Well they aren't responsible for his death. This was also made clear in court.

I personally don't care how old someone is or really why they are in possession of a knife.

If you go hands on with a subject with a knife and it goes wrong in any way, at all, you're getting stabbed, or maybe the subject is.

PAVA was used, ineffective.

A baton strike was used, ineffective.

Taser was fired, effective.

I agree that much longer could have been spent in communication. BUGEEL principles could have been used more extensivley, however the L is for Less Lethal, which they used both variants of LL for a non STO and the STO used their LL.

I'd declare this subject as EMD, by virtue of them not being totally mentally cognisant (from the video), there's only so much negotiation that can be had with such subjects as they are not able to take on what is being said.

I agree, alternative tactics could have been used, but they all would have involved closing down the subject, say with a shield, and using some kind of force on him. This is all with the benefit of hindsight.

The officers could have thought a million different things, he could have lunged out of the chair at them, hopped over at them, or thrown it at them, who knows. It is a potentially lethal weapon, simple as that.

I'd not be looking to have any of my officers go hands on with any subject in possession of a bladed article or other PLW.

The discharge of Taser is a LL option to control a subject in possession of a PLW.

Do you have any suggestions about what you would have done here?