Thank you for your assessment.Excaliber wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:39 pm Although the article presents the chief's thoughts with pretty muddy reasoning, I suspect what the chief is trying to get at is officers should get away from "leading with the gun" and use deadly force only as a last resort. It's the difference between "can I shoot him" thinking instead of asking oneself if there's any other reasonable way to protect innocent life. If that' s where the chief is going, I would agree with him. Leading with the gun is also often a major element in the cases where people who are doing nothing wrong are shot by police in their own homes.
I have personally confronted knife armed individuals who were threatening to harm officers or themselves and resolved the situations without gunfire, as have many of the officers I worked with. If no one other than the knife armed individual is in immediate danger, there's no immediate need to shoot. Moving citizens away, increasing distance and placing barriers between the subject and the officer so a sudden charge can't get inside the officer's OODA loop is not insanity, it's just good tactics. It provides time to assess the situation, communicate with the suspect, and understand his motivations and intentions so appropriate tactics can be used to get the knife out of his hands and him into custody without anyone getting hurt.
Not only is this the compassionate thing to do for these folks who are more often psychologically disturbed than criminally inclined, but it saves tons of paperwork, doesn't give local agitators a reason to burn the neighborhood down, minimizes the likelihood of threats against the officer and his family, and is much easier on the officer's psyche and conscience.
