Toronto ETF take out Gunman

[Jarnhamar]

I have as much experience with law enforcement as you do but if I'll try to come up with counter arguments to your points.


1.-Is there a way to tell the weapon was broke? No way. Even if they had a 'feeling' it was broke, is it really worth taking that risk? Would you put that womans life in danger on a guess?
2.-Is tackling him from behind an option? It might be but i don't think so. What happens if he see's the cop comming and panics?? He can shoot the woman OR shoot the cop OR shoot the woman AND the cop.  Now instead of one dead gunman you have a dead police officer, maybe two, and a dead woman. If THAT happened i would be willing to bet the police come under fire (from people like you perhaps) who think the cops should have shot the bad guy instead of playing games with him.
3.-They could could have tried to call everyone from the guys family to his grade 3 teacher. Your working against the clock right? He's either going to calm down or he's going to blow her brains out. The POINT is that the police officers (and im sure the command to fire came from his boss) chose to ensure the safty of the innocent woman instead of gambling with her life and trying to save someone who was *breaking the law and threatening another human being with a gun*

Lastly I see you joined our illustrious little clan therefore I won't be responding to this thread again. Most likely any of yours in the future as well.
Cheers.

 

[rcr]

We're very lucky in this county to have top-notch Police forces making sure that we live our lives as safely as possible, and that order is upheld.  From Federal level to Municipal level.  They abide by very strict codes of conduct, training and law.  I don't think we should be questioning them, especially after they saved an innocent life (and possibly many more) from a very dangerous situation. If there's another way around, I'm sure they'll try to use it.  In this case they tried, but in the end there was no other way.

 

[NavyGrunt]

Thanks for spelling it out properly Ghost. The thing that needs to be understood is that hindsight is 20/20. We can take apart the incident all we want. We didnt "live the moment".

 

[Scratch_043]

Ghost, I beleive that the decision to take the shot was that of the individual officer, and not an order, he saw that the woman was in immediate peril, because the gunman's behavior was suggesting it. and he eliminated the threat.  Just clarifying, and for Tach9, the fact that it was not an action in itself, but a reaction based on the gunman's action, is further justification for the conclusion.  I believe that the Police were most likely also attempting to find a less violent solution when the events unfolded.

Very impressive is the fact that the ETF remained invisible to the public, and more importantly, to the gunman, which is a credit to their training.

 

[sgt_mandal]

It would have had to have been an order. What if they were becoming successful with the negotiations, and they shot him? I know this wasn't the case but I'm assuming the marksman was out of earshot of what was being said.

 

[muskrat89]

It varies by Department. Some Departments have to give "an order". Some Departments -  once the snipers are deployed, they are on their own, and decide when to shoot (or not) based on several criteria.

In May, I attended a "Citizen's Academy" in which all aspects of our local police department were covered, including snipers, SWAT, etc. This is what we were told by the Departmental snipers, during their part of the demo.

 

[The_Falcon]

To ToRn and anyone else interested I posted several links regarding this event earlier in the thread.   As was stated in the media and by Chief Fantino, the decsicion to shoot the gunman was made by someone fairly high up in the chain of command (it was not stated who made the ultimate decsicion, but I would hazard to guess it was probably the Superintendent of the ETF or Fantino himself).   The sniper who made the shot was not the one who made the call, it was way above his head. As was stated in one of the articles I provided a link to our ETF do not rush into things.   They made a plan to try and de-escalate the situation and come up with contigencies.   They followed the Ontario use of Force model (Graphic below). After 30 minutes of trying to talk this lunatic down to no effect what so ever,   the commanders on scene realized thier only remaining option was lethal force.   Now I am sure people can come up with dozens of what ifs, and suggest idiotic things like "distracting him, and have someone tackle him from behind".   Obviously you have never seen the front of Union Station were this was taking place. It is a BIG FREAKING OPEN SPACE! You have seen SWAT and Die Hard one to many times. The cops had NO way of knowing his weapon was not working. Read and watch what happened then make a comment next time tach9.

 

[Ryan_Bohm]

Hatchet Man - that is not the current use of force model that police services use now. Also the model is not cut and dry as it may appear. You have also to include what is called "Tactical Considerations". Examples of these are: persons size/ablities, your size/abilities, time to when back up can arriver etc etc. On the new model they do not include disengage as a option as well. Also they have replaced firearm with "lethal force". If the officer has reasonable grounds (set of facts or circumstances that would cause a normal prudent person to have a strong beleivf that goes on beyond mere suspicion) to beleive death or seriious bodily harm would arrive he could use a chair, knife, asp strike to the head etc. Normally asp strikes can only to be arms, legs etc not the head due to the chance of killing someone whcih would be warranted if S.Bodily harm/death.   These are just some of the chages.   Also your model that you included is missinig the center part of assess, plan, act.

 

[The_Falcon]

I know the model is not cut and dry.  I never said it was.  It is a guide to ensure police (and certain security) take all appropriate steps when deciding what level of force to use.  I only included it here so some people have an idea as to what kind of thought processes police must go through before they come to the deciscion to use deadly force. When I was a Security officer with Intelligarde we spent about 6 hours learning use of force concepts, what considerations need to be made etc.  I am not qualified to teach that kind of stuff over the internet or in person.  I just posted the graphic to illustrate my point, and because one of the articles I linked to had used it in the print version but not on the internet.

P.S. This was the only graphic I could find, if you can put up an update version, be my guest.

 

[muskrat89]

OK, guys - we get it. Back on topic, please....   

 

[Ryan_Bohm]

Hatchet Man - I just wanted to provide a little more information to the people regarding the use of force model and to let people know it has changed.  It was not a personal attack on yourself.  I just wanted to show others that it wasnt as cut and dry as you might think just looking at it. I am doing security right now and we cover the model indepth as well I am a honours graduate of Police Foundations. Halfway through the course the new model came in to play so we had to re-learn everything. Kinda sucked because re-tests etc.

 

[NavyGrunt]

Those changes that were made dont change much. The principles havent changed since the first "use of force model". The only reason they add and revise is for court. As for "disengage"- I've never seen a model besides the one posted here that contains that. That would be a nightmare if you were a cop in a civil trial over you using lethal force. Most new "models" contain numbers for "threat assessment" as well. I've worked with a million different "versions" and it has never changed how I've reacted to someone hitting me or someone else.

 

[Ryan_Bohm]

That would be a nightmare if you were a cop in a civil trial over you using lethal force.

what do you mean by that? how so? I would have to disagree with you on that point.
Also model's? there is only one sanctioned by the OACP for use of police services within Ontario. What Province are you from?

 

[muskrat89]

*sigh*  OK - If you want to start a thread on the "Use of Force Continuum" feel free to do so in the Off Topic forum