Posted by Ohcomeon at 1/14/09 9:25 a.m.

So did the cops kill him with a knife or did he have a knife? Nice headline... Real clear...

This is all The PI could come up with? Left out important details like the guy was tazered before being shot. (in the other stories) The reporter(s) could read the other successful paper or the tv news and report more... And you wonder why they are going under?

Posted by sbw2fan at 1/14/09 9:26 a.m.

Stun guns are nearly worthless, all they give you is the moral high ground - "Well, we tried to subdue him non-lethally"

Posted by Ohcomeon at 1/14/09 9:54 a.m.

They, allegedly, fixed the article and the title. Nice...

Posted by someguy at 1/14/09 9:58 a.m.

OhComeon...

This is why losing the PI is so hard.

Blogs, slogs and online news are forced to get online ASAP and editing takes time.

Posted by number.61 at 1/14/09 9:58 a.m.

@Ohcomeon, Get a life. If you think the PI does a horrible job then move along and get your news else where. Or you're welcome to get into the business yourself and do a better job.

Posted by 5thcolumncure at 1/14/09 10:03 a.m.

Countdown to the clueless who believe cops should've shot the knife out of his hand in 3,2,1 ....

Posted by sbw2fan at 1/14/09 10:07 a.m.

Ohcomeon is stating a fact; the PI's coverage is consistantly poor. I come to the PI website because they have the sound-offs (where you can get a feel for what people are thinking), but that's the only advantage. The Times (and even the local TV sites) almost always have superior coverage in the same time frame.

The poor coverage is one of the reasons they're going broke. Why deny the symptom?

Posted by DiggzDime at 1/14/09 10:11 a.m.

I don't get it. Why didn't the cops just shoot the guy in the wrist like they do in the movies! This guy should not have had to die just for having a knife! These cops are blood thirsty and the White community needs leadership to stop this kind of thing from happeneing!

-end sarcasm

Posted by sbw2fan at 1/14/09 10:13 a.m.

Diggz...EXACTLY. Or they could have thrown a big 'ol net over him, like in Planet of the Apes.

Posted by Ohcomeon at 1/14/09 10:18 a.m.

#61, the PI is responsible for reporting accurately are they not?.

Why do I need to get a life again? Because I see glaring problems with a news story? Excuuuuse me...

Posted by Kary L. Krismer at 1/14/09 10:19 a.m.

"Countdown to the clueless who believe cops should've shot the knife out of his hand in 3,2,1 ..."

LOL. At least they used the taser to appease the rest of the people that get their information from Hollywood.

Quite frankly I think they may have placed the woman's life in jeopardy by attempting to tazer him.

Posted by Whistle Berries at 1/14/09 10:20 a.m.

Hmmm...

In general, I support the efforts of law enforcement. However, I question why it is necessary to have several officers shoot one suspect. Clearly, this is, pardon the pun, overkill.

There should always be a police officer in charge at the scene of an incident such as this. That police officer in charge should either be the responsible shooter, or designate ONE officer to take the shot.

All police officers are required to qualify at the shooting range. Some are better shots than others.

It should only take one police officer, and one or two shots aimed at certain areas of the suspect's body, to accomplish the goal of having the suspect drop the weapon.

Otherwise, it looks like a bunch of trigger-happy idiots.

Posted by sbw2fan at 1/14/09 10:26 a.m.

I have to disagree, Whistle Berries; once the decision is made that the perpetrator needs to be shot (meaning killed), you then use the most certain method of accomplishing this task - everybody unload.

Posted by nonblogger at 1/14/09 10:38 a.m.

In a situation like this, the officers do NOT have time to decide, "Okay, Ofc. Doe will fire his gun, but Ofc. Smith will not, and only 2 shots will be fired, etc." Standard procedure is that when deadly force is called for, which it clearly was here, all officers with a clear shot and a clear background (i.e., nobody behind the suspect in danger of being shot by accident) should shoot, and shoot to kill. The officers here did their jobs, and did them well.

Posted by waltr at 1/14/09 10:40 a.m.

Lesson #1, don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.

Posted by nonblogger at 1/14/09 10:50 a.m.

Lesson #2, when the police say "drop it," DROP IT!

Posted by PatD at 1/14/09 10:54 a.m.

There is no mention of a couple things that may have allowed the dead man to be taken into custody.

Was the woman companion trapped in the room, or could she have been safely isolated from the knife-wielder ? Is so, then why wasn't the man simply barricaded in the room until tempers subsided ?

Also consider this thought :"once the decision is made that the perpetrator needs to be shot (meaning killed)".

Are there many people out there who sincerely believe that the POLICE should have this much power delegated to them. Clearly the Taser and stun gun options are not the non-lethal panacea they are being marketed as.

Another alarming element of the story is how many officers actually shot the man. The guy died in a "hailstorm of bullets". Just what is departmental policy regarding adversaries wielding short-ranged edge weapons ? In the confined space of a motel room, how did the police manage their fields of fire to eliminate risk to bystanders ? The story, fresh as it is, has no satisfying answers for anyone who questions why the police are so quick to resort to deadly force.

The $64 question is how much is a person's life worth in terms of Seattle PD resources?

Posted by JustRoss at 1/14/09 11:01 a.m.

you can't designate a single officer to take a shot. There's a reason why multiple officers respond in a situation like this, and why they attempt to spread out while responding. No one person can see everything that's going on. One officer might be watching the left hand that holds a knife, and not see the right hand that's going for the gun. The officers don't have time to check and see if the "designated shooter" is seeing it--they have to react NOW. They have to take the shot.

Additionally, while they are all qualified on pistols at the range, combat shooting in a live situation is always a game changer. There are stories of qualified, expert shooters emptying a clip and not hitting their target once the adrenaline starts pumping. And even when they hit, sometimes a bullet or two, especially from the standard issue 9mm, does not stop a suspect, especially if the suspect is drugs or otherwise altered. In this case, the guy had already shown a resistance to pain when he didn't go down after two taser shots.

Posted by Loggerhead at 1/14/09 11:04 a.m.

In some cases, maybe even this one, the perpetrator probably needs to be laid to rest for the safety of others. But why is a fatal gunshot the matter of course with police officers? I never come across news stories where a guy is running from cops and gets shot in the leg. Wouldn't that often suffice? It would, in some instances at least, give officers a chance to judge if the perpetrator has been subdued enough to be cuffed and arrested, or if he does in fact require a lethal dose of lead.

Posted by DefendYourLife at 1/14/09 11:04 a.m.

Whistle Berries, I dont think you are trying to be a overly critical, I just think you are uninformed.

Ill try to help. I have been trained and personally know that a person with a knife can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. Yea.. thats fast.

I have seen numerous photos of suspects that have been shot multiple times, and continue to fight or advance. One suspect in California was shot 33 times with 9mm rounds before he FINALLY was shot with a shotgun round that stopped him.

In the Platt and Mattix shooting (Florida bank robbers), one of the suspects was shot THROUGH the heart, and it was a fatal wound. That mortally wounded suspect continued to fight for 2 more minutes, killing multiple agents.

There are so many examples of this Ill just let you look them up.

Now, if you are a cop, and you are standing RIGHT next to me in front of this guy, knowing all I just mentioned, are you going to say "Hey Jim, hope you hit this guy good because Ide really like to see my wife kids when I go home. So Im just gonna put my hands in my pockets and say a little good luck prayer. Maybe Ill even close my eyes, because if you miss, or it doesnt stop him, Ill be dead or maimed. Good luck! (closes eyes). I think not. If you arent going to protect yourself, or make sure I go home too, then you clearly dont put enough value on my life or yours.

I swear it drives me crazy that people cant think these things through. Do some research before you pass judgement on something you know NOTHING about.

I wouldnt walk into your work place, with no experience other that watching a movie about your job, and tell you how you should have done your job based on that movie. Ridiculous.

Posted by Kary L. Krismer at 1/14/09 11:05 a.m.

"There should always be a police officer in charge at the scene of an incident such as this. That police officer in charge should either be the responsible shooter, or designate ONE officer to take the shot."

Maybe when you're the woman in the room with a man yielding a knife you'd think differently. With a knife he could still kill after being shot once. I think if the cops had been inside the room themselves they probably wouldn't have tried the tazer.

Posted by JustRoss at 1/14/09 11:07 a.m.

PatD--

I don't know the specifics of SPD's policy, but most PDs consider a man with a knife a lethal threat within 20-25ft. I've never been in the Seal Motel, but I seriously doubt it was possible to be in that room and not within 20 feet of the man with the knife.

Posted by theperson at 1/14/09 11:08 a.m.

What a waste of bullets...

Posted by Kary L. Krismer at 1/14/09 11:08 a.m.

"Just what is departmental policy regarding adversaries wielding short-ranged edge weapons ? In the confined space of a motel room, . . . ."

I think most experts say a knife is dangerous at about 25 feet. That would probably encompass the entire room, depending on where he was standing. We're talking about a motel room, not a house.

Posted by starlight12 at 1/14/09 11:09 a.m.

The police dept. did what they had to do. Get over it. Their job is no picnic and I'm sure it's not something they want to do. But have no other choice.

Posted by JustRoss at 1/14/09 11:13 a.m.

loggerhead--you ever try to shoot a moving target that's 8 inches across from 25 feet away while you're adrenaline's pumping?

Posted by DefendYourLife at 1/14/09 11:17 a.m.

PatD there is NOTHING Ide like better than to teleport you right to the front of that door. I would be totally willing to give you all the "power" to deal with the guy and save the woman.

People like you with all the answers make me laugh.
As for should the police have all this power. Which power is that?

The power to stand in front of that door and risk getting maimed or killed, while snuggley safe people like you sip your latte in your sheepskin slippers and question whether the people facing that risk should even have the ABILITY to defend themselves?

Just who do you think you are going to call to deal with this? Just curious. Woman trapped in room with knife weilding nut.

Hey! Lets call the ACLU. Or maybe Greenpeace. Perhaps PAWS or the Society to adopt stray kittens and puppies!

Hmm Im at a loss for who else to call. But please toss your suggestions in there.

Posted by Kary L. Krismer at 1/14/09 11:20 a.m.

It would be interesting to know how many shots are fired and how many hit the suspect. I'd guess it's typically less than 50% if they're using pistols. Less than 25% wouldn't surprise me.

Posted by DefendYourLife at 1/14/09 11:24 a.m.

And thank you for your reasoned responses Krismer. Along with others. Its maddening to hear the absolute nonsense that people toss out there, as if they possess even the most remote degree of knowledge on the subject.

No regard for the safety of the officer. None. Its all about finding a way to save the guy who would try to kill the cop. Despite the fact that the cops made the same efforts, and it was THEIR lives on the line.

Posted by Kary L. Krismer at 1/14/09 11:26 a.m.

Not to mention the woman's life!

Posted by hawk5000 at 1/14/09 11:32 a.m.

PatD, Oh it is so easy to sit back in calm safety of your life and think that this idiots life could have been spared.

but what if that was your wife or daughter held up in a hotel with a armed mas who has already assaulted the officers there to save her?

If the officers had not of fired and the man was allowed to kill the your wife or daughter you would be screaming for the cops resignation and hitting the city with a law suite.

Posted by Mechanicalguy at 1/14/09 11:36 a.m.

The cops just want to go home at night like the rest of us. A man with a knife is as lethal or more lethal then one with a gun. Knife wounds have been shown to be more deadly then bullets in many cases. They would be idiots to say ok ,,Frank you take the shot I will hold the door,,, dynamics dictate the scene. The man made a choice ,,, it was a deadly one, sad that he had to die, but two police officers are going home to their kids and the woman is still alive. Until we get better non lethal weapons this kind of thing will continue. In ten years maybe they will come up with something less lethal, but I for one see it as natural selection in a way,,, if the guy is too stupid to see he is gonna die if he doesnt drop the knife, then so be it.

Posted by cold laser at 1/14/09 11:39 a.m.

While I have been critical of law enforcement in the past, this time it seems the men in blue were spot on. The deceased had the power the whole time. The power to defuse the situation before his friend felt the need to summon police. The power to put his knife down I am sure on multiple occasions after they told him to do so. What were they supposed to do? Wait until he stabbed one of their own or his friend? The fact that he stayed upright through two taser attacks says to me anyway he probably wasn't in the mind set to calm down and reasonably negotiate. We need to get rid of bad cops like the sherrifs deputies the PI reported on a few years ago and support the hell out the good ones. I am sure what happened this morning will stay with all of the officers involved for the rest of their lives.

Posted by nolib at 1/14/09 11:45 a.m.

I'm glad. The Police had no choice. They were in fear of their own life they had to shoot. And how in the hell in all that chaos aim for his wrist. Thats stupid..

Look at the money saved by not having a trial. We can dig the tunnel!!

Posted by Seatawk at 1/14/09 12:04 p.m.

Posted by PatD at 1/14/09 10:54 a.m.

Are there many people out there who sincerely believe that the POLICE should have this much power delegated to them.

Just about everyone but you I think.

The guy sprays them in the face with God knows what, tasers don't take him down so he's on God knows what. He won't drop the knife so he's an out of control psycho.

How much weed do you have to smoke to soften your brain enough to think this guy shouldn't have been taken out? For some people there is no such thing as a clean shoot.