[onoway]

"A 70-year-old man was shot by police during an incident Friday in Montreal.

Montreal police spokeswoman Anie Lemieux said officers were responding to a call near downtown about a man expressing suicidal thoughts."

They didn't kill him, he was shot "in the lower body and taken to hospital". They sure know how to handle suicidal people in Quebec, bet he won't do that again.

[ArtK78]

I believe that I mentioned previously that there was a time in England that suicide was a capital offense.

[onoway]

It's still against the law here but it's unfortunate that there isn't a law against people in authority being stupid, especially if they are allowed to carry guns (or tazers) or are politicians.

[blackshoe]

There was an "altercation", whatever that means.

The provincial police will investigate. Fair enough. Maybe.

[mikeh]

I don't know the details, and the OP didn't give any. The devil is always in the details.

For example, every year in NA, perhaps more in the US than in Canada, there are many people who chose to commit suicide but can't bring themselves to actually do the final act, so they precipitate a confrontation with armed police officers.

The way that 'suicide by cop' works is that the would-be suicide is armed, often with a knife or a machete/axe or the like but sometimes with a firearm, and attacks the police officer.

Police officers are trained to respond to the use of deadly force by using deadly force in return. Only in movies or on television do police officers aim to disable rather than to kill. I am not someone with any familiarity with shooting anything, let alone people, but experts with whom I have spoken say that almost all humans react to the stress of having an armed individual attack at short range with physiological responses that impair one's ability to aim accurately, not to mention that handguns are not especially precise weapons, and that one is shooting at a moving target. Thus police officers are trained to shoot for the torso, since it is the biggest target, and a near miss of the torso may still strike the person, perhaps slowing them down or disabling them.

I should add, in the interests of full disclosure, that I am often defending police officers accused of excessive force, including the use of deadly force. I am definitely not blind to the abuses that can happen (last night I saw on the CBC news some very disturbing video of a young man shot and killed by police in Toronto in circumstances that made it appear as if the shooting was quite possibly unwarranted...I only say 'quite possibly' because no cellphone video could capture all the detail, but unless there was something going on that the video didn't capture, I'd say 'almost certainly').

I stress I don't know if the elderly man chose to act out as if he were going to attack the officer(s). But 70 isn't that old anymore. I golf with 70 year olds, and two of the lawyers in my office are in their late 60's and they aren't anywhere close to being decrepit.

Making posts which serve to foster distrust of police, without setting out the facts, is imo counterproductive.

Again, I am not saying no criticism was warranted in the OP situation: I am saying that no criticism should be expressed without setting out the facts such that an objective reader could decide whether the criticism was warranted.

[barmar]

 mikeh, on 2013-July-29, 10:42, said:

Police officers are trained to respond to the use of deadly force by using deadly force in return.

And they're also expected not to shoot unless there seems to be an appropriate level of danger. Without more details, I wouldn't assume that the shooting was unprovoked.

[onoway]

 mikeh, on 2013-July-29, 10:42, said:

I don't know the details, and the OP didn't give any. The devil is always in the details.

For example, every year in NA, perhaps more in the US than in Canada, there are many people who chose to commit suicide but can't bring themselves to actually do the final act, so they precipitate a confrontation with armed police officers.

The way that 'suicide by cop' works is that the would-be suicide is armed, often with a knife or a machete/axe or the like but sometimes with a firearm, and attacks the police officer.

Police officers are trained to respond to the use of deadly force by using deadly force in return. Only in movies or on television do police officers aim to disable rather than to kill. I am not someone with any familiarity with shooting anything, let alone people, but experts with whom I have spoken say that almost all humans react to the stress of having an armed individual attack at short range with physiological responses that impair one's ability to aim accurately, not to mention that handguns are not especially precise weapons, and that one is shooting at a moving target. Thus police officers are trained to shoot for the torso, since it is the biggest target, and a near miss of the torso may still strike the person, perhaps slowing them down or disabling them.

I should add, in the interests of full disclosure, that I am often defending police officers accused of excessive force, including the use of deadly force. I am definitely not blind to the abuses that can happen (last night I saw on the CBC news some very disturbing video of a young man shot and killed by police in Toronto in circumstances that made it appear as if the shooting was quite possibly unwarranted...I only say 'quite possibly' because no cellphone video could capture all the detail, but unless there was something going on that the video didn't capture, I'd say 'almost certainly').

I stress I don't know if the elderly man chose to act out as if he were going to attack the officer(s). But 70 isn't that old anymore. I golf with 70 year olds, and two of the lawyers in my office are in their late 60's and they aren't anywhere close to being decrepit.

Making posts which serve to foster distrust of police, without setting out the facts, is imo counterproductive.

Again, I am not saying no criticism was warranted in the OP situation: I am saying that no criticism should be expressed without setting out the facts such that an objective reader could decide whether the criticism was warranted.

Good points. I read this right after two other stories on the news today. One about a police officer who was one of four who tazered an unarmed man to death in Vancouver airport but seems to be being in danger of being held accountable pretty much only for perjury, and the other of the shooting in Toronto. I didn't see the video of that but I heard it on the radio and it sounded as though they shot the guy about a dozen times or more. Distrust of police is fed by this sort of thing.

If the police who did overreact were held as accountable as an ordinary citizen would be then there wouldn't be a problem, but all too often that isn't the case. They are SUPPOSED to be trained sufficiently in ways to deal with situations that they are not hostage to their emotions.

I would also guess that people who are suicidal and of pensionable age, are not often those who are healthy and active. There are few 70 plus people I've ever met who would be able to give a fit, trained man 20 or more years younger than themselves much of a battle, and those few are not the depressed and potentially suicidal ones.

[mikeh]

 onoway, on 2013-July-29, 22:10, said:

I would also guess that people who are suicidal and of pensionable age, are not often those who are healthy and active. There are few 70 plus people I've ever met who would be able to give a fit, trained man 20 or more years younger than themselves much of a battle, and those few are not the depressed and potentially suicidal ones.

Police officers are not required to give someone a fair battle. Being stabbed by a 70 year old can be as fatal as being stabbed by a 20 year old. Fair fight is not the rule. Think about what a police officer is asked to do by society: 40% of the interactions urban police have with the public is with people who are high on something, or are seriously mentally ill, or both.

What do you think an officer's life expectancy would be if they were required to offer a fair fight to every would-be assailant?

As for the Toronto shooting, that video obviously doesn't show everything but what it shows suggests a strong prima facie case that the shooting officer acted without lawful justification. I hope that the other officers were immediately segregated and quickly interviewed so as to get the details before they had a chance to discuss it amongst themselves.....that is standard practice in these sorts of events. It was a very disturbing video to watch.

Also please note that I didn't say the Montreal officer was innocent of any wrongdoing: I merely said, and repeat, that it is unfair to assume that he or she was guilty, based only on the very limited information publically available.

[onoway]

the term "fair" never came into it. It isn't a boxing ring with Queensbury (sp?) rules. There is a whole lot of distance, tho, between a fair fight and shooting someone. People managed to capture gorillas without harming them even before tranquilizer darts.They might not have knives but they are extremely dangerous if they feel threatened. We have fit trained police who can't manage to do the same with a suicidal 70 year old? In that case, we need to get better trained police or possibly better techniques or maybe even both.

[Cyberyeti]

 onoway, on 2013-July-30, 08:44, said:

the term "fair" never came into it. It isn't a boxing ring with Queensbury (sp?) rules. There is a whole lot of distance, tho, between a fair fight and shooting someone. People managed to capture gorillas without harming them even before tranquilizer darts.They might not have knives but they are extremely dangerous if they feel threatened. We have fit trained police who can't manage to do the same with a suicidal 70 year old? In that case, we need to get better trained police or possibly better techniques or maybe even both.

It's Queensberry, but apart from that you're spot on.

[mikeh]

 onoway, on 2013-July-30, 08:44, said:

the term "fair" never came into it. It isn't a boxing ring with Queensbury (sp?) rules. There is a whole lot of distance, tho, between a fair fight and shooting someone. People managed to capture gorillas without harming them even before tranquilizer darts.They might not have knives but they are extremely dangerous if they feel threatened. We have fit trained police who can't manage to do the same with a suicidal 70 year old? In that case, we need to get better trained police or possibly better techniques or maybe even both.

You make some points that are often made by people critical of the police. As previously mentioned, my role as a lawyer who sometimes defends police officers facing civil claims arising from alleged excessive force may render my judgment biased, but I also think that it makes me somewhat more informed about policing issues than the average layperson.

I think it almost if not entirely universal in Canada for police to be trained in the use of force by reference to a scale that begins with mere presence...the presence of a uniformed, armed office can in and of itself act as a restraint on bad behaviour by some people.....and escalates through a large range of force options of which, understandably, deadly force is the last option.

The force to be used is to be gauged by reference to the circumstances and, in particular, the conduct of the suspect(s).

While we customarily think of factors such as size, age, strength, training, weapons etc as likely determinants in the outcome of any conflict, the reality is that mental state can play a significant role as well.

Tell the US military that size and weaponry is all-determinative and then ask why the US lost the Vietnam war. The average Vietnamese (VC or North Vietnam) was far smaller in stature than the US army and marine soldiers, and less well-equipped, yet a lot of US soldiers were killed in combat by their smaller, less well-armed enemy.

More importantly, the effects of drugs/alcohol/mental illness/stress can render a person insensitive to pain or even injury. We all know of and many of us applaud professional athletes who don't let injury slow them down. I have read first hand accounts of soldiers who didn't realize they were injured until the excitement of combat lessened. We have all heard stories of the mother who lifted a car off of her infant due to the emotional response she had to the accident. Remember that a very large minority of the people with whom urban police interact are in an abnormal mental state and their actions cannot always be predicted. Indeed, the definition of someone in psychosis is that he or she is NOT capable of processing his or her external environment and is being driven by irrational, internal imperatives. Police officers can't usually tell WHY an individual is acting abnormally, only that the person is.

Police officers are trained to minimize the chances of a suspect causing the officer serious injury, since an injured officer can't protect him or herself and can't protect the community from the violence of his or her assailant. The safety of the suspect IS a factor, but it ranks after the safety of the officer and the community.

Indeed, I have heard a well-qualified use of force expert testify that when facing a suspect armed with a knife, should the suspect begin to approach the officer while demonstrating a refusal to obey commands to drop the weapon, the officer shouldn't let the suspect within 20 feet: the officer should shoot.

Now, did this scenario arise in the Montreal case? I have no idea and I doubt that you do either.

Was the use of force justified? I have no idea.

For all of those whose reaction is similar to yours....how can an armed police officer end up shooting a 70 year old?....I commend you to try a small thought experiment.

Imagine that you are a police officer. Imagine that you are trained as I have outlined. You have drawn your firearm because your training tells you that you should, whenever a suspect shows possession of a weapon and acts in a way that suggests (not 'proves') that he or she may use it.

That suspect is clearly emotionally out of control for whatever reason: he or she is ignoring your commands, which you are supposed to be giving. That suspect starts running at you, wielding the weapon.

Do we want police officers who run away? Leaving this person at large? Able to run amok in the street?

Do we want police officers to holster their firearm and attempt to fend off this attack with a baton or pepper spray? Maybe in the movies, the officer would be so skilled at unarmed combat that he or she can easily and without risk subdue this armed assailant, but life isn't a movie.

So put yourself in the officer's position. Not the suspect's. Not the family of the suspect. Maybe the family of the police officer. Maybe the family of the person nearby who might be attacked by the suspect if the officer runs away or gets disabled.

Then remember why we have police officers. What do we ask them to do for us, every day?

Does all this mean that officers should enjoy immunity? Of course not. With the power we give them comes corresponding responsibility and we have to hold officers to account for their actions. However, that means trying to find out exactly what happened and why, rather than jumping to conclusions unfairly.

[barmar]

 mikeh, on 2013-July-30, 10:43, said:

Then remember why we have police officers. What do we ask them to do for us, every day?

Does all this mean that officers should enjoy immunity? Of course not. With the power we give them comes corresponding responsibility and we have to hold officers to account for their actions. However, that means trying to find out exactly what happened and why, rather than jumping to conclusions unfairly.

Yes, the police should remember Spider-Man's credo: "with great power comes great responsibility".

[Fluffy]

I played a lot of airsoft, and you would quickly learn to aim under pressure to opponent's torso, because its big, its quicker, but most importantly because it doesn't hurt him to get a shot there.

Newbies on the other hand would every day send a face shot or 2 which can be very painful at close range. Not that they wanted to, but not aiming leads to random shots.

This doesn't mean that under pressure of real firearms we would be in control, nor that firing to something other than the torso would be different, but my feeling is that with some training shooting to the arms/legs or even shoulders is not hard when the enemy is standing and aiming, if he is running towards you and its close it is much more complicated and there you certainly go for the torso. If you have time for a couple aiming for the legs first is also easy.

[dwar0123]

 Fluffy, on 2013-July-30, 18:26, said:

I played a lot of airsoft, and you would quickly learn to aim under pressure to opponent's torso, because its big, its quicker, but most importantly because it doesn't hurt him to get a shot there.

Newbies on the other hand would every day send a face shot or 2 which can be very painful at close range. Not that they wanted to, but not aiming leads to random shots.

This doesn't mean that under pressure of real firearms we would be in control, nor that firing to something other than the torso would be different, but my feeling is that with some training shooting to the arms/legs or even shoulders is not hard when the enemy is standing and aiming, if he is running towards you and its close it is much more complicated and there you certainly go for the torso. If you have time for a couple aiming for the legs first is also easy.

So, you can take a finesse which due to your practice and counting you figure will work 75% of the time. Success means you both live.

Failure means you die.

Or you can go up with the Ace.

It is easy to win real life double dummy after the fact.

But single dummy, I think I will go with the safety play.

[onoway]

 mikeh, on 2013-July-30, 10:43, said:

You make some points that are often made by people critical of the police. As previously mentioned, my role as a lawyer who sometimes defends police officers facing civil claims arising from alleged excessive force may render my judgment biased, but I also think that it makes me somewhat more informed about policing issues than the average layperson.

I think it almost if not entirely universal in Canada for police to be trained in the use of force by reference to a scale that begins with mere presence...the presence of a uniformed, armed office can in and of itself act as a restraint on bad behaviour by some people.....and escalates through a large range of force options of which, understandably, deadly force is the last option.

The force to be used is to be gauged by reference to the circumstances and, in particular, the conduct of the suspect(s).

While we customarily think of factors such as size, age, strength, training, weapons etc as likely determinants in the outcome of any conflict, the reality is that mental state can play a significant role as well.

Tell the US military that size and weaponry is all-determinative and then ask why the US lost the Vietnam war. The average Vietnamese (VC or North Vietnam) was far smaller in stature than the US army and marine soldiers, and less well-equipped, yet a lot of US soldiers were killed in combat by their smaller, less well-armed enemy.

More importantly, the effects of drugs/alcohol/mental illness/stress can render a person insensitive to pain or even injury. We all know of and many of us applaud professional athletes who don't let injury slow them down. I have read first hand accounts of soldiers who didn't realize they were injured until the excitement of combat lessened. We have all heard stories of the mother who lifted a car off of her infant due to the emotional response she had to the accident. Remember that a very large minority of the people with whom urban police interact are in an abnormal mental state and their actions cannot always be predicted. Indeed, the definition of someone in psychosis is that he or she is NOT capable of processing his or her external environment and is being driven by irrational, internal imperatives. Police officers can't usually tell WHY an individual is acting abnormally, only that the person is.

Police officers are trained to minimize the chances of a suspect causing the officer serious injury, since an injured officer can't protect him or herself and can't protect the community from the violence of his or her assailant. The safety of the suspect IS a factor, but it ranks after the safety of the officer and the community.

Indeed, I have heard a well-qualified use of force expert testify that when facing a suspect armed with a knife, should the suspect begin to approach the officer while demonstrating a refusal to obey commands to drop the weapon, the officer shouldn't let the suspect within 20 feet: the officer should shoot.

Now, did this scenario arise in the Montreal case? I have no idea and I doubt that you do either.

Was the use of force justified? I have no idea.

For all of those whose reaction is similar to yours....how can an armed police officer end up shooting a 70 year old?....I commend you to try a small thought experiment.

Imagine that you are a police officer. Imagine that you are trained as I have outlined. You have drawn your firearm because your training tells you that you should, whenever a suspect shows possession of a weapon and acts in a way that suggests (not 'proves') that he or she may use it.

That suspect is clearly emotionally out of control for whatever reason: he or she is ignoring your commands, which you are supposed to be giving. That suspect starts running at you, wielding the weapon.

Do we want police officers who run away? Leaving this person at large? Able to run amok in the street?

Do we want police officers to holster their firearm and attempt to fend off this attack with a baton or pepper spray? Maybe in the movies, the officer would be so skilled at unarmed combat that he or she can easily and without risk subdue this armed assailant, but life isn't a movie.

So put yourself in the officer's position. Not the suspect's. Not the family of the suspect. Maybe the family of the police officer. Maybe the family of the person nearby who might be attacked by the suspect if the officer runs away or gets disabled.

Then remember why we have police officers. What do we ask them to do for us, every day?

Does all this mean that officers should enjoy immunity? Of course not. With the power we give them comes corresponding responsibility and we have to hold officers to account for their actions. However, that means trying to find out exactly what happened and why, rather than jumping to conclusions unfairly.

It's informative that you see war as the best analogy for the job a policeman does.

I suppose that it isn't possible to consider other options aside from meeting force with force or running away? Use of such things as a bola to trip him up so he can't run may land him on his nose but it doesn't involve danger to the police or running away and is just one example of how things might be done. If these people are not behaving like rational people, and I can quite believe they aren't, then perhaps other techniques which have been used with some dangerous creatures as gorillas and other wild animals should be considered. The collectors of such creatures for zoos were decidedly not wanting to be hurt either and you cannot reason with a cornered wild animal.

It's the concept that force must be met with force that gets things escalating out of control.

If someone has a gun, then all bets are off, but otherwise unless the person appears to be about to throw a knife then I don't see the use of guns as being valid. And the defense that the police THOUGHT that the person had a gun is unfortunately used too often as an excuse, as evidenced by the immediate comments of the police in Vancouver. It's too easy an excuse, they need to be able to provide a really good reason WHY they thought the guy had a gun.

I believe a few years ago (was it in Calgary?) a policeman shot a kid who was waving a toy gun around. I have no problem with that, the toy looked just like the real thing and the policeman was certainly justified in thinking he needed to protect himself. That was a terrible thing for the policeman to have to live with and I'm not at all sure the parents shouldn't have had to pay for some sort of counselling for him as a sort of fine for their being asinine and irresponsible parents.

Again, IF the police were held accountable then ok but all too often they aren't and that's what leads to mistrust. Agree they have a tough job but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be expected to live up to it. If they need more or different training they should get it.

>Dwar : I find it really quite appalling that you should suggest a video game as a template for how people should behave in reality. In real life, getting shot in the torso will indeed hurt the victim quite considerably, and if in the right area of the torso will kill just as surely as a bullet to the head. Hunters do not always get a head shot but they most certainly bring down game anyway.

It's interesting that video aficionados maintain vociferously that video games have no effect on attitudes about violence. I think you just proved them wrong.

[blackshoe]

An analogy was not necessarily intended as "the best" analogy.

Bolas are not easy to use.

The comment "I don't see the use of guns as being valid" shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I really hate it when cops screw up. They are armed where in many cases we private persons are not. That means they should be held to a very high standard where use of force is concerned. When they're not, it really pisses me off. But mikeh is right - we need to withhold judgment on this case until we have the facts - if we get the facts. Since the cops in question aren't responsible to the folks on this board as such, we may not get them. Hopefully those to whom the cops in question are responsible will.

[dwar0123]

 onoway, on 2013-July-30, 21:53, said:

>Dwar : I find it really quite appalling that you should suggest a video game as a template for how people should behave in reality. In real life, getting shot in the torso will indeed hurt the victim quite considerably, and if in the right area of the torso will kill just as surely as a bullet to the head. Hunters do not always get a head shot but they most certainly bring down game anyway.

It's interesting that video aficionados maintain vociferously that video games have no effect on attitudes about violence. I think you just proved them wrong.

What is this nonesense about video game violence that you are trying to lay at my feet?

If you think I just proved wrong those that vociferously maintain that video games have no effect on attitudes about violence then frankly you just proved that the opposing side is illiterate. Well, proved you are anyway.

Really, using bridge as a metaphor; on a bridge forum, and someone calls bridge a violent video game.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2013-July-30, 23:40, said:

The comment "I don't see the use of guns as being valid" shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Pardon me, but here you are clearly wrong. In the whole rest of the civilized world a police officer wouldn't even get the idea of drawing his gun in the situation that onoway describes (a deranged person without a fire arm). The use of guns is an American thing.

In America, a psychotic who forgot his pills is half dead.

There are two reasons why these incidents occur so frequently in America and much, much less in Europe:

One: As onoway describes, the concept that force must be met with force. (I would have said: force must be met with a higher level of force.) This leads to escalation, which is the last thing you want. In Europe there is no notion that force must be met with force: The primary objective is to de-escalate and normalize the situation. "Enforcing the law" has no priority at all in these situations. Once a person has calmed down and taken his pills he just walks and we don't talk about the laws that he has broken.

Two: The fact that Americans don't see the use of violence by the police as their problem. Americans are absolutely convinced that -as long as they live right- nothing bad can happen to them. The hard working, church going, law abiding American "knows" that this cannot happen to him. He cannot end up as a suspect because he is a good guy. He is very wrong, but it means that he cannot identify himself with the suspect that gets shot by the police. Therefore, these incidents will simply continu.
In Europe, people are very aware that bad things can happen to good people, that good people can end up in the wrong place at the wrong time or that they may get deranged themselves for some reason. Therefore, most Europeans can identify with the suspect and tehy won't accept it if he gets shot if the situation could have been handled differently.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

 Trinidad, on 2013-July-31, 01:18, said:

Pardon me, but here you are clearly wrong. In the whole rest of the civilized world a police officer wouldn't even get the idea of drawing his gun in the situation that onoway describes (a deranged person without a fire arm). The use of guns is an American thing.

In America, a psychotic who forgot his pills is half dead.

There are two reasons why these incidents occur so frequently in America and much, much less in Europe:

One: As onoway describes, the concept that force must be met with force. (I would have said: force must be met with a higher level of force.) This leads to escalation, which is the last thing you want. In Europe there is no notion that force must be met with force: The primary objective is to de-escalate and normalize the situation. "Enforcing the law" has no priority at all in these situations. Once a person has calmed down and taken his pills he just walks and we don't talk about the laws that he has broken.

Two: The fact that Americans don't see the use of violence by the police as their problem. Americans are absolutely convinced that -as long as they live right- nothing bad can happen to them. The hard working, church going, law abiding American "knows" that this cannot happen to him. He cannot end up as a suspect because he is a good guy. He is very wrong, but it means that he cannot identify himself with the suspect that gets shot by the police. Therefore, these incidents will simply continu.
In Europe, people are very aware that bad things can happen to good people, that good people can end up in the wrong place at the wrong time or that they may get deranged themselves for some reason. Therefore, most Europeans can identify with the suspect and tehy won't accept it if he gets shot if the situation could have been handled differently.

Rik

This about nails it, in the UK, you are VERY unlikely to be shot by the police with anything other than a taser unless they think you have a gun. Admittedly our police are not routinely armed, but in the cities the armed cops get sent out pretty quickly if there's any hint of a gun. Knife wielders are usually dealt with by tasering or cops in stab vests.

[gwnn]

I heard that in Norway police officers do not normally carry guns. If they need to intervene somewhere, they leave their guns in their cars. Of course much fewer Norwegians carry guns than Americans so it might not be a fair comparison, but I thought it was an interesting idea anyway. I guess someone will now mention the Breivik attacks here, but that really doesn't have anything to do with this case (you can be sure that the police officers who went to the island DID have their guns on them).