avoiding such confrontation is impossible or unlikely, then hand-to-hand combat is still pretty damn silly option if it can be avoided with, say, a gun while keeping one's distance away from the knife.

Why? Because knife, even in hands of someone decrepit and old, can be incredibly sharp and as such incredibly, incredibly dangerous to everyone involved. It doesn't take much to inflict deep, serious wounds with a knife by accident and if someone actually intends to use it to damaging or lethal effect, it becomes much more dangerous object. Do you know how easy it is to inflict serious wounds on more easily accessible body parts, like arms, legs, or torso? Unlike in the movies, those "just a flesh wounds" hurt like hell and are dangerous.

I can speak only for Finland in this case, but here our security personnel are trained to avoid confronting anyone with a proper, brandished knife unless absolutely necessary to protect one's own life (or if one feels particularly stupid and heroic, to protect someone else). Police are summoned to deal with armed criminals and hooligans and they don't have the luxury of really avoiding such confrontations. They can try to play with tactics (riot shields or containment of some sort), but they have to deal with the person somehow. Five beanbag rounds sound more then excessive to me, but OP story actually states that the cops tried to use verbal commands and taser and John Wrana still continued to act in belligerent manner.

If the person wielding the knife was actually serious with it, the cop couldn't just go there and wrestle the knife away (thus endangering both the target and himself and, in this case, his fellow officers). Actually using a gun with proper bullets would also be excessive. And containing the person by, say, locking him inside could also be dangerous to the person himself, because he still has that knife and can use it against himself. And every time the police make a decision to contain someone by effectively putting him or her under siege, they are committing resources - the besieging officers - to the case that could be used elsewhere.

I do appreciate, btw, of calling officers thugs. It is those little touches that truly make sure that everyone appreciates the other side.

[Jub]

Yes, it is safer for the police officer. I've posted the priority of life on this board numerous times. What do you not understand, Highlord?

Are you seriously claiming that police officers are never held accountable for illegal actions?

What was this 95 year old mans crime again KS? Because it sounds to me like an innocent man died because police couldn't keep it in their pants or negotiate better. Sure he was agitated and threatening to attack people coming into his room, but even that isn't a threat worth doing anything about unless you intend to go into his room right that second. Why did the officers need to go in when they did instead of letting his moment pass and dealing with him then? Worst case they spend a long night on duty and cuff him when he finally goes to bed, it costs time and maybe some cash if the officers get paid OT for it, but it doesn't end with a man dead.

[Simon_Jester]

Kamikaze Sith, out of curiosity, how does your department feel about tying up a couple of police officers over a several hour period so that they can't respond to any other calls, in order to contain a guy like this?

[Batman]

Why would it be a 'couple'? The guy apparently made no move to leave his room. They're presumably required to leave at least 'one' officer to keep an eye on things rather than telling the other residents 'give us another call when he decides to come out' but is the life of a man who is no apparent and immediate danger to anybody but himself worth less than the pay of a single trooper for the duration? Do regulations require more?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes, it is safer for the police officer. I've posted the priority of life on this board numerous times. What do you not understand, Highlord?

Are you seriously claiming that police officers are never held accountable for illegal actions?

What was this 95 year old mans crime again KS? Because it sounds to me like an innocent man died because police couldn't keep it in their pants or negotiate better. Sure he was agitated and threatening to attack people coming into his room, but even that isn't a threat worth doing anything about unless you intend to go into his room right that second. Why did the officers need to go in when they did instead of letting his moment pass and dealing with him then? Worst case they spend a long night on duty and cuff him when he finally goes to bed, it costs time and maybe some cash if the officers get paid OT for it, but it doesn't end with a man dead.

I have no idea what his crimes were. Of course, the level of his crime doesn't matter. If you're under arrest and you resist with a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting serious or lethal injuries then deadly force can be used to defeat that resistance.

That being said, and like I already said some posts back, I think the officers screwed up. Minus some unknown circumstance that made confronting him necessary they should have treated it like a barricade and set up containment and began negotiations.

Kamikaze Sith, out of curiosity, how does your department feel about tying up a couple of police officers over a several hour period so that they can't respond to any other calls, in order to contain a guy like this?

We do it all the time.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why would it be a 'couple'? The guy apparently made no move to leave his room. They're presumably required to leave at least 'one' officer to keep an eye on things rather than telling the other residents 'give us another call when he decides to come out' but is the life of a man who is no apparent and immediate danger to anybody but himself worth less than the pay of a single trooper for the duration? Do regulations require more?

Ideally you'd want enough to watch the possible exits and enough to form an arrest team. One officer will only have on choice if this guy decides to come at him with the knife. Multiple officers can use other tools to defeat his resistance.

[Highlord Laan]

because he still has that knife and can use it against himself]

"He might harm himself so we're going to kill him ourselves. At least then it's sanctioned."

[aerius]

Hand to hand training isn't much of a comfort when dealing with someone armed with a proper knife. And first rule of any unarmed self-defense is that it is best to avoid such confrontation. If avoiding such confrontation is impossible or unlikely, then hand-to-hand combat is still pretty damn silly option if it can be avoided with, say, a gun while keeping one's distance away from the knife.

Why? Because knife, even in hands of someone decrepit and old, can be incredibly sharp and as such incredibly, incredibly dangerous to everyone involved. It doesn't take much to inflict deep, serious wounds with a knife by accident and if someone actually intends to use it to damaging or lethal effect, it becomes much more dangerous object. Do you know how easy it is to inflict serious wounds on more easily accessible body parts, like arms, legs, or torso? Unlike in the movies, those "just a flesh wounds" hurt like hell and are dangerous.

Yup. My wife's grandmother is about the same age as the man who was killed. If she had a kitchen knife in her hand and someone wants me to disarm her using unarmed techniques, and I'm not allowed to cause her serious or permanent injury, I'm going "fuck no!" and turning it into a barricade situation where I can safely wait her out and negotiate a surrender.

Because here's the problem, effective hand to hand techniques for disarming a person with a knife will very likely result in serious & potentially fatal injuries when used against a 95 year old person. As you noted, it's not like the movies where you catch the guy's wrist or arm and twist to make him drop the knife, try that in real life and you'll get cut & stabbed multiple times. In real life, the general technique is to block the knife arm off-line while simultaneously hitting the person with full power strikes to vulnerable areas to disable him as quickly as possible before he can knife you again. You do that to a 40 year old and he'll probably spend a few days to a few months in the hospital, then he's good as new. 90 year old? Probably a few months, likely crippled for life or dead.

Or let's go to my favourite, using a riot baton against a knife, which I've been formally trained to do. This one might work a bit better but it's still not risk free. General concept here is to either beat the knife out of the hand using the baton or pain compliance, ie. thump the person until he drops the weapon. Problems. You might not have the right angle to get a good whack in, and if you fail to knock the knife free the other person can recover to a ready position faster than you can. Or let's say you do knock the knife free, darn thing might go flying and cause collateral damage. Or the person moves and you miss, and end up whacking the 95 year in the hand or arm. Well, he's probably dropped the knife, but he's now got multiple compound fractures which aren't gonna heal, ever. General pain compliance? Yeah, he's gonna have severe bruising & blood clots, among other complications. That is if you didn't break his bones by accident.

The problem is every option sucks balls once the decision is made to confront the 95 year old man instead of waiting him out. If you're very lucky you might be able to disarm him without causing serious injuries, keeping in mind that it's very easy to cause serious injuries to someone of that age, and that minor injuries for us are serious for the old guy. The cockup happened way before they bean-bagged him, the police screwed up as soon as they decided to do something other than waiting him out and negotiating.

[Simon_Jester]

Why would it be a 'couple'? The guy apparently made no move to leave his room. They're presumably required to leave at least 'one' officer to keep an eye on things rather than telling the other residents 'give us another call when he decides to come out' but is the life of a man who is no apparent and immediate danger to anybody but himself worth less than the pay of a single trooper for the duration? Do regulations require more?

I would think it wise to have two people present. One armed officer would surely be enough to 'handle' the old man with a knife if he came out, but two people would have a better chance of getting him under control without hurting him. It also adds some flexibility- you can say "you guard the door while I go to the bathroom" and not leave the door unguarded.

Also, departments might routinely have officers travel in pairs on patrol. Or have a policy of requiring them to do so when an armed person might be an issue, even if the armed person is one a lone cop could probably handle.

This situation wouldn't seem to justify deviating from such a policy, if one is in place.

Kamikaze Sith, out of curiosity, how does your department feel about tying up a couple of police officers over a several hour period so that they can't respond to any other calls, in order to contain a guy like this?

We do it all the time.

Figured. Just checking.