Florida Officer Shoots and Kills Man Mid-Sentence for Refusing To Drop an Axe
Now the officer is trying to keep his identity secret under a state law intended to protect crime victims.

Newly released body-camera footage appears to show an unidentified Jacksonville, Florida, Sheriff's Office law-enforcement officer shooting and killing a man holding an axe after refusing an order to put it down and attempting to talk to the officer.
The shooting happened in Jacksonville last April. According to First Coast News, police were called out by a report of a "mentally ill" man cutting power to people's homes and vandalizing them. Body camera footage shows an officer encountering Kevin Mahan, 43, on a property, standing behind some bushes. He was holding an axe, but seemingly alone and not threatening anybody. The officer approaches and orders Mahan several times to drop the axe, but Mahan refuses, attempting to talk to the officer.
The officer has his gun drawn and trained on Mahan but keeps a safe distance. After the fourth demand that Mahan drop the axe, Mahan holds the axe up and starts saying, "Man, listen, bro … ," and then the officer immediately shoots him. Mahan died. While he did hold up the axe, it didn't appear he was doing so as a threat and was anyway much too far from the officer to swing it at him.
Mahan does have a lengthy history of encounters with the law, including convictions for armed robbery and was previously sentenced to prison after a conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was arrested a year ago after an alleged attempting carjacking incident and pleaded no contest to resisting arrest. He served 30 days in jail.
The officer was placed on administrative leave during the investigation, but First Coast News reports that he is now back on the job. The body camera footage was released on Friday. First Coast News turned to a retired former officer, Kim Varner, from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, who explained the alternatives the officer could have taken. He could have waited for backup. He could have continued the conversation, since Mahan was clearly not actually approaching or threatening the officer.
"Why not talk to the guy?" Varner asked. "'Drop the axe!' ain't talking to him."
It is, however, an example of how some police officers habitually approach these situations, prioritizing compliance over anything else—even if it actually escalates the possibility of violence and even when dealing with people whose mental faculties are suspect.
There's a further insult as well. The reason the officer has not been identified is because he has sought and received anonymity under Florida's Marsy's Law. This law, a state constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2018, was sold as a "victim's rights" bill that was intended to make sure crime victims were entitled to certain protections and rights during court cases, including protection from "the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim's family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information of the victim."
In reality, Florida's Marsy's Law is written so vaguely that police officers are using the law to prevent their names from being publicly released by declaring that they are "crime victims" when they have violent confrontations as part of their job. And in 2021, a Florida appeals court agreed, determining that the law can be invoked by police officers to conceal their names from the public, a blow against law enforcement transparency and accountability. Florida's Supreme Court just heard arguments earlier this month to determine whether using Marsy's Law to shield police officers' identities violates the state constitution's rules for public records.
Regardless, while people may reasonably debate whether the officer's shooting of Mahan was justified under the law, no reasonable person would watch that body camera footage and conclude that the law enforcement officer was a "victim" of any crime.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂
HERE====)> http://WWW.WORKSFUL.COM
It's a murder. When will America demand police training be completely reformed? These are cowards who rarely put themselves in harms way, which is you know, the job.
Nonsense. Their job is to provide security and safety for all by upholding the laws on the books. Put the axe down and nothing happens.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job csx06 online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,125 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link——————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money..... http://www.LiveJob247.com
I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply
COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE________ http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
legally yes, but can't we tone down these situations a bit?
What happened to warning shots, perfectly reasonable in this situation. Just one of a few escalation or de-escalation options, besides shooting to kill on first twitch.
I agree with you... looks like our officers needs a little recap on how to deal with such situations. Besides, there is a thing called "warning shots" and what happen to so-called police negotiation? Feel free to surf to my homepage: https://luxebet88.info/
Oh yes let's endanger everyone else by firing random shots that are not justified in the first place since if one has the luxury of firing them there is no imminent threat. Anyone advocating warning shots is tactically and legally incompetent to discuss this subject.
Exactly who was threatened? No one was in the area, and the cop was plenty far away to react if he came towards him. It was murder. Just like the cop that shot the guy that had the pellet gun, set it down, and was crawling towards the cop, as ordered. You just can’t shoot someone and claim you or others were threatened. A few people have learned that in the Florida stand your ground laws. like the guy that shot the kid for playing his music to loud.
Someone with an axe can throw it in less than a second and kill you. Brandishing an axe is an imminent threat. PERIOD. Chances of conviction are zero.
This happened in real life, not in a Bruce Lee movie.
He was far away and not an immediate threat, a civilian would be charged with murder.
Not sure why people think their job is to put themselves in harm's way. That's never really been in their training program. Probably confusing cops with military.
How was this cop in harms way? Look at the pic, he was far away, it was an axe. Maybe the guy was hard of hearing.
Now if he had a gun, I would agree with you.
Yes, their job is to put themselves in harm's way. They are paid to put themselves in hazardous situations so they rest of us don't have to. That's the job. If they don't like that deal, they should find other work. If they all don't like that deal, then there's no reason to continue to pay for police departments.
It is, however, an example of how some police officers habitually approach these situations, prioritizing compliance over anything else—even if it actually escalates the possibility of violence and even when dealing with people whose mental faculties are suspect.
Don't buy the lie that law enforcement enforces the law. Their job is to enforce their will. As in comply or die. Doesn't matter if their commands are lawful or not, because they face no consequences for their actions.
Regardless, while people may reasonably debate whether the officer's shooting of Mahan was justified under the law, no reasonable person would watch that body camera footage and conclude that the law enforcement officer was a "victim" of any crime.
From law enforcement's point of view, failure to obey is a threat to officer safety. An officer can't feel safe around someone who doesn't immediately obey every command. That means they can reasonably fear for their lives when someone fails to obey, regardless of if the person is an actual threat or not. And the courts will back this up 100% of the time.
Get a grip.
Courts won't let officers shoot people just because they failed to obey commands. That's hyperbolic nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_officers_convicted_for_an_on-duty_killing_in_the_United_States
His comment may be hyperbole, but the point remains that too many cops do view a failure to comply with their commands as inherently threatening to them and that courts generally take a sympathetic view to that. There are also many in the public that think that way as well. Like, why didn't the guy just put the axe down, right?
To be clear, a suspect refusing to drop a weapon while being apprehended for a crime is absolutely a threat to officer safety, just not one that justified lethal force under this specific circumstance (IMO).
I'd say the courts have a good reason for their sympathy, and the public could stand to be a lot more sympathetic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRuoXtAPl5c
Why do authoritarians trot out this same tired old video every time this comes up? This video is a chameleon, that purports to show whatever circumstances happen to be relevant at the time, too. No, this is not the same, and no this one instance doesn't mean cops get to assume everything is a deadly threat to them and kill everyone who doesn't immediately tie themselves up for officer safety.
You'll note I never claimed "cops get to assume everything is a deadly threat to them and kill everyone who doesn’t immediately tie themselves up for officer safety". This is more hyperbolic rhetoric.
Bullshit. Cops are increasingly murderous cowards, hiding behind qualified immunity and the magic words that justify any killing : "I feared for my life".
In my city the police encountered a 75 year old grandmother with dementia who was holding a kitchen knife. The screamed "Drop the fucking knife" over and over to this poor bewildered woman. When she didn't immediately obey their obscenity-filled shouts they murdered her. The cop was immediately cleared but the city's insurance company, seeing a completely indefensible position, paid out a 7-figure settlement.
Same here, in Marjorie Taylor Greene's district. 87 year old Syrian Christian refugee with dementia was cutting dandelion greens on a nearby nonprofit's property. The chief of police pulled a gun on her and his deputy tased her. Videos are available on YouTube. Both were absolved of liability but the insurance company paid out.
The back story here is that the old lady's grandson was a police officer in a nearby city. Taser pig was removed from office by Rona. Local rumor says that while pig was dying, the grandson sat there and quietly told schweinhund "She's waiting for you, Marshall. She's ready and waiting for you."
On the J-town officer's behalf, axe-throwing studios are popular with the neo-Nazi set and note that this is Florida, where Carl Hiassen's books are considered understatements. He should have shot him in the shoulder, though.
You can't be serious about that list, it goes back to 1870. For that amount of years and that short of a list of convicted cops utterly blows your argument to smithereens. Didn't do the math because you would have needed to know how many police have been employed since 1870, but, if I had to guess it would be like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of police get found guilty of anything. Police are people and if you believe say politicians, lawyers, your neighbor will lie, then by logic so will police. pssstttt little secret, police lie all the time, maybe even more then most.
It’s a wikipedia list compiled by volunteers. It’s incomplete. It also only shows officers convicted for on duty killings, not on duty injuries or anything else. Cops can lie if given the opportunity, but the cameras they wear don’t.
This is a twofer in outcome. Chopping up power lines deprives people of electricity, which is as direct a threat to life and limb as spreading poison gas or firing into gatherings of people from a distance. So whack-job econazi manages to goad steroid-soaked Waffen-SS minion into assisting his suicide. So far, this is protecting citizens' lives in a rare (albeit violent) departure from asset-forfeiture robberies and race-baiting one expects from Kleptocracy cops. The real criminals are those who conspire to shield either identity.
Get help, Hank; professional mental health treatment. And drugs; LOTS of drugs.
He needs hospice.
Don't brandish an axe at people and they won't shoot you for it. Pretty simple stuff.
Finger on the trigger [pull weight on a Glock is just over 5#], add stress/ adrenalin, oops.
Clearly he just needs MoAr TrAiNiNg.
Why? He hit his target with at least one shot.
There remains a certain tension between "denial of due process" and "people we would all be better off without amongst the living."
This case appears to involve two people we would be better off without.
Indeed. I was speaking a bit sardonically in hopes of hinting at how I really feel. One of my friends alleges that "due process" for gang bangers would be to put them all in an arena armed to the teeth; then execute the survivors for murder.
IIRC one group that has been a major beneficiary of "stand your ground" laws is gang-bangers, for obvious reasons.
Self defense is a right. No matter what traitor democrats say to the contrary.
Perhaps, but the one who survived will kill again, you can be sure. Unlike his victim,he will continue to kill without consequences.
The only one I see is the violent imbecile with the axe. You have two choices: Lock these nutcase in mental wards as we used to, or they will cause problems and be killed. You decide.
Canada has a similar policy:
https://www.voanews.com/a/canada-soon-to-allow-euthanasia-for-the-mentally-ill/6866456.html
This is reminiscent of the John Crawford murder.
WHO?!!
Google is just so handy. You can hold the left mouse button and move the cursor to highlight "John Crawford murder", then right click. A menu pops up and you can select "Search Google for..."
I find I don't have a problem with him remaining anonymous. Honest police officers are doxed and tormented for just doing their jobs. Transparency doesn't need to involve names being publicly displayed. It just needs to detail what happened and what measures were taken. What we should be upset about is that he's back on the job.
Their jobs, under the Kleptocracy, are not to enforce individual rights to freedom from initiation of force. They are jobs like what Lysander Spooner described, as armed minions of a secret, repeat, secret band of robbers and murderers. This Flardy law returns us to the Klan rule Mark Twain described in Huckleberry Finn. Southern Night Riders got to hunt and kill jurors who bring them to justice. This simply hands them another mask of anonymity to plug holes in qualified immunity and make asset forfeiture robberies go all the more smoothly.
He shot a dangerous nut weilding an axe. He was not out rounding up Jews to take to the gas chambers or blacks to return to the plantation or lynch, please, stop your silly whining. There are cases of police abuse but this isn't one of them. This is a case of a failed mental health system that fails to lock up dangerous nutcases.
There's no such thing as an honest cop. If there was then they wouldn't tolerate bad cops.
Frank Serpico would like to have a word with you.
That's literally the point. There may technically be honest cops at an instant in time, but they won't remain both honest and cops for long.
What we should be upset about is that he’s back on the job.
Definitely shouldn't be back on the job, at minimum. Even if he accidentally pulled the trigger, I don't think it's unreasonable to demand that cops at least have better trigger discipline than Vincent Vega.
Remember, speech is violence. No one should be subjected to violence. The police officer’s violence was just much more efficient.
I am making 80 US dollars per-hr to complete some internet services from home.I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
Look extra details going this web-page............>>> onlinecareer1
So the officer miscalculated and was probably outside the Reason.com 'zone of victimization' by 2 feet or less; his mistake was not intentional so let him remain private but he should be warned that next time he has to get within 'head splitting' distance in order to justify using deadly force.
The State of Florida, not Reason, defines cold-blooded murderers under color of law as "victims."
Even if this can be justly judged murder, it is does not appear to be well described as cold blooded. The officer was confronting an armed, likely emotionally disturbed man who been doing violence, at least against other people's property. His emotions were likely running quite high. This was a high stress moment, let us evaluate fairly and not use inaccurate language.
Oh, so long as cops are killing everyone hot-bloodedly, I guess nothing to worry about.
Does the article say that the deceased was the person reported to be “a “mentally ill” man cutting power to people’s homes and vandalizing them”? I must have missed it.
I am having a hard time going hard on the officer here. He was responding to an actual crime that had been reported, the man was holding an actual weapon, and the man had repeatedly been told to drop it but instead raised it.
Should he have waited longer? I would say so. However, I would say this was within a judgement call. An axe is a one-hit weapon if it gets in range, the distance needed to stop a melee charge is significantly larger than people normally assume, and that's not even counting the possibility of him being on drugs or suicidally aggressive.
And I also think it's very reasonable to protect his identity. There have been multiple instances where legitimate firearm use has led to police officers being targeted.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, but your assessment is flawed. We hold law enforcement officers to a higher standard and he failed to keep that standard.
We should hold law enforcement officers to a higher standard.
One of the main problems is that, in practice, we don't.
Yes, we must hold them to a high standard. However, we cannot expect omniscience and perfection.
I think the standard should clearly include holding out a weapon after clearly and explicitly knowing that they are speaking to a cop.
I might even agree with firing the guy. However, prosecution seems unwarranted here.
At least hold them to the SAME standard as everyone else. If a shooting would be judged as justifiable armed self defense if the shooter was a "civilian", then the cop should get the same treatment. In this case, I have no doubt that if a non-cop had shot from that distance, he would be facing charges.
So how long after the swing starts is he supposed to wait?
What swing? How about any amount of time >0?
Ever thrown an axe? That's how you throw an axe. You raise it to your shoulder, usually head of the axe back behind your shoulder, but not necessary. A good axe thrower could easily hit the officer from that stance at that distance. Cops should not shoot people, but this is not nearly as clear cut a case as it's made out to be. Using Marsy's Law to remain anonymous is wrong. The officer is a public servant doing his job, not the victim of a crime.
We really need a laughing face emoji here.
If you disagree with the comment, why not give your reasons?
Because some comments deserve only ridicule.
Because it's so obvious he doesn't need to
He can't. He has none. 'cop bad' is about as good as you're gonna get.
An armed criminal was caught in the commission of a crime.
He was told to drop his weapon. Several times. He refused. Instead, he lifted the weapon.
All the psychics at TeenReason KNOW that the guy wasn't a threat and condemn the cop.
Cops have been doing some pretty fucked up shit lately. This is not an example of that.
he lifted the weapon.
If you're buying that harming the officer by throwing the ax was a real risk, you've watched too many martial arts movies.
Nothing holds law enforcement officers to any higher standard. Thats just a myth that exists in your mind. An imminent threat is an imminent threat and 20 feet is the absolute minimum distance required to be able to react in time with a firearm to an edged or stabbing weapon threat. It was clearly justified.
I don't think this was within a judgement call. The guy didn't walk or run towards the officer, so distance management while issuing verbal commands was the officers responsibility. The officer was actually approaching the guy during the confrontation.
I do think a separate law to keep the identities of officers involved in shootings concealed until convicted is a good idea if there is a significant amount of retaliation occurring.
I do think a separate law to keep the identities of officers involved in shootings concealed until convicted is a good idea if there is a significant amount of retaliation occurring.
I would modify that to being charged. Trials should be public, so if an officer is charged, then his name should be public along with the proceedings against him.
Also, I would agree that a law like this would only be justified if there is evidence of harassment and retaliation against officers involved in shootings that are found to have been justified in their actions. There is no reason to make an exception to public records laws if their is no threat from a public servant's name being published.
I would posit that currently police are targeted and harassed even in the absence of being named. Furthermore waiting until conviction at least gives the family time to relocate unless you believe they should be punished for the deeds of the officer?
Furthermore waiting until conviction at least gives the family time to relocate unless you believe they should be punished for the deeds of the officer?
Of course the officer's family shouldn't suffer any more than his going to jail would bring, if he was convicted. But a cop charged with a crime should be treated like any other criminal defendant. And that includes transparency with the public. Defendants don't get to remain anonymous, like, ever, so the same should be true for them.
I would posit that currently police are targeted and harassed even in the absence of being named.
It would be an interesting study to see how the frequency of police being targeted and harassed compares to them unjustly targeting and harassing civilians. Neither should be acceptable, and that is the point here. Police officers that know they would be held accountable for abusing their authority would be much less likely to do so, or maybe they'd self-select out of that job if they didn't think they could control themselves.
The guy is going around cutting power lines with an axe, he's a danger to himself and others, and it's the cop's duty to disarm him.
It is the cops duty to disarm and apprehend him, but that didn't need to happen right away, he wasn't an immediate danger and he wasn't trying to flee. The cop should have stopped at a safe distance and continued to yell commands while waiting for backup to show up with non-lethal weapons like beanbag shotguns and tasers. That's normally what happens in situations like this.
The guy is going around cutting power lines with an axe, he’s a danger to himself and others, and it’s the cop’s duty to disarm him.
Well, killing him was one way to disarm him, I suppose. But was shooting him necessary to disarm him?
His duty to disarm the guy was why he continued to approach him. And the guy could have gotten away through the woods. I didn't see video of the actual shooting anywhere, but he was pretty close before it cut out. The body camera has a wide angle lens that makes things look further than they are. I wouldn't want to be put in this situation and I can only blame the guy with the axe, based on what I've seen and read.
Twenty feet is the absolute minimum distance to reliably respond with a firearm to an edged or stabbing weapon threat and any person near that distance posing a threat with such a weapon justifies deadly force. People who don't understand this get killed with edged and stabbing weapons with regularity.
The flip side is when you are abruptly confronted by a yelling man with a gun, it takes your brain a few seconds at least to comprehend what's going on (especially if you are actually innocent and are thus confused why police are even there, though it's not clear if this guy actually was cutting power lines or not from the articles). The state MUST be required to allow people to comprehend what's going on and comply unless there is a manifest threat not created by the officer himself. This may create a small increase in danger to police, but it will create a massive reduction in danger to the public from police.
Wrong and all utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is imminent threat. The absolute minimum distance to reliably effectively respond with a firearm to a stabbing or edged weapon threat is twenty feet. Any individual close to that distance brandishing such a weapon is an imminent threat and justifies deadly force. PERIOD.
By your own argument, any cop with his gun out is an immediate threat to _my_ life, so I'd be justified in shooting him.
The guy was not threatening the officer in any way, through his manner, nor his actions. I'm old and out of shape, and I'm reasonably confident that I could avoid an axe lobbed at me from 50 yards away. A hyper vigilant cop would be in no danger unless the dude charged at him.
Really, 50 yards is what you're going with. Why not go with 3 miles if you're exaggerating the distance.
50 feet seems generous from the photograph. 25 foot is generally considered the minimum to stop a knife-wielding attacker.
And he's not wielding a knife. It's an axe. And raising the axe up like that is exactly how you get ready to throw an axe. A good axe thrower could easily kill someone at that distance.
It makes no difference. The rule applies to any lethal weapon that is going to be used on direct contact. Knife, cleaver, axe baseball bat, it makes no difference.
But 25 feet is draw-aim-fire distance. If you’re already aiming at the person, even if you have slow reflexes, it’s still at most one second to recognize a threat and fire.
It takes less than 2 seconds for a person with an axe to clear that distance and strike you with it. A shot through the heart may well not incapacitate in that amount of time. You people who underestimate edged and stabbing weapons make up the lions share of those who wind up screaming and crying on the ground bleeding out from wounds inflicted with them.
Well we now know you are hopeless incompetent and judging range.
I really get tired of this Monday morning quarterbacking of cops.
So you trust the gubmint.
No, I just get tired of arm chair, Monday morning quarterbacks who calmly watch a video over and over and then opine things like "he really wasn't going to attack the officer" or "the positon he was in wasn't conducive to being dangerous to the officer" or "he wasn't holding the axe in such a way that really would be a threat."
I don't like nuance and strained arguments in stress free environs to take the place of split second decision making.
I wish the officer in this case would have been more patient. I wish the officer was a better cop. But trying to explain that the officer should have known nuanced things (that are based on a lot of speculation, mind you) in the seconds he has to react to the situation at the time is ridiculous.
Don't want to get shot by cops, don't threaten them with an axe.
The Squirrel is right here.
Some people reflexively defend whatever a police officer does.
Other people reflexively condemn anything a police officer does.
Neither group is too smart.
When a group - or an individual - is given and empowered/authorized by the state to use a stick, a Tazer, and especially a firearm, they should expect to be held, and it is reasonable to hold them, to a "higher standard" than one would hold a (relatively) untrained citizen facing similar circumstances. What upsets people is the general tendency to hold them to a lesser standard for the use of lethal force, i.e., give police a pass in cases that would surely see you or me prosecuted.
No we just don't trust people too stupid and ignorant to know that somebody with an axe at that distance can EASILY kill you before anything but a perfect head shot incapacitates them. This may be hard for some of you anarchists to understand, but a nut running around weilding an axe and attacking property with it is actually a legitimate problem for law enforcement to resolve. The nut with the axe and his violent, destructive, nutcase actions are the problem, not the police who respond. Violent morons like this are why we need police in the first place. Now there is one fewer.
"...somebody with an axe at that distance can EASILY kill you if you're in an action-adventure movie."
Fixed it for you.
Most of the rest of us are tired of cops getting away with murder.
Really, please list the cops that have gotten away with murder? How much is this really a problem versus a hysteric outrage topic?
Do your own homework.
I didn't make the claim. You're the one asserting that cops murdering people is a meaningful issue.
And if you're denying the existence of the problem, I'm not interested in trying to get you caught up enough to discuss it.
People like you who underestimate edged weapons are the bulk of those who wind up screaming and crying like little girls as you bleed out from wounds inflicted by them. We had one like you in a training class I was in. He was given a simmunitions weapon and 4 chances to stop an "attacker" with a training "edged weapon" at about this same distance. He failed completely the first three times. The 4th time he scored a single abdominal hit that MIGHT have stopped a less than completely determined adversary. Basically, he was humiliated.
He had an axe, not a sword.
They shouldn't take a job violently enforcing the government's will if they don't want to be scrutinized by people who don't view the government as infallible. I for one think we could use an awful lot more of this scrutiny. Every person killed by a cop should get such scrutiny. Some may well have deserved it, but we cannot trust the government to honestly tell us that.
Investigation and scrutiny is fine, as long as it's fair. And sitting in a nice comfy chair, stress free, viewing a video over and over again to conclude things like "the axe just wasn't quite high enough compared to his shoulder for him to have effectively lethally thrown the axe at the officer" in order to claim the office made the wrong call in stress filled seconds is not proper scrutiny.
Upvote
Scrutinize all you want. Anyone not completely and utterly ignorant of the dangers posed by edged and stabbing weapons knows this was justified. The opinions of the other ignorant ones don't much matter.
As taxpayers who pay for the police, our opinions absolutely matter.
And I get tired of killer cops shooting as a first resort and distorting the law to get away with it.
Are all cops bad? If you answer yes then revolt/guerrilla tactics would be not only preferable but almost mandatory. If on the other hand you believe most police do their job within the normal range of people then maybe they all don’t deserve scorn?
Yet he didn't shoot first. He demanded the person put down the lethal weapon. When that didn't happen, he resorted to lethal force. I wish the officer would have been more calm and tried not to use lethal force. I'm not sure he really should be a cop. I believe police need a lot more training in this country. That said, I still can't fault him for shooting the guy.
Yet he didn’t shoot first.
He shot before there was reason to think the man was actually attacking him. So, yeah, he shot "first." Seriously, try and throw something as heavy as an axe ~25 ft without winding up first and putting your weight into it. If he was going to throw the axe, the cop would have to have shit for reflexes to not be able to shoot before the axe left the guy's hand if he started to actually throw it at him.
And this is the kind of analysis I am talking about. The sitting in your comfy computer chair, calmly watching a video over and over, coming to the conclusion that the physics of the situation just aren't quite right for the person to be a threat with the axe. Then demanding the officer come to the same conclusion as you in the seconds he has to assess and react to the situation.
If you don't understand the danger posed by an axe at this distance you are simply too ignorant of relevant facts to have an informed opinion.
Real life. Not a movie. No special effects. Get real.
Deescalation is never an option for today's militarized police. They think Americans are the enemy.
Yep. Obey instantly and completely or die. That's the rule now.
When someone with an edged or stabbing weapon is close to the 20 foot absolute minimum distance required to reliably use a firearm to neutralize an attack they have relinquished any right they had to be de escalated. Police de escalate numerous times everyday all over America. If they didn't hundreds of imbeciles like this one would be shot dead on a daily basis.
The suspect was standing still. It was the officer who decided what distance to leave between them. It was clearly a lot more than 20 feet, anyway.
Meanwhile Ashli Babbit wasn't armed with anything.
Die in a fire Shackford.
Shootings of unarmed people are justifiable depending on context (see Kyle Rittenhouse). The number of people breaking down that door posed a threat to the officers and evacuating congresscreatures.
Better watch out with that kind of talk. You'll get Sevo to reply to every comment he ever sees you make telling the world that you want to murder unarmed women.
“(see Kyle Rittenhouse)”
Every person Rittenhouse shot was in the process of assaulting Rittenhouse not standing at a distance calmly speaking to him.
You dishonest sockpuppet fuck.
And Ashli Babbit was "standing at a distance calmly speaking" to the officers? Really? I guess this video must be fake then.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/video-shows-fatal-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-at-u-s-capitol/2535527/
Two of the three people Rittenhouse shot were armed. One with a blunt object, specifically a skateboard, which he tried to use as a club, the other with a handgun.
Bro! I just want to axe you a question.
Sounds like Shackleford's never gone axe throwing. /sarc
Despite what some are saying, you cannot reasonably throw from that position, the blade has to go above your shoulder at least.
It doesn't make difference. You can clear that distance and strike with an edged or stabbing weapon before any but the best placed shots incapacitate.
The suspect was standing still. The officer chose that distance.
A peasant was attempting to talk to one of The King's Men. If that's not a crime it should be. /sarc
When someone points a gun at you and says “drop the axe”, you drop the axe. If not, you win a Darwin award.
Right. When cops make split-second, life-and-death decisions, they will always get the benefit of the doubt about whether they acted correctly. When the people cops shoot don't do exactly what a cop is yelling at them to do in that same split-second, life-and-death moment, they had it coming.
Like John Crawford.
*split second decision*
He had significantly more time to drop the axe having been commanded multiple times to do so. The split second was when he raised the ax(to throw or not) and began to argue with/threaten the cop. Moreover, this was not a random dude shopping immediately dropped by the cops upon their entering the store unlike the idiots trying to compare it to Crawford. This was someone destroying people's access to electricity which meant he knew damned well the cops would be looking for him and attempting to stop him. Those facts taken together make it look more like suicide by cop than anything else.
I didn't say "he had it coming", nor did I make a statement about the legality or morality of the situation.
I simply said: if someone points a gun at you and tells you to do something, your best course of action is usually to comply.
You can sue the hell out of them afterwards, but only if you live.
Yes, obviously your best bet at surviving someone threatening you with a gun that is already pointing it at you is to make sure that they don’t see you as a threat and do what they say. Unless, of course, it is clear that their intention is to kill you, in which case, running away or for cover and hoping that they aren’t a good shot would be better. If you are armed yourself, you might think about the distance between you, the likelihood of him shooting and hitting you before you could draw and fire your weapon, and then make a decision. If the guy is very close and you have considerable training in that kind of scenario, you might consider trying to disarm him as your best option. (I certainly wouldn’t have that kind of confidence from just a few years of martial arts I did more than 20 years ago.) If the guy pointing the gun is a cop, then doing what he says is very obviously the best option.
But all of that assumes that a person is going to be able to think and react in those very reasonable ways rather than to panic, be too stunned to hear and understand what the cop is saying, or that there isn’t more than one cop yelling instructions at that person that might be contradictory or confusing.
Cops should be trained to minimize the chances of those things happening. Give suspects the opportunity to process a situation that they may never have encountered and certainly didn’t train for the way that they do.
People like you vastly overestimate the ability of cops or anybody else to exercise control over another person's actions. It should come as no surprise to anybody going around destroying property with an axe when police show up and it wasn't a surprise to this imbecile either. He just had no intention of cooperating.
Well yes, when a crazy person picks up an axes, goes on a destructive rampage and then refuses to drop the axe when confronted by a cop, he did pretty much have it coming.
He could have avoided the whole think about not going on an axe rampage. Maybe he only damaged property, but he was still running amok.
Remember being innocent until proven guilty? That is the most important aspect of what we call "due process" rights. We can only be deprived of life, liberty, or property by due process of law. In my view, a cop going into a situation where there is someone suspected of property damage should have a plan to make sure that any suspects would be apprehended with no force used, if possible. I do not want there to be cops on the job, carrying guns, that would approach someone reported to be using an axe to destroy property thinking that he was going to find the guy, order him to put the axe down, and then shoot him if he doesn't. No one should be given the power to use deadly force if they had that little regard for human life. My regard for human life is such that no one has it coming that hasn't at least been convicted of capital murder, or it is totally reasonable to think that the person was trying to cause major harm or death at the very instant they were shot.
Of course, there is the Clint Eastwood response in Unforgiven when his young partner talked about the man he killed having it coming. "We all have it coming kid."
People like you hesitate and wind up dead in violent encounters with monotonous regularity.
Innocent until proven guilty has never applied to the individual force is used on in a self defense situation for the rather obvious reason that there is no time for a freaking trial before force is used. Its comical all the excuses people like you will use to try to defend some violent nut who got himself killed.
Two violent nuts who unfortunately came together.
Innocent until proven guilty applies to court proceedings.
When interacting with police, a reasonable suspicion by police is legally sufficient to treat you like a criminal. Get used to it.
The moron with the axe is the reason for the whole problem. If I were wandering about attacking property with an axe and police confronted me, I'd have a pretty good idea what it was about and what to do to minimize the chance of getting shot: DROP THE FING AXE .
I am making 80 US dollars per-hr to complete some internet services from home.I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
Look extra details going this web-page............>>> onlinecareer1
Had a tooth extraction today and then read this. Have to say in my hazy state my first thought looking at the pix was Hunter Biden got what he deserved.
Anyone expecting the right-wing political activist SCOTUS to overturn the Florida Supreme Court on this? I got a bridge to Crimea to sell you.
From the article this sounds like murder.
Not taking a position on this, but the officer might consider the Ed Ames defense if prosecuted. https://youtu.be/0L5QC9ZJkM8?t=21
A civilian would be charged with murder for this same action. I am a supporter of law enforcement but this is just plain murder. He was not under immediate threat.
No it wasn’t and anybody familiar with the minimum time required to respond to a stabbing or edged weapon threat with a firearm understands why.
That is correct. Police are not civilians and may use lethal force when civilians can’t.
People like you hesitate and wind up dead in violent encounters with monotonous regularity.
What hellhole do you live in? Nearly all of us live our whole lives without any "violent encounters".
This career violent offender should have just been locked up for life a long time ago. The real problem here is that yet another violent criminal was set free to offend over and over and over again. He won’t be reoffending again this time.
And violent cops are allowed to offend over and over. It will be interesting to see what his record is like when he’s forced out of hiding.
Innocent until proven guilty has never applied to the individual force is used on in a self defense situation for the rather obvious reason that there is no time for a freaking trial before force is used. Its comical all the excuses people like you will use to try to defend some violent nut who got himself killed.
It's disturbing the excuses you're using to defend a clear misuse of deadly force.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://www.worksclick.com
The criminal liability for an officer should be the same as for a private citizen and vice-versa. Civil liability should extend to the department employing the officer. That department should have rules covering what liability is covered and how much as a part of the terms of employment. Under NO circumstances should a citizen be MORE criminally or civilly liable than a LEO. LEOs are (should be) much better trained than a normal citizen.