Poll: Was this police shooting justified in your opinion? (Graphic)

[lockgar]

Well, when you're a police officer who is supposed to be trained for these situations, you're supposed to know how to handle a dangerous man with a crowbar, WITHOUT resorting to shooting him.
Once again. Look at England. We don't have tasers, or pepper spray, or guns. Tasers come out in riot situations. On the street? Doesn't matter what the guy is swinging, a solitary officer will call for backup. Then they'll handle him.

And if the officer is about to be smacked in the head with a crowbar, then what?

I'm sorry, you cannot condemn an officer for using X option by comparing it to another officer who does not have that option. That's like saying its wrong for women to give birth because men can't.

...They were in the PERFECT situation to take him down. He had his fucking back to one of them. One of them who had a fucking attack dog. Why is this so hard for people to understand?! The police officer being targeted by the thug was still perfectly capable of backing away, of avoiding the crowbar. You all talk like the crowbar was halfway through the air! It was behind his head. He was making a threatening advance. And now he's dead.

So why is vigilantism illegal? I mean, if I had a gun, I could just shoot criminals. No danger to myself there. I'm pretty sure the reason we're advised not to attack criminals ourselves is because we're not trained or equipped to handle the situation, and we're more likely to bring harm on ourselves. The police officer who fired that gun should be held as responsible as a member of the public would be, had they ran onto the scene and shot the thug. Surrre, they 'saved the officer's life', but they still used a firearm in a situation that didn't call for one.

A split second mistake could mean life or death for anyone. "The perp or cop" I saw that he made a threat rather then an actual attempt, but that still would be more then enough reason to take the shot for that split second. Considering the perp had more then enough time to put down the weapon, as they cleared out the entire building, the perp clearly just didn't care or was in too much of a chaotic state to make any rational decisions. If tasers weren't working on him he clearly was on something.

 

[JonnWood]

News story under the video, shooting occurs at 0:42.

Is a human life really worth so little that a half a dozen police officers will not try to overpower and disarm one man with a crowbar? I mean what is event the point of spending thousands of dollars equipping and training police with batons, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and police dogs if the cops aren't going to use them? The officer who shot the suspect didn't even go for the leg shot, it just looked like he panicked and unloaded.

There were two of them and it looked like he was about to attack one of them with the weapon. I don't think they needed to take the time to pull out another weapon when he's going to attack with something that can clearly injure that officer. He didn't have access to thousands of dollars of equipment right then and there.

And the leg shot nonsense is just ignorant. That's not how it works IRL. You don't shoot for the legs.

I'm sorry, but our police in England are trained to physically restrain an armed man. Plus he had a big fucking dog. The thug actually turned away from the officer with the dog, who responded by shooting him dead. If these officers were trained to actually respond to situations rather than just pulling a gun, that man would still be alive, and he'd be in a jail cell. If I can see an opportunity presenting itself, I'm quite sure a trained, baton-armed, dog-leashed police officer can.

I'm doubtful they're going to have a nice chance to physically restrain him when he's about to swing that weapon at one of them. At least not before one of them gets hurt badly.

Except for the big fucking dog he's restraining while shooting him. Why was the dog even there? And are police not trained for these encounters? They sure as hell are over here, so why aren't they over there? Shooting him was simply out of order.

EDIT: The point I'm making is that the thug turned his back to the officer with the dog. That right there is an invitation to take him down.

Sure! All you have to do is hope your dog gets there before your partner's skull is cracked open like an eggshell. That's unlikely.

You also forgot to mention, earlier, that British police generally aren't issued firearms, nor are most criminals they deal with. The cops did respond short of "gun"; they told him to get on the ground, then they tried what looks like a taser or pepper spray, which was ineffective. Before they could try anything else, the perp started to take a swing at the cop. He decided to attempt to use deadly force, not the police. Your attempt to absolve him of responsibility is rather disturbing.

I'm sorry, but can you really not tell the difference between intimidation and an actual attack? If the thug was actually going to hit the officer, the gunman wouldn't have shot him in time.

Bullets travel at roughly the speed of sound. People travel significantly slower.

The suspect was moving exactly like he was about to swing. In fact, intimidation without a threat behind it is just a bluff. He didn't say "back off", he moved like he was about to swing, and then actively got closer to the cop, ignoring the other cop who was pointing his weapon directly at him. If he was "intimidating", he's a very good bluffer.

Or would you like to be the cop who takes the chance that the guy high or crazy enough to shrug off a tazer who looks like he's about to hit your partner is just bluffing?

I disagree. I think he was actively about to attack the officer. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he was not, then he appeared to be and most likely was, based on what information the police had available.

The moment the guy turned his back, all he would have had to do was let go of the dog. The thug would have had to move pretty fucking quickly to reach the second officer before the dog reached him - and dogs don't make much noise when they run, and in the chaos the thug wouldn't have heard the animal. He lifts his foot to make good his threat, and he loses his balance when a big fucking dog collides with him. Crowbar irrelevant, he's pretty damn defenceless at that point.

Good thing, as by that point the crowbar would likely have been buried in the other cop's skull. Incidentally, K9s are trained to go for the suspect's arm, not knock them over or drag them off balance. He was already "making good his threat". He was trying to hit the nearer cop, and he doesn't need to lift his foot to do so. And, of course, he could just attack the dog instead.

But please, continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about.

And you know what? You can tell me that the officers wouldn't have seen it that way. But they would. Because that's what they're supposed to be trained for. I do not accept that the safety of the public is in the hands of a force whose policy demands they shoot the suspect in EVERY situation.

This was not "EVERY situation", stop Straw-Manning. This was a single situation where the suspect had committed vandalism on a restauraunt, was ignoring police presence and demands to stop, shrugged off what looks like pepper spray, and was about to attack an officer with deadly force.

The fact that you see no difference between these conditions and "every situation" is indicative of your bias.

 

[AlexWinter]

Well, when you're a police officer who is supposed to be trained for these situations, you're supposed to know how to handle a dangerous man with a crowbar, WITHOUT resorting to shooting him.
Once again. Look at England. We don't have tasers, or pepper spray, or guns. Tasers come out in riot situations. On the street? Doesn't matter what the guy is swinging, a solitary officer will call for backup. Then they'll handle him.

That IS the training! When the man with a crowbar is about to kill your fellow officer your training IS to shoot him.

Find me a comparable situation in England where the suspect was a heartbeat away from bringing a crowbar on some bobby's head, and that we can talk about.

...this is the single most ignorant comment written in any thread...ever.

Y'know what. I won't even dignify it with a response. It doesn't even need one. Because at no point in the history of the English police force has a suspect ever attempted to use a crowbar against a police officer.

It's ignorant to say that American police officers are trained to respond to deadly force with deadly force? Sorry, that is a fact.

Again, all I asked was to find me a similar situation so that we can compare resolutions. A seemingly simple challenge given your position on the matter.

So far as I'm concerned with regard to this situation, the man had plenty of chances. He continued to choose actions that would not end well for anyone in his circumstances. I do not and cannot expect my police force to put their lives on the line to save his dumb ass, particularly when he threatens them. It is enough to ask them to put their lives on the line to be the ones who have to deal with this a-hole.

Senordesol, I disagree and frankly, being from the UK, I find you kind of racist. Do you think that all our crime happens with blow up swords and pillows?

 

[omega 616]

The suspect swung the three-foot metal bar at officers twice, police said, forcing two officers to open fire on the suspect.

Sauce: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8515794

My conclusion is: Absolutely justified shooting. If the officer with the dog hadn't started shooting, the other officer might well be seriously injured or even dead right now.

Yeah, there are plenty of examples of unjustified shootings--this one just ain't one of them.[/quote]

You say that but in the UK a guy with a machete (I would say a lot more lethal than a crowbar) got arrested by a cop with a bin. Granted there were about 20 cops but nobody was hurt.

I just see time and time again American cops killing people while cops in the uk are doing the same job without guns or killing people.

I know the UK police force often leaves a lot to be desired but killing people is rare. I know cops in America have to carry guns 'cos thanks to your laws every Tom, Dick and moron can carry a killing machine freely.

The sooner America drops there gun love the better the place will be.

 

[senordesol]

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Crazed-crowbar-attacker-told-police-ll-kill/story-12825128-detail/story.html


Oh. And not only that, but the officers in question survived the crowbar hits.

Deadly force, you say?

Thank you for choosing to hurl facts, rather than insults.

Now, according to your article: The officers were all taken to Hull Royal Infirmary, where two received treatment for head wounds.

With a crowbar in hand, those head wounds could have easily been fatal. You'll notice the actions of the American cops yielded no injuries to themselves at all. So, yes, I'll maintain that our methods are superior based on the fact that the only one who got hurt or killed was the only one threatening police in the first place.

 

[Jason Luu]

I understand why the officer panicked, he saw the man lunging towards his team mate. In that situation you try to prevent as much damage as possible, however I don't believe it was justified. The taser would have done just fine, your fellow officer may have gotten hurt but a man wouldn't have to die for it. I understand they were doing their jobs but they have so many things they need to consider in their line of work. The people recording the video however are disgusting, all they had to say when this goes down is "he merced that fucker" what a bunch of pricks.

 

[JonnWood]

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Crazed-crowbar-attacker-told-police-ll-kill/story-12825128-detail/story.html

Oh. And not only that, but the officers in question survived the crowbar hits.

Deadly force, you say?

You're right. They should've waited for him to hit the first cop and check whether he lived or died before determining whether to shoot him.

Incidentally, here's the definition for "Deadly force".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causing?or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing?death or serious bodily harm. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

Firearms, bladed weapons, explosives, and vehicles are among those weapons the use of which is considered deadly force. The use of non-weapons in an aggressive manner, such as a baseball bat or tire iron, may also be considered deadly force.

Emphasis mine.

Incidentally, people are often shot, and survive, yet firearms are considered "deadly force".

Feel free to keep digging.

 

[AngloDoom]

I was thinking someone who receives regular training in how to grapple with or interrupt the swing of a hand-held weapon would be pretty good at doing just that. I never said it would be actually easy, but relatively. My basis is, of course, only speculative - but I have practised martial arts for a short while and the weapons defence enabled many of the students who had been there to disarm an attacker with relative ease. A random thug swinging a crowbar at these guys would still have an advantage of reach and of course general skull-splitting damage, but I don't see why teenagers studying a martial art once a week for a hobby should apparently be better at disarming an individual than an individual who's duties include dealing with armed criminals.
Of course, real-life situations are a lot more unpredictable, but I don't think it's a stretch to think that someone who is trained to regularly defend themselves against armed attackers would be pretty good at it after a while. With two of them, it should be a lot easier.

Any MA instructor will tell you the first thing you do in such a situation is "run away, and call the cops". The cops don't have that option. They are there to protect the public. If at all possible, you don't grapple with a man who is ignoring a taser and the demands to stop from several officers, who may be high, nuts, or both. You neutralize the threat.

Indeed, your first call in any situation where someone's coming at you is - if possible - ring the proper authorities. However, what I'm saying is why do you ring the police in the first place? You expect them to have the ability to sort the problem out in a way that your could not. I admit I did not notice the tazer at first, however I still don't see why, when you have superior numbers, better equipment, better training, and a police-dog why the easier solution - to shoot and kill - is the only option. Release the dog, whip out your baton/spray, and while the dog is hassling the man you and your comrade rush up close and grapple him to the ground. Even if they guy is high as a kite, he doesn't look strong enough to shift two men off of his back, or resist a man on each arm trying to cuff him. Again, I don't claim to have any expertise in the situation, but the odds seem stacked in the police's favour from my (inexperienced) perspective.

It is not about value of life, but what you should expect. It is still a tragedy is a police officer or a fireman ends up losing their life doing what is a noble job - however, a fireman is trained to deal with such a situation better than the average guy if he were handed the same equipment. That is what I am referring to - that an American citizen (at least, I believe in some states, not all) can obtain a firearm. In that sense, such an individual who purchases a gun is just as well equipped as a police-officer, yet I believe they should still be in a worse position to handle such a situation than a police-officer. In reference to that video, I have seen club bouncers deal with a similar the situation better: especially when there's two of them.

Joe Random does not have the training and responsibilities of a cop, and cops, in fact, don't like it when people try to do their jobs, since it tends to get more people hurt then would otherwise be the case.

I think I might be missing your point here, sorry. I was suggesting that if a man was violent and trying to get into a club and there were two bouncers (omitting the dog for the moment), even if they guy had the crowbar I think they would have been able to take the man to the floor. The closest example I've seen is a guy with a bottle and a single bouncer, and he took him down easily enough. Again, this isn't a flawless example: but I still think a one-on-one between a bouncer and a guy with a bottle is still more fair than two guys and a dog against one man with a metal stick.

This isn't a dig at America - I didn't even mention a specific country - but if a man is allowed to use a stick to defend himself in a country, and the local law-enforcement agencies are using the same sticks, then you would certainly want the law-enforcers to be much better at using that stick, and against a man without a stick they should be able to handle the situation with ease.

This guy had a stick. They had tasers, and guns. They handled it with ease.

They also had number and a dog, is my point. Without guns they were - in my inexperienced opinion - still at an advantage. I just think the gun was unnecessary.

I didn't say that all situations involving the police end in violence? It's just that it's part of the job - a policeman should expect and be trained for situations which involve violence since it's part of the job.

Cops are trained to avoid violence, since it involves, y'know, people getting hurt. When violence is unavoidable, they try to use as little force as necessary. That's what this was. They tried the taser, it failed, and then the suspect presented a threat of serious injury to an officer of the law. If he hadn't, the cop probably would've tried pepper spray. The suspect escalated, not the po-po.

You keep talking about how they should've handled it better, but, curiously, you don't specify how. Someone mentioned "bouncers" earlier, but I doubt the guys they "handled" were shrugging off tasers and breaking restaurant windows in broad daylight and ignoring cops with weapons drawn. Just a hunch.

Agreed, the suspect escalated. I understand the suspect is on the attack, but does that mean he instantly loses his right to live? It's suggested the guy is under the influence of drugs - so is it fair that every time a drunk or high individual gets violent you can shoot them so long as they're carrying something heavy? I don't know what this guy is on and how it's affecting him, but I'm sure it doesn't make him react faster and increase his coordination, sure he can shrug off pain but he isn't physically stronger: I would imagine a dog and two police officers is enough to take down practically anyone, high or not.

Also, to your statement about the bouncers: I think I missed the point of that, so I apologise. I don't see how breaking windows and ignoring the police makes the fact that a man with a weapon - possibly under the influence of a drug (alcohol) - was taken to the ground by a single bouncer. I would imagine that, due to the nature of a bouncers job, this isn't a rare occurrence either. So two men and a trained animal are suddenly ill-equipped when facing one man with a weapon, and so they have to shoot him? If it was one policeman I'd agree that the shooting was justified, but there were two and a dog.

EDIT-

Thank you for choosing to hurl facts, rather than insults.

Agreed with this user: thank you for keeping things civil rather than just running in and throwing insults.

 

[Thyunda]

News story under the video, shooting occurs at 0:42.

Is a human life really worth so little that a half a dozen police officers will not try to overpower and disarm one man with a crowbar? I mean what is event the point of spending thousands of dollars equipping and training police with batons, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and police dogs if the cops aren't going to use them? The officer who shot the suspect didn't even go for the leg shot, it just looked like he panicked and unloaded.

There were two of them and it looked like he was about to attack one of them with the weapon. I don't think they needed to take the time to pull out another weapon when he's going to attack with something that can clearly injure that officer. He didn't have access to thousands of dollars of equipment right then and there.

And the leg shot nonsense is just ignorant. That's not how it works IRL. You don't shoot for the legs.

I'm sorry, but our police in England are trained to physically restrain an armed man. Plus he had a big fucking dog. The thug actually turned away from the officer with the dog, who responded by shooting him dead. If these officers were trained to actually respond to situations rather than just pulling a gun, that man would still be alive, and he'd be in a jail cell. If I can see an opportunity presenting itself, I'm quite sure a trained, baton-armed, dog-leashed police officer can.

I'm doubtful they're going to have a nice chance to physically restrain him when he's about to swing that weapon at one of them. At least not before one of them gets hurt badly.

Except for the big fucking dog he's restraining while shooting him. Why was the dog even there? And are police not trained for these encounters? They sure as hell are over here, so why aren't they over there? Shooting him was simply out of order.

EDIT: The point I'm making is that the thug turned his back to the officer with the dog. That right there is an invitation to take him down.

Sure! All you have to do is hope your dog gets there before your partner's skull is cracked open like an eggshell. That's unlikely.

You also forgot to mention, earlier, that British police generally aren't issued firearms, nor are most criminals they deal with. The cops did respond short of "gun"; they told him to get on the ground, then they tried what looks like a taser or pepper spray, which was ineffective. Before they could try anything else, the perp started to take a swing at the cop. He decided to attempt to use deadly force, not the police. Your attempt to absolve him of responsibility is rather disturbing.

I'm sorry, but can you really not tell the difference between intimidation and an actual attack? If the thug was actually going to hit the officer, the gunman wouldn't have shot him in time.

Bullets travel at roughly the speed of sound. People travel significantly slower.

The suspect was moving exactly like he was about to swing. In fact, intimidation without a threat behind it is just a bluff. He didn't say "back off", he moved like he was about to swing, and then actively got closer to the cop, ignoring the other cop who was pointing his weapon directly at him. If he was "intimidating", he's a very good bluffer.

Or would you like to be the cop who takes the chance that the guy high or crazy enough to shrug off a tazer who looks like he's about to hit your partner is just bluffing?

I disagree. I think he was actively about to attack the officer. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he was not, then he appeared to be and most likely was, based on what information the police had available.

The moment the guy turned his back, all he would have had to do was let go of the dog. The thug would have had to move pretty fucking quickly to reach the second officer before the dog reached him - and dogs don't make much noise when they run, and in the chaos the thug wouldn't have heard the animal. He lifts his foot to make good his threat, and he loses his balance when a big fucking dog collides with him. Crowbar irrelevant, he's pretty damn defenceless at that point.

Good thing, as by that point the crowbar would likely have been buried in the other cop's skull. Incidentally, K9s are trained to go for the suspect's arm, not knock them over or drag them off balance. He was already "making good his threat". He was trying to hit the nearer cop, and he doesn't need to lift his foot to do so. And, of course, he could just attack the dog instead.

But please, continue to demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about.

And you know what? You can tell me that the officers wouldn't have seen it that way. But they would. Because that's what they're supposed to be trained for. I do not accept that the safety of the public is in the hands of a force whose policy demands they shoot the suspect in EVERY situation.

This was not "EVERY situation", stop Straw-Manning. This was a single situation where the suspect had committed vandalism on a restauraunt, was ignoring police presence and demands to stop, shrugged off what looks like pepper spray, and was about to attack an officer with deadly force.

The fact that you see no difference between these conditions and "every situation" is indicative of your bias.

He wasn't trying to hit the nearer cop. You have no evidence for that assertion. If he was really trying to hit the cop as you keep repeating, don't you think he'd have done a little more than raise the crowbar? Have you ever actually seen somebody go for somebody else? Because it's not all dramatic. It's not a shouting and a waving. If the suspect was really swinging for the cop, either the cop would have had the reaction times to avoid it or the presence of the firearm wouldn't have helped at all.

But. Go on. Keep proving you have no fucking idea how to handle a situation like this.

Well, when you're a police officer who is supposed to be trained for these situations, you're supposed to know how to handle a dangerous man with a crowbar, WITHOUT resorting to shooting him.
Once again. Look at England. We don't have tasers, or pepper spray, or guns. Tasers come out in riot situations. On the street? Doesn't matter what the guy is swinging, a solitary officer will call for backup. Then they'll handle him.

And if the officer is about to be smacked in the head with a crowbar, then what?

I'm sorry, you cannot condemn an officer for using X option by comparing it to another officer who does not have that option. That's like saying its wrong for women to give birth because men can't.

...They were in the PERFECT situation to take him down. He had his fucking back to one of them. One of them who had a fucking attack dog. Why is this so hard for people to understand?! The police officer being targeted by the thug was still perfectly capable of backing away, of avoiding the crowbar. You all talk like the crowbar was halfway through the air! It was behind his head. He was making a threatening advance. And now he's dead.

So why is vigilantism illegal? I mean, if I had a gun, I could just shoot criminals. No danger to myself there. I'm pretty sure the reason we're advised not to attack criminals ourselves is because we're not trained or equipped to handle the situation, and we're more likely to bring harm on ourselves. The police officer who fired that gun should be held as responsible as a member of the public would be, had they ran onto the scene and shot the thug. Surrre, they 'saved the officer's life', but they still used a firearm in a situation that didn't call for one.

A split second mistake could mean life or death for anyone. "The perp or cop" I saw that he made a threat rather then an actual attempt, but that still would be more then enough reason to take the shot for that split second. Considering the perp had more then enough time to put down the weapon, as they cleared out the entire building, the perp clearly just didn't care or was in too much of a chaotic state to make any rational decisions. If tasers weren't working on him he clearly was on something.

So, what, he deserves to die? We're talking about the police force here. Nobody should be killed by the police. That's the resolution we all want to avoid.

If my country can apprehend armed suspects without gunning them down, so can the States. End of.

 

[senordesol]

Senordesol, I disagree and frankly, being from the UK, I find you kind of racist. Do you think that all our crime happens with blow up swords and pillows?

Racist against whom? Black people? White people? What race am I maligning? I'm eager to know.

Does your crime happen with blow-up swords and pillows? Likely not, but I don't see what that has to do with someone nearly killing a police officer and being killed himself for the trouble.

 

[Kordie]

Did they try talking? Yes, the story says the man ignored all verbal commands. Did they try non-lethal force? Yes, the man was tazered to no effect. So this was clearly not an impulsive "shoot first" scenario.

Lets look at the man, he was acting violently (the story says he was smashing up the store). If he was identified, the police likely know his past convictions, if any (granted that part is speculation). He was armed with a deadly weapon. The description of a crow bar hardly does justice to something that apears about a meter in length, with a large head on it.

Now we have a man with a deadly weapon, ignoring police commands, not affected by a tazer, trying to leave the area. Two officers are working a clear covering pattern, one with a pistol, the other apears to be using his belt (putting away tazer, getting pepper spray or cuffs, it is not clear) The man begins to swing at the distracted officer, who apears to be within reach of the weapon. Officer two defends with deadly force.

Use of force has 2 sides here, appropriate and minimal force. Using deadly force to protect another from a possibly deadly attack is appropriate. Note that if that weapon hit the officer in the head, he would very likely die. Also note that non lethal force was used earlier. The use of minimal force issue is not as easily satisfied. It requires use of no more force than needed to stop the attack. This is broken with the subsequent shots. After the man is taken down with the first volley, the attack was over, and no more shots should have been fired, also giving a chance for paramedics to possibly save him. (unless there was further action we could not see that warrented it)

The last thing I would touch on, though it has been mentioned already, is non lethal shooting. This is not trained. Ever. With good reason. These situations require action. In simplest terms the less choices, the better. Choice 1, what do I use to stop this attack? Choice 2, there is no choice 2, stop the attack already. If lethal force is decided, lethal force is used. I could write pages on why it is not appropriate to train on non lethal shots.

One more note, while I was in the army, we too were trained to shoot at center mass with one exception. that being anti armour drills, where we go for 2 in the chest, target doesnt go down, aim for head or thigh untill it does.

 

[Thyunda]

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Crazed-crowbar-attacker-told-police-ll-kill/story-12825128-detail/story.html


Oh. And not only that, but the officers in question survived the crowbar hits.

Deadly force, you say?

Thank you for choosing to hurl facts, rather than insults.

Now, according to your article: The officers were all taken to Hull Royal Infirmary, where two received treatment for head wounds.

With a crowbar in hand, those head wounds could have easily been fatal. You'll notice the actions of the American cops yielded no injuries to themselves at all. So, yes, I'll maintain that our methods are superior based on the fact that the only one who got hurt or killed was the only one threatening police in the first place.

SO lets compare situations.

America:
Two officers. A K9 unit. Pepper spray, tasers, batons and guns. Open area. Encircled suspect.

England:
Three officers. Closed area. Family at risk.

The crowbar WAS in hand! They were hit...WITH a crowbar. The only reason this happened is because the attacker wasn't trying to kill the police, he was trying to kill the family, and the only option was for the officers to put themselves between the family and the attacker.

That's the difference here. The American officers had all the time in the world to take him down. They had freedom of movement. The playing field was their's.

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Crazed-crowbar-attacker-told-police-ll-kill/story-12825128-detail/story.html

Oh. And not only that, but the officers in question survived the crowbar hits.

Deadly force, you say?

You're right. They should've waited for him to hit the first cop and check whether he lived or died before determining whether to shoot him.

Incidentally, here's the definition for "Deadly force".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force

Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causing?or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing?death or serious bodily harm. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

Firearms, bladed weapons, explosives, and vehicles are among those weapons the use of which is considered deadly force. The use of non-weapons in an aggressive manner, such as a baseball bat or tire iron, may also be considered deadly force.

Emphasis mine.

Incidentally, people are often shot, and survive, yet firearms are considered "deadly force".

Feel free to keep digging.

I'm wondering what point you're trying to make here. A man in a car park with a crowbar does not warrant the use of firearms. If you want to keep arguing this point, come to England, threaten the police with a crowbar. I guarantee, there will be no bullets. But you'll still end up in jail.

 

[lockgar]

im kinda curious as to when you people will actually learn that a human life has no greater value than a pig/dog/fly/ant any other organism. What makes a human life more valuable? We provide nothing to anyone we simply take and take. Not single one of you will be missed when you die and no one will care when you are born. It all makes me sick seeing this crap. Im sorry the kid died. bull shit you dont care. Just like every one of those support the troops stickers and all the athletes that "support the troops". just because you say it doesnt make it true.

you all make me sick.

Cry more emo kid.

 

[JonnWood]

...They were in the PERFECT situation to take him down. He had his fucking back to one of them.

Because he was attacking the other. Up until the suspect escalated the situation to "deadly force", they were trying to subdue him peacefully.

One of them who had a fucking attack dog.

Which would not have intervened in time once the perp escalated.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?! The police officer being targeted by the thug was still perfectly capable of backing away, of avoiding the crowbar.

He tried to. The suspect is visibly advancing on him, to keep him in range.

You all talk like the crowbar was halfway through the air! It was behind his head.

It takes a fraction of a second to get it from "behind his head" to "halfway through the air".

He was making a threatening advance. And now he's dead.

So you admit he was deliberately threatening the officers. Thank you.

So why is vigilantism illegal? I mean, if I had a gun, I could just shoot criminals. No danger to myself there. I'm pretty sure the reason we're advised not to attack criminals ourselves is because we're not trained or equipped to handle the situation, and we're more likely to bring harm on ourselves. The police officer who fired that gun should be held as responsible as a member of the public would be, had they ran onto the scene and shot the thug. Surrre, they 'saved the officer's life', but they still used a firearm in a situation that didn't call for one.

I just love all the straw men you keep bringing into this. First the cops shouldn't deal with "every situation" with deadly force, now police shooting someone about to use deadly force on an officer is equivalent to vigilantism.

The police officers specifically did not "run onto the scene" and shoot the suspect. They tried to resolve the situation peacefully. The suspect did not want to be peaceful.

Once the suspect escalated, there was no other response available to the police than deadly force that did not result in the risk of further harm to themselves or the public.

 

[Thyunda]

Senordesol, I disagree and frankly, being from the UK, I find you kind of racist. Do you think that all our crime happens with blow up swords and pillows?

Racist against whom? Black people? White people? What race am I maligning? I'm eager to know.

Does your crime happen with blow-up swords and pillows? Likely not, but I don't see what that has to do with someone nearly killing a police officer and being killed himself for the trouble.

Nationalist then. Against England. For saying that violent crime can only be solved by guns, and therefore British police officers have never managed to subdue a criminal, and that England is clearly rife with crime.

 

[senordesol]

SO lets compare situations.

America:
Two officers. A K9 unit. Pepper spray, tasers, batons and guns. Open area. Encircled suspect.

England:
Three officers. Closed area. Family at risk.

The crowbar WAS in hand! They were hit...WITH a crowbar. The only reason this happened is because the attacker wasn't trying to kill the police, he was trying to kill the family, and the only option was for the officers to put themselves between the family and the attacker.

That's the difference here. The American officers had all the time in the world to take him down. They had freedom of movement. The playing field was their's.

And?

I seriously do not see your point here.

Your officers took injuries which could have easily translated into fatalities with a few more pounds of pressure.

The American officers conducted themselves in a manner that sustained no injuries (but for the subject wielding a deadly weapon).

Again, sounds like our methods were superior.

 

[Thyunda]

...They were in the PERFECT situation to take him down. He had his fucking back to one of them.

Because he was attacking the other. Up until the suspect escalated the situation to "deadly force", they were trying to subdue him peacefully.

One of them who had a fucking attack dog.

Which would not have intervened in time once the perp escalated.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?! The police officer being targeted by the thug was still perfectly capable of backing away, of avoiding the crowbar.

He tried to. The suspect is visibly advancing on him, to keep him in range.

You all talk like the crowbar was halfway through the air! It was behind his head.

It takes a fraction of a second to get it from "behind his head" to "halfway through the air".

He was making a threatening advance. And now he's dead.

So you admit he was deliberately threatening the officers. Thank you.

So why is vigilantism illegal? I mean, if I had a gun, I could just shoot criminals. No danger to myself there. I'm pretty sure the reason we're advised not to attack criminals ourselves is because we're not trained or equipped to handle the situation, and we're more likely to bring harm on ourselves. The police officer who fired that gun should be held as responsible as a member of the public would be, had they ran onto the scene and shot the thug. Surrre, they 'saved the officer's life', but they still used a firearm in a situation that didn't call for one.

I just love all the straw men you keep bringing into this. First the cops shouldn't deal with "every situation" with deadly force, now police shooting someone about to use deadly force on an officer is equivalent to vigilantism.

The police officers specifically did not "run onto the scene" and shoot the suspect. They tried to resolve the situation peacefully. The suspect did not want to be peaceful.

Once the suspect escalated, there was no other response available to the police than deadly force that did not result in the risk of further harm to themselves or the public.

Yes, freaking idiot, of course he threatened a police officer! But I was under the impression that a police officer could be TRUSTED with a weapon. A threat does not entail a violent response. If the police can't handle a man with a crowbar without shooting him, then I want to know why they're the ones tasked with protecting us. The whole reason the police exist is so things like this can be handled without the loss of life. The same result would have been achieved had the restaurant owner come out and shotgunned the vandal as soon as he started walking away. And then we'd all be up in arms about the unnecessary force, about how the suspect was walking away.

At the end of the day, the proper authorities came in, and they did the shooting instead. Totally unnecessary. Lack of training and irresponsibility led to this.

 

[senordesol]

Senordesol, I disagree and frankly, being from the UK, I find you kind of racist. Do you think that all our crime happens with blow up swords and pillows?

Racist against whom? Black people? White people? What race am I maligning? I'm eager to know.

Does your crime happen with blow-up swords and pillows? Likely not, but I don't see what that has to do with someone nearly killing a police officer and being killed himself for the trouble.

Nationalist then. Against England. For saying that violent crime can only be solved by guns, and therefore British police officers have never managed to subdue a criminal, and that England is clearly rife with crime.

When did I say that?

 

[AlexWinter]

Senordesol, I disagree and frankly, being from the UK, I find you kind of racist. Do you think that all our crime happens with blow up swords and pillows?

Racist against whom? Black people? White people? What race am I maligning? I'm eager to know.

Does your crime happen with blow-up swords and pillows? Likely not, but I don't see what that has to do with someone nearly killing a police officer and being killed himself for the trouble.

Your comment naively expresses doubt that any British officer "bobby" has ever had to deal with something as serious as an armed man. I infer that as racism. Britain isn't some kind of infant country.

And no, in my country we deal with things without guns and get along just fine. It's called real training. Not panicking like a *****.

 

[Thyunda]

SO lets compare situations.

America:
Two officers. A K9 unit. Pepper spray, tasers, batons and guns. Open area. Encircled suspect.

England:
Three officers. Closed area. Family at risk.

The crowbar WAS in hand! They were hit...WITH a crowbar. The only reason this happened is because the attacker wasn't trying to kill the police, he was trying to kill the family, and the only option was for the officers to put themselves between the family and the attacker.

That's the difference here. The American officers had all the time in the world to take him down. They had freedom of movement. The playing field was their's.

And?

I seriously do not see your point here.

Your officers took injuries which could have easily translated into fatalities with a few more pounds of pressure.

The American officers conducted themselves in a manner that sustained no injuries (but for the subject wielding a deadly weapon).

Again, sounds like our methods were superior.

Your methods ended with a dead man. The very people entrusted with the protection of society and preservation of life have killed somebody unnecessarily.

Ours ended with a couple of officers injured in the line of duty, but no loss of life.

I think our methods were superior.