Controversial Decision: Man Shot At 30-46 Times
- By Simple Politiks
- 21 August, 2012
- 14 Comments
What Do You Think? Comment On The Issue And Share With Your Friends.
Every now and then I like to see what people think about certain situations. I saw this a few days ago. It’s obviously controversial, so I’m interested to see what people think about it.
Watch this CNN report if you’d like to learn about the Milton Hall controversy. The man was holding a knife and was refusing to put the weapon down. He appears to be at a safe distance, as he had been for the entire time, when a group of police officers shoot 30-46 bullets. Milton obviously dies.
It’s tough to say whether this was a good call or not. First of all, the mediocre quality video is shot from quite a large distance away. We only have access to one viewpoint. There are plenty of angles that we can miss. An unseen officer was actually approaching from the left and, apparently, the man was moving towards the officer instead of backing down. Also, this is clearly a dangerous man. A mentally ill person with a knife can be much more dangerous and much more difficult to deal with than the average assailant.
Perhaps he was attacking the officer, was it still the right to shoot? Don’t police officers have tasers and other tools for dealing with an armed individual? They did have plenty of time and multiple officers, at least one could have tried to shoot a taser from a distance. Did he really have to die?
And finally, whether or not the shooting itself is justified, the number of bullets used in this event is not. I’m not going to put my opinion in any part of my post except for this one.
You don’t shoot a man 30-46 times when he’s holding a knife and not rushing you. That’s just too much.
That’s all I have to say about it, what do you guys think?
Copyright © 2013
Unless we were there and knew the circumstances, it really is not our concern And if the officers were wrong, then all we can do is hope they get their punishment. And if they did right then get their commendations. As a nation like to jump the gun, pass judgment, make decisions based on what was told to us without hard-core facts before us.
[...] this at SimplePolitiks. Share this: Pin ItDiggShare on TumblrLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]
I worked briefly ( under 12 mos. ) in an RCMP office as a cleaner years ago. What I witnessed there were a group of men & women who cared about people and who were doing their best to protect and serve the community. I was so impressed with the character and quality of these young people and it grieves me greatly that so much negative attention is focused on those who are putting their lives at risk so that the rest of us can safely go about ours. Can we focus a bit more on the other apples in the barrel? ~ Wendy
Might I humbly suggest that criticism of abuses of power- such as this one- are the only thing that is going to prevent them from happening. While I’m sure that the people that you witnessed were great individuals, and most officers would probably fall in that category as well, it doesn’t excuse behavior such as this. Violence is a terrible thing, and should be criticized and prosecuted regardless of whether the person who committed it was wearing a badge. Genuflection to the State only serves to bolster egos and foster further abuses.
Well-said.
Yes, I agree that we always need watchdogs. It would be nice to see some more positive coverage of our protectors too. I am not into censorship but freedom of speech. Let’s use our freedom for praise as well as prosecution. I am into balance. I suspect you are too. ~ Wendy
I for one find the number of shots fired hideous and reckless. I believe that this would have perhaps been an appropriate time to break out the tasers or bean bag bullets since the man wasn’t in possession of a firearm himself. How sad.
I guess warning shots only happen in the movies.
Well,… yes. What would you have them shoot at? A shot fired into the air has to come down somewhere. A shot fired into the ground or wall could ricochet,
Keep in mind that any shot fired by a cop receives considerable scrutiny by their Internal Affairs people, as well as the press and public. The IA people might end up giving them no more than a slap on the wrist (or even a pat on the head), but the press and public can be a lot less forgiving. (And sometimes the person hardest on a cop who has shot and killed someone… is that cop. Profound guilt is not uncommon.)
Several points first:
Many, many LEOs are good and decent people doing a scary and life-threatening job. It’s a job where every interaction with the public could be the one that turns fatal. So I tend to cut them some amount of slack. That said, every barrel has its rotten apples, and power positions are prone to attracting them.
We also know that tasers, and even bullets, don’t always subdue an insane or drug-crazed person (there was an incident involving, I believe, the FBI, where they put a very large number of 9 mm rounds into a large assailant who still managed to kill several of the officers; that incident caused them to switch to 10 mm weapons). Tasers can also have problems with clothing or with being dislodged.
In high-stress, life threatening situations, it’s not uncommon for a shooter to empty the magazine. The tendency is to keep firing until the gun is empty. Practice and training cannot provide the real life threat, so it’s often the first time officers have been in such a situation.
We don’t know what kind of budget restraints might have been in play. Thanks to the economy, many civic organizations are under severe financial stress. It’s possible they couldn’t afford the necessary non-lethal tools. We also don’t know what kind of time constraints were operational; they might have needed to solve the problem fast and couldn’t wait for better options.
All that said, there are a variety of non-lethal tools and techniques that would have been far more appropriate for a knife-wielding assailant. Even something as simple as the long pole with a loop used by animal handlers and pool life guards. Or beanbag shotguns. Or large heavy blankets. Even going in in full riot gear, especially in numbers, would likely have been effective.
Nice summary!
If you have not read Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink.” you should pick up a copy. The book speaks of experienced based decisions we make in the “blink of an eye.” Someone with a lot of experience will make a very accurate judgment call, whereas someone less experienced may come to a wrong conclusion. He points out that people can be “primed” to think a certain way which can influence that judgment, especially in heated moments. He used the example that was noted in the Bruce Springsteen song usually referred to as “41 Shots,” but whose title is “Living in your American Skin.” The person was killed by 41 shots as he did not understand the questions being asked, panicked and ran. The police were “primed” to believe he was packing, but he was shot 41 times when he tried to pull his wallet out. What Wyrd Smythe said is very telling. We don’t know what happened here and it is a very tough, scary job. The response to “41 Shots” was the police did much greater training around these klnds of situations to role play what might transpire. We need to gather the facts, note where it went wrong and how can wrong actions be prevented in the future. Thanks for posting. BTG
Also, thank you for the book recommendation. I’ll check it out!
This is such a hard situation to judge without being there. I truly honor and respect Law Enforcement, so I try never to doubt what may hae been going through their minds when an incident like this happens. The amount of force does seem excessive, but without being there myself, I will believe Law Enforcement thought what they were doing was to keep themselves safe.