In an email sent Wednesday to constituents, Richmond District 4 city council member Soheila Bana said she asked Richmond Police Department Sgt. Ben Therriault, the department’s commissioner on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), some questions about “non-lethal approaches” to police calls involving knives.
In two officer-involved fatal shootings this year, one in February and one on Aug. 4, one suspect, Jose De Jesus Mendez, reportedly had a knife (it turned out to be a knife sheaf) and the other, Angel Montano, had a knife in each hand.
Here are Therriault’s answers verbatim, with minor edits for clarity:
Councilmember Bana,
As President of the Richmond Police Officers Association and a POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Commissioner, I want to directly address the question of why peace officers are not trained to “shoot suspects in the limbs” as a means of stopping dangerous behavior, and why this relates to Learning Domain 20 in POST training standards.
Human Performance Under Deadly Threat
When an officer is forced to use a firearm, it is because the situation meets the legal standard of an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. In these moments, events unfold in fractions of a second, and physiological stress responses — such as elevated heart rate, narrowed vision, and loss of fine motor control — dramatically affect accuracy. Attempting to hit a small, moving target like a limb under these conditions is not only extremely difficult, it is far more likely to miss, increasing the danger to bystanders and fellow officers.
POST Learning Domain 20: Use of Force
California POST’s Learning Domain 20, which governs recruit-level training on use of force, emphasizes that deadly force is authorized only to stop an imminent threat, and when used, it must be directed toward immediately stopping the threat. Officers are trained to aim for the largest available target area, the center mass — because it maximizes the chance of ending the threat quickly and minimizes the risk of stray rounds. This is not about “shooting to kill” but about shooting to stop a dangerous action.
Why De-Escalation Was Not Possible in This Situation
De-escalation is a core element of POST training and RPD policy. However, de-escalation techniques — verbal persuasion, time and distance, alternative tools —require that the subject be willing or able to respond to those cues. When a suspect is actively presenting an imminent deadly threat, there is no reasonable opportunity to slow the encounter without risking lives. In the incident involving Officers (Nicholas) Remick and (Colton) Stocking, the threat level was immediate and unavoidable. Waiting or attempting further verbal commands would have given the suspect additional time to carry out potentially lethal actions.
POST recognizes limits on de-escalation in Learning Domain 20 and 3 (LD 3 covers policing in the community and communication skills). Both domains acknowledge that some encounters cannot be resolved without force when the suspect’s actions dictate the pace and danger level. Peace officers do not have to be stabbed before they take action.
In these moments, an officer’s legal and moral obligation is to stop the threat as quickly as possible to protect the public, fellow officers, and the suspect.
Legal and Ethical Standards
The U.S. Supreme Court (Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor) and California law make clear that any use of deadly force must be objectively reasonable under the totality of circumstances. A shot to a limb still constitutes deadly force under the law. There is no legal or tactical justification for using a less-accurate method of deadly force when a more accurate one is available, especially when lives are at risk.
Why “Shoot to Wound” Is a Misconception
Hollywood depictions aside, a bullet striking an arm or leg can still be lethal due to major arteries, blood loss, or bullet trajectory. In many cases, it will not immediately stop a person intent on harming others, which could prolong the threat and endanger more lives. There are no such things as “non-lethal” weapons that police use. That is a misnomer. The correct term is “less than lethal” because they can still cause serious injury and death.
Application to the Richmond Officer Involved shooting
In the recent incident involving Officer Remick and Officer Stocking, the decision-making process was grounded in both their training and the principles set forth in POST Learning Domain 20. Their response was consistent with national best practices, California POST standards, and the law. The goal was to stop an immediate threat — not to punish, not to escalate, but to preserve as much life as possible under the circumstances.
The expectation that officers should attempt to shoot extremities not only contradicts POST training, but it also creates a higher probability of missed shots, ongoing threats, and unintended injuries to innocent people. The Richmond Police Department’s training is aligned with state-mandated standards because those standards are built on decades of research, case law, and real-world outcomes.
Why A TASER Wasn’t A Viable Option
Again, whomever is saying non-lethal does not know what they’re talking about. The correct term is less than lethal, because those weapons systems can still kill people. TASERs (I am a POST Certified Instructor) are provided and required to be worn by all Sergeants and Officers at RPD while on patrol. This is not a situation where a TASER could have been utilized for a variety of reasons.
TASERs Are Not Guaranteed to Incapacitate
A TASER (Conducted Energy Weapon) requires both probes to penetrate clothing and skin with good contact, ideally in separate muscle groups, to disrupt neuromuscular control. Heavy clothing, movement, and poor probe spread can all cause failure. National studies, and POST training, show TASER effectiveness rates in real-world encounters are often between 55–65%. Against a moving, armed suspect, relying on something with a near 50/50 success rate is a gamble with lives at stake.
Range Limitations
Most TASER models have an optimal range of 7–15 feet. In close quarters, an armed suspect can cover that distance in less than a second (the “Tueller Drill” standard is 21 feet for an edged-weapon threat). While it is not scientific per se, it is a good thing to YouTube for better understanding on the danger of edged weapons. If a TASER fails, the suspect can reach and seriously injure or kill the officer or another person before the officer can transition to another defensive option.
Deadly Force Standard Still Applies
When a suspect is presenting an imminent deadly threat — such as advancing with knives — officers are already within the legal and moral threshold to use deadly force. Using a TASER in that moment is actually introducing more risk because it delays or replaces the immediate action needed to stop the threat. If the TASER fails, the suspect remains mobile, armed, and dangerous.
Multiple Knife Threats and Officer Safety
In the Montaño incident, the suspect had edged weapons (two knives) and was in a position to harm others quickly. This created a high-risk, tense, uncertain, rapidly unfolding scenario where anything less than the most effective tool — firearm —would not guarantee the immediate stop of the threat. POST Learning Domain 20 specifically warns that intermediate force options, like TASERs, should not be used as a substitute for deadly force when deadly force is justified.
Policy and Training Guidance
Richmond PD policy, aligned with POST standards, does not require officers to attempt a TASER before using deadly force when an armed suspect presents an imminent threat. The priority is preserving life — both the officers’ and the public’s— by using the method most likely to end the danger immediately.
