One of the aspects of having to use a weapon on a person is: you have to make a series of decisions in split second timing to determine what is best for the situation at hand.
-This was a person of significant size who had a weapon (bat,) who had already administered deadly impact to the back of the head of the officer, after lying in wait.
-This was also a person who was clearly in a 'rage state,' and (for whatever reasons,) was acting in a very profound and violent manner, which, when presented? means that you are dealing with someone who is acting and thinking more like a locomotive than a rational person.
This was not an individual who was just 'pissed off.'
They were in a semi-medicated state while being enraged, and dealing with 'that,' is way more difficult than dealing with someone who is simply irate.
-That there was already a weapon involved, that it was on an anniversary date of another mass homocide no doubt colored the situaiton.
-That the officer had already been hit in the head (which could have killed him,) no doubt had a profound impact on his decision making, and put him clearly in a survival mode (IE: it's either me or this guy, -and he's already injured me with intent to kill.')
---That coupled with the knowledge that there were potentially other victims waiting to happen (so now the officer is thinking 'HE's already tried to kill me, he could take my gun and start shooting others, and he is still in a rage state,'
--definitely pushes the situaiton into one where use of deadly force is more of a logical choice.
--A lot of it has to do with environments as well.
I've had people this big and bigger come after me with weapons of this nature, (as well as more than one, at once do such,)
--but the differences were when I was in an environment where it was understood that the people were not well, mentally, and I was trained and there specifically to calm the person down, -and was there to be a part of that person's treatment.
It's a different mindset where you're thinking more in terms of patients best care than defence of self.
(when I was a uniformed officer, licensed to carry weapons and use them if necessary?
-the end result and method (though we wanted everyone to come out of it unharmed,) was different in focus and method than when I am working with deescalating and deactivating a person who is mentally ill in a 'controlled,' or theraputic setting.
---It didn't change the fact that when you have a fire extinguisher coming at your head, or a knife, chair, or enraged person who knows how to hurt you,
---that you are possibly going to be injured or killed.
I've been injured, most anyone who has worked in this genre has been injured, in fact,
(one of my colleagues was put in a wheelchair for life by a kid who weighed a fifty pounds less than this kid, who had 'fragile X' and a rage disorder who went off.)
-Even with us, we did not work with these people in isolated situations, and did not work singley with them but worked with other staff, --and still you can get seriously injured.
WE, however, understood the risks, and understood that we were there to prevent injury of the individual, others, and ourselves, ---but that we were probably going to be in harms way during the process, (but again, we were in a theraputic setting.)
As an officer, you don't really have that focus nor restriction (and often) luxury.
The reality of the officers situaiton is:
When you are in a public setting, and you are there (not) part of hospital staff, it is not a controlled environment, you have to look at the situation from a much quicker and definite vantage point and you don't have as many options:
This is a large person who has already gone into a rage, has already attacked (the officer,) with a weapon, ---and who is not slowing down.
Would a 'tazer,' have been just as effective?
Maybe.
But a tazer is not as 'effective' as a firearm when it comes to shutting down an attacker,
(which was the situation presented:
'I'm an officer already with a headwound from this guy who tried to kill me, He's not slowing down, He's trying again, there are a lot of kids here who he (likely,) will turn on next, he's huge, and I need to shut this down right now.'
The officer was already in a 'defence,' mode by virtue of his injuries, and through no fault of his own.
Though I'd call his thought processes 'sharpened,' and 'specific,' --I don't think I'd call them 'clouded,' nor 'impared.' (...not saying that you or anyone else has, btw.)
It's just, with options that limited and in a time of crisis You don't think in terms of 'tazer,' at that point, you think in terms of self-preservation (which he was fortunately given the second chance to do,) ---as well as the preservation of a lot of innocent kids.
Regrettably, this person had presented themself as a human weapon that was bent on destruction of others, had just almost succeeded in doing such, --and who stated that they specifically wanted to die,
(which, though it is not a request you fullfill like 'okay then, die,'
---you have to realize that their goal of injuring or killing others cannot be challanged nor thwarted by even appealing their own desire for self-preservation they have made a commitment to injure and destroy, ---as well as to die in the process, and have stated and are acting in that.
---so it is extremely hard to reason with them in that state.
A person (publically, not in a theraputic nor hospital setting,) presents themself as that focussed, and is acting within it, (with no signs of decreasing,)
-presents themself specifically, and has to be responded to specifically.
-Do you want to spare their life, as well as the life of others? Yes, absolutely.
--But if it's a matter of sparing their life, or sparing ones own, as well as sparing those of a lot of innocents, the choice is pretty limited.
If the officer had been knocked unconcious, or killed, and his weapon(s) used on the school? it could have gone from one person dead (the assailant,)
to that person dead (after,) emptying the magazines of the guns, which could have been (theoretically,) a body per bullet.
-If we're talking a weapon with ten bullets in the magazine, and he gets in two good shots per student? That's at least 5 dead, or it could be a higher figure with more dead, and the balance seriously injured.
Along with their own life being protected,
I'm sure that THAT was what the officer was thinking, and had to make a choice of which way to go in a split second,
-(after,) having been nailed in the back of the head with a bat.
Though I've not had to make decisions of that gravity,(life or death,)
I have had to make fast ones (even while injured,) when others and myself are at risk, and have had to choose which methods to use to deactivate the situation, (actually having a 'choice,' is a luxury, most of the time, things happen so fast that you really have no choice and have to work with what has been handed you.
The 'perfect' answer and outcome did not, do not, and will not always happen.
I think, all things considered, this was the best that could have happened, but the end results still are awful.
Its' a matter of there being not more 'awful.'
But it's still awful.
regarding use of deadly force
One of the aspects of having to use a weapon on a person is: you have to make a series of decisions in split second timing to determine what is best for the situation at hand.
-This was a person of significant size who had a weapon (bat,) who had already administered deadly impact to the back of the head of the officer, after lying in wait.
-This was also a person who was clearly in a 'rage state,' and (for whatever reasons,) was acting in a very profound and violent manner, which, when presented? means that you are dealing with someone who is acting and thinking more like a locomotive than a rational person.
This was not an individual who was just 'pissed off.'
They were in a semi-medicated state while being enraged, and dealing with 'that,' is way more difficult than dealing with someone who is simply irate.
-That there was already a weapon involved, that it was on an anniversary date of another mass homocide no doubt colored the situaiton.
-That the officer had already been hit in the head (which could have killed him,) no doubt had a profound impact on his decision making, and put him clearly in a survival mode (IE: it's either me or this guy, -and he's already injured me with intent to kill.')
---That coupled with the knowledge that there were potentially other victims waiting to happen (so now the officer is thinking 'HE's already tried to kill me, he could take my gun and start shooting others, and he is still in a rage state,'
--definitely pushes the situaiton into one where use of deadly force is more of a logical choice.
--A lot of it has to do with environments as well.
I've had people this big and bigger come after me with weapons of this nature, (as well as more than one, at once do such,)
--but the differences were when I was in an environment where it was understood that the people were not well, mentally, and I was trained and there specifically to calm the person down, -and was there to be a part of that person's treatment.
It's a different mindset where you're thinking more in terms of patients best care than defence of self.
(when I was a uniformed officer, licensed to carry weapons and use them if necessary?
-the end result and method (though we wanted everyone to come out of it unharmed,) was different in focus and method than when I am working with deescalating and deactivating a person who is mentally ill in a 'controlled,' or theraputic setting.
---It didn't change the fact that when you have a fire extinguisher coming at your head, or a knife, chair, or enraged person who knows how to hurt you,
---that you are possibly going to be injured or killed.
I've been injured, most anyone who has worked in this genre has been injured, in fact,
(one of my colleagues was put in a wheelchair for life by a kid who weighed a fifty pounds less than this kid, who had 'fragile X' and a rage disorder who went off.)
-Even with us, we did not work with these people in isolated situations, and did not work singley with them but worked with other staff, --and still you can get seriously injured.
WE, however, understood the risks, and understood that we were there to prevent injury of the individual, others, and ourselves, ---but that we were probably going to be in harms way during the process, (but again, we were in a theraputic setting.)
As an officer, you don't really have that focus nor restriction (and often) luxury.
The reality of the officers situaiton is:
When you are in a public setting, and you are there (not) part of hospital staff, it is not a controlled environment, you have to look at the situation from a much quicker and definite vantage point and you don't have as many options:
This is a large person who has already gone into a rage, has already attacked (the officer,) with a weapon, ---and who is not slowing down.
Would a 'tazer,' have been just as effective?
Maybe.
But a tazer is not as 'effective' as a firearm when it comes to shutting down an attacker,
(which was the situation presented:
'I'm an officer already with a headwound from this guy who tried to kill me, He's not slowing down, He's trying again, there are a lot of kids here who he (likely,) will turn on next, he's huge, and I need to shut this down right now.'
The officer was already in a 'defence,' mode by virtue of his injuries, and through no fault of his own.
Though I'd call his thought processes 'sharpened,' and 'specific,' --I don't think I'd call them 'clouded,' nor 'impared.' (...not saying that you or anyone else has, btw.)
It's just, with options that limited and in a time of crisis You don't think in terms of 'tazer,' at that point, you think in terms of self-preservation (which he was fortunately given the second chance to do,) ---as well as the preservation of a lot of innocent kids.
Regrettably, this person had presented themself as a human weapon that was bent on destruction of others, had just almost succeeded in doing such, --and who stated that they specifically wanted to die,
(which, though it is not a request you fullfill like 'okay then, die,'
---you have to realize that their goal of injuring or killing others cannot be challanged nor thwarted by even appealing their own desire for self-preservation they have made a commitment to injure and destroy, ---as well as to die in the process, and have stated and are acting in that.
---so it is extremely hard to reason with them in that state.
A person (publically, not in a theraputic nor hospital setting,) presents themself as that focussed, and is acting within it, (with no signs of decreasing,)
-presents themself specifically, and has to be responded to specifically.
-Do you want to spare their life, as well as the life of others? Yes, absolutely.
--But if it's a matter of sparing their life, or sparing ones own, as well as sparing those of a lot of innocents, the choice is pretty limited.
If the officer had been knocked unconcious, or killed, and his weapon(s) used on the school? it could have gone from one person dead (the assailant,)
to that person dead (after,) emptying the magazines of the guns, which could have been (theoretically,) a body per bullet.
-If we're talking a weapon with ten bullets in the magazine, and he gets in two good shots per student? That's at least 5 dead, or it could be a higher figure with more dead, and the balance seriously injured.
Along with their own life being protected,
I'm sure that THAT was what the officer was thinking, and had to make a choice of which way to go in a split second,
-(after,) having been nailed in the back of the head with a bat.
Though I've not had to make decisions of that gravity,(life or death,)
I have had to make fast ones (even while injured,) when others and myself are at risk, and have had to choose which methods to use to deactivate the situation, (actually having a 'choice,' is a luxury, most of the time, things happen so fast that you really have no choice and have to work with what has been handed you.
The 'perfect' answer and outcome did not, do not, and will not always happen.
I think, all things considered, this was the best that could have happened, but the end results still are awful.
Its' a matter of there being not more 'awful.'
But it's still awful.