Disturbed Individual With Sword(OT)

[Darrin Drader]

I'm with Angcuru on this one. And I'm not saying this as some detatched person who doesn't understand the situation. My brother in-law is schizophrenic. He's actually a pretty mild case, but that doesn't stop him from getting fired from every job he's ever had. Anyway, if the situation were to go down with him in the same way it did with the person the story is about, I would think it sad and unfortunate, but not hold the police accountable for their actions. At the risk of straying into the realm of the political, I believe that at a certain point you must take the welfare of society as a whole into consideration when dealing with someone who's gone off their nut like this guy did.

 

[Dark Jezter]

A buddy of mine is a cop, and I've learned from him that you only draw your sidearm when you are prepared to use deadly force. You don't "shoot to wound", because shooting at a non-vital area is difficult and isn't guaranteed to stop the suspect. If the cops need to disable a suspect, they can use pepper spray or a baton, but since the suspect was carrying a sword, those options weren't particularly viable.

The suspect attacked a police officer, and the police opened fire. The police did the right thing.

A very sad incident indeed.

 

[Numion]

Maybe the officer had frequented RPG forums and just knew that katanas can cut through machinegun barrels (common knowledge to all japan fans), much less pistols. So he had to shoot

 

[LuYangShih]

I agree with Angcuru. You cannot excuse what the man did, regardless of his mental condition.

 

[Tsyr]

"Shoot to wound" is a myth propagated by movies, I fear.

1) "Wounding" shots are much more difficult to make. Hitting someone in the hand is a lot harder than in the head or body. In a crisis, you must assume, always, that you get one shot. Assuming anything else is being foolish.

2) Most "Wounding" shots are notoriously unreliable. The nature of the shot leaves a lot up to chance. The biggest one, of course, is "Did it actualy do damage?"... Shoot someone in the arm, and you might incapacitate his arm. You could also miss anything vital alltogether. But it also depends on the mental condition of the person being shot. People hyped up on drugs, for example, are quite hard to stop through pain alone. Most of the wounding shots that are fairly reliable are either potentialy very deadly wounds (Shoulder wounds can bleed to death), or permanently maiming shots (kneecaps). And they are still hard to make. And even if you make them, that's not a sure thing against a man with a gun, who could still fire with his other hand, from the ground,which is what officers are trained to use their guns against... Not loonies with swords.

3) Officers just aren't trained to make wounding shots (As it should be, for the above two reasons), and in an attack situation, like this was, their response is forumulaic. I'm not sure it's as conditioned as some of the more 'elite' outfits, with the double-tap method, but...

4) The sad state of our justice system has allowed, more than once, a criminal who was shot (But not killed) to sue his shooter, and win.

 

[Celtavian]

re

It is unfortunate that people suffer from mental illness that causes them to undertake such actions. I would have done the same thing in that cops situation. I feel it is better to eliminate a threat than to allow it to continue on in a society nearly incapable of caring for the mentally ill.

Let's face reality, most of us are too selfish to assist in caring for the mentally ill , and we expect the government to do it by throwing money at them. The best they can do is come up with some large, impersonal system that attempts to drug the mentally ill into a sedate state and then give them production line counseling at an hour or so per week. Not a very good chance of being cured.

When something like this happens, better to just end it rather than pretend that we can do any better to cure or limit the threat of such a person.

 

[Heathen72]

I agree with Angcuru. You cannot excuse what the man did, regardless of his mental condition.

It is terrible what happened, regardless of what happened. Don't think that I lack symathy for the victims and their families. And if the Police officers were under attack, then I won't second guess their actions. I guess I just wondering how it got to to that point, and we don't have that information.
As for "Excuses" what is that supposed to mean? If the swordsman was suffering a severe psychotic or Schizophrenic episode, he can hardly be considered as accountable for his actions as, say, some cold blooded mongrel who kills three people in the midst of a robbery.

 

[TiQuinn]

sword wielding wacko

I'm sure there's a past with gaming as well.

Son of Thunder

Am I the only person bothered by the fact that this article was posted here to begin with? I realize that this is an OT thread, but what possible correlation does this tragedy have with role-playing games as you suggest? Because he watched "Highlander"?

 

[lmccauley]

I feel NO remorse WHATSOEVER for this guy.

The guy was mentally ill. Would you criticise someone with a cold for having a runny nose?

The guy should never have been able to have access to a SWORD in the first place. SWORD + Sever Schizophrenic = DANGER.

Totally agree with you.

I feel very sorry for the victims and their families, but as for the attacker, I could not care less.

If he was mentally ill, then he and his family have my sympathy, as well as those he attacked and their families (and the policemen that did their duty - I imagine it must be pretty traumatic having to kill someone, even when completely justified).

I don't blame those police officers for using lethal force. I don't care who you are, if you see someone moving towards you holding a katana dripping in human blood, you shoot to kill.

Again, totally agree with you. As others have pointed out in this thread, professionals with weapons are trained to stop someone by the most effective means possible.

I believe that his actions show he was dangerous, and therefore the police did the right thing. However, I don't believe he was responsible, because he was ill at the time.

 

[Numion]

"Shoot to wound" is a myth propagated by movies, I fear.

Not here in Finland. When police shoot somebody, they almost always shoot to wound (legs quite commonly). Police actually killing someone is so rare that it's got a high chance of being prosecuted.

But then again, dangerously armed criminals rarely actually try to kill police here, so it's not as risky.