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

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Post of Win

You're a loose cannon, Jamash, but a damn good cop!

 

[ACman]

While I think in this case the shooting was probably justified the cop do make some mistakes in not having no lethals out and by not insisting that the individual drop the axe before approaching him.

Ideally they should have dropped him with a tazer but he did swing at the approaching officer with an axe.

Cops do need uniform training standards set throughout America but the worst abuses come from tazers and capsicum spray which for some reason cops feel the need to use on peaceful protesters and even cuffed and restrained suspects.

They did taze him. Before he turns around you can see how he shrugs it off his face like it was nothing.

Cool. The cops did okay then.

Meth-head suicide by cop.

People should reserve their sympathy for the cop.

 

[Thyunda]

Eh? As soon as the thug turned his back on Officer #1 to intimidate #2, #1 could have taken him. Brought him down to the ground before he even had a chance to swing the crowbar.

Everybody's a Monday Morning Quarterback, as the saying goes.

Well if he can't take a suspect down, the hell is he doing with a police badge?

 

[rutger5000]

Sad case, but justified.
If you come at a police officer with a weapon, expect to be shot.
It's not like they had half an hour to calm him, and maybe get a taser out, no. They got called about a guy terrosing people with a crowbar, he came out, saw the officers, and came at one. He was shot, and I want to hear none of this 'He could of fired a warning shot, or a leg shot, or a disabling shot' No. When you make the split second call to shoot someone, you want to make sure that fucker goes down. You don't know if they are high on drugs (I have first person accounts of Insurgents in Afghany taking 20 rifle rounds to go down when they are high)

In short, sad but justified.

You talk about plit-second decisions. This was not a split second decision! The video clearly shows that two cops had at least 10 seconds to decide how to handle this situation. It's extremly likely they had much more time then this. They were probably called to come here, and had some intell on the situation.
You also talk as if there was no time to pull out non-lethal weapons. Well maybe they did not have half an hour. But they had enough times to pull out their guns right? If there was one officers, then maybe just maybe it could be justified to have only a gun at the ready. But there were two of them, they should have cooperated, one with a gun, one with a non lethal weapon.
Beside he was carrying a crowbar, a fing crowbar. They had guns and a nearly open parking space. Use some goddam common sense and distance yourself.
The shooting occured at 0:45. Which means they had at least 45 seconds to come with an alternative then emptying a clip into this guys torso. If that is not enough time, then they should not be cops.
I'm not saying that what they did was wrong, and I'm not saying I could do better, but I'm not a cop. For a police officer this is not an acceptable way to handle this situation. They failed at their duty to 'serve and protect' and should be fired.

You do know the one cop that was going to get swung hat was using non-lethal weapons
He was not shot with a gun untill he turned to hit them. Up to that point they were using non-leathal options.

I must admit I had not noticed that. In light of this I think they handled as well as you could have expected them to.

 

[FamoFunk]

Makes me glad I live in a country where police do not carry guns, and where they're illegal in general.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

You can't expect someone to not panic there, it's impossible unless they spend their whole life trying to be calm. Also, shooting for the leg is hard enough as it is, when your friend is about to die, he probably wouldn't have hit the leg. And that criminal shook of a tazer to the face, if a bullet hit him in the leg he could still probably swing and kill the police officer.

Slow down there. I never said he should shoot the suspect's leg.
I just said that he shouldn't have panicked and unloaded the entire magazine into the poor bastard.
I wouldn't expect a doctor to lose his shit while operating on me because he sees my blood pouring out.
In fact, that would be unacceptable.
Same with the cop. He should be capable of staying calm and not unnecessarily killing the suspect.

Dealing with dangerous situations is kind of the officer's job.
If they aren't cut out for that shit, they should do something less stressful and decisive.

Well the thing is, as a doctor the patient isn't trying to kill you. The only people who wouldn't panic a bit would be
1) Sadistic people, the kind of people I wouldn't want on the police force, or
2) People who have been in a lot of situations like this before. People like ex-soldiers, any other profession where you might have people trying to kill you on a regular basis. Sadly, getting enough of these people the man the entire police force is a little difficult.

 

[weker]

the 5 shots to take him down were fine, those extra 5 on the floor was not good, and they should be punished.

They were in danger, so they are allowed to take him.

Glad my country doesn't carry guns, tho a bit more forceful takedown equipment might be nice.

 

[Saltyk]

Makes me glad I live in a country where police do not carry guns, and where they're illegal in general.

*Looks at your avatar*
That's really pretty funny.

 

[rutger5000]

Sad case, but justified.
If you come at a police officer with a weapon, expect to be shot.
It's not like they had half an hour to calm him, and maybe get a taser out, no. They got called about a guy terrosing people with a crowbar, he came out, saw the officers, and came at one. He was shot, and I want to hear none of this 'He could of fired a warning shot, or a leg shot, or a disabling shot' No. When you make the split second call to shoot someone, you want to make sure that fucker goes down. You don't know if they are high on drugs (I have first person accounts of Insurgents in Afghany taking 20 rifle rounds to go down when they are high)

In short, sad but justified.

You talk about plit-second decisions. This was not a split second decision! The video clearly shows that two cops had at least 10 seconds to decide how to handle this situation. It's extremly likely they had much more time then this. They were probably called to come here, and had some intell on the situation.
You also talk as if there was no time to pull out non-lethal weapons. Well maybe they did not have half an hour. But they had enough times to pull out their guns right? If there was one officers, then maybe just maybe it could be justified to have only a gun at the ready. But there were two of them, they should have cooperated, one with a gun, one with a non lethal weapon.
Beside he was carrying a crowbar, a fing crowbar. They had guns and a nearly open parking space. Use some goddam common sense and distance yourself.
The shooting occured at 0:45. Which means they had at least 45 seconds to come with an alternative then emptying a clip into this guys torso. If that is not enough time, then they should not be cops.
I'm not saying that what they did was wrong, and I'm not saying I could do better, but I'm not a cop. For a police officer this is not an acceptable way to handle this situation. They failed at their duty to 'serve and protect' and should be fired.

It is a split second decision when they just charge at your partner, and they DID hit him with a taser, in the face. That didn't stop him, and it wasnt a crowbar, it was a large steel post thingo.
So, you're saying if you shoot someone with a taser, and they don't go down, then they charge at your partner, you're going to try a 'non-lethal- tatic. No, as I said. You're going to shoot that fucker, and when you shoot someone, you make sure they stay down.

I had not noticed they shot him with the taser first. In light of this I think their actions were justified. I still believe it would have been better to go for a more passive approach. In the Netherlands cops are not allowed to shoot until they have been attacked. If crime was a dangerous thing in the Netherlands, this would indeed pose a larger thread for the police officers. But I'd considered part of the job.
What I'm trying to say is that I think a cop should have taken the 'shot' and wait to see if that man would actually pose a thread or not. These cops were not prepared to take that risk, and killed the man at the first sign of trouble. We'll never know wetter that man would have attacked them or not. I can't help but feel that a cop should have taken that risk. Besides that the idea of a cop that strikes first terifies me. But perhaps that is just being naive, and maybe those ideas can't be applied in a country as dangerous as America.

 

[SD-Fiend]

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.

all i hear is:BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! HOW COME I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT CARES FOR THE ANIMALS BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

 

[RubyT]

The guy made a "threatening gesture", he was yet too far away to strike the policeman and he hadn't swung at all. So the other cop shoots him 10 times, 4 in the back.

Yeah, totally justified.

They should've shot him immediately when he didn't drop the crowbar at the first command. Really, police should take no risk. Shoot first, ask later. And once you shoot: FINISH HIM!

Awesome thread this.

 

[RubyT]

But perhaps that is just being naive

No, everything you say makes perfect sense.

 

[Thyunda]

Eh? As soon as the thug turned his back on Officer #1 to intimidate #2, #1 could have taken him. Brought him down to the ground before he even had a chance to swing the crowbar.

Everybody's a Monday Morning Quarterback, as the saying goes.

Well if he can't take a suspect down, the hell is he doing with a police badge?

Cops aren't hired based on their ability to wrestle and armed person to the ground. In fact, as long as they are armed, they are trained NOT to do that. If you want to hire bouncers as police officers you would be going back to the days when during your arrest cops would give you a good beating to teach you a lesson. Or beat you without arresting you. We don't hire thugs, these guys (at least in civilized jurisdictions) are expected to think, have the ability to deescalate when possible, and have a heck of a lot of law in their heads. They are supplied with weapons for those times when deescalation doesn't work.

Cops should be trained to be able to. Because I would rather a cop beat the shit out of me than gun me down in the street. Fucking ridiculous that you think telling a cop to shoot somebody instead of beating them up is 'a civilised jurisdiction'.

 

[Thyunda]

Eh? As soon as the thug turned his back on Officer #1 to intimidate #2, #1 could have taken him. Brought him down to the ground before he even had a chance to swing the crowbar.

Everybody's a Monday Morning Quarterback, as the saying goes.

Well if he can't take a suspect down, the hell is he doing with a police badge?

Cops aren't hired based on their ability to wrestle and armed person to the ground. In fact, as long as they are armed, they are trained NOT to do that. If you want to hire bouncers as police officers you would be going back to the days when during your arrest cops would give you a good beating to teach you a lesson. Or beat you without arresting you. We don't hire thugs, these guys (at least in civilized jurisdictions) are expected to think, have the ability to deescalate when possible, and have a heck of a lot of law in their heads. They are supplied with weapons for those times when deescalation doesn't work.

Cops should be trained to be able to. Because I would rather a cop beat the shit out of me than gun me down in the street. Fucking ridiculous that you think telling a cop to shoot somebody instead of beating them up is 'a civilised jurisdiction'.

If the situation is serious enough that force must be used its your fault, I have little sympathy. I do however want to make sure you don't kill the cop.

So...what you're basically telling me is that it's okay for the police to go into a situation with the instruction "If he gets violent, shoot the fucker". Sacrificing training for firearms.
As somebody who has worked with drug abusers and alcoholics, I do not believe that one bad decision should end in death. He brushed the pepper spray out of his eyes, unaffected. It's theorised he was high. This is a drug problem. We've helped reform a lot of drug abusers, all of whom have had encounters with the police - police who were properly trained and able to subdue them no matter WHAT they were swinging.
If our police force shot offenders like this, I can guarantee I'd have nobody to help.