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

[JonnWood]

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.

Those aren't actually contradictory.

Otherwise he'd have lunged.

You don't need to wind up for a lunge.

 

[Thyunda]

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".

1 - what are you talking about now? I fully advocate the use of firearms against gunmen. That's what they're for. However, in America, it's simply not feasible to separate them into two separate units, and it relies on the officer's judgement.

2 - in close combat, seconds away is not immediate threat. Five seconds is a long time in that respect.

 

[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.

Those aren't actually contradictory.

Otherwise he'd have lunged.

You don't need to wind up for a lunge.

Then he's not in range.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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.

They shot him in the face with a tazer (Shown in the video). The guy wasn't even phased. Then the cop shot him five times (After he moved to hit the cop with the tazer), and the guy was still standing. It took five more to put him down.

 

[senordesol]

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 [/bold]without bloodshed.[/bold]

Says who?

Whether it is or is not a common crime, it is UNACCEPTABLE. Sane or insane, sober or high, threatening a police officer; any human who poses no threat to you or innocents is a grave and serious predicament to find yourself in. One, in my opinion, you should count yourself lucky to find yourself alive at its close.

I have very little patience for the criminal element -particularly the violent sort-, I can scarcely understand anyone who does. It's as if they are suggesting that the criminals...somehow...have a right to do what they do, that we should expect and even tolerate it to some degree. Now I am not a bloodthirsty monster, but I cannot countenance such people.

Would I prefer the situation be resolved without bloodshed on either side? Of course I would. Do I prefer the police utilize non/less-than-lethal options to subdue a suspect when they are not in immediate danger? Of course I do. But when they are placed at risk, be the suspect sober as a judge or high as a kite, there is only one option:

END THE THREAT.

End it quickly, effectively, and absolutely. Then sleep the rest of the just, knowing that had the suspect not threatened you; he'd still be alive. Had he not turned to crime, he'd still be free. And know that, thanks to your actions, he can't threaten anyone else ever again.

 

[kingpocky]

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?

Any end. It isn't very obvious from the video how fast the dog could've taken the vandal down. I've never seen a police dog attack anyone or read any instructional material on the tactical advantages of attack dogs. It's possible that the dog could have taken him down very effectively in that situation, or it might have been too risky. It isn't obvious to me from watching the video, but you insist that it clearly is, so I'm wondering if you have some insight into the use of dogs that I don't.

 

[JonnWood]

...have you ever SEEN a dog attack somebody?

Yes.

There's no gathering itself - the run and lunge are in one movement.

When the dog has sufficient room to build up speed, yes, which was not available in this case. This dog is going to have to stop and gather itself.

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.

Assuming the dog actually manages to get the arm. This also does not prevent the suspect from striking at the dog with his free hand, simply by letting go of the implement with his attacked one.

That's usually enough for both officers to take him.

At which point they'd probably shoot him.

 

[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".

1 - what are you talking about now? I fully advocate the use of firearms against gunmen. That's what they're for. However, in America, it's simply not feasible to separate them into two separate units, and it relies on the officer's judgement.

2 - in close combat, seconds away is not immediate threat. Five seconds is a long time in that respect.

5 seconds away? The guy was just about to swing it at the officer 1-2 seconds away from the strike at most. And 1 blow from that thing to someones head = Person is either dead or vegetable. The first round of shots that brought him down were enough however the second batch was fairly overkill and unnecessary as he was already on his way down.

He was still standing. Cops don't stop until they are sure the threat is neutralized.

 

[Thyunda]

...have you ever SEEN a dog attack somebody?

Yes.

There's no gathering itself - the run and lunge are in one movement.

When the dog has sufficient room to build up speed, yes, which was not available in this case. This dog is going to have to stop and gather itself.

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.

Assuming the dog actually manages to get the arm. This also does not prevent the suspect from striking at the dog with his free hand, simply by letting go of the implement with his attacked one.

That's usually enough for both officers to take him.

At which point they'd probably shoot him.

Yes, well, then I'd just complain about that too.

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?

Any end. It isn't very obvious from the video how fast the dog could've taken the vandal down. I've never seen a police dog attack anyone or read any instructional material on the tactical advantages of attack dogs. It's possible that the dog could have taken him down very effectively in that situation, or it might have been too risky. It isn't obvious to me from watching the video, but you insist that it clearly is, so I'm wondering if you have some insight into the use of dogs that I don't.

From the size of the jacket and his apparent immunity to pain, I don't think a dog could take him down. However, it could free his hand from the weapon long enough for the cops to take the advantage.

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".

1 - what are you talking about now? I fully advocate the use of firearms against gunmen. That's what they're for. However, in America, it's simply not feasible to separate them into two separate units, and it relies on the officer's judgement.

2 - in close combat, seconds away is not immediate threat. Five seconds is a long time in that respect.

5 seconds away? The guy was just about to swing it at the officer 1-2 seconds away from the strike at most. And 1 blow from that thing to someones head = Person is either dead or vegetable. The first round of shots that brought him down were enough however the second batch was fairly overkill and unnecessary as he was already on his way down.

Actually, he was an indefinite amount of time away. Both of them were moving at the same speed and the officer had plenty of room. Regardless of the amount of shots, you fire your gun you had better make sure you neutralise your target.

 

[JonnWood]

1 - what are you talking about now? I fully advocate the use of firearms against gunmen. That's what they're for. However, in America, it's simply not feasible to separate them into two separate units, and it relies on the officer's judgement.

Which you have declared, repeatedly, to be wrong. In fact, you have declared US police training to be wrong when I pointed out this was exactly what their training told them to do.

You did not say UK gun unit policemen never shoot anyone, you said UK policemen don't kill. If you misspoke, that's your problem, not mine.

Incidentally, as I pointed out, UK use of firearms among officers issued them is not restricted only to suspects who are themselves gunmen.

2 - in close combat, seconds away is not immediate threat. Five seconds is a long time in that respect.

I said seconds away at maximum. The suspect could've gotten close enough in one second, or in two, or five. This wasn't "close combat", this was a law enforcement, and in that context, the suspect represented an immediate threat to the officer.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

im kinda curious as to when you people will actually learn that a human life has no greater value than a pig/dog/fly/ant any other organism. What makes a human life more valuable? We provide nothing to anyone we simply take and take. Not single one of you will be missed when you die and no one will care when you are born. It all makes me sick seeing this crap. Im sorry the kid died. bull shit you dont care. Just like every one of those support the troops stickers and all the athletes that "support the troops". just because you say it doesnt make it true.

you all make me sick.

Well, guess what? You make me sick.

I don't have to know the person to care what happens to them. I'm not completely heartless like that. Killing, meaningless our otherwise, is never something to be taken lightly. Don't ever assume you know how mine or anyone else's thought process works. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

OT: I don't think it's justifiable. You are never trained to shoot to kill in the police academy. Likewise, you are never suppose to aim for a "leg shot" like so many people believe. It's center mass, and for the most part, you most likely aren't going to kill someone with a pistol while aiming at the center mass.

Although, the rule they drill in to your head very clearly is "shoot to stop", not to kill. That officer shot 4 shots into him point blank in rapid succession. Shooting that fast into someone who doesn't have a gun is a big no. Not to mention that the guy had fallen to the ground and was shot 3 more times. That's as close to excessive force as you can get. That officer fucked up.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I know I am coming into this way late and chances are some one else has said this, but that weapon does not look like any crowbar I've seen. Also it's never about one shot or warning shot as was said early on in the thread. The point is to stop the suspect, which they did. Now I may not believe that many shots was necessary, but until we are put into this situation, we can never really know what we will do.
Also they maced the guy and he turns on the police officer in an aggressive manner while brandishing a weapon. I would of fired at him too.

Some people have determined that it was most likely a Conduit Bender.

You are never trained to shoot to kill in the police academy.

...wat. Yes they are. Police ONLY shoot to kill.

 

[JonnWood]

Yes, well, then I'd just complain about that too.

Of course you would. You'd probably also complain that the cops put the dog in harm's way. Speaking of which, there's no way the dog can leap effectively from a standing position, or gain enough speed for a running jump.

From the size of the jacket and his apparent immunity to pain, I don't think a dog could take him down. However, it could free his hand from the weapon long enough for the cops to take the advantage.

By shooting him.

Actually, he was an indefinite amount of time away. Both of them were moving at the same speed and the officer had plenty of room. Regardless of the amount of shots, you fire your gun you had better make sure you neutralise your target.

Cop was moving backward. Suspect was moving forward. All other things being equal, the guy moving forward is faster, even when he's not on some sort of drugs.

Try advancing on someone while holding a bat in that position. Then try backing away while trying to remove something from your pocket. The former will be faster. Of course, cops have fitness standards, and if he had got away or pulled his gun out, he would've shot the guy.

 

[JonnWood]

im kinda curious as to when you people will actually learn that a human life has no greater value than a pig/dog/fly/ant any other organism. What makes a human life more valuable? We provide nothing to anyone we simply take and take. Not single one of you will be missed when you die and no one will care when you are born. It all makes me sick seeing this crap. Im sorry the kid died. bull shit you dont care. Just like every one of those support the troops stickers and all the athletes that "support the troops". just because you say it doesnt make it true.

you all make me sick.

Well, guess what? You make me sick.

I don't have to know the person to care what happens to them. I'm not completely heartless like that. Killing, meaningless our otherwise, is never something to be taken lightly. Don't ever assume you know how mine or anyone else's thought process works. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

OT: I don't think it's justifiable. You are never trained to shoot to kill in the police academy. Likewise, you are never suppose to aim for a "leg shot" like so many people believe. It's center mass, and for the most part, you most likely aren't going to kill someone with a pistol while aiming at the center mass.

Although, the rule they drill in to your head very clearly is "shoot to stop", not to kill. That officer shot 4 shots into him point blank in rapid succession. Shooting that fast into someone who doesn't have a gun is a big no. Not to mention that the guy had fallen to the ground and was shot 3 more times. That's as close to excessive force as you can get. That officer fucked up.

No, the suspect was still standing when hit by the second volley, and was likely on some sort of drugs. Any police officer who fires on a suspect is employing Deadly Force, no exceptions, even if they don't actually kill the target. This cop wanted the guy on the ground, or surrendered, and he was justified in doing so.

 

[gideonkain]

I know I am coming into this way late and chances are some one else has said this, but that weapon does not look like any crowbar I've seen. Also it's never about one shot or warning shot as was said early on in the thread. The point is to stop the suspect, which they did. Now I may not believe that many shots was necessary, but until we are put into this situation, we can never really know what we will do.
Also they maced the guy and he turns on the police officer in an aggressive manner while brandishing a weapon. I would of fired at him too.

Some people have determined that it was most likely a Conduit Bender.

You are never trained to shoot to kill in the police academy.

...wat. Yes they are. Police ONLY shoot to kill.

Looks like an Ice Axe to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_axe

 

[JonnWood]

...wat. Yes they are. Police ONLY shoot to kill.

Strictly speaking, they use "Deadly Force", which is force that will most likely kill. Hence, any cop firing on someone is assumed to be trying to kill them, even if they weren't.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

...wat. Yes they are. Police ONLY shoot to kill.

No they don't. Because, like I just explained, a person going down to the ground from six shots isn't getting up straight away. That is the term coined "excessive force", which is a bad thing. Shooting to kill is used by Military. Not US police forces. They are allowed to use "deadly force", in certain situations, but never trained to shoot to kill.

No, the suspect was still standing when hit by the second volley, and was likely on some sort of drugs. Any police officer who fires on a suspect is employing Deadly Force, no exceptions, even if they don't actually kill the target. This cop wanted the guy on the ground, or surrendered, and he was justified in doing so.

Watching it again I do see he's still up, but the second volley was extremely unnecessary. The guy didn't even have time to turn around before getting hit with three more shots. A person defending his home from a burglary would get jail time for that.