Hey, there! Log in / Register
Confrontation with police in Dorchester ends with man shot, officer stabbed
By adamg on Fri, 02/27/2015 - 9:00am
Stanley Staco reports a man was shot around 12:30 a.m. on Howe Terrace in Dorchester.
WBZ reports the man had attacked two people with a wooden stake, then used it to stab a police officer who responded. When the man continued to refuse orders to drop the weapon, the officer fired, police say.
The Suffolk County District Attorney's office confirms an investigation has started into the incident.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Fox 25 & Ch 5
Are saying the officer was stabbed in altercation. Hopefully he/she is ok....
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/28217867/overnight-shooting-in-dorchest...
http://www.wcvb.com/news/person-suffers-critical-injuries-in-dorchester-...
Nice job BPD
Seriously, it's nice to see the police defend themselves without killing the suspect. Hope the office recovers without problems.
They could help the officer recover
by not putting him through the
kangaroo court ofneedless stress of a mandatory investigation because he had the common sense to use the tools his superiors gave him to defend himself after being stabbed.Why do you distrust the police?
Using the term kangaroo court and scare-quoting "investigation" strongly implies you believe the outcome is a predetermined scapegoating having little or nothing to do with standards of law or justice.
But the rest of your response seems pretty pro-police. So I'm confused - are you saying that you're disappointed that we bother reviewing incidents where officers discharge weapons to potentialy lethal effect at all? That it should just be assumed that in such situations everything always went as well as possible and there's nothing to learn. And additionally, that there's no need to be able to support the officer with findings in the event he is sued for his actions?
Your opinions on matters regarding rail always seem well informed and rational, but your response above seems illogical and self-contradictory.
You are correct, I did overreact
in my response (which has since been edited), and I do apologize for that. And no, I'm not pro-police at all costs. However, the fact that we mandate that use of deadly force always be investigated has always implied to me "it's likely that the officer might have done something wrong (i.e. guilty until proven innocent).
Are there incidents of deadly force that should be investigated? Absolutely. But the decision whether to investigate should be done (pardon the pun) on a case-by-case basis based on the evidence of the incident, and not as an automatic blanket policy.
In this case, the circumstances of the incident and common sense should tell reasonable people that we're not dealing with a trigger-happy cop. In my opinion, that doesn't justify the time and costs associated with a full scale investigation.
I welcome the sentiment, and
I welcome the sentiment, and appreciate your point of view. But I believe in practice, we ought to fall on the side of protecting the public, rather than the officer. If you start from that premise, I think it's logical that all uses of force greater than an armbar have some administrative review, scaling with the amount of force used.
If you need to whack a guy with your nightstick to get the cuffs on him, then you should have to write it up and someone should have to approve your version of the events.
If you need to pull out your taser or pepper spray, then you ought to have to write it up and explain yourself in front of an administrative review officer.
If you need to use deadly force, like in this case (the force was deadly, the result was not), then I think a full investigation is warranted. I sympathize with an officer who uses appropriate deadly force and is then subjected to intrusive scrutiny and second-guessing of an event that comes down to the notion that the only person who can really judge the use of force appropriately is the guy who pulled the trigger. But if you come back tot he station a bullet short, you should have to answer to that because putting the event under a microscope will in practice prevent plenty of bad actions by cops who might otherwise think they can slide something by.
This is just my opinion, but I think the public's best interest is more important than the stress imparted to the officer under post-incident investigation.
Because officers never end up in altercations
... over things like their personal drugs, girl/boyfriends, etc.
Being injured doesn't tell us what started it - or who.
Or...
maybe he should have shot sooner and avoided he could have avoided being stabbed.
Why are you double guessing officer who was stabbed?
Were you there? It seems like you should give the officer a break. At least you could wait to hear the outcome of the followup investigation before assuming he screwed up.
Bosguy apparently thinks our police....
... should operate using the same standards that apply in Florida (etc) -- shoot to kill whenever threatened in any way (or even when simply experiencing a fear of being possibly threatened).
Huh?
You seriously care what happens to the mope who stabbed the cop? F$*k him.
Don't *you* care?
From a purely practical viewpoint, if the suspect had been killed, it would mean more headaches and career interuption for the officer, it could mean more regret for the officer to carry, and more anguish for the deceased's family. And it could potentially lead to civil unrest, if the circumstances surrounding the incident are at all unclear.
From an ethical viewpoint - not caring if someone kills and someone else dies is pretty cold. Thuggish, even. You do know that this isn't a videogame, right?
Ever worked in law enforcement?
I have. It would have been just another murderous scumbag gone. Plain and simple.
Killing people
Sometimes it's necessary, even in a civil society like ours. However, I don't think it is without consequence even in cases where it's justified. IDK, never killed anyone. I suspect the long term mental health of most people is improved when they don't kill people so a non-lethal shooting is pretty much always the preferred outcome.
The counter argument is what, we want cops that kill without much compunction? That doesn't seem to work very well in other parts of the country.
To be clear, I have no problem with this cop shooting someone in this scenario. I just appreciate the non-lethal aspect of it.
Pete- am I off base in ascribing mental health/professional issues to cops who kill people vs. those that don't?