Using non-lethal weapons when the suspect has a lethal weapon when a large number of lives are at stake is an absolutely pants-on-head retarded thing to do. (Yes, it was a pellet gun, but at the time they thought it was a real gun. This is because the kid filed off the orange safety tip and claimed that he was going to kill everyone)omega 616 said:Do American police have a quota to fill? Was a beanbag gun in the another car? Or was it more of a case of "well I already have this one aimed at him"? Tazer just too much hassle to get out?
Guns are here to stay. You can pass legislation saying that they're illegal, but nobody is actually going to give them up. Attempting to prosecute people with guns is a retarded thing to do, too. Remember how prohibition turned out for us? Yeah.omega 616 said:I think American's seriously need to have a long hard think about there gun culture, the time when you actually needed them is long passed! You know MW2's story will never happen, right?
Again, they don't use non-lethal weaponry to take down a suspect using a lethal weapon for what should be obvious reasons. Real life isn't like a video game. Someone who is tased WILL fire a gun if they're holding one, and a beanbag gun isn't going to prevent the kid from shooting the cops.omega 616 said:Should the kid have been waving a gun at the cops? Nope. Should the cops have went to deadly force as a second step? No!
Is it so far beyond the realm of possibility that they could have had one beanbag gun aimed at the kid with orders "any sign of aggression you take the first shot" if he misses and there is still a sign of aggression shoot to kill? Or even having a secondary non-lethal gun?
The kid was taking aim at the cops when they shot him. And you can't assume that the first bullet is going to miss. That is, again, a pants-on-head retarded thing to do.omega 616 said:I mean what are the chances of a kid going from a not-ready-to-fire stance to shooting at cops and hitting with the first shot, with no training at all? 'cos it's seems pretty obvious the cops would already be aiming at the kid and are trained to shoot accurately.
Nice generalization. Herp.omega 616 said:I know American's have had guns instilled in them as good things and they MUST have guns to be safe and lethal force is ok to use most of the time but things like this are still messed up.
But this kid was 15, by far old enough to be able to fire a gun correctly, or take a hit from a beanbag gun. It's entirely possible that the kid, fuelled by adrenaline, would barely notice the beanbag and continue to shoot an officer or innocent classmate dead. So would you rather be sure that the target is down and certain not to pose any more harm to anyone, or take the chance of the non-lethal weapon not being effective, resulting in the target becoming enraged and possibly harming another?omega 616 said:Do American police have a quota to fill? Was a beanbag gun in the another car? Or was it more of a case of "well I already have this one aimed at him"? Tazer just too much hassle to get out?
I think American's seriously need to have a long hard think about there gun culture, the time when you actually needed them is long passed! You know MW2's story will never happen, right?
Should the kid have been waving a gun at the cops? Nope. Should the cops have went to deadly force as a second step? No!
Is it so far beyond the realm of possibility that they could have had one beanbag gun aimed at the kid with orders "any sign of aggression you take the first shot" if he misses and there is still a sign of aggression shoot to kill? Or even having a secondary non-lethal gun?
I mean what are the chances of a kid going from a not-ready-to-fire stance to shooting at cops and hitting with the first shot, with no training at all? 'cos it's seems pretty obvious the cops would already be aiming at the kid and are trained to shoot accurately.
I know American's have had guns instilled in them as good things and they MUST have guns to be safe and lethal force is ok to use most of the time but things like this are still messed up.
Is taking that chance worth gambling your life? Is that what you'd want on your tomb while your wife and children weep? 'What were the odds?'omega 616 said:I mean what are the chances of a kid going from a not-ready-to-fire stance to shooting at cops and hitting with the first shot, with no training at all? 'cos it's seems pretty obvious the cops would already be aiming at the kid and are trained to shoot accurately.
What a load of piffle. To use a word I rarely get to.ccggenius12 said:Ladies and Gentlemen, I have found the one sane person on the internet. Bow before our new lord and master!Abandon4093 said:Guns are well and truly part of American culture now, for better or worse.
But introducing guns to the UK police forces would be a bad idea. One which would lead to criminals buying a lot more of them.
I knew I shouldn't have posted in this thread, 3 quotes in a row .... -.-Kopikatsu said:Nice generalization. Herp.
You (and every other person pro gun) make it sound like non-lethal means are totally ineffective, which can't be true otherwise they wouldn't exist. Do you think beanbag guns or tazers barely pack a punch? Tazers drop people quickly and beanbag guns leave one hell of a bruise, so it's not like it's thrown at you!Huddo said:But this kid was 15, by far old enough to be able to fire a gun correctly, or take a hit from a beanbag gun. It's entirely possible that the kid, fuelled by adrenaline, would barely notice the beanbag and continue to shoot an officer or innocent classmate dead. So would you rather be sure that the target is down and certain not to pose any more harm to anyone, or take the chance of the non-lethal weapon not being effective, resulting in the target becoming enraged and possibly harming another?omega 616 said:Do American police have a quota to fill? Was a beanbag gun in the another car? Or was it more of a case of "well I already have this one aimed at him"? Tazer just too much hassle to get out?
I think American's seriously need to have a long hard think about there gun culture, the time when you actually needed them is long passed! You know MW2's story will never happen, right?
Should the kid have been waving a gun at the cops? Nope. Should the cops have went to deadly force as a second step? No!
Is it so far beyond the realm of possibility that they could have had one beanbag gun aimed at the kid with orders "any sign of aggression you take the first shot" if he misses and there is still a sign of aggression shoot to kill? Or even having a secondary non-lethal gun?
I mean what are the chances of a kid going from a not-ready-to-fire stance to shooting at cops and hitting with the first shot, with no training at all? 'cos it's seems pretty obvious the cops would already be aiming at the kid and are trained to shoot accurately.
I know American's have had guns instilled in them as good things and they MUST have guns to be safe and lethal force is ok to use most of the time but things like this are still messed up.
Your "any sign of aggression you take the first shot" was kinda already played out, most likely (but worded differently) when the officers asked the guy to put the gun down. There WAS a sign of aggression, in that he raised the gun to point at the police, a stance which could have any of them killed in an instant. So they opened fire. I don't see how that argument got you anywhere, because you just proved the pro-police people's point correct.
And on the subject of tazers, they aren't a good idea at all. A shock from a tazer causes the muscles of the body to contract, even the fingers, which, you guessed it, would pull the trigger of the gun.
The bottom line is, the kid had already assaulted someone, threatened to kill those around him, refused demands to lower his gun AND pointed it at officers. Of course, they had no idea whether it was a real gun or not, and it's always best to assume the worst in a situation like this, so they opened fire, totally and completely terminating the threat. Had they used non-lethal force, the kid could still have shot from the ground. Whether said shot would hit anyone directly or not, there's always ricocheting to take into account or a shot travelling upwards penetrating the ceiling and injuring someone on the level above.
Like I keep saying, if UK police can do it why can't American police?senordesol said:Is taking that chance worth gambling your life? Is that what you'd want on your tomb while your wife and children weep? 'What were the odds?'omega 616 said:I mean what are the chances of a kid going from a not-ready-to-fire stance to shooting at cops and hitting with the first shot, with no training at all? 'cos it's seems pretty obvious the cops would already be aiming at the kid and are trained to shoot accurately.
MY point that I'm trying to make is: Why fix what isn't broke? Maybe it's because I was raised in Canada, a country where it's extremely hard to acquire a firearm (despite what people in Toronto say) and where we don't have much gun crime (again, despite what Torontonians say). I just can't see why anyone would suggest a LTL solution to a problem when it's escalated to the point where the people we've entrusted with our safety have determined it's in everyone's best interests to use lethal force. I see it as adding a whole new level of decision-making that is not really required. Guns are not a major part of our culture up here (I think we have around 1/80 of the guns in the US) and people here are taught that certain actions have certain consequences. ie: pointing a gun at cops results in you getting shot. There is no alternative. Maybe that's why I can't understand your point of view.Abandon4093 said:you people can't see the forest through the trees. I didn't contradict anything, I've said multiple times that the rubber rounds I'm talking about aren't some amazing idealistic alternative. They're just better than normal bullets. If you get shot 3 times in the chest with live ammo, you're dead. You're not surviving that. If you get popped 3 times in the chest with rubber coated rounds, you may not die. You'll be in hospital, probably have a cracked rib or two. But you might live.jimbob123432 said:My point still stands though. In the case of a taser vs a gun as you bring up, cops can decide well before which they're going to use. For example, someone with a knife in a domestic assault will warrant a taser, although the cop's PARTNER will still have their gun drawn on the subject.Abandon4093 said:There are different kinds of rubber rounds, the ones I'm talking about pack the same punch as live bullets. They just don't penetrate. They aren't used by western governments anymore because people die from them. Just not as much as live rounds.jimbob123432 said:snip
And two guns really wouldn't be an issue. Not if they thought of them as two separate entities. Like they do a tazer and their normal side arm. You'd be surprised what reflexive training does for you.
If you're complaining about the lethal levels of force of live ammo over the LTL capabilities of rubber bullets, you contradicted yourself by stating that "they aren't used by western governments anymore because people die from them". I'd rather cops kill someone they meant to kill than they accidentally kill someone they didn't mean to.
Finally, you still haven't answered my question about your thought on rubber rounds being used in the military. With all the public complaints about the deaths of "innocent civilians" overseas, should the militaries of the world being using rubber rounds or tasers in ambiguous situations like you're suggested our police forces do?
THAT'S THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE. There is no contradiction in what I'm saying, you people are just too hung up on matching force with the exact same kind of force you can't see it.
And I didn't answer that question because I answered it about 12 comments back, I explicitly said I wasn't talking about replacing the militaries ammo for live combat. They actually already use rubber rounds for certain operations.
But then the military isn't the police and they shouldn't be treated as the same beast. In most situations where the police draw and fire their sidearms, an alternative would be fine. I'm not talking about when facing down a gang using automatic rifles etc. But really, in that situation, a TAU would be a better option than a normal officer with a 9mm. I'm talking about those times one person has a gun drawn, or when someone's suspected of having a weapon and they're shot as they reach for their phone.
Instead of making these pointless arguments, perhaps we should be looking for more technologically advanced NLW alternatives. Rubber bullets were in use 40 years ago, do you really think we couldn't develop some sort of means to take down a threat with a gun other than another gun? But no ones looking for it, because everyones perfectly happy with guns.
It's pretty sad.
You misunderstand me. I'm not 'pro-gun', rather, I think that in this situation, lethal force was the best option. Nowhere did I say that non-lethal weapons are useless, just that they are less efficient than lethal weapons (a point which any sane person would agree with). I'm saying that in the context of this situation, where there are multiple lives at immediate risk, lethal weapons are the best course of action if a suspect refuses to stand down. If the police were chasing a single guy through a deserted street or back alley, and the guy won't give up the chase, by all means, use a non-lethal weapon.omega 616 said:You (and every other person pro gun) make it sound like non-lethal means are totally ineffective, which can't be true otherwise they wouldn't exist. Do you think beanbag guns or tazers barely pack a punch? Tazers drop people quickly and beanbag guns leave one hell of a bruise, so it's not like it's thrown at you!
While we're on the topic of aiming, someone shot with a non-lethal weapon is bound to be on the ground moving around. You might say its hard for the guy to aim when he hurriedly tries to raise a gun from the ground, when in fact it's just as hard for the police to keep their aim focused on the moving target. And if any one of them misses their intended target, a bullet could ricochet or pass through walls and cause injury or death, which, you'll find, is what they're trying to AVOID.omega 616 said:I think there are two ways to raise a gun, 1) is slow and accurate ... which means the person can be put down before he ever even aims. He has to aim and fire before cops can just fire (they are already aiming). 2) is fast and inaccurate, which is going out in a blaze of glory but again cops are already aiming so all they have to do is pull the trigger, still faster than him
Surely you're not saying that a shot fired by the police would be unexpected? This guy, who I suspect was committing suicide-by-cop, would have well known he would be fired upon by raising his gun. Bracing yourself for an impact reduces the time that you are incapacitated by it. Meaning, again, that he could have turned and fired on an innocent.omega 616 said:Non-lethal means give the police time to rush him or something, I don't claim to a professional police tactics officer but if the Uk police can do what the American police can without laying waste to people then why do American police need to kill? We have armed gangs as well.
Have you ever been sucker punched or accidently pushed hard by surprise? You don't automatically take instinctual action, for a second you are thinking "WTF just happened" ... times that by being hit by a car and your more than "WTF just happened".
I had stated that before. Not all crimes are gun related.FelixG said:And you know, its impossible to tell what 15 year old has experience with what. A number of my classmates in middle and high school were damn good with firearms as we live in a rural area, but hey if where you live the cops are equipped with something that tells them exactly how skilled a person is with an item before they have to encounter the individual perhaps you can have your goverment ship a few over to the US as those would be very useful for avoiding these sorts of situations.
If I might ask, what was the context behind that? That is, if you don't mind telling us.ravensheart18 said:Yup, absolutely true. This is a peice of advice that my father did give me and it has served me well in my life, especially on the day when as a 16 year old I found my car surrounded by police cars and half a dozen guns pointed at me as they yelled "hands on the wheel, don't move". My hands went on the wheel an I didn't budget a muscle until they told me to. Guess what, I'm still here.
Well then, I'm glad we've come to point we both agree on. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's something I'd get behind simply because I think the threat of lethal force is part of what keeps some criminals from acting. That, and here in Canada, most of that stuff would sit on the shelf for a long time and rarely get used.Abandon4093 said:Well I'm actually from the UK, so we don't get a lot of guncrime either.jimbob123432 said:MY point that I'm trying to make is: Why fix what isn't broke? Maybe it's because I was raised in Canada, a country where it's extremely hard to acquire a firearm (despite what people in Toronto say) and where we don't have much gun crime (again, despite what Torontonians say). I just can't see why anyone would suggest a LTL solution to a problem when it's escalated to the point where the people we've entrusted with our safety have determined it's in everyone's best interests to use lethal force. I see it as adding a whole new level of decision-making that is not really required. Guns are not a major part of our culture up here (I think we have around 1/80 of the guns in the US) and people here are taught that certain actions have certain consequences. ie: pointing a gun at cops results in you getting shot. There is no alternative. Maybe that's why I can't understand your point of view.
Also, rather than put money into fancy LTL systems, why not put the money into education/rehab/social programs so that the situations that breed kids who take guns to their schools?
What bothers me is the amount of people that die in the states when a police officer eventually makes a mistake. They're only human, and giving them authority and lethal weapons garners the occasional accident. Unfortunately it's usually a fatal accident.
And I'm all for the programs you described. Indeed they are the ideal, but even if we implemented them, there is still going to be crime. You cannot eradicate crime completely. And I'd much rather think of a future where the police managed to fire some sort of temporary paralysing microwave out of a specialised implament, than exploding bullets that scatter in all directions taking out as many perps as possible.
I really dont think it would be wise to bring a tazer to a gun fight, plus a lot of things can go wrong trying to bring a gunman down with a tazer.USSR said:A taser would have sufficed, seeing how a 15 year old wouldn't have the best accuracy with an "actual" handgun.
Although the justice of this being questioned is absolutely ridiculous. They had no other option.
If anything should come out of this, it should be that every officer as of now should be equipped/trained with a tazer.