Police Abuse

Video Captures At Least Nine Cops Surround, Shoot at California Knife-Wielding Man At Least Fifteen Times

Police say five of the officers fired their guns.



Police in San Francisco shot and killed a man they say was a suspected stabber after he approached an officer while holding a knife. Video posted of the incident to Instagram shows at least nine officers pointing their guns at the man, who appears to be trying to walk away as an officer moves in front of him before police begin to shoot.

The police chief, Greg Suhr, said the video confirmed the man "does move toward officers," although all but one appear to be in his path. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Suhr said he did not know how many shots were fired, but the suspect "had already demonstrated, by committing a felony aggravated assault, that he was a danger to others, so he could not be allowed to move away from the scene."

The police chief said the officers' account of the shooting was supported by witnesses on the bus and by the video.

Police say five of the officers opened fire, and that the incident occurred after the officers tried and failed to restrain the man, including by use of bean bags, but do not say that he resisted with force before the incident on the video. Police said he had a six-to-eight inch blade with which he was alleged to have stabbed another man in the shoulder earlier.

Watch the video, which was reposted to YouTube, below:

NEXT: Bernie Sanders Wrong About 'Epidemic' of Gun Violence, Demands Gun Control

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Pity the wall was in the way and prevented the officers from completely surrounding the guy before opening fire.

      1. +1 Polish firing squad

          1. +1 soggy biscuit

            1. Fabulous game, soggy biscuit.

              I mentioned it in passing to the boyfriend and he looked confused. I had to explain how it works.

              “I’m so glad you’re mine.”

              1. “Oh! So it’s sort of like an Elephant Parade?”

                1. Hahahah xD Not his reply, but that’s excellent.

  2. First of all, the video Reason posted was completely worthless. Thanks for that.

    Next, I know I will get shit over this, but what the hell. The guy had a knife and there was reason to believe he had already stabbed someone. 9 cops may very well be overkill (no pun intended). But in this case, they can’t just let the guy walk away. Absolutely shine the light of day on EVERY police shooting. And I am all for woodchippers. But lets not rush to make this the hill we want to die on.

    1. The SFPD doesn’t have tasers?

    2. Tasers? Pepper spray? Hell, good old fashioned nightsticks.

      Nope. Not in the land of the free. 9 cops mag-dumping is how we deal with miscreants.

      1. There are cases where these have failed. However, in those cases you had a guy hard-charging directly at an officer who was (at least in some cases) attempting to back away.

        What we had here is a guy who (allegedly) had been violent with another man previously and seems to be meandering down the street. One officer ac… fuck it… it’s all in the video. Fuck these cops.

        1. Why don’t the cops just carry around a net with weights on the ends, like some gladiators did? Seems a really easy way to immobilize someone.

          1. Too fat. But that would be kind of cool.

            1. put it in the trunk with the riot gun.

          2. Bean bag shotgun rounds could stop this guy too. It’s still potentially lethal, but at least there is a chance you get to question and prosecute the guy.

            1. They claimed to have already used bean bag rounds. But his Negro strength just shrugged them off. Probably on bath salts.

              1. Probably on bath salts..

                If 16 bean bags discharged from a distance of 15 ft. into the distal ends of all his extremities didn’t bring him down, he must be on something!

          3. Because all a net gun ever does is mess up the guy’s hair.

          4. Because the trident and mail underwear are required when using a net.

            The underwear chafes and you think being shot is bad – get stabbed by that trident and you’ll squeal like a stuck pig.

            1. get stabbed by that trident and you’ll squeal like a stuck pig.

              But the post-fight banter would be far more interesting.

          5. Delta Force has used a net to corral terrorism suspects, so it is not out of the realm of possibility. This seems like a perfect situation for “less than lethal,” or at the very least “there are nine of us we could be able to hit his arm with a nightstick and control his arm.”

      2. Tasers? Pepper spray? Hell, good old fashioned nightsticks.

        I’ve heard rumors in long-forgotten lore of a breakthrough device known as a shield. Seems like some of the mightiest combatants in history were able to employ it in structured team-like formations to overcome superior numbers of lightly armed opponents again and again throughout history. Too bad nobody wrote any of that shit down.

    3. Some guy stabbed some other guy, some guys shot that guy. And we know the stabbing was not a justifiable use of force because the guy was not wearing a badge and the shooting was a justifiable use of force because those guys were wearing badges. That’s how we know the guy with the knife is a scumbag criminal and the guys with the guns are heroic warriors defending the American Way Of Life.

      The police chief said the officers’ account of the shooting was supported by witnesses on the bus and by the video.

      It’s at least a little encouraging that the police chief seems to be defensive about the shooting, as if it might not be entirely objectionable for police to be expected to be held accountable for killing people. Of course I’m sure there are plenty of people shaking their heads and wondering what sort of world we live in where the word of a cop has to be backed up by independent witnesses before being accepted as the gospel truth.

      1. Picky picky picky… Coupla days ago some here were carping about cops tazing a victim to death.

    4. Amazingly, bounty hunters generally manage to bring in live bounties. I’m not holding them up as some sort of perfect angels, but obviously there are ways of dealing with capturing people that don’t involve a firing squad.

      1. I’m not holding them up as some sort of perfect angels,

        “Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman, humanitarian” is wrong on so many levels.

    5. I generally agree with your points, but if lethal force must be used, there has to be a better way than 9 guys unloading multiple rounds on the guy. There should be an officer designated with taking him down and the others should hold fire unless they are directly attacked. Their actions here don’t help dispel the notion that cops are trigger-happy pants-wetters.

    6. Dear copsucker,
      I agree with your assessment. Seems like all of the hypocrites like to weigh in when you paint with a broad brush any group that they like. When you say cop on this site, quite a few turn into pants-shitters and scream about the police. I think every case has to be looked at: Mike Brown- cop was right, Eric Garner – cop was wrong.

  3. Count them not by their individual numbers but by total poundage, divide by average weight for a man in moderately good physical shape, and you get fifteen. Therefore, each theoretically fit police office shot him once.

    1. Straight up a dude getting iced, homes.

    2. Judge Dredd and his cohorts executing a perp?

      Wait, at least Dredd only kills people who deserve it.

      1. Technically *all* the Judges do that – since *they’re* the ones deciding who deserves it. Which is they way a lot of cops would like it.

  4. h/t to sarc?

    Haaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha… sigh

  5. The land of the free (to obey or die).

  6. drop the knife or get shot. seems like an easy choice to me. The cops WANT to kill you. don’t give them a reason.

    1. Fuck off.

      1. He’s got a point. Reality is that if you don’t do what you’re told, regardless of if the order is lawful or not, then you will be beaten and/or shot. That’s life in this bastion of liberty.

        1. [mutters pledge of allegiance]

        2. The only thing that bothers me about this guy is his handle. Although I suppose “Real American” could mean “realistic American” rather than “True American”.

        3. No, he doesn’t have a point.

          As has been shown over and over, they’ll shoot you or beat you to death for no reason, other than being cowards.

        4. I recommend avoiding all potentially mentally unstable, heavily cops who can kill and steal without punishment, especially if they have a history of psychotic breakdowns while handling weapons, like the guy who shot the 12 yo kid, but that’s me ..

          Never was the first guy to stick his head you after the shooting pauses.

    2. Pretext is the exact technical term. When they have you covered I’ll provide one gratis.

  7. When will the media wake up to the deadliness of men with guns??? All we get are satirical (and regurgitated) Onion articles claiming that the 2nd Amendment should be infringed. But the UK, a nation oft cited as outlawing guns, also prevents a majority of its law enforcement from having guns. When will that change take place here?

    1. Take guns away from the tax collection and asset forfeiture gang? R.U. outta your mind? Pleeeeece guns goooood… proletariat guns baaaaad.

  8. Let’s try an experiment in America for Ten Years

    Obviously gun laws are ineffective at stopping criminals/crazies/terrorists from obtaining any weapon they want.
    In addition, gun laws are just obstacles for people that want guns and are not going to kill 15 people at a pizza stand.

    Get rid of ALL Gun Laws for a period of ten years.
    No restrictions whatsoever on possession and anyone can carry anywhere any type of weapon they chose to carry.

    Let’s see how it goes. We may be surprised.

    1. Get rid of ALL Gun Laws for a period of ten years.
      No restrictions whatsoever on possession and anyone can carry anywhere any type of weapon they chose to carry.

      Let’s see how it goes. We may be surprised.

      I’d love to. Imagine your next pair of crazies shooting up a shopping mall and seven armed people return fire.

      During the terrorist attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi in September last year, the first people to arrive on the scene and to engage the attackers in a shoot out were not the police, but armed private citizens. It is no coincidence that there was a significant number of armed civilians in and around the opulent mall, as it was known as a favourite shopping and recreational haunt for Nairobi’s wealthy and the expatriate community.


      1. I’d say let’s give it a Try in America.

        In addition, only prosecute 1st Degree Premeditated Murder.
        Make all other homicides Misdemeanors punishable by a $250 fine.

        1. 1. Suggest something that seems crazy.

          2. When a real-world example is shown that “surprises us”, dig deeper and find something even more crazy that really has nothing to do with the first.

          3. Profit.

          1. You will see an entire industry popup with bullet proof vests, Guns that can shoot through a bullet proof vests. Computerized Guns. Personal Drone Security, etc.

            We can be a society of individuals that walk around with drones and force-fields and guns to go anywhere.

            Let’s try it out. Perhaps people will like it and it will create more jobs.

            1. Yeah, because Arizona has almost no firearm *or* protective vest laws and I find that I absolutely can’t afford to go *anywhere* without my rifle, pistol, backup pistol, and body armor, along with a rifle team to provide security for all the gun fights we get into on a daily basis.

          2. I’m going to call the “Derp Generation Procedure.”

          3. I prefer even that to the status quo. I’ve lived around firearms all my life, never felt uneasy. It’s only when the looters and parasites can count on disarmed victims that I get apprehensive.

        2. You know exactly what you’re doing. You’re shameless.

          You could be reasonable and look at Vermont’s gun laws and try to find a workable model around that but instead you just want to incite a reaction. I’m a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I also think some education and technical training is essential to carry a loaded firearm on your person. If the police can and will panic shoot at anything I’m sure a sizable percentage of the general population will too.

          1. That is useless. The kid that robs a business has no technical training or education.
            And, this criminal will obtain a gun and commit a crime regardless of the “Do not Carry Guns Sign”.

            There is no stopping the criminals/terrorists/crazies from getting guns and no one wants to give up their guns.

            So consider the other approach. An approach never taken in which the criminals/terrorists/crazies will have to face a fully armed society. Maybe things would be better

            I really mean it.

          2. You know exactly what you’re doing. You’re shameless.

            This is why I really hope you guys will stop interacting with the human garbage that is Alice Bowie.

            All he does is waste people’s time with his bad faith argument hopping and whackamole debate tactics.

            If this were my blog, I’d ban his ass without a second thought: he’s a worthless undesirable.

            If we ostracize him, he’ll eventually pollute some other corner of the Internet with his fetid breath and noisome crotch smells.

            1. 1. Good thing REASON.COM doesn’t censor. A practice a true libertarian values.

              2. What I propose is in Good Faith. Nothing else has worked. I, myself have always supported stiff gun laws. And, they don’t even work in NY because people bring in guns from other States.

              There is no stopping guns. This cat is out of the bag and gone for good.

              I propose that more and more citizens be armed and be allowed to use their firearms with the exception of Pre-meditated 1st Degree Murder.

              We may be surprised with the results. Let’s try it for 10 years (or less). I mean this in good faith.

            2. I’d ban it because it’s so fucking stupid. It makes shrike look clever. you’re right about the lack of good faith. It lies constantly.

            3. Wow. Thass some subtle republican party rhetoric dude. The truth is Texas actually lets the occasional citizen own a gun, and it is NOT the place mohammedans go to looking for helpless crowds to fire into–at least not since the Draw Mohammed contest in Garland.

      2. Famously, during the sniper attack at the University of Texas back in the ’60s, Texans grabbed their hunting rifles and returned fire. He was actually killed by a cop who climbed the tower, but the return fire is credited with suppressing the sniper. I’m sure some of those armed citizens were WWII and Korean War vets, as well.

        Its a hell of a story, really.

      3. “Imagine your next pair of crazies shooting up a shopping mall and seven armed people return fire.”

        Ok, I just imagined two innocents being shot by stray bullets. Was that what you were going for?

        We can reason that there might be a net increase in safety as a result of multiple randoms returning fire, but a net increase does not meant there is no potential new danger. Some people are likely to be shot by the people returning fire who would not have been shot by the crazies.

        Put another way :

        Bullets flying through the air are dangerous, regardless of whether they are fired by bad crazies, cops, or heroic self-defending citizens.

        1. Standard National Socialist Kristallnacht gun law justification #346, right below #345, (that Jews might return Gestapo fire). We call it the OK Corral Argument in Texas. Judging by events in California and in other looter People’s States, it is still pulling them into the morgues.

          1. You seem to think I’m attempting to justify something, instead of pointing out neutral facts.

            Read the single sentence summation of my assertion, and maybe try to keep your knee from jerking so hard?

          2. You seem to think I’m attempting to justify something, instead of pointing out neutral facts.

            Read the single sentence summation of my assertion, and maybe try to keep your knee from jerking so hard?

      4. Well I’ll be damned. Why doesn’t Obama pay attention to the example set by THESE Kenyans?

    2. Can the gun have wheels?

  9. An armed society is a polite society.

    1. Switzerland is a good example:


  10. Do you guys remember Amadou Dialo? He was the unfortunate African soul that tried to show his wallet to a bunch of cops and got shot 41 times.

    Here’s the Link…in case you forgot.

    Anyway, here’s a Joke for a…it’s a Knock Knock Joke:

    Knock Knock
    Who’s there?
    Amadou who?
    Amadou exactly what the police tell me to do next time.

    So many people would still be alive if they just do what they are told by those people with guns.

    1. Fuck you.

      No, really. Fuck you. Take your racist shit out of here and go troll somewhere else.

      1. Oh come on. This is not a racist joke. It is a play on the man’s name. The man could be any race or color with a name like Amadou.

        A racist joke would be like the following I heard on Howard Stern Show:

        Question: How do I keep niggers from going into the back yard?
        Answer: You hang one in the Front Yard.

        Of course, Howard Stern hid behind a character called Daniel Carver. He’s the one that says the joke on the Show. That is Racist. The Amadou Joke is merely a play on words on someone’s name.

      2. See what I mean about his being an worthless piece of garbage?

      3. See what I mean about his being an worthless piece of garbage?

        1. I’m a worthless piece of garbage for telling a non racist joke that play’s on someone’s name?
          Or, am I a worthless piece of garbage for repeating one of Howard Stern’s Racist Jokes?

        2. http://bit.ly/1IGZoUd

          You can filter out stupid cunts with this one simple trick!

    2. I Googled it, and sure enuf, the Dialo kid was unarmed as usual, but after having been shot 41 times by scruffy narco-types he was found to be in possession of ammo. Naturally the cops’ own court decided it was justified.

  11. I am having a bit of difficulty getting worked up over this one.

    Stab a guy in self defense. Explain yourself to the cops.

    Stab a guy because and then ignore and try to walk away from the cops trying to talk to you. Get shot. (suicide by cop)

    *Assuming my understanding of the situation is correct.

    1. I can recall a time when cops weren’t trigger-happy baboons with guns.

      They would actually try to de-escalate a situation. Or let them go and try again. Or, talk them down. Instead, now, they intentionally place themselves in harm’s way, or lie that they did, and then claim they had no choice but to shoot.

      Let’s hope you never have an expired inspection sticker your car, in a tiny, punk-ass town, and happen to pull the deranged and pants-shitting lunatic on the beat that night.

      1. Because that’s totally what happened here. A minor traffic violation. Not trying to apprehend a guy who’s, at the minimum, already committed aggravated assault, is still hanging onto the knife, and isn’t being stopped by the beanbag less lethal rounds shot at hand. Are you suggesting the cops let him go? Wait until the guy gets in a position to stick someone else, then try to shoot him before he does?

        Approaching him with the idea you’re going to use a stick on him or spray is silly. If you’re close enough to do either, he’s close enough to charge you and stick you. I’m not going hands on with someone who’s got a knife, and it’s frankly ridiculous to expect the police to do so either. A Taser or several’d be nice—though can’t zap him too many times, or people will bitch about that too. (Whoops, looked below: SFPD evidently doesn’t let them carry Tasers)

        What would you like the police to do here? Because letting him go is not one of the choices available.

        1. I’ve been in the expired-sticker situation with Officer Not So Friendly, and it sucks. I would prefer fewer laws, and less enforcement of malum prohibitum ones. And I agree that the cops, fed a diet of Deputy Dinkeller videos and Newhall massacre discussions in training, are much more towards the shoot first model than perhaps they used to be when they were policing whites.

          I also agree that the model of ‘shoving yourself into a dangerous situation, then shooting your way out of it’ is a bad one, and needs to change. Deescalation and keeping the peace should be the first priority.

          But there are better shootings than this one for pointing this out to people.

        2. ” Suhr said he did not know how many shots were fired, but the suspect “had already demonstrated, by committing a felony aggravated assault, that he was a danger to others, so he could not be allowed to move away from the scene.” ”

          Despite the above statement of Judge Suhrr, no one had even arrested the man for felony aggravated assault, never mind convicted him of it.

          ” Police went to the neighborhood about 4:20 p.m. after a man told them he had been stabbed in the shoulder about half an hour earlier on the 6600 block of Third Street by an assailant who was still in the area, police said. ”

          They apparently convicted him of felony aggravated assault (penalty : death) based on the word of exactly one person, the victim? Justice!

          ” What would you like the police to do here? ”

          What do unarmed security guards do when they are faced with this situation? What do police in countries where police do not necessarily carry guns do? I think the answer might begin with the fact that there are 9 of them and 1 of him, but what do I know?

          The guy was not spraying a crowd with an Uzi, he was walking around an unpopulated area, at 4:20 in the morning, with a knife. This circumstance does not strike me as necessitating immediate execution.

          1. You sound confused about what is required for the police to arrest someone, and what is required to be shown before deadly force may be used against someone.

            To arrest someone for a felony without a warrant, the police require reasonable (or probable) cause to believe that person is guilty of a felony. Probable cause, in CA, is shown “when the facts known to the arresting officer would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that an individual is guilty of a crime.” People v. Lewis, 109 Cal. App. 3d 599, 608. Here, we have a witness—the man who was stabbed—claiming he was stabbed by a person resembling the suspect. The police canvass the area and find a guy resembling the suspect, waving a knife around. IANAL, and I don’t know CA criminal law, but they may have had enough PC right there to arrest for brandishing a knife, never mind the aggravated assault. They don’t need a conviction—in fact the idea they would, for the crime they are trying to arrest him for, is silly and straight out of Alice in Wonderland.

            They have a witness complaining of an assault, a sufficient description from the witness that matches the suspect, who’s brandishing a knife, and won’t put it down: I think that’s enough reasonable belief that a felony’s been committed, don’t you? (Cont.)

            1. Is it belief beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe, but they don’t need that in order to lawfully arrest the suspect.

              Anyway, when trying to talk to the guy, he’s uncooperative and won’t put down the knife. We’ve reached sufficient PC for an arrest long ago. He’s so uncooperative, that the police feel they need a less lethal device, the beanbag round(s), to try and subdue him. It doesn’t work. The police don’t have Tasers, per another post in this thread. They don’t have shields—in fact most cops don’t, unless the equipment is specially assigned, for a riot, let’s say. I’ve explained in another post why grappling a knife-wielding assailant is a spectacularly bad idea.

              Using either the baton or OC/pepper spray in a situation where the assailant is free to move towards the officer, requires the officer to get close enough to the assailant that the officer runs a good risk of getting stabbed. Patrol officers do not wear knife-resistant clothing or armor. Their bullet-resistant vests are good against handgun bullets, not knives or rifle bullets. It is unreasonable to ask the officer to substantially risk getting stabbed, when there’s probable cause to believe the knife-wielder has already stabbed someone, and the suspect refuses to drop their knife. That risk doesn’t go away either, just because there are nine officers available—if they close to grapple him, one of them’s probably getting cut.

              1. Different story with, e.g., a cell extraction team—where the officers often are tasked to subdue and restrain a resisting prisoner, who’s often armed with an improvised weapon: they’ve blade resistant armor and shields, are trained and practice using multiple officers to grapple and subdue the prisoner, and they have the prisoner confined already. None of which was the case in the video.

                Finally, it’s not the job of private security officers to arrest people like the suspect. It is for the cops. And when the cops try to arrest him, which means getting close enough to physically contact the suspect, a wielded knife means a reasonable fear of immediate death or serious bodily harm. If there’s that reasonable fear, then they (and you and me too) get to use deadly force in attempting to stop that threat of deadly harm.

                The difference between them, and you and I, is that we don’t have that reasonable fear unless we try to approach him, and we don’t have to. They do.

                Sorry for the length.

                1. Good point. Now I’m convinced they should’ve at least wasted a couple of bystanders too–especially the hop hater with the camera.

            2. 1/2

              I’m not sure how you got the impression that I felt there was no probable cause for arrest.

              Clearly, once he is brandishing the knife in the presence of the police, there is probably cause for arrest. Especially because the knife, if described properly, was illegal to carry in California.

              What I said is that Judge Shurr didn’t say “the officers had probable cause to believe the man had committed an aggravated assault” but that he said “the man had committed an aggravated assault.” This assumes, as they say on TV, “facts not in evidence.”

              ” Finally, it’s not the job of private security officers to arrest people like the suspect. It is for the cops. ”

              Talk to a security guard sometime. Ask them how many times they have been “close enough to physically contact the suspect” when the suspect whipped out a knife. Ask them how many times they had 8 other people on their “side” when this happened.

              Somehow, very few of these encounters end in a fatal hail of bullets. It seems reasonable that cops could respond as non-excessively as security guards must.

            3. 2/2

              ” Finally, it’s not the job of private security officers to arrest people like the suspect. It is for the cops. ”

              The police do not have a “duty to protect” per the Supreme Court. That said, I understand that police are likely to be faced with a greater variety of potential threats.

              The fact that it is not explicitly the job of security guards to deal with serious violent threats does not mean that they are not asked to do it regularly. I guess we consider their lives less valuable than police, because we would never accept this type of hail of gunfire coming from a group of 9 (!) threatened security guards?

              Your argument appears to be based on the premise that if any risk whatsoever is borne by the police, that the man’s life should be forfeit.

              We don’t accept this standard in self defense cases, why should we accept it when trained and empowered agents of the state do it?

            4. Sounds good, but I saw no knife in the phone vid or in any of the body camera vids so thoughtfully and conscientiously provided. However, if you say it wasn’t excessive force, I guess I’ll have to testify that way if I am so unlucky as to witness them doing it to you.

          2. The guy was a pipsqueak, not a trained ninja with a katana and wakizashi. Wait! Maybe he scratched a politician, or bureaucrat. That would certainly justify a summary execution.

        3. Gee, I guess they must not have knives in Great Britain where most cops don’t carry guns… Amirite?

    2. I missed the stabbing… where in the video was that?

  12. Reason is kinda light on the details of this shooting. A few things to add.
    According to the chief 4 of the 9 officers fired their weapons, not all 9. The cops got a call of a stabbing and found this guy in the area openly carrying a knife. They surrounded him and repeatedly told him to drop the knife. SFPD is not allowed to have Tasers. So they fired bean-bag shotgun shells at the guy, I think that is the initial pop in the video. The one cop moved to cut the guy off and the guy kept moving and not dropping the knife. And that’s when we hear the hail of gunfire. The chief says the witnesses on the Muni trolley agree with the cops version of events. The local news story I am linking has a witness that disagrees and thinks the cops are out of line. Just trying to fill in some blanks that I’ve noticed in the comments. Now back to lurking.


    1. According to the chief 4 of the 9 officers fired their weapons,

      A cop said it, so I’ll need independent verification.

      The chief says the witnesses on the Muni trolley agree with the cops version of events.

      After watching 9 cops surround a guy and blow him away, I wouldn’t be contradicting anything they said, either.

  13. The very first thing that the cops did wrong, was all of them pulled their weapons. For many reasons, no more than two should have done so.

    You see it over and over again. Cops love to swarm anything interesting, but there’s no coordination, no command and control on the scene.

    1. I was just thinking of the Texas Tower, and you are very right that private citizens with rifles answered fire well before cops. They kept him pinned down as the cops arrived and finally climbed the stairs to kill Charles. They doubtless prevented many more fatalities. I support all the bill of rights, like guns, own a 45, never understood carry restrictions in most places.

    2. Yep, and again, Hollywood unrealistically depicts cops using far more restraint.

      Deputy: Draw my gun?

      Sheriff: Up and out.

      Deputy: *looks at Sheriff who hasn’t drawn gun* What about yours?

      Sheriff: I’m behind you.

  14. Looks like textbook Tueller drill.

    I can’t even count down the narrative collapse!

  15. This incident is exactly what we’ve been talking about with regard to tactics and training. They come upon an obviously disturbed and probably violent man with a knife. They surround him and close to within 15-20 feet and shout a bunch of commands at him while escalating the use of force.

    Disturbed guy acts more and more disturbed. Eventually he tries to walk away and as he walks in the direction of one of the cops, he is gunned down.

    What could they have done differently? Well, if you start at the point where the cop on the sidewalk is 12 feet away and the guy with the knife starts walking toward him, not much. Their use of force protocols say that’s the point where you shoot the guy. So this will easily be ruled a good shooting.

    But what if they had used different tactics? Maybe don’t close the distance so much. Maintain a larger perimeter and try to establish a dialog. Maybe some better equipment… a riot shield is probably a pretty good defense against a knife. Better than body armor at preventing a nasty gash. Maybe a few guys with those would have felt more confident in corralling the guy.

    Anyway, he didn’t look determined to get himself killed. He looked like he was trying to escape by walking past the cops. That means he might have been convinced to surrender, given a little time. But they didn’t give him the time.

    Still, I agree with their assessment that he had to be detained at that time, so he might have gotten shot anyway.

    1. Then again, if they didn’t abuse tasers so much they would probably have had one available for a time like this when it was actually needed. British cops deal with these cases w/o lethal force so there’s no reason we can’t as well.

  16. Maybe Google won’t censor my repost of this vid. After all, the guy probably at least had a nail file, must’ve weighted all of 120 lbs and he was only outnumbered 8-to-1. Plus, after the 8th or 9th bullet slammed him against the building he did rebound “toward” the cops as Carolina solicitor Crissy would have repeated throughout a 12-page justfication. When SC cop Michael Slager murdered Walter Scott with multiple shots to the back, no such handy excuse was available and a wrist slapping is still possible. Still, I remember San Francisco from before DemoGOP nationalsocialism took root…

  17. I’m sure Reason would not object if someone was charged for defending themselves against a knife by shooting them with a firearm.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.