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

[Tiriol]

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."

Let's quote the FULL passage, shall we? I'll do you a favor and highlight the part which you used.

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.

Now then when the context is somewhat clearer than with just the portion you quoted (of course, if you were interested in honest debate, you would have quoted the whole post and answered to my points there, but there you go), I should note that the police did everything by the book up to the point of using five bean-bag rounds on the man. They didn't instantly barge in pulling guns, but actually retreated at least once; they used verbal commands and non-lethal attacks (like taser). And they still used non-lethal attacks but sadly, in my opinion, went way too far with them. That's in retrospect, though, and the court certainly disagrees with me. And when apprehending someone, you don't play nice or fair: you don't wrestle a crook to the ground by yourself if there's other polcie (or security guards) around to help, you use overwhelming force to minimize the time and effort used. In general it also protects the apprehended, as well. And when someone is wielding a knife, you don't wrestle with him or her unless you have a death wish. Even if he or she doesn't intend any actual harm, that knife can get stuck, in say, someone's neck. The man had already been ordered to stand down and didn't follow the order, in fact he escalated the situation according to the OP story. He threatened to kill the police. Really, unless the prosecution had evidence that the police fired the bean-bag rounds at Wrana AFTER he had surrendered, there was not much hope that the charges would stick.

[Tiriol]

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.

Sorry, I missed this one.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with this assessment. While I argued above that simply containing Wrana might not be feasible for safety reasons or even proper use of resources, this is precisely what I would have done, unless he'd be aggressive enough to attack on his own or in such a mental state that he'd be ready to injure himself on purpose. I'd really like to know what was the police officers' actual assessment of Wrana since they clearly went with the direct approach when dealing with him.

The foul-up was, as you stated, going in, unless there were pressing reasons for it; the actual management of what was going inside was pretty text book case of how to deal with a belligerent individual with a knife. Considering that he had said that he would kill the police it's remarkable that the officers didn't use a gun with lethal ammunition.

[Gaidin]

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."

"He might harm himself so we're going to use traditionally non-lethal weapons and let his age take care of it for us."

I fixed it for you because your sarcastic quote just wasn't cutting it for me.

[TheFeniX]

They didn't instantly barge in pulling guns, but actually retreated at least once; they used verbal commands and non-lethal attacks (like taser). And they still used non-lethal attacks but sadly, in my opinion, went way too far with them.

There is nothing non-lethal about tasers or bean-bag shotgun rounds. They are called less-than-lethal, which even still is a misnomer (PDF link):

Philadelphia Commissioner Charles Ramsey:
It Was a Disservice to Our Officers When We Called ECWs “Less Than Lethal.”
We did a disservice to our men and women 10 years ago when we started using this technology and referred to it as “less than lethal” or “non-lethal” force. “Less lethal” is a more accurate term. We all know there are consequences whenever you have to use any level of force. And we need to make sure that our people understand so that they’re not cavalier in the way in which they apply force, because any force we use can have devastating consequences.

Tasers and beanbag shotgun rounds are designed to stop healthy and physically fit individuals, likely men and they still kill said healthy men. They are deadly, just less deadly than guns. They should only be used in the most dire of circumstances, when deadly force is warranted, but not necessary because you already have access to means that make deadly force not a requirement. Such as having 5 officers on hand to deal with a deranged individual who is contained.

That's in retrospect, though, and the court certainly disagrees with me. And when apprehending someone, you don't play nice or fair: you don't wrestle a crook to the ground by yourself if there's other polcie (or security guards) around to help, you use overwhelming force to minimize the time and effort used.

Or you consider that you don't have to apprehend the person at that particular moment.

Yea, the guy is breaking the law. Yes, he has a deadly weapon. Yes, the police had every right to even shoot him with a gun. But they don't have to fucking do it because the only way they can possibly be in fear of their lives is because they chose to put themselves into a position where that threat is there. Even the judge admitted the guy had been irate, in his room, all fucking day. If he wanted to hurt someone, he had ample opportunity. At worst, he was a threat to anyone in his apartment.

So, the cops entered the apartment again after he ran them off the first time. The second time, the guy ended up dead. Who's fault is this? What moron thinks this is a good way to resolve a conflict with an irate person of advanced age? Or someone of any age? Just because the police had the legal right to escalate, that doesn't make the decision a good one.

[Aether]

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.

I am reminded of this South Park episode when similar stories like this one come up in the news:



My perception, perhaps wrong, is that the bar is so low when deadly force is deemed necessary to use. Just say, "I was in fear of my life" after the fact. Case closed.