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

[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.

When did I say that?

Oh don't deny it, you heavily implied that our 'bobbies' have never had to deal with violent crime.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

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.

I agree why not take the chance of hitting civilians and go for the leg shot! I mean they should have aimed for his leg, it's not like the leg holds a massive amount of arteries and is very easy to get killed from being shot in. And they should have used their taser, I mean they should have used it more after he pulled the prongs out of his body and swung his weapon at them.

Getting hit just once with the weapon he had could have killed a police officer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/8483744.stm

 

[JonnWood]

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.

They had fractions of a second before the nutjob got within range of the nearer cop, and no other feasible options.

I'm wondering what point you're trying to make here.

That you were wrong about what "deadly force" was, another example of your ignorance.

The suspect was about to employ deadly force. The cops did employ deadly force, in response, due to a lack of feasible options. (Pepper spray didn't work, no time to draw taser, batons are actually at a disadvantage against that particular length of prybar, and K9s would also be at risk.

A man in a car park with a crowbar does not warrant the use of firearms

Generally, no. But when the man has shrugged off pepper spray, is likely high, and is fractions of a second away from cracking a cop's head open, then it warrants deadly force.

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.

No. This guy was about to hit the cop with the bar, not merely "threatening". And cops in England generally aren't armed with guns. I know because I live in England.

Tell you what; you find two armed constables, get hopped up on PCP or meth or something else that lets you shrug off a pepper spray, break a few restauraunt windows, then try to take a swing at a cop with a crowbar from a meter or so away. If you are not shot, I'll apologize. If you are, then I win, and I'll accept your apology. How about that?

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

Guy came at the cop with a deadly weapon! I'd say it was justified. If the other cop hesitated, his buddy could have been put in a coma!!

 

[lockgar]

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.

So I am to assume your country never lost a single officer in the line of duty? You are using absolutes here for a single incident. Going off the fact the man was not at all reacting to getting tasered, entering in melee combat would have seen like a very bad idea, even with nightsticks. If the man was using a crowbar, as I am not sure what he is using here since that is a rather weird looking crowbar, it would not take a lot to puncture a human skull. While that man, seeing how what ever he was on, would not have easily gone down with a few strikes with anything intended to use shock damage as a means to subdue. Meaning if he couldn't feel pain, anything less then out right breaking his legs would and risk getting hit with a crowbar, would not work.

 

[Sylveria]

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.

Man how shitty and miserable is your life that no one cared when you were born and no one is gonna care when you are dead?

 

[ElPatron]

The officer who shot the suspect didn't even go for the leg shot

Look, bro. You don't go for leg shots. It's stupid.

It's a Hollywood myth. You DO NOT SHOOT for the legs. Why? The person might die anyway. But at what cost? Someone with a leg shot might still be able to walk AND attack.

If you shoot for the leg, it means you don't want to kill.

Guess what. Guns are meant to kill. If you didn't want to kill someone, why did you fire a gun?

You fire at center mass, and pull the trigger until the threat is down.

it just looked like he panicked and unloaded.

Police officers are trained to aim, and fire until they feel there is no threat. Most times police officers do not remember how many shots they fired when they have to do reports.

Firing at someone means you ARE in panic.

Do you think that the police is an organization of men and women trained to kill without second thoughts? Firing at a human being is always stressing.

And cops in England generally aren't armed with guns. I know because I live in England.

Tell you what; you find two armed constables, get hopped up on PCP or meth or something else that lets you shrug off a pepper spray, break a few restauraunt windows, then try to take a swing at a cop with a crowbar from a meter or so away. If you are not shot, I'll apologize. If you are, then I win, and I'll accept your apology. How about that?

Someone living in England with actual common sense regarding firearms and deadly force?

Mad props.

 

[Thyunda]

I live in England

Then why do you continue to declare our police force totally inept? I've seen the police overpower a man with a cricket bat before - and that was one officer. Sure, it's not a crowbar, but it WAS in mid-swing, and all it took was for the officer to close the distance and get inside the range of the bat. With the crowbar behind the vandal's head, all it would have taken is for the officer 'seconds away from being killed' to move forward, and suddenly the crowbar is totally fucking useless.

It all demonstrates that the officers in question have had NO training for this kind of encounter, so their first thoughts are on their guns.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

And we come to the center the the shrubbery maze. your cultural bigotry.

Considering that the only other option you came up with--the police dog--has been shown to be physically incapable of stopping the attack, you've not got much credibility. You're comparing apples and oranges; two violent incidents involving crowbars, in two entirely different countries, where the police are trained and equipped differently, and other circumstances were different. Most notably, the perp in your example was not attempting to assault a cop directly.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

So I am to assume your country never lost a single officer in the line of duty? You are using absolutes here for a single incident. Going off the fact the man was not at all reacting to getting tasered, entering in melee combat would have seen like a very bad idea, even with nightsticks. If the man was using a crowbar, as I am not sure what he is using here since that is a rather weird looking crowbar, it would not take a lot to puncture a human skull. While that man, seeing how what ever he was on, would not have easily gone down with a few strikes with anything intended to use shock damage as a means to subdue. Meaning if he couldn't feel pain, anything less then out right breaking his legs would and risk getting crowbared would not work.

Y'know, the police tend to rely on locks and holds rather than just pummelling somebody into submission. They don't rely on the pain threshold. Therefore whatever he was on is irrelevant.

 

[Krion_Vark]

It's probably unjustified, a crowbar is a short tange weapon, while a taser is a medium-short. They should have had their guns at the ready in case he tried to pull something out, while another officer made to stun him.

He doesn't even flinch when he gets tazed in the face. He then makes a move at the officer without the dog at his side. The one with the dog at his side is the one that shot the suspect. The one that he made the move at is the one with the taser.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

And we come to the center the the shrubbery maze. your cultural bigotry.

Considering that the only other option you came up with--the police dog--has been shown to be physically incapable of stopping the attack, you've not got much credibility.

Except hundreds of years of unarmed policing...

 

[senordesol]

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.

His death was necessary to preserve their own safety. He was given plenty of chances to surrender and didn't. I see no issue with putting him down. Again, your officers were injured and could have easily been killed. You haven't denied this. So, I infer, that you would rather risk the safety of your own officers rather than that of the perp. That is unconscionable to me.

Oh don't deny it, you heavily implied that our 'bobbies' have never had to deal with violent crime.

I implied no such thing. I asked for a similar scenario from which to compare resolutions. That I asked for one does not mean I believed that no such scenario existed, but that I was too unfamiliar with the criminal events in your country to draw an educated parallel.

For someone so resolute in defending the life of a violent criminal you sure seem quick to assume the worst of people.

 

[Sylveria]

Police straight up murdering someone? Shocking.

Well, that's what I want to say, but the guy brushed off getting tased like someone was tossing popcorn at him and was starting to charge with weapon ready.

I may not like the police and take almost every opportunity to call them murderous sadists (Not like they don't provide enough opportunities), but in this case there was an obvious threat, not some unarmed bystander getting drilled cause they weren't white enough that day.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

So I am to assume your country never lost a single officer in the line of duty? You are using absolutes here for a single incident. Going off the fact the man was not at all reacting to getting tasered, entering in melee combat would have seen like a very bad idea, even with nightsticks. If the man was using a crowbar, as I am not sure what he is using here since that is a rather weird looking crowbar, it would not take a lot to puncture a human skull. While that man, seeing how what ever he was on, would not have easily gone down with a few strikes with anything intended to use shock damage as a means to subdue. Meaning if he couldn't feel pain, anything less then out right breaking his legs would and risk getting crowbared would not work.

Y'know, the police tend to rely on locks and holds rather than just pummelling somebody into submission. They don't rely on the pain threshold. Therefore whatever he was on is irrelevant.

Those are less likely to work on people who are high, as they will and do ignore the pain and injury, even of a broken wrist. Also, they require getting within melee range. Of the guy who is swinging a crowbar. If the first cop could deal with it in melee, why was he trying to get away?

You're still using absolutes for a single incident you have demonstrated a remarkable paucity of knowledge on, and a lot of bigotry and braggadocio.

 

[lockgar]

I live in England

Then why do you continue to declare our police force totally inept? I've seen the police overpower a man with a cricket bat before - and that was one officer. Sure, it's not a crowbar, but it WAS in mid-swing, and all it took was for the officer to close the distance and get inside the range of the bat. With the crowbar behind the vandal's head, all it would have taken is for the officer 'seconds away from being killed' to move forward, and suddenly the crowbar is totally fucking useless.

It all demonstrates that the officers in question have had NO training for this kind of encounter, so their first thoughts are on their guns.

What was the circumstances of the cricket bat man? Was he under the influence of something? In any case you are stating that all officers have what is next to a 6th sense. Police can not take chances.

 

[orangeban]

Well yeah, but I'm not a police officer am I? I'm not trained to deal with situations like this, and I'm not expected to carry around a gun.

Do you think they're trained to have no fear? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting.

Bullets do not bounce off their skin, that weapon would not have slid off his head like a droplett of rain. The fear of death is not trained out of police officers, it's not even trained out of soldiers.

So it doesn't matter if you are or are not a police officer, that weapon would have cracked his or your head like an overripe melon all the same. And if you think that notion was lost on the cops here, then you should have another think coming.

No, but I'm saying that because the police panic and aren't immune from fear, they shouldn't be armed with guns.

Now, I don't know what the protocol for this type of situation is, but if I was could decide what actions should of been taken in this incident, I would of hung back, called for back-up (people with riot shields perhaps?) and only shot if a civilian was at risk.

 

[Drifter117]

Peacefull "occupy" protests = Armies of riot police, tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bags, grenade canisters to the face.

Some guy with a short range weapon who might even have some mental issues = A hail of bullets to the chest.

Look, I'm the last person who would tell people how to do their job but there is a serious issue with policemen over-reacting and abusing their power. Yes, he has a weapon but it's NOT a gun. That's a big plus for you guys because it means you can keep your distance, what the hell were you doing within swinging range of his crowbar? You're all carrying pistols and I don't know if you know this but those things can be fired at range. They're pretty accurate too so why you didn't try a shot to his hand or leg I'll never find out.

They never reached for pepper spray, or a tazer. Being Americans,I wouldnt be suprised if they wern't even issued those things but the one guy even had a fucking dog on him. Those things are trained to attack men armed with guns! You can't let rover off his leash to attack some crazy guy with a piece of metal in his hand??

I didn't see the entire thing so maybe they did try other options but when you have a problem your first instinct should NOT be to reach for a firearm, that is always meant to be a last resort. Unless your life, or the life of some innocent is in danger then keep your fingers off the triggers.

Thats the police for you; if there's even a chance of them getting hurt then they'll pussy out. If its one guy with a weapon, sure kill him.

 

[JonnWood]

...
I implied no such thing. I asked for a similar scenario from which to compare resolutions. That I asked for one does not mean I believed that no such scenario existed, but that I was too unfamiliar with the criminal events in your country to draw an educated parallel.
...

Most prominently, cops in the UK don't usually carry guns.

Thy's comparing apples and oranges.

 

[AlexWinter]

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.

So I am to assume your country never lost a single officer in the line of duty? You are using absolutes here for a single incident. Going off the fact the man was not at all reacting to getting tasered, entering in melee combat would have seen like a very bad idea, even with nightsticks. If the man was using a crowbar, as I am not sure what he is using here since that is a rather weird looking crowbar, it would not take a lot to puncture a human skull. While that man, seeing how what ever he was on, would not have easily gone down with a few strikes with anything intended to use shock damage as a means to subdue. Meaning if he couldn't feel pain, anything less then out right breaking his legs would and risk getting crowbared would not work.

Y'know, the police tend to rely on locks and holds rather than just pummelling somebody into submission. They don't rely on the pain threshold. Therefore whatever he was on is irrelevant.

Those are less likely to work on people who are high, as they will and do ignore the pain. Also, they require getting within melee range. Of the guy who is swinging a crowbar. If the first cop could deal with it in melee, why was he trying to get away?

That's the point. They should be trained in melee. Guns should be a last resort. Not a safety net.

This man would not have died in the UK.