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

[Laser Priest]

Leg shots aren't non-lethal. Still arteries to hit there.

Still, don't the officers generally have non-lethal weapons with more range then a crowbar?

Personally, I see just about everyone in that event as awful.

 

[jprf]

I think the shooting was justified- the guy was clearly about to bash the officer's head in. The question on my mind is: why shoot him more than once? One shot would have incapacitated him completely and removed the danger, but there is at least some chance of surgery saving his life (not huge, but enough to make it worth trying). The following 8-odd shots made that impossible.

 

[RagTagBand]

He had a deadly weapon, refused to disarm, the Police both tried diplomatic reasoning and a non-lethal takedown (I'm guessing that the taser either failed to penetrate his clothes, or he simply shrugged it off) to which the perp responded with an act of aggression towards that officer. The other officer, who had his gun drawn, defended the unarmed officer by shooting the perp.

Now, whilst I think that shooting someone 10 times is overkill the amount of bullets used IMO is largely irrelevant - The officer was justified in shooting the perp with the intention of removing the threat. When you're talking about guns that is an implicit intention to kill, You can't "Shoot to injure" someone for various reasons.

The Moral of the story is, besides not going on a violent rampage, when someone has a gun pointed at you, don't be so fucking cocky that you think they won't use it. Certainly don't threaten a cop with a pipe when there's a gun pointed at your chest.

 

[Jadak]

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

He can vandalize all the restaurants he wants, it's when he walks outside to a bunch of cops pointing guns at him that his life becomes no more relevant than his choice to do exactly what they say, or not.

 

[Thyunda]

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."

If the guy with the knife is under the influence of alcohol, usually there'll be an opportunity to disarm and subdue. If they're NOT drunk, and are fully capable of using their knife, then you're shit out of luck.

Honestly, people tell you all sorts of horror stories about homeless people. I can honestly say to you that the only homeless people I had problems with were English nationals who squandered the rent on alcohol and had to stay for a short period of time. During that time, they brought their territorial squabbles into the shelter, knifed each other, beat each other, attempted to intimidate myself and the other volunteers, all very chaotic.

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.

I'm sorry, but a Spec-ops soldier would have to have a pretty bad off-day for a drug-addled vandal with a crowbar to kill him.

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.

But dude, Bruce Lee wasn't a police officer in the UK with 'proper training'!

In other news, I don't think it's possible to get through to him, He's going to say training ad nauseum without giving any reason to think that different training would have helped the situation.

Well it would. Because pulling a gun on a guy with a crowbar is not how to handle the situation. If England can keep the streets safe without relying on firearms, then I don't see why America's so special.

 

[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.

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.

I'm sorry?

 

[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.

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.

Then good for him, he did take a risk, and it did pay off. It was also still incredibly risky move. Are you saying all police officers should engage in one on one melee combat with perps that are under the influence of something? I'm sure if you played that scene out a few times that officers would have gotten his skull caved, or a few broken bones by that bat. At which case would have left in immobile and at the perps whim.

However, that is not the issue then. However, for the sake of argument if we are to assume that the police in question are under trained here. Then the question is, where they justified in shooting the man with the training they did have? In which case, as you pointed at, yes, these officers where completely justified.

Much like the prisoner's dilemma, the rational decision here at such a short time would be to take the life of the perp. I will let you go now though, since you are dealing with two other people as well.

 

[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.

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.

Do you not understand what a swing consists of? I'm not even sure we're watching the same video.

At around 39 seconds in he gets tazed and pulls the tazer prongs out. At 42 he turns to the closest officer the one without the weapon and starts bringing the weapon back. The start of the swing. From 44-47 it's behind his head and he's rushing towards the officer trying to swing it at him. The middle of the swing. Those are seconds, and a finished swing would have been an officer with a crowbar to his skull, dead.

I don't understand why you want cops to die.

 

[Thyunda]

However, that is not the issue then. However, for the sake of argument if we are to assume that the police in question are under trained here. Then the question is, where they justified in shooting the man with the training they did have? In which case, as you pointed at, yes, these officers where completely justified..

Justified isn't the word I'd use...but yes, that would be the only way out of the situation. Which, you might notice, is why I've not insulted the policeman. If he's not trained, he did the only thing he knew to do. Which indicates a massive problem with the system.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Possibly, i cant really tell.

But from what i can gather....
1. he was dumb enough to stand up to cops for some reason
2. crowbars are easily lethal (see Gordon Freeman clause)
3. If he charged a cop with it, its usually justified, the cop may not have intended for it to be lethal, but even a 'non lethal' hit can kill.
4. maby the guy was on drugs, people on crack or cocain highs can take a few rounds.
5. we may not have the whole story, that camera was piss poor.

 

[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.

Do you not understand what a swing consists of? I'm not even sure we're watching the same video.

At around 39 seconds in he gets tazed and pulls the tazer prongs out. At 42 he turns to the closest officer the one without the weapon and starts bringing the weapon back. The start of the swing. From 44-47 it's behind his head and he's rushing towards the officer trying to swing it at him. The middle of the swing. Those are seconds, and a finished swing would have been an officer with a crowbar to his skull, dead.

Rewatching the video...I see that he turns to the officer with the crowbar (It doesn't even look like a crowbar) ready to swing. At this point, there is still enough distance between him and the officer for the dog to be useful, given that both the guy's arms are in the dog's direction.

 

[Mikeyfell]

The guy is still standing after the first few shots. He's behind the car.

I noticed that the second time I watched, too lazy to change the post.

There are situations where using the gun like that is actually recommended.

well yeah, but since this guy wasn't granted super powers by gamma radiation I doubt this was one of those situations. (Was he waring a bullet proof vest? If that was the case then I get it)

A guy who seemed to be high enough to shrug off pepper spray? Unlikely.

You know I was talking about a head shot right? The assumption on my part being that that cop wanted that guy dead Otherwise that cop would have stopped after the first 5 shots. (Unless the gamma radiation or the bullet proof vest thing was the case.

Assuming all the bullets hit.

Well you know I am of the opinion that all cops are god awful shots so maybe he that is the case. but still 10 shots at that range? I doubt he could have missed if he tried.

Did I mention that he was shot 10 times? Yes, okay good, because I feel that's an important part of the story. Anyway like I said I have no way of knowing how much that guy either did or didn't deserve to get shot 10 times (of which 5 were in the back)

no, they weren't, because he was not neutralized.

Hold on. Five of those shots weren't in his back because he wasn't neutralized? He was still shot in the back regardless of any of that.
Hold on again. Are you the officer from the video? Because then this comment would make perfect since.


But in all seriousness I honestly didn't consider that he might have been waring a bullet proof vest until I read your comment so if that happens to be the case then there was obvious forethought that he would end up getting shot at by someone so that makes me think he deserves it more than not. But still 10? That's a lot of bullets

 

[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.

But dude, Bruce Lee wasn't a police officer in the UK with 'proper training'!

In other news, I don't think it's possible to get through to him, He's going to say training ad nauseum without giving any reason to think that different training would have helped the situation.

Well it would. Because pulling a gun on a guy with a crowbar is not how to handle the situation. If England can keep the streets safe without relying on firearms, then I don't see why America's so special.

Thanks for proving my point by not giving a reason to think that it would have helped the situation. Pointing at the UK doesn't show that their training would have been better or successful in said situation.

Also who said it was special? America and England aren't the same. That isn't being special. It's called having more criminals with firearms.

I'm not arguing that armed cops are bad - I'm saying that they were unnecessary for this particular situation. America has a lot of guns in circulation. Therefore officers need to be prepared at all times to deal with guns. This was not a gun. This exact situation could have occurred in the UK and it wouldn't have been unique - the only difference would be that nobody shot him.

 

[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.

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.

So what? People with artillery have an advantage over people with AK-47s.

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

You were the one talking about "proper training". Lee could probably take down the guy with the crowbar in melee, but he probably wouldn't.

 

[cthulhumythos]

But, but but...they could have shot him enough to get him to drop the thingy, but not hurt him...like in the movies!

Or, they could try wrestling with the guy with the bit hitty thing and totally not get injured...like in the movies!

But the Cops didn't need to shoot and kill the person to stop him.

They could have easily dived away in slow motion whilst dual wielding their guns and firing at the gas tank of the car next to the assailant, causing a minor explosive fireball which would have knocked him off his feet but otherwise leaving him unharmed.

Then they would have cracked a joke about him being a "hot customer" whilst sharing stories about the fishing boat they're going to buy when they retire in 2 days time.

Basically, an innocent man was needlessly murdered because a couple of 'by-the-book' Cops haven't watch enough movies and don't have the balls to be wisecracking maverick loose cannons.

I hope their Angry Black Captain tears them a new one and sends them back to Police Academy (and Police Academy 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7).

ok that was my favorite post ever.

anyhoo... yeah. totally justified. the dude was gonna attack and possibly murder a cop. the cops responded in kind by murdering him first. i don't get the controversy.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Rewatching the video...I see that he turns to the officer with the crowbar (It doesn't even look like a crowbar) ready to swing. At this point, there is still enough distance between him and the officer for the dog to be useful, given that both the guy's arms are in the dog's direction.

I agree with one thing, it doesn't look like a crowbar. It looks more like a long handle ball peen hammer from the video. I just don't think that the weapon should have to be an inch from the other officers face for him to justify opening fire.

 

[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.

So what? People with artillery have an advantage over people with AK-47s.

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

You were the one talking about "proper training". Lee could probably take down the guy with the crowbar in melee, but he probably wouldn't.

Somehow I think he's more likely to take him down in melee, rather than just shoot him dead. See, people in real life tend to have a little more respect for human life. Here in the Internet, it's all so lovely to say "He's violent, shoot him."

And people with artillery don't necessarily have an advantage over AK-47s. In this situation, if the crowbar was an AK and the police were a pair of artillery batteries...well, the AK would win because artillery is useless at that range. So I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

 

[senordesol]

I'm sorry, but a Spec-ops soldier would have to have a pretty bad off-day for a drug-addled vandal with a crowbar to kill him.

I see that you've chosen to ignore the more salient point that Police are not SpecOps, and that even trained men can be caught off guard (like, say, the officer distracted with his tools).

When weapons are involved, shit can go wrong double quick. And when someone can shrug off a taser, that doesn't inspire much confidence in fisticuffs.

Finally, if someone comes at a cop with a crowbar and said cop has a gun; what happens to the perp is his fault for not only being violent, but stupid too.