Why isn't this man in jail? Oh wait...

[s_stabeler]

OK, how does a cop not mange to outpace someone in a wheelchair? barring motorised wheelchairs, which should really have been stated (and still aren't particuarly fast)

2nd, how on earth could the officer not overpower the man with the (supposed) knife? use one arm to block, then the other to pull said object out of the hand of the man in the wheelchair- situation resolved, you can identify the item as a pen at your leisure, the worst that happens is embarrassment. Or, use a TASER- this kind of situation is what the TASER is designed for ( they actually specifically mention someone coming at you with a knife as an example of when to use the TASER)

3rd- yeah, pens can hurt, but did it really justify a lethal response? it's kind of hard to kill someone with a normal pen, considering it would need to be a pretty well-aimed hit. pens are rarely sharp.

4th- where was the guy's partner?

[Greenday]

Even if it was a motorized wheelchair, the guy would have to have his only hand on the joystick to direct it, meaning he'd be able to wave a pen around.

[draco664]

To believe the cop's story, you would have to accept the following

1) That the one-armed amputee could wield a pen and operate his wheelchair at the same time.
2) That the cop could not outrun a wheelchair-bound amputee.
3) That the cop is so feeble-minded that he allowed himself to be cornered by an amputee in a wheelchair.
4) That the cop cannot tell the difference between a gun and a ballpoint pen
4a) ...from a distance of a couple of feet - given 3)

Assuming all those, there is no way he should be a cop in the first place.

[LewisLegion]

You cannot tazer someone in a wheelchair. Even with all the rubber and the low risk of injury, there is enough metal on the wheelchair that could conceivably come into contact with the victim of the tazering to cause an incredible amount of harm...not only to him but those around him.

[LewisLegion]

To believe the cop's story, you would have to accept the following

1) That the one-armed amputee could wield a pen and operate his wheelchair at the same time.
2) That the cop could not outrun a wheelchair-bound amputee.
3) That the cop is so feeble-minded that he allowed himself to be cornered by an amputee in a wheelchair.
4) That the cop cannot tell the difference between a gun and a ballpoint pen
4a) ...from a distance of a couple of feet - given 3)

Assuming all those, there is no way he should be a cop in the first place.

Not to also play devil's advocate, but I have to address these.

1) It can be done, and he does not HAVE to wield the pen and operate the chair at the same time. If he had the pen tucked down next to him or under his shirt, he could have manuevered the chair to close the cop in, and then snatched up the pen to stab at him. Even with the pen in his hand, it is fairly easy to palm it so you can grip the chair wheel with your fingers and manuever it. OR, as someone else suggested, move the chair with your foot. You'd be very surprised at the amount of manueverablity and speed you have with just your foot.

2) Why would the cop outrun the amputee? If he sees no weapon (or no pen) at the time, and the man is just being belligerant and moving forward in a 'posturing' sense, I'd be more alarmed if the cop simply turned and ran. Imagine if this fellow were not in a wheelchair. He's arguing with the cop, 'stepping up' on him. The cop would hold his hand up to the guy, other hand on his weapon, and order him to step back and calm down. He would not just 'turn and run'. And let's say for some unfathomable reason the cop DID run...again, wheelchairs can move fucking fast. On a straight stretch, running flat out, the cop would not be able to outrun the wheelchair. Of course, only an idiot would run from a wheelchair on a straight stretch...here is where weaving and dodging and running upstairs are your friends.

3) I wouldn't call him feeble-minded, but there was a lack of due dillegence on his part. It could be he was already close to the corner, had his attention elsewhere (another cop, a different suspect) and the wheelchair closed in. Wheelchairs are low...you don't necessarily see them coming out of the corner of your eye like you do someone on their feet. Was he careless it not paying attention to the wheelchair? Absolutely...but it's not necessarily like the wheelchair guy was just herding him with his full attention and got him in a corner. More, the cop probably noticed wheelchair guy was there in close quarters at the same time he noticed he really had no where to back off too. Needing discipline? Absolutely...but hardly feeble-minded.

4 and 4a) I thought the pen was mistaken as a knife, not a gun? You can palm most of both a ballpoint pen AND a knife. If the cop looked down as the guy stabbed inward...a very quick motion...all he would see even from close range is a fist holding something metallic stabbing toward him. It would be a blur, moving fast. At that point, do you say 'hmm. that may or may not be a knife that he's stabbing toward me as one would normally stab a knife. If it's not, no harm done, but if it is, he could sever my femoral artery and I could bleed to death in moments. I think I'll wait and let him connect. If I'm still alive and unwounded after, then clearly, it was not a knife.'

Was the cop negligent here? Most likely, yes. If nothing else, he was negligent in his attention and perception of a possible threatening situation developing. I don't know, I wasn't there. That's why they do investigations and inquiries, to find out exactly what happened before they just pop someone in jail or strip them of their career.

I can tell you this. I was in a wheelchair for a single week after my hip surgery...and by the end of it I could move that thing like you wouldn't believe, even with just one foot. To someone who's been in a chair as long as this man doubtlessly was, it becomes an extension of yourself, barely a hindrance. Can I believe he closed in that fast, wielded a faux-weapon and manuevered his chair quickly enough to take someone by surprise...absolutely. Especially if that someone is only half-paying attention because he subscribes to the common idea that the wheelchair automatically meant the man would be clumsy or slow and therefore of no threat.

[Greenday]

2) Why would the cop outrun the amputee?

Because you never let yourself get cornered, especially if someone is acting aggressive.

[LewisLegion]

Right, but you don't turn and RUN. You back up, maneuver, order them to stand down...that's my point. He made a mistake in letting himself get into a position where the wheelchair could advance...possibly unnoticed...and block him in. That's bad, I fully agree. But it's not like he was in a wide open area and as the wheelchair started heading toward him trying to back him into a corner, he would just turn and RUN. Back up, shift to the side, yes...but you NEVER turn your back on anyone unknown as a cop if you have any inkling they might be hostile. The cop would hold his ground (other than possibly taking a step or two backward) and order.

If a cop turns and runs, he's under heavy gunfire and looking for cover. Or else he's chasing someone. That's my point. There would be no running in this situation for someone to say 'he could have outrun him'.

And given that a man on foot cannot outrun a determined person in a wheelchair on a flat course (unless he's a professional runner) it still stands that no...he could not outrun a man in a wheelchair even if he HAD taken off, unless he took advantage of the terrain and used stairs, slopes, grass, or other hindrances to stymie the wheelchair.

[Andara Bledin]

My take is that when they said "run" they didn't mean literally for the cop to run away, but for him to retreat from the situation.

Also, considering that they were inside a group home of some sort, the terrain would have favored the able-bodied man with all his limbs over the one in the wheelchair. Wheelchairs can't corner like a person with full use of his legs and require a lot more clearance; if the cop hadn't allowed himself to be placed into a dangerous situation to begin with (and there's no excuse for that - I've got zero training in any form of security operations and even I won't let myself be cornered by a stranger - that a cop would be lacking even that amount of situational awareness is depressing), there's would have been no need for him to draw his weapon, much less for him to fire it and kill the assailant.

^-.-^

[LewisLegion]

On that we can agree. He allowed himself to be in a dangerous situation and allowed himself to feel cornered...either because he wasn't paying attention to this gentleman and was surprised, or because he disregarded the gentleman as dangerous simply because he was handicapped and in a wheelchair. Whatever the reason, he was absolutely wrong in failing to adequately keep himself safe in a potentially hostile situation.

HOWEVER. If the man actually DID have a knife, and in this situation had gone after the officer and the officer had killed him in response, people would be a lot less hostile toward the officer in this situation. They would have picked on his poor awareness of the situation but they would have accepted that yes, his life actually was in danger and this man actually did intend to harm him, and therefore he was right to use lethal force.

The man didn't actually HAVE a knife, so now suddenly, without knowing the officer's actual perceptions of the situation, people are calling to have him thrown into jail and stripped of his career without even the benefit of an investigation. A man palming a metallic pen and striking with it swiftly in a manner equal to a man striking with a knife can be easily seen as a man stabbing with a knife, even from inches away. Swift motion, no clear look at the device because it's moving quickly and half obscured, in a manner consistant with a knife-strike HAS to be taken as just that... a knife-strike.

He saw what he assessed as a probable knife-strike in his direction, one that may have killed him if it managed to sever an artery, and he neutralized that threat. He was immediately suspended pending an investigation, and despite his mistake in allowing himself to be cornered, he deserves a fair investigation...just like anyone else does. He probably is already driving himself crazy with what happened and what he could have done better to prevent the end that occurred, but the long and short of it is, he deserves his investigation.

And if someone...regardless of who it is or their 'capability'...goes after a police officer in a manner consistant with deadly intent and an unidentified object in their hand...there shouldn't be a huge amount of shock that that person was treated like a significant threat and neutralized. The cop wouldn't be any less dead just because the gentleman was in a wheelchair, if he actually HAD a knife.

[Greenday]

Here's the problem with your argument. The cop's story has already been proven to be false. Certain facts of life cannot be argued against. Either the man was coming at him or the man was waving his pen. It would be physically impossible for him to do both at the same time. So a man sitting in a wheel chair that isn't moving is not a threat. A man charging you in a wheelchair that isn't waving a possible weapon isn't a real threat. The cop has made up an obvious fake story to avoid the fact that he murdered someone.

[LewisLegion]

Not at all. A one armed man in a wheelchair waving a pen could in fact also be coming at you...because there are other ways to move a wheelchair other than just with your hand. As has been said repeatedly, you can move a wheelchair quite swiflty and accurately with your foot...in fact, some wheelchair bound individuals have NO arms and manage to move the chair just fine. Some power wheelchairs used by such individuals also move by other means than just a hand on a control. Some have footpedals that move the chair forward.

So yes. Yes it is physically possible for a one armed man to move a chair forward while simultaneously rapidly waving around a semi-obscured metallic item that may be interpreted as a knife.

Also, a man charging you that ISN'T waving an obvious weapon is STILL a threat, and a serious one at that. Have you ever been hit by a wheelchair, especially one going at any speed? If taken off guard, a grown man of some size can be seriously injured and even knocked off his feet. Granted, most able bodied men can dodge a chair coming at them if they have sufficient warning, but given the speed/angle/how quickly the cop noticed it advancing, and his own perceptions on whether or not he was in any danger all can affect reaction time.

Unarmed, slamming into a cop with a wheelchair and damaging his legs/knees/ankles or knocking him over where he could injure his shoulder/head/etc is still assault on a police officer, and is usually considered assault with an object or...if the judge deigns it, assualt with a deadly weapon. Once an officer falls down, the wheelchair can hit him again, striking him in the head or face. Theoretically, you can kill someone just by ramming them repeatedly with a wheelchair, especially one holding a hundred plus pounds of weight.

Pen aside, the man's intent was still to assault a police officer with an instrument. Had he been hopping toward the officer swinging a bat, the same thing would apply...whether or not the officer could theoretically 'back away' or 'retreat' from the threat with what we, outside the situation, would consider 'ease'.

If the officer's story was 'proven' to be a lie, then the investigation is done and there are at least some level of disciplinary proceedings going forward against him. If they are still investigating, or have cleared him of discipline in this case, then the story was not 'proven' to be a lie, and we have to respect the decisions of those who have far more evidence than we do on what really went on, instead of simply seeing 'cop shoots man in wheelchair' and automatically crucifying him.