Albuquerque cops assault and kill camping homeless man

[Vince]

Actually, if you have no idea how American police are supposed to handle things, you really shouldn't be trying to engage in debate.

@JDC, tranquilizers are not used in policing for a number of reasons. Tranquilizers work based on weight, therefore they would have to estimate the correct dosage to hit him with. Too little wouldn't do anything, too much would kill them. You need to go to a medical school for years and years to be knowledgeable on the correct dosage for each individual. This simply wouldn't make sense for  officers to use.

Also, why other less than lethals were not used. You DO NOT under ANY circumstances(if you're even half way intelligent in American policing) use less than lethal force on someone using lethal force. Displaying knifes and being within the 21 feet "kill zone" is considered deadly force, for a very good reason. You would not use pepper spray for a plethora of reasons. Reason number one being, it's can be very ineffective. Pepper spray in a lot of cases just pisses the attack off. It makes them more angry. On top of that, in order to pepper spray someone, you need to be within 10 feet of them. As stated multiple times, you do not want to be within 21 feet of anyone with a knife. To top it all off, pepper spray is bad if you're against the wind. Not only will the suspect not be sprayed, only your officers will.

As for tasers, again you have to be within 10 feet. This simply isn't safe, as stated numerous times before. And if it's windy, your darts will likely not hit their target. Also, if you're wearing thick clothes or baggy clothes like the suspect was in the incident, the darts may not puncture you enough to be effective. And like any other less than lethal - tasers do not ALWAYS work.

The officers were dealing with this man for 3 hours at least, he took out two knifes and made a movement towards an officer in the "kill zone" hence why he was shot. This IS a justified shooing - whether your opinion differs or there were other options.

This is straight from APD's use of force policy.

"Officers are authorized to use deadly force, by any means, in order to:
1. Protect the officer or others from what is reasonably believed to be an
immediate threat of death or serious physical injury;
2. Prevent the escape of one reasonably believed to have committed a
felony, but only when:
 
Ø· There is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a
 immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to
the officer or others."

A deranged, mentally ill man bearing two knifes within 21 feet of an unarmed officer(no gun out, only dog - dogs are considered less than lethal) is MOST DEFINITELY an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury - this is indisputable.

Agreed, although I didn't read what you wrote.

[Axison]

Agreed, although I didn't read what you wrote.

LOL!

[Dean.]

he should have /gu and asked for an investigation.

[Kaze]

he should have /gu and asked for an investigation.

 

[SugarD]

There is a common misconception here. There is no such thing as non-lethal force anymore. It is now referred to as lesser-lethal force.

As for understanding how this works, you'll want to learn about a Law Enforcement agency's "use of force policy", which describes the escalation of force in a specific situation. The escalation of force, in its basic description, states that one should use their own common sense and judgement to use the least amount of force necessary to stop the threat.

For example, you would not pull pepper spray out on a man with a gun, but you may use a pepper spray on an unarmed man who is aggressively fighting you, trying to cause injury.

Likewise, you would not pull a gun on an unarmed man, but you might pull a gun on a man with a knife who is brandishing it.


Clearly this video is a very good example of someone not understanding how to escalate force properly, and thus should not have been given the option to respond to these situations accordingly. This is why officers involved in shootings are heavily scrutinized for their actions, and must justify their reasoning for taking the actions they did.