What are y'alls opinions on escalation of force for Police Departments?

SSG (Join to see) I posted somewhere else, why shoot him in the back but that was before I knew some of the other facts that are coming out. Two tasers failed to stop him, the cops knew he had a knife, they may have known about his violent past and when he started reaching into the car, that was the end of it. Ill support officers when they are right but not when they are wrong. I'm thinking they were not wrong here. I'd say 99% percent of cops dont go to work everyday hoping to shoot someone but there are some officers that do have problems. I am a retired officer and I carry everyday and thats the last thing I want to do is shoot someone.

Fun fact: on average there are 900,000,000 police interactions with the public every year. Last year there were 1004 people killed by the police. That's 0.00011%. (ie one ten thousandth of one percent). Study by MSU and U of Maryland reviewing over 700 police shooting databases from all over the country found that in 95% of all police killings, the person killed was actively attacking another person at the time. Of the remaining 5%, 90% of them were armed. Bottom line: unless you are armed or attacking another person, you have a 0.0000056% chance of being killed while interacting with the police (that's 5 one millionths of one percent). If you don't resist arrest or attack another person you have a 99.9999944% chance of NOT being killed by the police.

you are more likely to fall out of bed and break your neck or be killed by a falling coconut than you are to be shot by a cop....

edit: rechecked my math and I was off by a factor of 10. you actually have a 99.99999944% chance of not getting shot if you don't fight or resist.

"Jacob Blake shooting on what could have been done differently "
Andrew Dickhoff - good luck with your paper. During my time in the Coast Guard and as an armed Customs and Border Protection Officer on the border I've been through a lot of Judgmental Shooting Courses, situational awareness, and the "Use of Force Continuum". Unless there is more video out there that shows a different point of view the existing video doesn't give me enough information to make a good decision.
I'm good at making guesses; and have always been known to interject my opinion whether asked for or not! As you probably know that a "Use of Force Continuum Chart" details somewhat an officer's response to force by a person they are engaged with can be used. In a nut shell if I, as an officer, tells you to stop and you do, that was an appropriate level of force. If you indicate you have a knife and it is visible in your hand I have two immediate courses of action. First I should have my duty gun in hand, pointed at you; and second I should be telling you to drop the weapon or I will shoot. Odds are if you, with your knife are within 21’ (in some cases 30') of me unless I take some evasive action I'm probably going to get cut. If you don't drop the knife and start to approach me with it in hand the use of deadly force is legitimate. Courts generally allow an officer to use one level of force higher than what the "suspect" is using.
I've watched several videos of the incident and without reading witness and police statements I don't see that the use of deadly force was justified. I'll qualify that with "was the knife in Blake's hand" - what did the officer who shot Blake see as Blake was entering the front of the car? A search of the car did not turn up a gun as some early reports indicated.
One thing that many people do that is "flawed" in my mind is grouping all the officer involved shootings into one group of Cop on Black Shootings as being institutional racism; each case needs to be looked at individually. Is racism to be considered as a problem? To say no would be turning a blind eye on the reality of that.
To answer your question in my opinion there is not enough evidence to decide if an appropriate level of force was used. The officer following Blake had his gun pointed at Blake for a reason; Blake had been tased twice; so it's your opinion that will matter in your paper.

None of us were there, none of us have access to all relevant data; therefore, any opinions would be like a@@holes!

SSG (Join to see) It was not racism, This and other recent minority deaths were shamefully exploited by Extremists to divide, assault and plunder Americans. Oh, and derail Trumps re-election, of course.

You are reading into the liberal media narrative that is intended to divide our country. There is no systemic racism in our country or law enforcement.
Out of hundred of thousands of police actions per year, there are only about a dozen or so killings of "unarmed" suspects. And during these times, they usually occur when the suspect fights and is attempting to grab a weapon when they fail to comply with the police directives. FBI statistics show, that white people are killed more than black, Hispanic, and other races. A fact that is often omitted by the media.
Although the use of force utilized was justified, I will suggest you contact your local police department and request a ride along and see first hand as to what these brave men and women endure to ensure your safety. You can then ask them those same questions and get their responses.
Social media has villified the police by the untrained civilian. Basically they are no more than a arm chair quarterback who are making a judgement in which they are not qualified to make.
Good luck with your paper.

Your in the Army and trained in this situation daily--escalation of a situation. What would you do to de-escalate the situation? What tactical action are you trained to do? Would a stun gun been an option? What about the individual--was he using PCP? Why was the individual stopped? The Police Officer is one person, should he have requested assistance? What was the area like where the shooting occurred--was it urban, rural, low crime or high crime area? Yes, many of these questions you will not be found reading the newspaper. I found, from personal experience, the reporter writes a story with only half the facts and fills-in with assumptions. REMEMBER: There are two stories and the truth is somewhere between them. "Systemic racism" is another phase for "jaded". Police normally see who daily--people who disobey the law. After seeing law-breakers continually, Police tend not to believe anybody; in some cases, perceive issues or problems which don't exist; and in the climate of crime we are presently in, take action to permanently de-escalate the situation. The Police Officer deserves the same rights and respect as a criminal--the right to return home at the end of the day.

An officer has to make a judgement call based on a number of factors and each scene will be different. They have to look at the time of day ie light and conditions, where they are and the situation. They have to look at the information they have on hand about the person they are interacting with and how that person is acting and appears.

In the case of Jacob Blake they were called out to that address on a warrant for secxual assault, and with that the suspect had a known history of being violent. When they got there, the suspect refused police orders and resisted tasing twice and scuffled with police before walking around the vehicle which held 3 children and was an unknown as far as what might be contained within.

The report was that he was armed with a knife as in video an officer can be heard to say "drop the knife" and he had in hand what looked to be a karambit or hawkbill. So the presence of a weapon is going to change where on the force chart an officer starts off.

The officer tried using verbal all throughout the encounter, had tried tasing twice, had gone hands on when the suspect was on the ground but he fought free. At the point where he could endanger the children and attain further weapons to endanger the officers, the call was made to shoot. Shots were fired per procedure until the suspect stopped being a threat... 7 shots fired, 4 hitting the suspect. At which point he was apprehended, disarmed and arrested.

So. Meaty question. I won't write the argument for you, but I do have a direction to follow:

One needs to look up the Continuum of Force. Inherently, the continuum of force goes along with how to deal with a threat. If a threat is perceived, and an officer follows the continuum of force model, as directed by policy, then the matter is clearly defined by the context of which the continuum of force is employed.

It's a touchy subject these days. There are a lot of people who don't view force implementation through the right lenses. They view the development of a threat as something that is done based solely upon race, and not upon actions. If one were to say that someone is a threat simply because of their race, then yes, race would be the reason for many cases of the use of force.

I do contend that sometimes, even when it may appear that race is a driving factor, very likely the actions or activities of someone may warrant the escalation of the force continuum, and that would be the driving factor behind the actions taken.

Andy- look at the number of Leo's gunned down this year alone- they are scared and that's dangerous.