That’s pretty much my point. Due to the lack of gun control in the states, police officers down there are not trained in alternative ways to de-escalate these situations. Is it wrong? Yes! Will it change? Unlikely, unless someone is willing to invest a lot of money into the problem.

I’m just outlining what happens when there is a use of force of scenario where there is a deadly weapon. I have said multiple times that if the officer knew Jones was there or if he accidentally discharged his weapon, then he needs to be charged for it and punished.

I have said multiple times that if the police officer misfired or knew that Jones was in the way, then he needs to be charged for it. How is that not holding him accountable?

It will if there’s an Australian style buy back. Cops do still have to assume people are armed, but it also means that average joe citizen will not have a handgun in his glove box, because it’s locked up in a gun safe at home with a trigger lock, where it’s supposed to be.

Most people don’t realize how tightly knit policing organizations and families are, even across state and national boundaries, particularly in North America. You’ll have noticed how police officers from completely different countries will show up at funerals for fallen officers? And I don’t mean they were just in town…

That’s pretty much exactly it.

Legally, it’s justified. Someone who is using a deadly weapon can be stopped using deadly force, as per the national use of force continuum.

The force options continuum (which is the national use of force guideline that departments in Canada and the US use) states that if someone is using a deadly weapon or is actively trying to use it, they can be legally met with deadly force. This means that if they have killed someone, if they are trying to kill…

Yup, most die from traffic accidents through their own fault or environmental conditions. Still affects the officers left behind very strongly. I was at a party with six RCMP officers that I know last month, and they were talking super emotionally about a colleague who was killed three years ago (the party happened to…

And then they’d be castigated for not doing their job then LaGrier takes his baseball bat to someone else on the scene? For not acting fast enough to stop a threat?

Yes, talking to someone is ideal, and it is not clear whether dialogue was attempted in this case. If we hear that they didn’t even bother trying to talk…

Yes, they can be subdued without lethal force, and that’s always the ideal outcome. However, if people are waving around a knife or a baseball bat and they have already injured someone with it, or are about to injure someone with it, or are trying to kill someone, then the officer does have the legal force option to…

Nope, that pretty much covers it. They figured out here that it’s cheaper in the long run this way.

Other countries (mainly Canada, but I believe they have a similar program in the UK) do have teams for mental health calls where the police officer is accompanied by a psychiatric nurse.

A baseball bat, wooden or metal, is a deadly weapon, in that it can kill and or inflict grevious bodily harm with one strike. It’s not hard to cave in someone’s skull with one. Combative means the person was fighting and aggressive.

She was inside her apartment, LaGrier was outside. Who on earth was she opening the door for? Did she wait to see the cops and then open her door and come out and get involved? It’s not just on the cop if that was the case.

Overhead blows from a bat can still be deadly from a baseball bat. It also says they were in a foyer, not a hallway. You don’t know what will happen or where the suspect will go, so having a hand tied up with a heavy shield is not a good idea. Particularly when the shield could be used as a weapon too.

Weapons always play a part in the outcome, both the suspect’s and the officers. A combative subject armed with a deadly weapon is a completely justified shooting. If LaGrier was swinging that bat at anyone in the place or appeared as though he was about to, he has forfeit his life.

That is very true (and it applies to Canada a lot of the time as well).

The London Met are way better trained and don’t usually have to worry about their citizens carrying firearms. US could learn a lot from them, but unfortunately, until gun ownership is restricted, US police tactics are unlikely to change. :(

Unfortunately, a baseball bat is a deadly weapon, in that it can kill or inflict grevious bodily harm in one strike, so attacking anyone with one or being about to attack someone with one does justify a deadly level of force in response from a tactical perspective.