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

[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.

I think you mean 'repeating ad nauseum without proof'.

In this particular situation guns were fine. You're naive if you think that all situations without guns can be easily dealt with without them.

Yes, the UK would have dealt with it perfectly! Just like that evidence says. Oh wait a minute, we still don't have evidence the UK would have dealt with it better. We have some guy that repeats things ad nauseum.

Yo're still proving my point btw.

So...why exactly don't they call in the armed police for crowbar incidents?

Circular logic. The way the UK police do it is better because... They don't do it another way? Lolwut?

Clearly it's better to do it this way. Why exactly didn't they disarm the cops before sending them in?

How is it better to do it that way? That's totally unnecessary, given that you'd expect the cops to be disciplined enough to not shoot somebody when there are other options.

How is better to do it your way? It's totally unnecessary to remove an option given that the cops would be deprived of the option if they needed it.

Btw, they were disciplined enough. There were no other options that you provided except what amounts to "They can take him on!", which is unsubstantiated.

I can play this stupid game too.

It's not only unsubstantiated, it's outright false. Dog wasn't fast enough, melee puts the cops in only slightly less danger, and pepper spray was not working, nor could either cop draw and use a taser before the suspect could've completed his swing.

Prove the dog wouldn't be fast enough. The perp wasn't swinging, he wasn't preparing to swing, he was still trying to close the distance. Dogs are pretty fucking fast. Faster than his little sideways jaunt at any rate.

 

[senordesol]

Well, it's irrelevant to the situation as it played out, but it IS relevant in the aftermath. A lot of the sentiment here is "Good, another stupid person out of the world", when that's a ridiculous attitude to have.
I just don't get why the police have to resort to guns in what should be a fairly common crime.

I tried to Google for conduit-bender related crime to find some example of dealing with it, but all I found was a guy getting his cock stuck in a pipe. So...back to square one on that.

Attacking a police officer with a deadly weapon SHOULD NOT be a common crime. I am shocked and horrified that you think otherwise. But not so shocked and horrified as I am that you think the thusly threatened officers should not respond with all the speed and effectiveness they can muster to end the threat.

 

[JonnWood]

I dont wanna watch a man get shot so im just piecing this together from what others have said and pictures. The actual shooting wasnt justified as in there may have been a better alternative however the officer seemed to have acted in the heat of the moment out of fear so he can be forgiven for the consequences. The man didnt deserve death but this doesnt sound like an execution as the OP inferred. Again i have not watched the video so my opinion may be invalid due to false or misinterpreted information.


Also the guy clearly wasnt thinking straight or atleast had problems so dont blame him for his actions and dont condemn him for the lack of sense in confronting armed officers.

The OP is biased, and leaves out the fact that the suspect was breaking windows in the restauraunt. He shrugged off requests to stop and pepper spray, and while the near cop was putting it back in his belt, the perp tried to attack him with a long weapon like an extended crowbar, capable of deadly force. At this point, the fellow officer, who had his gun pointed at the suspect, opened fire. After several shots, the suspect was still standing, so the cop continued to fire, and the suspect went down.

No, he couldn't have shot him in the leg or arm, that still kills people. You don't shoot unless you are willing to kill. Firearms 101.

 

[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.

Correction. The cops would've killed him, not murdered him. If the perp had a good lawyer and was high, he might be able to get Manslaughter.

oh, i forgot that 'murder' isn't synonymous with kill/make dead. i wasn't using the term to utilize it's negative connotation. i just used it to mean 'kill'.

The More You Know!

 

[Thyunda]

Well, it's irrelevant to the situation as it played out, but it IS relevant in the aftermath. A lot of the sentiment here is "Good, another stupid person out of the world", when that's a ridiculous attitude to have.
I just don't get why the police have to resort to guns in what should be a fairly common crime.

I tried to Google for conduit-bender related crime to find some example of dealing with it, but all I found was a guy getting his cock stuck in a pipe. So...back to square one on that.

Attacking a police officer with a deadly weapon SHOULD NOT be a common crime. I am shocked and horrified that you think otherwise. But not so shocked and horrified as I am that you think the thusly threatened officers should not respond with all the speed and effectiveness they can muster to end the threat.

Well it IS a common crime. Police officers are regularly subjected to violence and threats. And alcohol or other drugs are usually major factors in it. No sober, sane, healthy person would pull a weapon on a police officer. In my crowbar attack case, you might notice it was emphasised that the attacker was completely out of his mind. In this case, there's a major suspicion of drug use.
It's not about sending a message, in these cases. The police are the ones who are supposed to be able to handle this situation without bloodshed.

 

[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.

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.

I think you mean 'repeating ad nauseum without proof'.

In this particular situation guns were fine. You're naive if you think that all situations without guns can be easily dealt with without them.

Yes, the UK would have dealt with it perfectly! Just like that evidence says. Oh wait a minute, we still don't have evidence the UK would have dealt with it better. We have some guy that repeats things ad nauseum.

Yo're still proving my point btw.

So...why exactly don't they call in the armed police for crowbar incidents?

Circular logic. The way the UK police do it is better because... They don't do it another way? Lolwut?

Clearly it's better to do it this way. Why exactly didn't they disarm the cops before sending them in?

How is it better to do it that way? That's totally unnecessary, given that you'd expect the cops to be disciplined enough to not shoot somebody when there are other options.

How is better to do it your way? It's totally unnecessary to remove an option given that the cops would be deprived of the option if they needed it.

Btw, they were disciplined enough. There were no other options that you provided except what amounts to "They can take him on!", which is unsubstantiated.

I can play this stupid game too.

They weren't disciplined enough, they restrained their dog so they could shoot the vandal. I'm not sure how this equates to discipline.

Oh good one! Or was that not a joke? They restrained the dog in the first place presumably so that it wouldn't be dog vs guy with crowbar. It would be better if the taser had worked than if it went down to dog vs crowbar. So taser first. That wasn't a matter of discipline. They then didn't let the dog loose after the taser failed because it wasn't a good idea to risk it. But apparently you'd rather just toss whatever you can at him EXCEPT the most effective means to make sure he didn't get the cop with the crowbar.

You keep whining about discipline and training without giving a better alternative for them.

No, really, don't bother. Thy is basically arguing that the police should not be allowed respond to the immediate threat of deadly force with deadly force. This is based largely on their knowledge of UK police, which generally don't even carry guns, and several statements they've made on even UK cops have been wrong, such as the claim that they don't kill anyone.

 

[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.

I think you mean 'repeating ad nauseum without proof'.

In this particular situation guns were fine. You're naive if you think that all situations without guns can be easily dealt with without them.

Yes, the UK would have dealt with it perfectly! Just like that evidence says. Oh wait a minute, we still don't have evidence the UK would have dealt with it better. We have some guy that repeats things ad nauseum.

Yo're still proving my point btw.

So...why exactly don't they call in the armed police for crowbar incidents?

Circular logic. The way the UK police do it is better because... They don't do it another way? Lolwut?

Clearly it's better to do it this way. Why exactly didn't they disarm the cops before sending them in?

How is it better to do it that way? That's totally unnecessary, given that you'd expect the cops to be disciplined enough to not shoot somebody when there are other options.

How is better to do it your way? It's totally unnecessary to remove an option given that the cops would be deprived of the option if they needed it.

Btw, they were disciplined enough. There were no other options that you provided except what amounts to "They can take him on!", which is unsubstantiated.

I can play this stupid game too.

They weren't disciplined enough, they restrained their dog so they could shoot the vandal. I'm not sure how this equates to discipline.

Oh good one! Or was that not a joke? They restrained the dog in the first place presumably so that it wouldn't be dog vs guy with crowbar. It would be better if the taser had worked than if it went down to dog vs crowbar. So taser first. That wasn't a matter of discipline. They then didn't let the dog loose after the taser failed because it wasn't a good idea to risk it. But apparently you'd rather just toss whatever you can at him EXCEPT the most effective means to make sure he didn't get the cop with the crowbar.

You keep whining about discipline and training without giving a better alternative for them.

To risk...what, exactly? A conduit bender at short range against a dog attached to his wrist? not to mention he wasn't even looking at the dog - or the gun in his face, for that matter. It's interesting that he turned to the cop whose gun was still in its holster, completely ignoring the pistol that couldn't have been more than two feet away from his ear.
But yes - the dog is clearly the most suitable tool in this situation.

 

[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.

I think you mean 'repeating ad nauseum without proof'.

In this particular situation guns were fine. You're naive if you think that all situations without guns can be easily dealt with without them.

Yes, the UK would have dealt with it perfectly! Just like that evidence says. Oh wait a minute, we still don't have evidence the UK would have dealt with it better. We have some guy that repeats things ad nauseum.

Yo're still proving my point btw.

So...why exactly don't they call in the armed police for crowbar incidents?

Circular logic. The way the UK police do it is better because... They don't do it another way? Lolwut?

Clearly it's better to do it this way. Why exactly didn't they disarm the cops before sending them in?

How is it better to do it that way? That's totally unnecessary, given that you'd expect the cops to be disciplined enough to not shoot somebody when there are other options.

How is better to do it your way? It's totally unnecessary to remove an option given that the cops would be deprived of the option if they needed it.

Btw, they were disciplined enough. There were no other options that you provided except what amounts to "They can take him on!", which is unsubstantiated.

I can play this stupid game too.

They weren't disciplined enough, they restrained their dog so they could shoot the vandal. I'm not sure how this equates to discipline.

Oh good one! Or was that not a joke? They restrained the dog in the first place presumably so that it wouldn't be dog vs guy with crowbar. It would be better if the taser had worked than if it went down to dog vs crowbar. So taser first. That wasn't a matter of discipline. They then didn't let the dog loose after the taser failed because it wasn't a good idea to risk it. But apparently you'd rather just toss whatever you can at him EXCEPT the most effective means to make sure he didn't get the cop with the crowbar.

You keep whining about discipline and training without giving a better alternative for them.

No, really, don't bother. Thy is basically arguing that the police should not be allowed respond to the immediate threat of deadly force with deadly force. This is based largely on their knowledge of UK police, which generally don't even carry guns, and several statements they've made on even UK cops have been wrong, such as the claim that they don't
kill anyone.

You keep repeating that last point, despite the fact I never once said it. I was stating that the police don't kill people. Which is true. However, the gun crime units DO. But the police department I was referring to was NOT the gun crime unit, and therefore your statement is sensationalist bollocks intended to slander me and render my points invalid through ad hominim arguments.
Immediate threat my arse. He was still trying to close the distance. In this context, that's not immediate. That's only slightly immediate.

 

[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.

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.

I think you mean 'repeating ad nauseum without proof'.

In this particular situation guns were fine. You're naive if you think that all situations without guns can be easily dealt with without them.

Yes, the UK would have dealt with it perfectly! Just like that evidence says. Oh wait a minute, we still don't have evidence the UK would have dealt with it better. We have some guy that repeats things ad nauseum.

Yo're still proving my point btw.

So...why exactly don't they call in the armed police for crowbar incidents?

Circular logic. The way the UK police do it is better because... They don't do it another way? Lolwut?

Clearly it's better to do it this way. Why exactly didn't they disarm the cops before sending them in?

How is it better to do it that way? That's totally unnecessary, given that you'd expect the cops to be disciplined enough to not shoot somebody when there are other options.

How is better to do it your way? It's totally unnecessary to remove an option given that the cops would be deprived of the option if they needed it.

Btw, they were disciplined enough. There were no other options that you provided except what amounts to "They can take him on!", which is unsubstantiated.

I can play this stupid game too.

It's not only unsubstantiated, it's outright false. Dog wasn't fast enough, melee puts the cops in only slightly less danger, and pepper spray was not working, nor could either cop draw and use a taser before the suspect could've completed his swing.

Prove the dog wouldn't be fast enough. The perp wasn't swinging, he wasn't preparing to swing, he was still trying to close the distance. Dogs are pretty fucking fast. Faster than his little sideways jaunt at any rate.

Prove he wasn't preparing to swing. You can't even tell how much distance he needed to close from that angle.

And trying to, by Thy's own claim, "close the distance" means he was trying to get in range to swing. Even if he was trying to "intimidate" the cops, there was absolutely nothing distinguishing his behavior from that of someone trying to swing.

Incidentally, the dog would've had to move forward, gather itself, then jump for the suspects arm, and he's wearing a thick jacket. That's at least two seconds, by which he could easily be in range of the nearer cop. More if the dog misses and has to jump again. Heck, the nearer officer might've drawn his weapon and fired by that point.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Immediate threat my arse. He was still trying to close the distance. In this context, that's not immediate. That's only slightly immediate.

He was winding up to swing the weapon, which means that he was within range to hit the cop. (Otherwise why wind up?)

That's an immediate threat.

 

[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.

I think you mean 'repeating ad nauseum without proof'.

In this particular situation guns were fine. You're naive if you think that all situations without guns can be easily dealt with without them.

Yes, the UK would have dealt with it perfectly! Just like that evidence says. Oh wait a minute, we still don't have evidence the UK would have dealt with it better. We have some guy that repeats things ad nauseum.

Yo're still proving my point btw.

So...why exactly don't they call in the armed police for crowbar incidents?

Circular logic. The way the UK police do it is better because... They don't do it another way? Lolwut?

Clearly it's better to do it this way. Why exactly didn't they disarm the cops before sending them in?

How is it better to do it that way? That's totally unnecessary, given that you'd expect the cops to be disciplined enough to not shoot somebody when there are other options.

How is better to do it your way? It's totally unnecessary to remove an option given that the cops would be deprived of the option if they needed it.

Btw, they were disciplined enough. There were no other options that you provided except what amounts to "They can take him on!", which is unsubstantiated.

I can play this stupid game too.

It's not only unsubstantiated, it's outright false. Dog wasn't fast enough, melee puts the cops in only slightly less danger, and pepper spray was not working, nor could either cop draw and use a taser before the suspect could've completed his swing.

Prove the dog wouldn't be fast enough. The perp wasn't swinging, he wasn't preparing to swing, he was still trying to close the distance. Dogs are pretty fucking fast. Faster than his little sideways jaunt at any rate.

Prove he wasn't preparing to swing. You can't even tell how much distance he needed to close from that angle.

He was still hopping. The cop was still backing away. They were moving at the same speed. The vandal hadn't swung yet, therefore it's fair to assume he wasn't in swinging range. Or, from his stance, he was preparing for the cop to attempt an arrest, since he seems fairly determined not to close the distance too quickly.

Look. Every single point I've made has been refuted with 'because gun'. And yet I'm the one being accused of making no sense. Makes me wonder how we ever managed without pulling guns on each other.

 

[kingpocky]

But yes - the dog is clearly the most suitable tool in this situation.

Do you have a lot of experience with police dogs?

 

[Thyunda]

Immediate threat my arse. He was still trying to close the distance. In this context, that's not immediate. That's only slightly immediate.

He was winding up to swing the weapon, which means that he was within range to hit the cop. (Otherwise why wind up?)

That's an immediate threat.

That's not winding up, that's preparing to swing when you're in range. Otherwise he'd have lunged.

 

[Thyunda]

But yes - the dog is clearly the most suitable tool in this situation.

Do you have a lot of experience with police dogs?

I don't follow. Experience on which end?

 

[JonnWood]

You keep repeating that last point, despite the fact I never once said it. I was stating that the police don't kill people. Which is true. However, the gun crime units DO. But the police department I was referring to was NOT the gun crime unit, and therefore your statement is sensationalist bollocks intended to slander me and render my points invalid through ad hominim arguments.

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

You didn't say "gun crime units". You said "police". What you meant may have been something different, you specifically referred to "police". You are either lying or biased, and you have been proven factually wrong on several different points during this discussion.

Immediate threat my arse. He was still trying to close the distance. In this context, that's not immediate. That's only slightly immediate.

"Seconds away, at most" is an "immediate threat".

 

[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.

I think you mean 'repeating ad nauseum without proof'.

In this particular situation guns were fine. You're naive if you think that all situations without guns can be easily dealt with without them.

Yes, the UK would have dealt with it perfectly! Just like that evidence says. Oh wait a minute, we still don't have evidence the UK would have dealt with it better. We have some guy that repeats things ad nauseum.

Yo're still proving my point btw.

So...why exactly don't they call in the armed police for crowbar incidents?

Circular logic. The way the UK police do it is better because... They don't do it another way? Lolwut?

Clearly it's better to do it this way. Why exactly didn't they disarm the cops before sending them in?

How is it better to do it that way? That's totally unnecessary, given that you'd expect the cops to be disciplined enough to not shoot somebody when there are other options.

How is better to do it your way? It's totally unnecessary to remove an option given that the cops would be deprived of the option if they needed it.

Btw, they were disciplined enough. There were no other options that you provided except what amounts to "They can take him on!", which is unsubstantiated.

I can play this stupid game too.

It's not only unsubstantiated, it's outright false. Dog wasn't fast enough, melee puts the cops in only slightly less danger, and pepper spray was not working, nor could either cop draw and use a taser before the suspect could've completed his swing.

Prove the dog wouldn't be fast enough. The perp wasn't swinging, he wasn't preparing to swing, he was still trying to close the distance. Dogs are pretty fucking fast. Faster than his little sideways jaunt at any rate.

Prove he wasn't preparing to swing. You can't even tell how much distance he needed to close from that angle.

And trying to, by Thy's own claim, "close the distance" means he was trying to get in range to swing. Even if he was trying to "intimidate" the cops, there was absolutely nothing distinguishing his behavior from that of someone trying to swing.

Incidentally, the dog would've had to move forward, gather itself, then jump for the suspects arm, and he's wearing a thick jacket. That's at least two seconds, by which he could easily be in range of the nearer cop. More if the dog misses and has to jump again. Heck, the nearer officer might've drawn his weapon and fired by that point.

...have you ever SEEN a dog attack somebody? There's no gathering itself - the run and lunge are in one movement. He goes for the arm, the weight is at least enough to pull the conduit bender out of the danger zone. Even if it's only for a couple of seconds. That's usually enough for both officers to take him.