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

[Thyunda]

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.

If you think the best training can't defend you from a heavy melee weapon...then I don't think you know the meaning of training.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

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.

Do you not realize that a dead violent criminal is more acceptable than an injured police officer? Not all life is to be valued equally.

Would you really let this guy injure you to avoid killing him?

 

[JonnWood]

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.

I just noticed that Thyunda cut out the entire rest of my post except for that sentence. Almost as if they didn't want to respond to it.

 

[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.

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.

American police and British police are both tasked with enforcing the law in their respective countries.

And the shooting six months ago, shockingly, involved another firearm. And you're totally ignorant if you think THAT'S what caused the riots. That caused a protest. Stupid little fucks with an eye for the shop windows is what caused the riots.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

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.

Last time I checked, the police officer that shot the suspect wasn't the one being swung on. So, NO you don't approach the situation the same way. If I am trained use my firearm to protect my fellow officer, I have my gun out, and the suspect is in mid swing within seconds of killing another officer with a crowbar I am not going to rely on the other officer. I am going to save his life.

 

[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.

Do you not realize that a dead violent criminal is more acceptable than an injured police officer? Not all life is to be valued equally.

Would you really let this guy injure you to avoid killing him?

Course. Once a guy vandalises a restaurant, he's no longer human.

 

[JonnWood]

If you think the best training can't defend you from a heavy melee weapon...then I don't think you know the meaning of training.

Bruce Lee once said he would prefer to use a gun in a fight if it were available. Yes, martial arts training could have helped the cop. But it would've put him at more risk than using a gun, which he was actively trying to do. I continue to assert that literally any other option would not have been able to intervene in time, and deadly force is an appropriate response to deadly force.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Last time I checked, the police officer that shot the suspect wasn't the one being swung on. So, NO you don't approach the situation the same way. If I am trained use my firearm to protect my fellow officer, I have my gun out, and the suspect is in mid swing within seconds of killing another officer with a crowbar I am not going to rely on the other officer. I am going to save his life.

And that's an example of improper training. And the suspect in this case wasn't even in mid-swing. He had the thing behind his fucking head.

 

[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.

Do you not realize that a dead violent criminal is more acceptable than an injured police officer? Not all life is to be valued equally.

Would you really let this guy injure you to avoid killing him?

Course. Once a guy vandalises a restaurant, he's no longer human.

Straw man, dodging questions.

 

[el_negro]

In my country in order to get shot by a police officer you have to shoot at him/her first, and be facing straight at the cop

 

[JonnWood]

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.

Last time I checked, the police officer that shot the suspect wasn't the one being swung on. So, NO you don't approach the situation the same way. If I am trained use my firearm to protect my fellow officer, I have my gun out, and the suspect is in mid swing within seconds of killing another officer with a crowbar I am not going to rely on the other officer. I am going to save his life.

And that's an example of improper training. And the suspect in this case wasn't even in mid-swing. He had the thing behind his fucking head.

You keep asserting that it's "improper training", while demonstrating little actual knowledge of US police training.

 

[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.

Do you not realize that a dead violent criminal is more acceptable than an injured police officer? Not all life is to be valued equally.

Would you really let this guy injure you to avoid killing him?

Course. Once a guy vandalises a restaurant, he's no longer human.

Straw man, dodging questions.

Sorry, missed the question.

And yes. I would. I'm wearing a police uniform, I've got the training behind me. This is EXACTLY the situation I'm supposed to be in.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Last time I checked, the police officer that shot the suspect wasn't the one being swung on. So, NO you don't approach the situation the same way. If I am trained use my firearm to protect my fellow officer, I have my gun out, and the suspect is in mid swing within seconds of killing another officer with a crowbar I am not going to rely on the other officer. I am going to save his life.

And that's an example of improper training. And the suspect in this case wasn't even in mid-swing. He had the thing behind his fucking head.

You keep asserting that it's "improper training", while demonstrating little actual knowledge of US police training.

Then the US police training is improper.

 

[JonnWood]

American police and British police are both tasked with enforcing the law in their respective countries.

And both the Royal Marines and the SAS are tasked with the safety of the realm, yet they do their jobs differently.

And the shooting six months ago, shockingly, involved another firearm. And you're totally ignorant if you think THAT'S what caused the riots. That caused a protest. Stupid little fucks with an eye for the shop windows is what caused the riots.

Nitpicking. UK cops do shoot and kill suspects. You were wrong. Again.

 

[Thyunda]

If you think the best training can't defend you from a heavy melee weapon...then I don't think you know the meaning of training.

Bruce Lee once said he would prefer to use a gun in a fight if it were available. Yes, martial arts training could have helped the cop. But it would've put him at more risk than using a gun, which he was actively trying to do. I continue to assert that literally any other option would not have been able to intervene in time, and deadly force is an appropriate response to deadly force.

If the other guy had a gun, then a gun is acceptable.
But if it's you and your friend and your dog against a guy with a crowbar, then a gun is totally unacceptable. You already have the advantage.

And Bruce Lee is not a police officer. He is not entrusted with defending the public, only himself.

 

[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.

Do you not realize that a dead violent criminal is more acceptable than an injured police officer? Not all life is to be valued equally.

Would you really let this guy injure you to avoid killing him?

Course. Once a guy vandalises a restaurant, he's no longer human.

Straw man, dodging questions.

Sorry, missed the question.

And yes. I would. I'm wearing a police uniform, I've got the training behind me. This is EXACTLY the situation I'm supposed to be in.

Even assuming you're not speaking hypothetically; you're a UK cop. You don't have a gun. You don't have the training for it. And you've demonstrated a remarkable amount of ignorance.

 

[Thyunda]

American police and British police are both tasked with enforcing the law in their respective countries.

And both the Royal Marines and the SAS are tasked with the safety of the realm, yet they do their jobs differently.

And the shooting six months ago, shockingly, involved another firearm. And you're totally ignorant if you think THAT'S what caused the riots. That caused a protest. Stupid little fucks with an eye for the shop windows is what caused the riots.

Nitpicking. UK cops do shoot and kill suspects. You were wrong. Again.

Right. Because the Royal Marines and the SAS have different roles. The police, regardless of the country, have one role.

And yes. UK cops do shoot and kill suspects. But not crowbar armed vandals in a restaurant car park.

EDIT: You can tell because it's a special unit designed to deal with gun crime.

 

[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.

If you think the best training can't defend you from a heavy melee weapon...then I don't think you know the meaning of training.

Right. No Spec-ops soldier has ever perished before a blade or heavy object. In any case, no training that an American police department can afford can guarantee that outcome.

 

[lockgar]

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.

You can't subdue someone if your out of arms length of them.

Also Kudos to you and the homeless shelter. That is something I would never try with the homeless, with diseases and psychosis and all. "Personal experience, does not apply to all."