YACT: Cop shoots woodcarver minding his own business and.....

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,205
165
106
Gotcha, cops should call swat when a intoxicated suspect has a knife and it raises questions.

And you obviously don't understand the 21ft rule, its not a rule so officers know to stay away 21ft. :rolleyes:

I've heard of the 21' rule. Something to the effect that someone with a knife can cover 21' in 1.5 seconds - basically before a cop gets to draw and discharge his weapon. You obviously know the 21' rule. Im assuming the cop knew that rule as well. So with that in mind, why didn't the cop maintain a safe distance? The guy was walking away from him and the cop approached him. And the 4 seconds that the victim was given is not enough to properly register who is yelling at you, turn around 180, get aggressive, and lunge at the cop and cover 21', esp when he was drunk (like mentioned earlier in this thread).

Obviously you think cops can do no wrong and will defend even the bad seeds. So there is no point discussing this with you any further.

BTW, I don't have a problem with cops. Majority of my experiences with them have been positive.
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
He is taking my "run" comment seriously.

See above. You are making assumptions, I am merely pointing out that

A. It not easy being a cop
B. This situation is not simple, all you captain hindsights seem to think it is.
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
I've heard of the 21' rule. Something to the effect that someone with a knife can cover 21' in 1.5 seconds - basically before a cop gets to draw and discharge his weapon. You obviously know the 21' rule. Im assuming the cop knew that rule as well. So with that in mind, why didn't the cop maintain a safe distance? The guy was walking away from him and the cop approached him. And the 4 seconds that the victim was given is not enough to properly register who is yelling at you, turn around 180, get aggressive, and lunge at the cop and cover 21', esp when he was drunk (like mentioned earlier in this thread).

Obviously you think cops can do no wrong and will defend even the bad seeds. So there is no point discussing this with you any further.

BTW, I don't have a problem with cops. Majority of my experiences with them have been positive.

I am not defending him, I am pointing out what all of you seem to so easily miss.

21ft rule is not so you can maintain a safe distance, it so you know which weapon to use, when to draw it. That's it, it does not effect your approach of a suspect, its not that complicated.
 

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,205
165
106
See above. You are making assumptions, I am merely pointing out that

A. It not easy being a cop
B. This situation is not simple, all you captain hindsights seem to think it is.

I am not defending him, I am pointing out what all of you seem to so easily miss.

21ft rule is not so you can maintain a safe distance, it so you know which weapon to use, when to draw it. That's it, it does not effect your approach of a suspect, its not that complicated.

so is it complicated or not? make up your mind.

If the 21' rule is about which weapon to use and when to draw, and given that the cop already had a lethal weapon drawn and pointed when he approached, why even bring up the 21' rule in this case?

Wow, the anti cops are out in full force today.

He was visibly intoxicated, he had a knife and a history of run ins. Justified stop.

He threatened officers lives days prior, he had a knife. Weapon drawn on approach also justified.

He was shot in the side(Edge stance/position), not the back, and the blade locking mechanism was broken, the blade is swinging on a hinge, merely dropping the knife, or picking it up is enough to open/close the blade. (In response the the blade open/close dispute)

Williams was WELL within 21ft, if you don't know the significance of this then google it. If Williams made any indication of a threat, verbal or otherwise, the shooting should, and will be ruled justified.
and not defending him, huh?
 
Last edited:

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
so is it complicated or not? make up your mind.
If the 21' rule is about which weapon to use and when to draw, and given that the cop already had a lethal weapon drawn and pointed when he approached, why even bring up the 21' rule in this case?

The situation is complicated, the rule is simple. I bring up the rule because witnesses questioned why he drew the weapon so soon.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
So what did you want him to do? Call SWAT? Jack Bauer?

Wait more than four seconds before shooting? Wait until the guy was actually facing him before opening fire? Identify himself as a police officer instead of just screaming orders? Every witness thus far has said that Williams was shot while turning to look at Birk. Every witness has said that he made no threatening movements.

Birk, on the other hand, is a proven liar who has changed his story. He first claimed that Williams had lunged at him, but that mysteriously changed after the autopsy showed where he was shot. Of course maybe that was just a "mistake" like your false claim about the knife's locking mechanism definitely being broken. I like how you insist that you don't make "presumptions", yet you just blindly believe everything the cop's defense team says about the knife.

You keep mentioning the 21 Foot Rule, but you obviously have no idea what it is. It refers to the distance at which an assailant wielding an edged weapon can cover before an officer draws and fires his holstered firearm. That distance drastically decreases when the officer already has his weapon drawn and pointed at the suspect's back as in this case. Even if Williams had been facing the Birk, there is practically no way he could have physically harmed the officer before being shot.
 
Last edited:

Josh123

Diamond Member
Aug 4, 2002
3,030
2
76
I am not defending him, I am pointing out what all of you seem to so easily miss.

21ft rule is not so you can maintain a safe distance, it so you know which weapon to use, when to draw it. That's it, it does not effect your approach of a suspect, its not that complicated.

Nothing wrong with having your weapon drawn and ready but it still doesn't justify him using it that soon.

Your right though, I have no idea what actually happened or how stressful it is being a cop, I'm just going off what I saw and heard in the video.
 
Last edited:

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
Wait more than four seconds before shooting? Wait until the guy was actually facing him before opening fire? Identify himself as a police officer instead of just screaming orders? Every witness thus far has said that Williams was shot while turning to look at Birk. Every witness has said that he made no threatening movements.

Birk, on the other hand, is a proven liar who has changed his story. He first claimed that Williams had lunged at him, but that mysteriously changed after the autopsy showed where he was shot. Of course maybe that was just a "mistake" like your false claim about the knife's locking mechanism definitely being broken. I like how you insist that you don't make "presumptions", yet you just blindly believe everything the cop's defense team says about the knife.

You keep mentioning the 21 Foot Rule, but you obviously have no idea what it is. It refers to the distance at which an assailant wielding an edged weapon can cover before an officer draws and fires his holstered firearm. That distance drastically decreases when the officer already has his weapon drawn and pointed at the suspect's back as in this case.

You're taking my quote out of context. Again, my statement was
Williams was WELL within 21ft, if you don't know the significance of this then google it. If Williams made any indication of a threat, verbal or otherwise, the shooting should, and will be ruled justified.

I think were on the same side here, you're just making assumptions based off media companies that try to be as controversial as possible and witnesses who are obviously not very bright and stand around gunfire without seeking cover(namely the one who walks by unbothered by gunshots).
 
Last edited:

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,536
336
126
When the "victim" is wearing a ballistic vest, yes you do. While many aren't made to stop edged weapons, even a blunt object only vest gives some protection against knives. It takes more power and precision to penetrate a lethal area.
Carrying forward my earlier statement...of all the police and corrections officers killed or severely injured with a knife of some sort or another, the number of them committed by "trained knife fighters" can probably be counted on one hand.

Seriously, children figure out how knives are used intuitively. A fucking gun is harder to operate competently.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Your statement is complete bullshit. The 21 Foot Rule does not say that any shooting within 21 feet is justified if the suspect "makes a threat".

I like how you discount the numerous witness statements, all of which are consistent and none of which side with the officer, but unquestionably believe anything the defense team claims without a single shred of proof, like the nonsense about the knife's locking mechanism.
 
Last edited:

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,536
336
126
Your statement is complete bullshit. The 21 Foot Rule does not say that any shooting within 21 feet is justified if the suspect "makes a threat".
In some jurisdictions, this is basically what the 21 Foot Rule has been perverted into, but this isn't what the feds teach and it isn't what most competent agencies or trainers teach. Hell, I don't even think the military teaches this simplified kindergarten level interpretation of it.

The cop here in this case closed the distance and advanced on the suspect. The 21 foot rule only applies when the suspect ADVANCES ON THE COP or the cop is UNABLE to retreat or adjust the distance. A cop cannot advance on a suspect and start blasting away once he is within 21 feet just because he has a knife.
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
Your statement is complete bullshit. The 21 Foot Rule does not say that any shooting within 21 feet is justified if the suspect "makes a threat".

If you can kill me in seconds and make a threat, while ignoring my commands, and I don't have cover, you're going to get shot dead.

I'm sorry if you have a problem with that, but that's the way it is.
 

Josh123

Diamond Member
Aug 4, 2002
3,030
2
76
If you can kill me in seconds and make a threat, while ignoring my commands, and I don't have cover, you're going to get shot dead.

I'm sorry if you have a problem with that, but that's the way it is.

I thought it wasn't the cop's job to hide behind his car AKA cover?
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,960
8,204
126
Carrying forward my earlier statement...of all the police and corrections officers killed or severely injured with a knife of some sort or another, the number of them committed by "trained knife fighters" can probably be counted on one hand.

Seriously, children figure out how knives are used intuitively. A fucking gun is harder to operate competently.

There was 0/162 knife fatalities for police in 2010
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,536
336
126
That is not what I was taught.
Yes, we have established that some agencies are teaching a simplified kindergarten level interpretation of the 21 foot knife protocol and that many cops receive woefully inferior training. Nobody disputes this.

It is also not disputed that some people are just wound too fucking tight, making them prone to erroneous perceptions or interpretations (even when acting in good faith), and probably shouldn't be cops.
 
Last edited:
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
theres something about the job or the people it attracts that makes cops have no conscience. who the hell would want to have killed someone????

It's not that it attracts people like that, It makes people like that. For the most part, cops deal with the dregs of society, the loosers, the people that are so full of fail at life, that cops at somepoint just stop caring.

From all we can see of the incident, there was no reason to shoot the guy.
That being said, I've seen the results of a cop that thought he was a bad ass and took on a guy with a knife. Not pretty at all. While a small knife probably won't kill you, it'll make you wish you had died.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
If you can kill me in seconds and make a threat, while ignoring my commands, and I don't have cover, you're going to get shot dead.

I'm sorry if you have a problem with that, but that's the way it is.

umm in this case there was a rather large hunk of metal (police car) that could have been used for cover. The cop had an itchy finger and he screwed up and murdered an innocent person. Why didn't he just have a taser pointed at the guy while he approached from behind?

No taser? .. let me guess his radio was broken as well and he could not call for assistance?

The cop should get jail time. End of story.
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
I thought it wasn't the cop's job to hide behind his car AKA cover?

Cover = Another armed officer at the scene covering me.

umm in this case there was a rather large hunk of metal (police car) that could have been used for cover. The cop had an itchy finger and he screwed up and murdered an innocent person. Why didn't he just have a taser pointed at the guy while he approached from behind?

No taser? .. let me guess his radio was broken as well and he could not call for assistance?

The cop should get jail time. End of story.

See above for definition of cover, I should have used a different word

Taser, he wasn't issued one. irrelevant either way, if it went down the way the media says it did, he should not have used a taser, let alone his weapon. If it went down the way he said it did, then a lethal firearm is the only correct option.

Radio? Judgment call, without being there I won't speculate.

Why didn't he just have a taser pointed at the guy while he approached from behind?

Because that's really, really stupid, you don't use a less than legal utility unless you have cover for armed suspects, even then most cops won't. Because its stupid.
 
Last edited:

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
Yes, we have established that some agencies are teaching a simplified kindergarten level interpretation of the 21 foot knife protocol and that many cops receive woefully inferior training. Nobody disputes this.

It is also not disputed that some people are just wound too fucking tight, making them prone to erroneous perceptions or interpretations (even when acting in good faith), and probably shouldn't be cops.

Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller and popularized by the Street Survival Seminar and the seminal instructional video "Surviving Edged Weapons," the "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.

The implication, therefore, is that when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet an officer had better have his gun out and ready to shoot before the offender starts rushing him or else he risks being set upon and injured or killed before he can draw his sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.

The article is very long, and goes more in-depth, but the bolded part is what I was taught.

The 21 foot rule only applies when the suspect ADVANCES ON THE COP or the cop is UNABLE to retreat or adjust the distance.

This is wrong.


http://www.policeone.com/edged-weap...ense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-1/
 

911paramedic

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2002
9,448
1
76


"However widespread that contaminated interpretation may be, it is NOT accurate. A suspect with a knife within 21 feet of an officer is POTENTIALLY a deadly threat. He does warrant getting your gun out and ready. But he cannot be considered an actual threat justifying deadly force until he takes the first overt action in furtherance of intention--like starting to rush or lunge toward the officer with intent to do harm. Even then there may be factors besides distance that influence a force decision.

"So long as a subject is stationary or moving around but not advancing or giving any indication he's about to charge, it clearly is not legally justified to use lethal force against him. Officers who do shoot in those circumstances may find themselves subject to disciplinary action, civil suits or even criminal charges."
:rolleyes:
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
"However widespread that contaminated interpretation may be, it is NOT accurate. A suspect with a knife within 21 feet of an officer is POTENTIALLY a deadly threat. He does warrant getting your gun out and ready. But he cannot be considered an actual threat justifying deadly force until he takes the first overt action in furtherance of intention--like starting to rush or lunge toward the officer with intent to do harm. Even then there may be factors besides distance that influence a force decision.

"So long as a subject is stationary or moving around but not advancing or giving any indication he's about to charge, it clearly is not legally justified to use lethal force against him. Officers who do shoot in those circumstances may find themselves subject to disciplinary action, civil suits or even criminal charges."
Williams was WELL within 21ft, if you don't know the significance of this then google it. If Williams made any indication of a threat, verbal or otherwise, the shooting should, and will be ruled justified.

:rolleyes:

Never have I said 21ft is time to open fire. I'm saying when someone has a lethal edge weapon within 21ft of me, and is ignoring commands, the slightest threat on top of that will get them killed.
 
Last edited: