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

[Sylveria]

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.

You hippies make me smile. Yeah, try and get the guy with a crowbar who just waived off a taser to the face in a hammer lock. See how that works out for ya. Congrats, you're now a hostage.

People need to stop watching so many Steven Segal movies, it's warping their view of reality.

 

[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.

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?

And now you're seeing things from my point of view. The first cop SHOULD have been able to handle it. But clearly he wasn't trained, experienced or capable. So why was he wearing the big boy's uniform?
And locks work on people who are high. It's not about pain. It's about distribution of pressure and blocking any movement.

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.

If the situations were more similar, I can guarantee the injuries would have been a lot less frequent or severe. However, the lack of movement space and the priority target meant that the officers couldn't afford to assault the attacker.

You used the word 'bobby'. That term is inherently patronising. And if the man was truly just a vandal, there's no evidence he even had it in him to swing for the officer. Perhaps he's not necessarily a violent criminal. Course, we will never know, because 'justice' came in the form of death. And dead people don't talk, rehabilitate, redeem themselves or have any further part in society. The fact he was high just reinforces the possibility of a drug problem.

You people are so fucking callous.

 

[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.

You hippies make me smile. Yeah, try and get the guy with a crowbar who just waived off a taser to the face in a hammer lock. See how that works out for ya. Congrats, you're now a hostage.

People need to stop watching so many Steven Segal movies, it's warping their view of reality.

Oh God forbid I might have actually worked with dangerous people and, not only seen the police subdue armed troublemakers, had to deal with unarmed ones myself! Course, those jobs don't exist in real life!

 

[spartandude]

I think it's justified because that cop acted on basic instinct. If I had a gun and a man with a weapon turned at me in a threatening way I wouldn't hesitate to shoot.

if i was in his situation i might do the same, but that doesnt mean it was right or justified. for one i would expect better of police officers, all that training and such, but the shouldnt be using live rounds to begin with. they should have been using rubber rounds, tasers. hell that dog could have overpowerd the suspect giving the police the oppitunity to restrain him

Guns should be a last resort. Not a safety net.

also i could not have said it better myself

 

[Thyunda]

...
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.

Heh. You called me Thy.

And I'm comparing police to police. They perform the same role. Just ours don't kill people.

 

[JonnWood]

I live in England

Then why do you continue to declare our police force totally inept?

I did not and do not argue that. I am arguing that they literally do not have the same options and training US cops do, nor are they faced with the same challenges. "Totally inept" is a misrepresentation of my position. It is literally impossible for your average Bobby to respond in the same way these officers did, and thus any comparison between the two, or crowing about how the UK cops are "better", is irrelevant.

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.

I see. Was this after or before he swung?

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 would've taken more time to move forward than the cop in question had available.

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.

False. They asked him to stop. Then they tried to use pepper spray. Then the perp escalated the situation to the level of deadly force. Not the cops. The guy trying to cave the cop's head in.


Police are justified in responding to deadly force with deadly force. This WAS according to their training. This is exactly what they are supposed to do.

 

[ElPatron]

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.

Wait, what?

those things can be fired at range. They're pretty accurate

You have NEVER fired a handgun. Sure, I can pop soda bottles at 15m easily, and hit a 25" gong at 50 yards, but that was with ball ammo and a match grade pistol.

Handguns are VERY inaccurate. The sights are very hard to use when you need to acquire targets, even in close range.

Throw some jacketed hollow points and your ammo isn't very aerodynamic anymore.

If you aim for the hands or legs you are going to miss. Even if you have a slight chance of hitting, you might not be able to stop the man in time.

 

[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.

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.

Heroin. There was a lot of shouting and brandishing beforehand. The officer made a few false starts, and avoided the first swing. It was on the second that he decided to make a real move.

 

[lockgar]

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.

Which goes back to the first problem of engaging in arms length range of a man who is high on something.

As my TaeKwonDo instructor once told me, when going up against someone with a knife "even if you might be a black belt in X style, that man still has a knife." and that was a man with several different black belts, not just TaeKwonDo.

 

[Thyunda]

I live in England

Then why do you continue to declare our police force totally inept?

I did not and do not argue that. I am arguing that they literally do not have the same options and training US cops do, nor are they faced with the same challenges. "Totally inept" is a misrepresentation of my position. It is literally impossible for your average Bobby to respond in the same way these officers did, and thus any comparison between the two, or crowing about how the UK cops are "better", is irrelevant.

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.

I see. Was this after or before he swung?

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 would've taken more time to move forward than the cop in question had available.

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.

False. They asked him to stop. Then they tried to use pepper spray. Then the perp escalated the situation to the level of deadly force. Not the cops. The guy trying to cave the cop's head in.


Police are justified in responding to deadly force with deadly force. This WAS according to their training. This is exactly what they are supposed to do.

Mid-swing. Second swing. And remember where the crowbar was - it was behind the guy's head. The officer had all the time in the world to take him - had he known what he was doing.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

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.

Really? A cricket bat and a crowbar are different? I'm not so sure.

Spoiler: Cricket bat

Spoiler: Crowbar

I'm sure you approach both situations the exact same way, right?

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/576/copma.png/]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us [http://imageshack.us]

 

[JonnWood]

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

As I posted a page or two back, one of those "peaceful protests" was actually people threatening police and preventing them from transporting prisoners.

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

And the nearer officer was within that range. Or would it have been okay if he had caved the cop's skull in first?

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?

Trying to use pepper spray. Y'know, subdue him non-lethally?

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.

That would also likely kill him. Just slower.

They never reached for pepper spray, or a tazer.

False.

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.

They used what looks like pepper spray.

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??

Well, no, not if they were trying to resolve the situation with lesser force.

I didn't see the entire thing

And yet you posted.

so maybe they did try other options

I like how you were calling them out for not doing something you're not sure they did or not.

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.

The guy was about to hit the nearer cop. Deadly force.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Which goes back to the first problem of engaging in arms length range of a man who is high on something.

As my TaeKwonDo instructor once told me, when going up against someone with a knife "even if you might be a black belt in X style, that man still has a knife." and that was a man with several different black belts, not just TaeKwonDo.

A knife can't hurt you if you stay out of arm's reach. If you're lucky, alcohol will have loosened his grip. If you're unlucky, you probably ought to find some way out of there.

Taekwondo made up my training, too. Helped me subdue unruly homeless people when they got angry at the shelter.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

One guy with a weapon who is actively attempting to employ deadly force on a police officer, who has shrugged off pepper spray.

 

[Nemesis729]

The officer who shot the suspect didn't even go for the leg shot, it just looked like he panicked and unloaded.

I don't really know the whole story here, maybe the guy had a bomb or had just murdered someone, but this isn't hollywood man, it's illegal for a cop to shoot someone in the leg, if a cop shoots it has to be with the intent to kill.

Also I believe dogs are only to be set on people who are fleeing or who do not have a weapon, this guy obviously did. You can see that at :39 they seem to use pepper spray on him, and he walks it off

As for the stun gun I'm sure the officers would have used it if the hadn't been about to beat a cop over the head with a crowbar, The way I see it the officer did what he was trained to do and I really don't blame him.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Really? A cricket bat and a crowbar are different? I'm not so sure.

Spoiler: Cricket bat

Spoiler: Crowbar

I'm sure you approach both situations the exact same way, right?

[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/576/copma.png/]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us [http://imageshack.us]

I'm going to assume you were being sarcastic, because grammatically you agreed with me.

And depending on how the attacker is holding the crowbar...yes. You do. Because a crowbar can't hurt you if it doesn't hit you.

 

[senordesol]

If the situations were more similar, I can guarantee the injuries would have been a lot less frequent or severe. However, the lack of movement space and the priority target meant that the officers couldn't afford to assault the attacker.

You used the word 'bobby'. That term is inherently patronising. And if the man was truly just a vandal, there's no evidence he even had it in him to swing for the officer. Perhaps he's not necessarily a violent criminal. Course, we will never know, because 'justice' came in the form of death. And dead people don't talk, rehabilitate, redeem themselves or have any further part in society. The fact he was high just reinforces the possibility of a drug problem.

You people are so fucking callous.

You can guarantee no such thing. The results of a melee, particularly with a heavy weapon can easily result in serious injury despite the best training one can receive.

I'm sorry the word 'Bobby' offends you, I've heard it used -often affectionately- in reference to the British police. No offense was intended, I won't use it again.

Finally, if a man comes at you with a crowbar, that is all the 'evidence' you need to consider him a threat. Particularly, if he does so while a bunch of your buddies have got guns pointed at him. 'Redemption', 'Rehabilitation', 'His Lifetime Original Movie worthy life's story' these are all academic the instant he threatens a fellow human being. The police have lives and family too, and sometimes it comes down to 'him or me.' It's sad, but true.

It is better that he is dead rather than any of the officers there. If that makes me callous, I take that as a high compliment.

 

[spartandude]

so to the people saying that police should use deadly force when they may be in danger. lets say there's a riot, obviously anyone in it path is in danger (general public, paramedics, firefighters, police officers) would you be fine with the police fireing into the crowd? potentially killing several people?

 

[JonnWood]

I live in England

Then why do you continue to declare our police force totally inept?

I did not and do not argue that. I am arguing that they literally do not have the same options and training US cops do, nor are they faced with the same challenges. "Totally inept" is a misrepresentation of my position. It is literally impossible for your average Bobby to respond in the same way these officers did, and thus any comparison between the two, or crowing about how the UK cops are "better", is irrelevant.

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.

I see. Was this after or before he swung?

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 would've taken more time to move forward than the cop in question had available.

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.

False. They asked him to stop. Then they tried to use pepper spray. Then the perp escalated the situation to the level of deadly force. Not the cops. The guy trying to cave the cop's head in.


Police are justified in responding to deadly force with deadly force. This WAS according to their training. This is exactly what they are supposed to do.

Mid-swing. Second swing. And remember where the crowbar was - it was behind the guy's head. The officer had all the time in the world to take him - had he known what he was doing.

No, he had a few seconds, at most, before the perp was in range of his fellow officer or that officer drew his own weapon. From the position the perp was in, it takes less than a second to swing. I just tried it. Find a golf club or similar object and have someone time you.

Interesting how you ignore my other points. Again.

 

[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.

Heh. You called me Thy.

And I'm comparing police to police.

You're comparing fruit to fruit.

They perform the same role.

No, they don't, any more than the Royal Marines do the same job as the SAS because they're both military.

Just ours don't kill people.

As often. Because they don't usually carry guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#Fatal_incidents

I love that you can't even get that simple statement right, especially when such a shooting less than six months ago kicked off the London Riots.