quote:

It is completely reasonable that SWAT officers show up and have the confidence to end it.

And that’s what potential juror me sees. That guy was confident, calm, collected, and deliberate. He didn’t agitate the hostage taker further by driving around him and blocking the front of the vehicle. That seems like a wise choice to me as a non-LEO, non-lawyer.

Points in the SWAT officer’s favor:

Guy with sword, threatens to kill a gas station clerk with the sword to the point the clerk locks the gas station doors.

Guy with sword’s relative calls the police and wants them that she thinks guys with sword is going to hurt somebody with the sword.

Guy with sword takes a hostage and has the hostage within sword’s length.

Police fail to de-escalate after over an hour of trying.

SWAT officer behaves like a total professional.

Hostage and other officers are physically unharmed.


Point against the officer:

Hostage taker with sword died.


The only question is whether or not deadly force was reasonable, justified, or whatever the proper term is.


So far, I’m not hearing anyone offer up any options like:

Tell the guy to put the sword down and give himself up for another period of time.

Bum rush him and hope he doesn’t take swing at the hostage or land a blow on an officer.

Shoot the sword out of his hand.

Use a bullwhip to rip the sword out of his hand.

Wait for lightning to strike the sword.

Wait for the comet.

Seriously though, you guys that “normally support the police, but” what has you flummoxed this time? What should have been done differently so that everyone except the guy with the sword and hostage was unharmed and that guy lived?

i did not watch or read much. But as far as shooting him on the ground. If he still had the sword he could throw it and I would not want to be anywhere near a flying sword. So maybe that had something to do with that aspect. Glad no one else was seriously harmed by this nutjob.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:


Use a bullwhip to rip the sword out of his hand.

Yep, you asked for it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kQ...&is=HS5u_j4eufFUDzid

Exactly!

Except unlike that Jones, this officer actually aimed his weapon and didn’t have crowd of people behind his target. Even where he positioned himself minimized the risk to the hostage in the car. Total professional.

He was posing a continuous threat to the hostage, correct?

I’m not sure why the initial police waited so long unless they didn’t have a good angle/skill set or tools to make the shot?

I have no issue with the action of the LEO in question.

Mr. Slashy/Stabby, won't recidivate.

And that suits me just fine.

Just because the initial officers on scene weren't taking action doesn't mean it wasn't justified. Remember Uvalde?

I could only watch the first video because I don't have Facebook, and it ends right when the shooting starts, but from what I saw and the backstory, I'm not seeing anything to fault the officer.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 92fstech,

Retired LEO here, and I have no problem with what happened.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

..Guy with sword takes a hostage and has the hostage within sword’s length.

On top of the fact that police resources had already been wasted on this guy for over an hour, this is the key for me. It would take the crazy man a split second to run that sword right through the 26 year-old woman.

I am sorry that the crazy man was crazy, but that doesn't count when the police are trying to save a life in immediate danger.

Good job, Officer Baney. I hope you are cleared and you receive a commendation.

If we see more of this, violent crime will go down.



.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

The “decommissioning” term is another way of saying “on administrative leave”

Thanks. I suspected that was the case. But that terminology isn't used over here.

And it sounds scary and ominous, so of course the media is leading with it as their headline, rather than the more banal and mundane "placed on routine administrative leave as is standard practice for a line of duty shooting".

Makes the reader go "Oooh... He was decommissioned, which I guess means he must have done something wrong!!"

(Makes it sound similar to when in my state an officer is "decertified" and stripped of their LE certification for life if they are convicted of most crimes or terminated for misconduct.)

quote:

I am sorry that the crazy man was crazy, but that doesn't count when the police are trying to save a life in immediate danger.

We used to have insane asylums for the mentally ill. Beginning in the 1960's, we shut them all down to "mainstream" the mentally ill.
It seems to me the mentally ill, and the public, were safer when we had insane asylums.
With crazy people out on the streets I think we will get more of this type of outcome.

I have no issue with the outcome. Take a hostage and make viable threats to kill them, you should expect to get shot when the boys in blue show up. They may talk to you a bit and give you opportunities to avoid getting shot, but when you decline the offer, you should expect to get shot. I don’t have any issue if they skip the talking to you part. First officer shows up and drops the hostage taker because the opportunity presented itself, well play stupid games and all that. These are just my opinions and I expect many people will rightly disagree.

The only issue I might have is with the 2 shots after the HT was down. I expect the investigation to determine that even on the ground, with the sword, he was still a threat to the hostage and the 2 shots were required to end the threat. And I'm good with that. The police spent an hour trying to de-escalate the situation and then ended the threat in a controlled manner that may have saved the hostage's life. I view that as a job well done.

The story around here is that SWAT was working on a plan, and the particular SWAT member went and took care of it instead of waiting for a plan. MNPD SWAT officers are very professional and train at our range along with a host of other agencies. They were in this stand off for over an hour with a hostage. I have no trouble with the action taken by the officer. If the weapon was still in the possession of the perpetrator then it was not safe to approach for an officer. I have no trouble with the shots on the ground from what I have seen. Hoping he gets a fair shake w/ a grand jury that looks at all the evidence and actions attempted in the hour/hours leading up to this SWAT officer taking control of the situation. Bad dude ends up DRT, my field of Fs is barren on this one.

The blurred out video won’t play for me. Says “Safari can’t play the video ‘cause too many redirects.” or something like that.

I wasn’t there, heck couldn’t even watch the video, but I give the officer the benefit of the doubt and hope he doesn’t end up needing it.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
He was just hurrying up to be able to get home in time for dinner, “What are you guys standing around doing nothing for?”

Nah, he had a date with his Badge Bunny.
.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I am sorry that the crazy man was crazy, but that doesn't count when the police are trying to save a life in immediate danger.

We used to have insane asylums for the mentally ill. Beginning in the 1960's, we shut them all down to "mainstream" the mentally ill.
It seems to me the mentally ill, and the public, were safer when we had insane asylums.
With crazy people out on the streets I think we will get more of this type of outcome.

The closing of so many mental hospitals was a result of two bad things:
1) Conservative politicians wanted to save state money and reduce taxes.
2) "Progressive" politicians wanted to treat patients on an outpatient basis with psychotropic drugs that the "mental health professionals" claimed would allow those treated to live safely in the community. Of course "Big Pharma" had plenty of incentive to push this narrative too.

Things didn't work out, because the laws were changed to permit involuntary evaluation and treatment only in cases where patients were presenting an IMMEDIATE TO THEIR SAFETY OR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (or "gravely disabled"). Consequently, those persons that were brought it for treatment (involuntarily), were dosed with drugs and ASKED to continue taking the meds upon release. The involuntary patients were temporarily made "safe" sometimes just for hours, but upon release it became the "norm" for them to stop taking the medications because they didn't like the side effects.

With the lack of facilities (bed space) available for long term care of those who wouldn't or couldn't care for themselves and the lack of cooperation among patients that became dangerous again after refusing to continue medicating themselves, a revolving door situation developed that endangered the general public and the patients themselves. It's an extremely frustrating situation that has only become exacerbated with the widespread use of addictive illegal narcotics such as fentanyl and methamphetamine.

In California and other states, the same revolving door problem exists as the "progressives" in the state legislature and governor's office has attempted to "decriminalize" the possession and use of these substances, while offering voluntary treatment if the addict wants it. Of course, these treatment "mills" get state funding, regardless of their lack of success. This is why CA has turned into such a transient/recidivist infested shithole and with a one-party system ensconced in the major population centers, it's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

quote:

Originally posted by dking271:
The story around here is that SWAT was working on a plan, and the particular SWAT member went and took care of it instead of waiting for a plan...

This seems oddly familiar....

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:


(Makes it sound similar to when in my state an officer is "decertified" and stripped of their LE certification for life if they are convicted of most crimes or terminated for misconduct.)

Don’t know how it works there, but if you contest your certification revocation here, it’s a 2-3 year process. They have 2 investigators statewide. I know a handful of guys that resigned in lieu of termination and are fighting it. None were charged or convicted of crimes. Two are from the same agency and the reasoning for the revocation action is because of a dickhead chief. They are by far the highest paid agency in the area and they stay 2/3 staffed because lateral transfers won’t work there.

It also seems the ones who rightfully get canned for criminal acts or ethical violations dont fight it.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yFVjnOmLBr8?si=SJt7ToUg9imIqIB2&...

These police training films are fascinating. Baney may have just finished watching this one before he arrived on the scene.


.