That simply isn't realistic. This person had a knife and was charging the officer. She wasnt charging the officer to compare lottery numbers... the cop is not there to die. The cop is there to protect other people.... if its so easy to step in, why didn't her family give it a shot? I mean, who knew this person better than her family?
And shooting for the leg? That is Hollywood crap. Physiologically there are too many things happening when the body goes into panic and besides that it is hard as hell to hit small moving targets. It just doesnt happen and nobody would try it because of the potential for collateral damage.
He shoots at legs, misses and hits another family member.... then what? You guys should take some training. I think it would be enlightening.
“Dyanna Ruiz, a 12-year-old witness, said she saw Trieu running away from a woman who had her arm raised and was chasing him. "I saw the girl running at him with something in her hands,"
“I was taught at 13 how to deal with a panicked swimmer,”
I give up, maybe the solution is from now on, all L.E. that is called to respond to a Mentally Disturbed person that is off their meds, their family can’t control them, they are chasing people with a knife, is to lasso them, tie them to their unit, drag them to the nearest swimming pool, throw them in, and call you.
Why did he shoot to kill ? Can't a peron who is not armed with a gun, be disabled without killing them ?
And if he had to shoot, couldn't it have been a nonlethal shot, like one to the leg for instance ?
I was taught at 13 how to deal with a panicked swimmer, why aren't the police trained how to disable a person without the use of deadly force ???
If she whizzed a knife over his head, she would have been unarmed and she probably not have been shot. Threat was over...subject unarmed.
I miss that part and I stand corrected.
I'd still be interested in knowing what type of knife the girl had and call me a die hard, if you must, but, I'm still not totally convinced that there wasn't another way to diffuse the situation.
Realistically since they were originally asking who to call in my opinion the correct answer would have been a mental health outreach team before it got to this point. The person's psychiatrist working with the family could have had medication maintenance required. However, this information is confidential and of course cannot be disclosed. But it should be factored in. I am responding to the various articles posted which I just read.
"Dyanna Ruiz, a 12-year-old witness, said she saw Trieu running away from a woman who had her arm raised and was chasing him. "I saw the girl running at him with something in her hands," Ruiz said to the Gate. "I didn't know what was happening. I was really scared about what to do."
The preteen, who had been on her way to a friend’s house, said the deputy saw her, stopped and yelled at Serrano-Garcia. When the woman didn’t stop, the officer fired.
Dyanna Ruiz, a 12-year-old witness, said she saw Trieu running away from a woman who had her arm raised and was chasing him. "I saw the girl running at him with something in her hands," Ruiz said to the Gate. "I didn't know what was happening. I was really scared about what to do."
http://rt.com/usa/164000-police-shoot-mentally-ill-teen/
"This was an individual coming at our deputy with a knife intending to harm him," Rosenblatt said. "He should be allowed to protect himself otherwise we might be doing an interview about a deputy not going home to his family and kids."
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Mateo-County-Sheriff-Kills-Teen-in-Half-Moon-Bay-261816771.html
I don't recall anywhere that it said she was "running at the officer" with a knife. In fact, it only said she "may have had a knife". I don't advocate a "do nothing" stance, but neither do I advocate shooting someone within 20 seconds of arriving on the scene.
Had she had a gun and been shooting at him or whizzed a knife over his head, etc, all bets would be off. There's just too much we don't know about this instance.
"I specifically support more community supports and services
to help people who are homeless not end up in this type of situation. "
ILADVOCATE, was this person homeless?
Barb, how long do you stick around and do nothing when someone is running at you with a knife?
"It's unclear whether Trieu, a nine year law enforcement veteran, was aware the young woman had mental illness issues. But the department said he was faced with a life-threatening situation within 20 seconds of arriving to the scene."
Really? 20 seconds told him he was in a life threatening situation? If that's all I gave some situations, I'd have the cops at my house all the time..
It's all in the perception... every single one of us could have been on scene and none of us could have said whether some else is perceiving it incorrectly or not...
This pretty much settles it. Thanks Brice for providing the missing information. We can now look forward to another one sided Cop story post in the near future.
"The deputy, Menh Trieu, was faced with a life-threatening situation within 20 seconds of arriving on the scene, according to Rosenblatt. "This was an individual coming at our deputy with a knife intending to harm him," she said. "He should be allowed to protect himself otherwise we might be doing an interview about a deputy not going home to his family and kids."
Rosenblatt said the nine-year department veteran had no choice, according to the San Francisco Gate.
Dyanna Ruiz, a 12-year-old witness, said she saw Trieu running away from a woman who had her arm raised and was chasing him. "I saw the girl running at him with something in her hands," Ruiz said to the Gate. "I didn't know what was happening. I was really scared about what to do."
The preteen, who had been on her way to a friend’s house, said the deputy saw her, stopped and yelled at Serrano-Garcia. When the woman didn’t stop, the officer fired."
http://rt.com/usa/164000-police-shoot-mentally-ill-teen/
Generally in situations such as this there are trained mental health outreach teams. They are mental health workers not the police.
The situation of people who have a psychiatric disability, generally
a psychotic disorder discontinuing medication and engaging in acts
like this is a concern. That's why an increasing number of states
have assisted outpatient treatment laws that require a person who if
they go off medication to be rehospitalized. The current mental health bill
would require all states to have such laws.
An increasing number of people with psychiatric disabilities
are ending up in prisons that are unable to help them.
Basically everyone including the police agree
they need mandated mental health assistance instead.
I specifically support more community supports and services
to help people who are homeless not end up in this type of situation.
However there are people that are not homeless who do as well.
I think such laws should be used only when absolutely necessary
but there are times they are needed. I am not questioning
the motives of the police or what they did. Its just as this situation
is increasing common I support preventative measures.
Discontinuing mental health treatment is common for people
with psychotic disorders as some people as part of their
condition don't understand the need for treatment. Committing
acts of violence because of this is very rare but can happen.
I support all positive means to help address it.
This story says she lunged at him with a knife....
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Mateo-County-Sheriff-Kills-Teen-in-Half-Moon-Bay-261816771.html
I've had the opportunity to work with and along side a lot of cops in my day. I've watched a couple of them make a bad judgement call a time or two, but it never resulted in the end of a life. There's a reason for that and almost every cop knows and understands this. Once you pull the trigger, you can never get that bullet back.
This is gone over in the academy all of the time. Its drilled into law enforcements heads. Bottom line is, lives change when you pull the trigger and that includes the person who pulled the trigger. Very easily, these cops actions can be construed as "vigilante justice" and they all know that.
There may be a couple of cops that want to run around and shoot people, but its highly unlikely.... cops don't do well in prisons. In fact, most inmates hate cops because cops arrested them time and time again.
This cop was on the force for what, 9 years? He'd been around. He has experience. Everything he learned in the academy has been used to keep him alive to this point.
Not for one second do I think this cop showed up and said, "screw it" and just shot her. That did not happen....
http://rt.com/usa/164000-police-shoot-mentally-ill-teen/
This story is a little similar but it does say that she was running at the cop, chasing the cop.... I'm sorry, but that is just a real bad practice.
I think there is a few things missing, information wise. Did they specifically for medical help? Seems like the article said they had called and received medical help in the past....
Cops traditionally "go in first" to make sure the scene is secure.
As for the fair question, is it fair? What happened with this call? What was the subject doing that got her shot? How much real information was related to 911 dispatch and then down the line? Too much of the story is missing. I mean, how out of control does this person have to be to warrant calling for outside help? Why was she off her meds? Is nobody paying attention to that? If this person is so potentially volatile, why are they not in an institution/living facility where their needs can be better addressed?
The questions could go on and on.
I think there is information missing, or the families account of what happened is way different than the police account. The family says they called for medical help, but all the police probably heard was armed suspect, maybe? Since the police got there first, imo this was the result of it.
Im sorry but I have to say this. You just dont bring a knife to a gunfight I guess?
To sum it up.
“Who are we supposed to call now when we need help, when [the people who are] supposed to help us are killing our kids?”
I do think its a fair question.
I think I am understanding it.
You don't believe this cop tried talking this person down? You think he showed up, guns-a-blazing fully intent on killing? I won't buy that. Not for a second.
And as for the police force having a guy to "talk down" the mentally unstable, what is the right ratio? If more than one cop shows up to every single one of these situations (hundreds of them happen across the nation daily and are resolved with no incident, but they don't make the news) that means the second cop would have to be trained to "talk down" people in mental distress. What is the right ratio and what are you willing to give up, that cops are trained for?
If she wasn't a threat, why did her family call for help? Why didn't they talk her down and take the knife from her? Simple, she was a threat, they feared her. and would much rather someone else risk their life. Paramedics and LE. are not Social Workers.
I don't think you're reading/understanding what's being said.
I know it's "always" possible to talk down a special needs person, though it often is and it's unreasonable to not, at least, try. You wouldn't necessarily have to have a 50/50 ratio, because you don't have a 50/50 ratio of special needs calls to non special needs calls.
Of course, it's not their "job" to get killed eating lunch or get hacked up, but we all know these ARE unfortunate realities and we don't want these things to happen any more than we want innocent people to be killed by cops.
There simply HAS to be a middle ground and, both, cops and citizens have to have open minds and be willing to help find it.
It is not always possible to "talk down" a special needs person, especially one off of their meds. In so many circumstances, they don't have the ability to reason with or without their meds.
Money for training is constantly being cut. And to train that many people as specialists probably isn't going to happen, especially not to a 50/50 trained/not trained ratio.
And cops do risk their lives, every single day when they subject themselves to things like this. (Las Vegas incident) Even eating lunch is an apparently risk of loss of life, but it is not a cops job to lose his/her life every day. It is not a cops job to sit there and allow himself to be hacked to pieces while he tries to negotiate.
Oh I totally agree! But the problem is, that makes too much sense! Why has someone not already thought of the obvious is my question, so it must be the money?
When you look at the diversity of statements above, apparently, only certain things are obvious to certain people depending on the way they see things or possibly their experiences... there is one train of thought, or the other train of thought, with very little in the middle.
Very few things in life are absolute... Why is so hard to see in shades of gray?
There are a lot of things we don't know about this case and if this special needs girl were going after the police officer in a conscious attempt to kill him, he had every right to defend himself; however, having worked with special needs people (on a limited basis), I see it highly unlikely that she were trying to kill him at all, or even knew what she was doing and that it's quite possible that he could have taken a knife from her with no one getting hurt at all.
teko... I don't know about your area, but in my area, there's very seldom only one officer responding to calls such as the one we're talking about here. Why couldn't one of the responders be trained for cases like this? Money? Sure it takes money! Let them set priorities a little better and make sure that there's money to protect all citizens. Many of the police cars in my area have printed on them "To Protect and Serve" - let them do that!
maybe more than one officer responding, with at least one being trained in dealing with special needs people and the others covering to maintain a safe situation?
Well That would take money! But it does seem like we are hearing more and more situations like this doesnt it.
Well said Barb. It's strange commending a statement of the obvious but here maybe the obvious is not so obvious.