Calif. university stabber shot dead after lunging at officer, student says

[Solomon2]

Calif. university stabber shot dead after lunging at officer, student says
Published November 06, 2015
FoxNews.com

Stabbing suspect Faisel Mohammad was killed by police to end Wednesday's horrific attack. (University of California Merced)​

The 18-year-old freshman who stabbed four people on the University of California Merced campus Wednesday was shot dead after he lunged at a police officer with his hunting knife, a fellow student said.

Meghan Christopherson, a 19-year-old sophomore, tells the Fresno Bee that an officer was chasing 18-year-old Faisal Mohammad when he suddenly stopped to face the officer.

She says Mohammad began walking toward the officer. The officer backed up, repeatedly telling Mohammad to get on the ground. She says the officer kept asking Mohammad if he wanted to get shot.

When Mohammad lunged, a frightened Christopherson ran away. She heard two shots and turned to see the officer standing over Mohammad's body.

She says it all took less than a couple of minutes.

Mohammad burst into a classroom with the knife after being kicked out of a study group, investigators say. A coroner performing an autopsy on Mohammad found the suspect's manifesto on his body, according to Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke.

Mohammad listed the intended targets by name in the manifesto, and planned to tie students to desks while drawing out police to steal a gun and shoot people, Warnke said. The blade of his hunting knife was 8 to 10 inches long, according to authorities.

The freshman also planned on using the petroleum jelly found in his backpack to squirt on the floor as a slip-and-slide for anyone entering his classroom, which according to Warnke, he thought would allow him to be in a position to steal a gun from a responding police officer.

“His plan went haywire because people fought back,” Warnke said Thursday night. “He got so befuddled at the activities that happened; it took the script away from him.”

Warnke stressed Wednesday’s stabbings were not terrorism, just a grudge by an angry teenager, but Mohammad did praise Allah in his writings. He added though that the writings about Allah would be like him, a Christian, referencing Jesus, since that is the religion he practices.

Mohammad, who was killed by campus police, was described by at least one witness as smiling as he slashed at victims, called a loner by a fellow dorm resident and drew praise Thursday from a Twitter account associated with ISIS, which just last week released a series of videos calling for lone wolf stabbing attacks.

“May Allah accept him,” read a tweet in Arabic from a Twitter account that terrorism experts say has carried previous ISIS propaganda, just minutes after Mohammad’s name was divulged by campus authorities.

"He had a smile on his face, he was having fun," a construction worker who helped stop the attacker told CBS 47.

A suitemate said Mohammad "didn't talk much." Speaking to KFSN, Andrew Velasquez said he never saw the stabber walking to class with anyone, adding, "Every time I would try and say something he would just ignore it."

The four victims are expected to survive.

Classes resumed Friday. Chancellor Dorothy Leland welcomed back students with a message to "practice kindness" and offer support to one another.

The classroom where the stabbings took place and an adjacent classroom still are closed as part of the investigation.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Indika]

Seriously why kill him? Are policeman so badly trained that they cannot bring down a guy without using a gun.

 

[Solomon2]

...Are policeman so badly trained that they cannot bring down a guy without using a gun.

Leaving out relevant context is deceitful.

The correct question should be, "Are policemen so badly trained that they cannot bring down a guy wielding a hunting knife without using a gun?"

And that addition of context shows just how nonsensical the question is, doesn't it? Is it "bad training" that means policemen must use their gun, or is it that assuming one should train police to fight hand-to-knife is plain stupid?

 

[Indika]

is it that assuming one should train police to fight hand-to-knife is plain stupid?

Why should that be stupid ? Yes I expect them to handle ordinary ppl with knife without a gun. A skilled and trained policeman will resolve the situation without resorting to guns. Policeman did not encounter a hardened terrorist rt? It pretty much seems that in your country guns are handled like candy bars by policemen.

 

[gambit]

Why should that be stupid ? Yes I expect them to handle ordinary ppl with knife without a gun. A skilled and trained policeman will resolve the situation without resorting to guns. Policeman did not encounter a hardened terrorist rt? It pretty much seems that in your country guns are handled like candy bars by policemen.

This is just an idiotic comment. I guess in your juvenile perspective, all police officers must be Hollywood, or Bollywood, style and trained martial artists.

 

[Zarvan]

This is just an idiotic comment. I guess in your juvenile perspective, all police officers must be Hollywood, or Bollywood, style and trained martial artists.

Well if they know How to shoot they could have shot him in leg or arm

 

[gambit]

Well if they know How to shoot they could have shot him in leg or arm

Another idiotic comment from watching too many movies.

 

[Schutz]

Seriously why kill him? Are policeman so badly trained that they cannot bring down a guy without using a gun.

You have to act fast when faced with an attacker with a blade, in the UK chances are they will get dealt with non lethally but if I was a law officer I would prefer a gun in that situation. If the attacker is something like within 8 metres to you, chances are you are going to get attacked, theres a video on dealing with knife attackers which puts it into reality, I think optimally you needed to be 10 metres away and have your hand over your holster to take out a man running at full speed with a blade.

Not to mention that if your using 9mm ammo your most likely not going to drop the target until you pump a few rounds in, which is why you always see on videos of American cops shooting a guy 5-6 times just to drop him, if I have a choice, im shooting someone.

Also this plan sounds hilarious, throw some jelly on the floor and lure cops in to steal guns, what a fucking amateur.

 

[Hyperion]

In my personal opinion, I think he deserved to be shot dead, however, the other forumer is right, it was not entirely necessary to shoot the guy center mass....... legs / thighs etc etc could have been targeted to incapacitate him. I'm not aware of the general training regimen of police officers there in the US, however, using a standard Glock, I can selectively shoot off a finger at 10 meters (that is if I'm in my senses)...... therefore, most probably I can also shoot a thigh at same range under duress, and this is all without any training........ and I bet the Police there is better trained than me.

Another idiotic comment from watching too many movies.

 

[jhungary]

lol, you are shooting at a person who is "RUNNING" toward you. It's not a paper or wooden target that won't move.

You may think shooting people in the arms and legs are easy, but why don't you try and shoot him in that area when the person is moving and more importantly, close??

It's not about how police should shoot, but whether the police should use deadly arms. Because when you use deadly arms, you aim to kill, not to wound. And judging the situation, if some guy are running toward me, clearly hostile and with a knife up his hand, I would use my side arms and put 3 on his chest. If you want to ask me why I don't shoot him on the arms or legs, then my answer is, I am sorry, we can't all be Super Cop or Delta Force.

 

[Hyperion]

Indeed, the guy was a frickin moron....... however, your statement of 9mm isn't true....... I have seen medium built guys falling like flies with just one round................. on the other hand, to drop a fat lard filled fvcker would entail at least 2 rounds of .45........ you just can't shoot a fat (moving) pig with 9mm!

Not to mention that if your using 9mm ammo your most likely not going to drop the target until you pump a few rounds in, which is why you always see on videos of American cops shooting a guy 5-6 times just to drop him, if I have a choice, im shooting someone.

Also this plan sounds hilarious, throw some jelly on the floor and lure cops in to steal guns, what a fucking amateur.

 

[jhungary]

In my personal opinion, I think he deserved to be shot dead, however, the other forumer is right, it was not entirely necessary to shoot the guy center mass....... legs / thighs etc etc could have been targeted to incapacitate him. I'm not aware of the general training regimen of police officers there in the US, however, using a standard Glock, I can selectively shoot off a finger at 10 meters (that is if I'm in my senses)...... therefore, most probably I can also shoot a thigh at same range under duress, and this is all without any training........ and I bet the Police there is better trained than me.

It's a lot more complicated than it actually....

I had the unfortunate experience of shooting some one dead, and trust me, when you have to do it, or when you think you have to do it, you won't aim at arms or legs.

I am a decent shooter, I got 240/250 on a 25 meter range 27 out of 30 on my Combat Pistol Course and I have expert marksmanship pistol and rifle badge, but when you factor in the reaction time, sense of danger, the adrenaline and the urgency, you will simply aim at the easiest part, the torso. Especially when your own life is in danger or perceived to be in danger.

In Most LEA and Military, they don't train to shoot people in the arms or legs. they either teach you how to double tap or shot at center mass

 

[Hyperion]

Well, in your case you're right. You sound like an Armed Forces veteran, however, there's hell lot of a difference between training a police officer and an army officer. As a police officer your training is entirely based on disabling (read, not sending him to hell) an armed assailant, using different tools at your disposal, under varying circumstances, whereas, in case of Armed Forces, it's pretty simple, shoot the guy dead running towards you at center mass.

And yes, you can shoot people selectively, who are running towards you with a knife, I've seen it happen.

It's not about how police should shoot, but whether the police should use deadly arms. Because when you use deadly arms, you aim to kill, not to wound. And judging the situation, if some guy are running toward me, clearly hostile and with a knife up his hand, I would use my side arms and put 3 on his chest. If you want to ask me why I don't shoot him on the arms or legs, then my answer is, I am sorry, we can't all be Super Cop or Delta Force.

Trust me, been there, done all that, however, my statement still holds, there is hell lot of a difference between what an Armed Forces officer gets trained for and what a Police officer gets trained for. The psyche is poles apart.

In my personal opinion, what actually happened, presuming that the Police officer was well trained, he/she

1. Either got nervous.
2. Was borderline racist / Islamophobic / Brown-o-phobic / Black-o-phobic / Foreigner-o-phobic etc etc...

We can't just comment without an inquest, that is if one is on the cards.... have absolutely no idea how the justice department works in the US of A.

It's a lot more complicated than it actually....

I had the unfortunate experience of shooting some one dead, and trust me, when you have to do it, or when you think you have to do it, you won't aim at arms or legs.

I am a decent shooter, I got 240/250 on a 25 meter range 27 out of 30 on my Combat Pistol Course and I have expert marksmanship pistol and rifle badge, but when you factor in the reaction time, sense of danger, the adrenaline and the urgency, you will simply aim at the easiest part, the torso. Especially when your own life is in danger or perceived to be in danger.

In Most LEA and Military, they don't train to shoot people in the arms or legs. they either teach you how to double tap or shot at center mass

 

[jhungary]

Well, in your case you're right. You sound like an Armed Forces veteran, however, there's hell lot of a difference between training a police officer and an army officer. As a police officer your training is entirely based on disabling (read, not sending him to hell) an armed assailant, using different tools at your disposal, under varying circumstances, whereas, in case of Armed Forces, it's pretty simple, shoot the guy dead running towards you at center mass.

And yes, you can shoot people selectively, who are running towards you with a knife, I've seen it happen.

I don't know how you train your officer of the law in your part of the country, but I did train some US LEO (A friend of mind is a sheriff in a Local Sheriff department) and I have been tasked to train Columbian, Afghani and Iraqi officer, I also toured the Australian NSW Police Academy in Goulburn last year. So here are my own experience.

The art of policing is to use appropriate response, an appropriate and proportional response to deal with an incident. The officer should use all his/her tool given to him/her to try to defuse any given situation. And an officer should only escalate the situation if only the situation is warranted to.

The first weapon of an Peace Officer is his/her mouth. You try to talk to clam the person down. That usually defuse some situation at hand that would not go further

Then the second weapon would be pepper spray, you try to immobilise the suspect while still at range.

The third weapon would be baton if situation allowed. But then you will need to go close up and most likely unarmed.

The fourth weapon would be teaser, again, one shot, it would be a judgement call.

The fifth and final weapon is firearms. You use it only as a last resort.

Now, when you have to use deadly arms, as I mentioned, you don't shoot to wound, you shoot to kill, that's why it was called "DEADLY" force, in most case, it's not how you shoot a suspect is in question (Again, if he/she is already down and you come up and shoot them close range that's another story) but was the force necessary? The problem is, when you had gone thru all the option, and it left you no chose but to use deadly force, then what you do would be try to bring down the suspect first, not incapacitate him. If you think your officer is not warrant to use the deadly force, then you should just do a United Kingdom on your LEA, take away the firearms of all officers. But If you keep them and you have to use it, you shoot to kill not wound, because that would be your final option.

 

[gambit]

lol, you are shooting at a person who is "RUNNING" toward you. It's not a paper or wooden target that won't move.

You may think shooting people in the arms and legs are easy, but why don't you try and shoot him in that area when the person is moving and more importantly, close??

It's not about how police should shoot, but whether the police should use deadly arms. Because when you use deadly arms, you aim to kill, not to wound. And judging the situation, if some guy are running toward me, clearly hostile and with a knife up his hand, I would use my side arms and put 3 on his chest. If you want to ask me why I don't shoot him on the arms or legs, then my answer is, I am sorry, we can't all be Super Cop or Delta Force.

When it comes to the US, people will suspend the laws of physics if necessary in order to criticize US.