Why Police Spent Over 2 Hours Persuading the Eunpyeong Knife Attacker

Concerns Over Police Officers Bearing Personal Liability in Suspect Lawsuits
"If Bereaved Families File Civil Suits, Officers May Face Up to 1 Billion KRW in Damages"

As indiscriminate knife rampage incidents continue in areas such as Sillim-dong in Gwanak-gu, Seoul, and Seohyeon Station in Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi Province, Police Commissioner Yoon Hee-geun has brought up the 'live ammunition shooting' card, but many believe its actual application on the ground is difficult. There are concerns that if police actively suppress knife rampage suspects using tasers or weapons during confrontations, individual officers may face disadvantages.

In fact, during a knife rampage incident that occurred on the afternoon of the 26th in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, the police subdued suspect A after more than two hours of persuasion. The suspect, a man in his late 30s, was wandering residential areas armed with a knife and was arrested after a standoff with the police. During this process, the police approached A wearing crisis negotiation gear and engaged in conversation to induce him to put the knife down on the ground.

While confronting the police, A also ate chicken and drank soju that he requested from the officers. The police provided these to build mutual trust, and A responded to the police's negotiation. Eventually, after more than two hours of standoff, the police subdued and arrested A, confiscating eight knives he possessed.

The reason police did not actively suppress the knife rampage suspect using tasers or other means during the confrontation is analyzed to be due to concerns about excessive responsibility being imposed on the exercise of public authority, such as civil lawsuits. This is why there are calls to revise exemption regulations to strengthen public safety amid the ongoing knife rampage incidents.

A residential area in Galhyeon-dong, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, the scene of an incident on the evening of the 26th where a man holding weapons in both hands was subdued after a standoff with the police, is being cordoned off. [Image source=Yonhap News]

Oh Yoon-sung, a professor of Police Administration at Soonchunhyang University, said, "Because the Police Commissioner mentioned conducting special security activities, citizens probably expected the police to respond differently in such situations," adding, "Personally, I think firing warning shots might have been acceptable, but since the suspect was holding a sharp weapon against his own body at the time, the scene might have been viewed as having a risk of additional casualties."

Professor Oh viewed some past court rulings that deemed police's strong suppression illegal as the background for the cautious response. In an interview with YTN's 'News Rider' on the 28th, he said, "In 2010, there was a case where a suspect who threatened self-harm was shot with a taser, but he collapsed and died after stabbing himself with the weapon he had. The court ruled that despite the suspect rampaging for 70 minutes, the situation was not urgent enough to justify using a taser, deeming it illegal," and analyzed, "Such rulings must have remained in the minds of police officers."

He continued, "There is a possibility of criminal charges, and if civil lawsuits are filed by the bereaved families, the officers themselves would have to bear costs exceeding 1 billion won. Therefore, the Police Commissioner's mention of (live ammunition shooting) can be seen as quite superficial and declarative," adding, "If court rulings result in police officers suffering personal disadvantages, they can only think that 'firearms are to be thrown, not shot.'"

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.