Terrorism against Chinese targets

[siegecrossbow]

I understand the said officer is being prosecuted for murder/manslaughter and if found guilty he could expect to spend a loooooong time in jail.

Canadian jails are a joke.

 

[solarz]

I understand the said officer is being prosecuted for murder/manslaughter and if found guilty he could expect to spend a loooooong time in jail.

The kid in the streetcar, his name was Sammy Yatim btw, did not make any threatening move, much less toss an axe at the officer. No other police officer at the scene even drew their weapon.

It's easy as a lay person to say that the PAP in the video should have stopped firing when the man fell down, but you are saying that in the safety of your home in front of a keyboard and a monitor, not on a street in front of an obviously suicidal axe-wielding fanatic.

PAP guys are more like soldiers than police, and soldiers are trained to kill enemies, with overwhelming force if possible.

 

[B.I.B.]

Canadian jails are a joke.

Compared with American ones most Western prisons are a joke.

NZ police with the exception of tasers are not armed. However there are exceptions and as a rural cop I had a Bushmaster Carbine and Glock kept in the trunk of my patrol car and if I found myself in a similar situation as that Canadian cop, I don't think I would have reacted in the same way.

 

[Blitzo]

It is a reasonable assessment that the axe was intended and was going to hit someone when it was obvious the man will throw it at the PAP but before it was actually in the air. In the US this situation definitely would have warranted deadly force at that point. I do agree there should not have been shooting after the man had fallen to the ground.

I do have several other observations and questions:

- I assume neither the police nor the PAP had tasers? It would have been good from an intelligence perspective to be able to interrogate the man if he was arrested alive. I am guessing it is another cost issue.

Tasers aren't always effective if the individual is wearing somewhat thick clothing. I also wouldn't have said any intelligence garnered from the guy could be worth anything, certainly not worth the risk injury or even death to the PAP responders.

- If just two of either the regular police or the PAP had riot gear, long baton and shield, and the appropriate training they could also have subdued the man alive with little risk to themselves.

Possible, but in this case the guy was quite clearly seeking to act aggressively with a deadly weapon. Trying to restrain him with riot gear would be akin to a medieval duel and fighting on near even terms.

- Why were the PAP so close to the man? Assuming they have average marksmanship they should be able to guarantee a hit from multiple times the distance they were at where he could not threaten them. The regular police probably can't hit the man though unless they were at the distance the PAP were at.

No scopes on their rifles, or reflex sights, means being closer is probably a safer bet.
I think being closer to a threat also helps to simultaneously draw the threat's attention from potential civilians nearby. That said, we don't know the exact context of how the situation unfolded.

- What was the larger context of what is seen in the video? Was this the end of a long pursuit or an initial response? Were the five officers the only authorities assigned to the scene? Could they have called and waited for appropriately equipped backup to capture rather than kill the man without undue risk to anyone else? What is the organizational response of the authorities to such a situation? Was this man a lone wolf or could he be part of a bigger group of hostiles? Was this during a normal time or a curfew?

That information we do not know.

But overall, I think their use of force was quite justifiable based on what we could see.
Unless the police had deliberately forced the guy to brandish an axe to frame him and kill him... (sarcasm)

The PAP responders probably didn't need to continue shooting him once he was down. However even then, I can't exactly criticize them too much for it, because chances are those three fellas have never had to shoot a real person before and never faced a charge by someone with a weapon in real life before. It is also unfortunately quite common for police or soldiers in all nations to continue shooting a few extra shots even when the threat was down. [edit: I see the suspect was actually throwing his axe, but that is hardly any better]

And this perpetrator wasn't exactly carrying a small handknife, he was hauling a freaking axe, and he was only shot once he brandished it and began to charge [edit: throw]. This was all after numerous verbal warnings.

If he'd been shot without first brandishing his axe or if he'd been shot without charging at the PAP responders then there'd be a much better case to criticize the shooting for.

 

[Blitzo]

Hmmm …….Having spent a portion of my working life in the NZ Police I’m not all impressed with the way the PAP handled the situation at all. In NZ we are told only to shoot if we felt that lives were in imminent danger and if we did what the PAP did, we would have received unrelenting criticism by the public.

The situation would have been assessed and it was pretty clear that the man held an axe in one hand and perhaps a knife of some sort in the other, which he threw down after the warning shot was fired. He was no longer a threat after being hit with the opening shots as he threw the axe so there was no need for the continued shooting as he was collapsing and on the ground.

Secondly was there any need to have opened fire as the thrown axe was not in a life threatening trajectory and missing the police.

Having looked at the video again and again, I can't fully agree with what you said, despite being well aware of NZ's standards for its police as well.

First of all, the original video on ifeng has been taken down, so here is a youtube mirror:

In the video, at 0:02 the PAP responder on the far left shoots a warning shot.
At 0:08 the suspect drops the knife
At 0:13 the suspect begins stepping forwards and swinging the axe forwards in a motion, at which point the PAP immediately respond by shooting
By 0:14 the axe has fully left his hand and impacted somewhere near the far right PAP responder


I think they were fully justified in firing their weapons at 0:13, given they did not know in that split second if the suspect was trying to charge at them with the axe or "only" throw his axe. Therefore it was very reasonable for them to assume that he was acting in a threatening way intended to do them harm with the potential for harm, and to respond with deadly force.
It is also ridiculous to expect them to have been able to predict that the suspect's axe throw was not in a "life threatening trajectory" and thus to not respond with deadly force.

In other words, your premises for saying the PAP should not have opened fire on him relies upon two key assumptions:
1: the police were able to judge in a split second that the suspect stepping forwards and brandishing his axe was not seeking to charge at them with an axe and was only seeking to "throw" the axe (as if that is somehow much less threatening)
and 2: the police were then able to judge in the same split second that the axe was not on a "life threatening trajectory"

Given this entire critical moment occurs within about 0.5 seconds of time, I think your expectations of the PAP in this specific situation (or indeed any other police anywhere in the world if they faced a similar situation) are immensely unrealistic.


Now, I agree that they shouldn't have continued shooting once he was on the ground (though as I said in my previous reply, continuing to shoot a suspect is hardly unique among only Chinese police, and in this case the suspect had actually deliberately attacked them with a large weapon so it makes sense to try and make sure he was down) -- but I think they were fully justified in opening fire on the suspect at 0:13.

 

[Brumby]

Now, I agree that they shouldn't have continued shooting once he was on the ground (though as I said in my previous reply, continuing to shoot a suspect is hardly unique among only Chinese police, and in this case the suspect had actually deliberately attacked them with a large weapon so it makes sense to try and make sure he was down) -- but I think they were fully justified in opening fire on the suspect at 0:13.

I think the main problem is as you acknowledged is when he was downed they continue to spray bullets on him. Once the threat is removed, the reasoning is that there should be a corresponding withdrawal in the use of lethal force. The justification to continue would then be to demonstrate somehow that the threat still exist in some shape or form.

 

[B.I.B.]

It's easy as a lay person to say that the PAP in the video should have stopped firing when the man fell down, but you are saying that in the safety of your home in front of a keyboard and a monitor, not on a street in front of an obviously suicidal axe-wielding fanatic.

PAP guys are more like soldiers than police, and soldiers are trained to kill enemies, with overwhelming force if possible.

I think after ten years in the army and a similar time in the police I can offer an opinion. As a rural cop there could be times where it was just me and with my firearms in the patrol car's trunk , handling violent domestic situations or getting antagonistic drunks or bikies (who are quite prepared to start hurling cans of beer or broken glassware at you, to cool it.

The kid in the streetcar, his name was Sammy Yatim btw, did not make any threatening move, much less toss an axe at the officer. No other police officer at the scene even drew their weapon.
.

So you think the police officer over reacted.

 

[Blitzo]

I think the main problem is as you acknowledged is when he was downed they continue to spray bullets on him. Once the threat is removed, the reasoning is that there should be a corresponding withdrawal in the use of lethal force. The justification to continue would then be to demonstrate somehow that the threat still exist in some shape or form.

Well BIB described two "issues" with one being continuing to shoot once the suspect (attacker by this point) was down, and the other point being opening fire in the first place.

I agree that it wasn't necessary to continue shooting him after the first few shots, but at the same time I think that is a common reaction for many gun wielding law enforcement or military types to do so across many countries, even when faced with far less threatening situations than a man who'd just brandished and thrown an axe at you.

However the second issue which he described, which I see as the much bigger problem from BIB's post, is whether the PAP responders were justified in opening fire in the first place, and I think they most definitely were justified.

 

[Blitzo]

I think after ten years in the army and a similar time in the police I can offer an opinion. As a rural cop there could be times where it was just me and with my firearms in the patrol car's trunk , handling violent domestic situations or getting antagonistic drunks or bikies (who are quite prepared to start hurling cans of beer or broken glassware at you, to cool it.

I know you're not responding to me here, but I think drunks and bikers with cans of beer of broken glass is somewhat different compared to what the PAP responders were faced with in the video -- not only in terms of weaponry but also in terms of the motivations and aggression of the suspects.

So you think the police officer over reacted.

I think the Canadian police officer definitely overreacted, as Sammy Yatim did not even brandish his knife or step towards the officers at all before he was shot, from the videos I've seen.
00:57 in the video on the page:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The PAP case on the other hand, shows the suspect quite clearly brandishing his axe and moving rapidly forwards towards a PAP responder in a way that any observer would describe as aggressive, before the PAP actually opened fire.

 

[Brumby]

I agree that it wasn't necessary to continue shooting him after the first few shots, but at the same time I think that is a common reaction for many gun wielding law enforcement or military types to do so across many countries, even when faced with far less threatening situations than a man who'd just brandished and thrown an axe at you.

However the second issue which he described, which I see as the much bigger problem from BIB's post, is whether the PAP responders were justified in opening fire in the first place, and I think they most definitely were justified.

The issue of law enforcement in the use of lethal force is a common topic of debate and is not unique to China as in this instance. My understanding even in Australia is that if you don't want to be shot than don't do anything that would justify a law enforcement officer in drawing his or her weapon. They are trained to shoot to kill and not to disarm. If they have to shoot there is no question that it is to remove the threat and that is by lethal means. There is no pussy footing around. They aim for the heart double tap. Once the threat is removed further release of a weapon is just bad publicity with no corresponding benefit.