Neighborhoods:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.
Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy
Comments
True but I've seen them do it.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 1:03pm
The patients don't end up in Framingham or Bridgewater most of the time, but people usually are held if they have a past history of criminal violence. And emergency room psychiatrists like to take their time as well and usually don't rush these sorts of things (as do most emergency room doctors and nurses)
Sometimes it takes convincing people that they won't end up in these state hospitals or treatment programs if they commit themselves on their own. They are basically promised that if they stay for a set amount of time (6-10 hours) and take some medication they will be let out on their own.
If You Can Take the Time to Quote It...
By Anon
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 12:01pm
...then the least you can do is read it, which you might want to do again. It was necessary to shoot the person who was stabbing me and two other people. It was necessary because, although she might die from that shooting, she will definitely continue to stab me and two other people if I don't, possibly killing one or all of us.
That's pretty much the legal definition of self-defense and defense of another, which unlike your baton fantasy is all that's going to matter to the state police and DA.
as long as they have no duty to protect her
By Anonymous
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 12:29pm
in addition to themselves, then you're right about shooting her and killing her, instead of using a baton to disarm her. They likely have a legal defense for what they did but that does not mean they made the best choice or met their duty to protect her in addition to themselves and boy friend.
Again...
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 12:49pm
very hard to disarm someone with a knife with a baton.
I don't know how big you are, or what kind of training or self defense knowledge you have anonymous. But I would bet my life that if I had a knife, and you had only a baton and pepper spray, I could kill you in 2 minutes.
You do not use batons with knife wielding people.
How About a Boxcutter?
By anon
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 3:15pm
Anonymous, could you knock a boxcutter from someone's hand using a baton? Because that's all Mohammad Atta was armed with when he knocked over a skyscraper. If only someone on Flight 11 had been carrying a baton!
OK 9/11 baiter...
By anon
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 4:58pm
we'll play that game. Could you knock a knife from someone's hand with no baton? Surprisingly, passengers from Flight 93 managed to do so with flight-meal cutlery, scalding water and a beverage cart. I'd like to think our law enforcement personnel are better equipped than this, but if Todd Beamer and company could find a way and prevent another attack on Washington while doing so, I don't see why three cops couldn't manage against this one assailant. This is the part where Pete Nice shows his PBA card and scowls at people for not having read their Somerville PD officer handbooks. I don't doubt that the officers acted well within their rights and followed proceedure -- I'm saying the proceedure is haphazard and dead wrong. Like the other poster said, get stab belts, train officers to use the non-lethal crowd-control options available (yes, Pete, like gas) and make taking a life the LAST option, not just one of several.
Yes, But
By anon
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 6:05pm
They also killed the suspect. I thought that was against the rules?
Well that is a better argument then.
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 8:27pm
But you have to then admit that what you think is a 'dead wrong' procedure is a procedure that every court in America has backed up time and time again.
But you still have to take in account the Columbines and other situations where gas may not work. Even in this case the GF could have killed the BF if gas were thrown in. Then who would be at fault? I would say a tazer or less than lethal shotgun could have been fired right away first. But then what happens when the woman dies from a beanbag in the eye or a tazer that causes a heart attack (the majority of tazer deaths are from people on drugs)? Then the police look just as bad or even worse right?
Could it be possible that three cops did all they could do to get the knife away from this woman and then had no other option but to shoot her? (since all three did get stabbed).
And I agree the 9/11 argument is silly, but does anyone know who got killed from box cutters on that flight before the hijacker was finally subdued?
I just don't want people to think there was a right or wrong answer here.
There is a right answer
By Anonymous
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 11:23pm
and that's where no one ends up dead. No one.
"If Todd Beamer and company could find a way and prevent another attack on Washington while doing so (knock a knife from someone's hand with no baton), I don't see why three cops couldn't manage against this one assailant." I don't either.
Let's stop arguing over whether taking her life was justified under the law (it was 'justified' and at the same time not the kind of justice we would choose - that is those of us who believe the police should protect the lives of suspects, even armed suspects.)
Let's talk about what's wrong in a situation like this when she ends up dead, instead of under arrest. Can we manage that?
You still don't get it.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 8:02am
It isn't up to the cops whether or not people end up dead. If I have a gun, and I choose to go out and start shooting people on a public street, I have a reasonable expectation that the police will come at some point and try to stop me by firing their weapons at me.
On the same circumstance, if I am walking in a public place, and someone else has a gun and tries to fire at me, I should expect the police to come when I call them and shoot the gunman since I know the police will have the ability to do so.
No one is having a "I'm right because I did the right thing" party because the cops were right and the woman was wrong here. No one is happy at the ending here, no one.
We don't live in some fantasyland like the movie Minority Report where the police can just stop everyone from getting hurt before real crimes actually happen. We live in the real world, not some movie.
It isn't up to the cops
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 8:14am
Sure Pete.
She was alive when they arrived.
One of them shot her dead.
All I'm saying is that somewhere between your procedure manual and the law (which says it was a good shoot) is a place where she comes out of this alive, instead of dead. You don't want to go to that place.
It's too bad you insist she had to end up dead.
It's too bad you insist that the outcome is not up to the cops. That's a weird position to take.
I'd love to go to that place.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 8:28am
But the cops don't always get to choose the outcome. Sometimes they do. Sometimes the person with the knife or gun can choose.
Like I said before, there could have been a million outcomes here. We have had a week to think about it. A little different than the three minutes when you get the call over your radio. It looks like I have to talk in caps again because you continue to read what you want to read.
MAYBE THE COPS COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE. MAYBE THE GF COULD STILL BE ALIVE IF THE COPS DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT, MAYBE THE COPS COULD HAVE DIED OR MAYBE THE BF SHOULD HAVE DIED.
Now look closely in the above statement and notice that I didn't say there was some right or wrong answer like you want there to be.
Would you mind telling us where you work?
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 8:21am
So that we can make informed choices about calling 911, especially in situations when your trigger-happy attitude and refusal to examine other ways to deescalate confrontations, might come into play... and thus whether people walk out or are carried out by the coroner. What city do you work in?
Please let me know where you live.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 8:29am
So just in case someone breaks into your house with a gun and tried to kill you, I can stop by the flower shop first and see if the gunman will stop if he sees some fresh flowers. Then we can all be happy!!
:)
You won't answer what city you work in?
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 8:33am
I didn't ask for you name and badge number, I asked what city you work in. And you wouldn't answer.
I don't work for a city.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 8:43am
I work in an athletic department at a local college. That is what I would consider my fulltime job anyway.
Security, coach, equipment manager, athletic director?
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 11:38am
From what do you derive your law enforcement bona fides?
I do a few of those things you mentioned.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 11:42am
I have worked in law enforcement, and still do in some capacity. Take my opinions for what they are worth. It should be clear that I'm not making things up here and do speak from some of my experiences.
you've been putting yourself out there as an expert
By anon
Wed, 07/28/2010 - 3:09pm
using definitive authoritative language like an expert for months on end. unbelievable.
No one is an expert.
By Pete Nice
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 8:16am
But I do have experience doing a lot of things.
How Dare He
By Anon
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 8:41am
How dare a person offer observations and interpretations on a blog. No one else here would ever base their posts on life and employment experience. To the dungeon, sir.
I've never lied on here.
By Pete Nice
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 10:01am
If that is what you meant. I just have several jobs and have had several jobs.
Not At All
By Anon
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 10:29am
It was sarcasm for another Anon, who seemed pretty outraged that someone would do what we all do here all the time, which is offer points of view based on experience and opinion.
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
By Sock_Puppet
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 11:50am
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
Y'know... just curious.
Please Explain
By Anon
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 12:49pm
Please explain the process by which, using only a baton, you disarm an apparently psychotic person who is stabbing you and two other people. Please also explain the "best choice" means for protecting a person who is stabbing you and two other people. Please also explain whether people shooting guns at other people need similar protection, or whether that only applies to people with knives.
I'm sure the olive salad will be nice
By Kaz
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 9:50am
When they put you in the ol' pine box and shovel on the dirt
May we all remember Lieutenant Anonymous lying there inert
He thought he'd stop a psycho swinging a wild knife
He lifted his baton and thought to save her life
Instead she tossed it and buried it deep in his chest
A tale of caution for Boston's finest and its best
At the wake, I'm sure the olive salad will be nice.
And if she cut you or her BF in the process or you missed..
By Pete Nice
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 11:04am
And the BF ended up dying because you kept trying to slap your baton at someone with a knife? You and the entire department/town would be sued because you broke police and failed to PROTECT the victim or potential victim.
Who knows what I would have done, I'm still not sure how the whole thing went down. There may not have been space to use a baton. Ever try to get a knife out of someones hand? I have. It sure takes a lot more than a baton strike in most cases. It isn't like people hold it out for you to get a nice clear swipe at. At what point to you take out your firearm? Ever try a baton drop/firearm unholster? It takes a few seconds, a lot more time than it would take with someone with a knife to cut you and/or kill you. Would you have time to do that if the initial baton strike didn't work? Would the BF had died if you went through that process? Would you have died? Ever deal with an emotionally disturbed person of any size, gender or mental state? There are thousands of possibilities that could have happened here, and that is the difference between your thinking and mine.
I think it is possible that they could have done something different, or maybe its possible that they didn't have a chance to do anything else and this was their only option. You think that there should have been a different outcome no matter what and you would have saved the day if you were a cop. Again, this isn't fantasy land where things happen according to some police manual.
When someone has a knife and is threating someone else, LAW and PROCEDURE dictitates that you use a firearm for that person to drop it.
If you have a problem with the use of force chart then fine, say so. But you don't know what it is so how can you critize anyone for following it or not follwing it?
And how can you question someones training when you don't even know what the training is? That is the whole issue here with your thinking. You have no idea what police officers are trained to do and how they have to do it.
5'3"
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 9:48am
Her height means nothing. I'm 5'3 and I could probably kick just about anybody's arse if I was deeply convinced that somebody was trying to hurt me or my kids or husband. I have defended myself against much larger people because I'm wicked strong and fear alone can make me quite extreme. That's without a knife.
So, if she was insane and became convinced that she was defending herself, even at 5'3" she could do serious damage. She did do serious damage, actually.
This is where proper law enforcement training comes in. Cops are often trained to respond quickly and with force, which, of course, triggers more extreme psychotic behavior. If police are trained to evaluate and properly de-escalate situations with psychotic people, they are at much less risk of being stabbed or having to shoot someone (as they did here). Of course we can't say that that didn't happen here, or that this situation where cops had to shoot her to protect themselves was avoidable. HOWEVER, I think the incident needs to be independently investigated, and that independent investigation must include experts in the field of training cops to handle psychos. Psychos happen - one anon in another thread said "always call the police first". If that is what people are being told to do, to call the police to subdue psychotics, then don't we want the police to know how to handle psychotics without escalating to fatal situations? To know how to protect themselves from being stabbed? To avoid all of the WELL DOCUMENTED psych risks to the officers who have to kill somebody in the line of duty?(even if Pete is amusingly ignorant of those risks).
Swirrly I agree 100% with everything you said. Everything.
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 10:44am
But can you try to convince anonymous to read and understand this part of your well thought out statement (I added in the part in parenthesis which I think is important and which you probably agree):
Of course we can't say that that didn't happen here, or that this situation where cops had to shoot her to protect themselves (or the victim) was avoidable.
And as I pointed out above, the post stress issues of an incident like this one are very important, but probably less important than the initial training to deal with these people. I am not ignorant of the facts dealing with police suicide.
i concur
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 11:48am
At some point in the future we'll learn, if a thorough investigation is done, what training these three officers had (in their 4, 2, and 2 years of experience), what the Somerville police departments policy is on domestic abuse (whether to arrest when an arrest is warranted, if they coordinate with other social support groups in cases of domestic abuse,) and if the officer who discharged his weapon and killed the suspect was the one who served in the 82nd airborne.
You concur with everything, or just what you want to read?
By Pete Nice
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 11:58am
Do you concur with this?:
"Of course we can't say that that didn't happen here, or that this situation where cops had to shoot her to protect themselves was avoidable."
I can bet the Somerville Police Departments Policy on Domestic Violence is the same as most other departments in MA.
But I love how you really just want to know if one of them was in the military. That must mean he was trigger happy and not ready for the job. Should we not hire Veterans now? What if one of the officers got their job through the affirmative action program section of Civil Service? Would you then say a white officer would not have done the same thing because he scored higher on a reading comprehension test and could have used his brain as opposed to the disabled Vet who might not have? (Which vets would also not have to score as high on to get a job)?
I mean, we could go through a whole list of faults of the Sommerville Police since they are made up of human beings. Did they go to college? Could a woman police officer been able to calm her down? Could a woman police officer have had the strength to get the knife out of her hand?
i've been thinking about this...
By Anonymous
Tue, 07/27/2010 - 4:07pm
Did you know this woman lost custody of her child. I wonder if that is relevant to her depression and self-medicating with alcohol.
This is also the second time she had it out with police in recent months, earlier on the staircase. I wonder if her trauma is at the root of her mental illness and if she identifies the police as part of the authority that's "done this to her."
Adam, I thought people might be interested
By Anonymous
Mon, 07/26/2010 - 12:29am
in that article but for the record, I didn't excerpt any part of the article beyond the title and subtitle.
Shooting Ruled Justified
By anon
Thu, 08/19/2010 - 5:18pm
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/201...
Pages