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

[Mekado]

Swinging a crowbar at a cop is definitely in the "Top 10 bad ideas of all time"

Punk got (slighly more than) what he deserved, i have no sympathy whatsoever for "product-of-their-environment" sob story gangsters and criminals.

But hey, at least he got to go real high (he was probably really really pumped to ignore a tazer shot in the face...)

 

[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

No, that's not what I said. For example, in this case the police officers were able to deploy less lethal weapons, but they didn't work. It is only your bias that assumes "weapons=guns". Guns are used when needed. Going for my partner's head with a deadly weapon is a good time to kill you in my opinion, not to engage in a struggle with you that might result in a dead or injured officer.

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.

I don't care that you might be able to reform that guy. At that moment he was a threat, he was dealt with accordingly.

But the gun wasn't needed. There was a dog, and two supposedly trained police officers.

 

[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

No, that's not what I said. For example, in this case the police officers were able to deploy less lethal weapons, but they didn't work. It is only your bias that assumes "weapons=guns". Guns are used when needed. Going for my partner's head with a deadly weapon is a good time to kill you in my opinion, not to engage in a struggle with you that might result in a dead or injured officer.

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.

I don't care that you might be able to reform that guy. At that moment he was a threat, he was dealt with accordingly.

But the gun wasn't needed. There was a dog, and two supposedly trained police officers.

The trained officers acted according with their training. They deployed less lethal force first, and only went lethal when one of the officers (unarmed at that moment) was about to have his head caved in. Releasing the dog at that moment would probably not have been enough to avoid the attack on the officer's head. Releasing the dog prior to that would have likely resulted in a critically wounded or dead police dog and an active and still dangerous suspect.

I'm sorry, but I saw a perfect opportunity to use the police dog the second the vandal turned around to face the first officer. Dog goes for the arm, the suspect, no matter how drugged, could not physically swing the conduit bender without removing the dog first. That leaves him wide open to being grounded by a pair of police officers.

 

[senordesol]

I'm sorry, but I saw a perfect opportunity to use the police dog the second the vandal turned around to face the first officer. Dog goes for the arm, the suspect, no matter how drugged, could not physically swing the conduit bender without removing the dog first. That leaves him wide open to being grounded by a pair of police officers.

You do realize the dogs are considered fellow officers, right? If the dude can take a tazer to the face, he just might not register the requisite amount of pain to be disabled before caving in the dogs head (provided, of course, the dog was able to reach him in time before he killed or injured the distracted officer).

Besides, bullets are faster than dogs. They ended the threat as quickly as possible.

 

[Swiftkillz]

He was shot way to many times. 8 freaking rounds. Dude pause and evaluate the situation further before unloading like a mad man

 

[senordesol]

What is wrong with you people? Police are supposed to be trained to deal with situations like this, and that was not how you are supposed to do it. If you question how they should have dealt with it, think of other countries where police don't carry weapons, or if they do, they don't use them like a moron. This situation is probably repeated every day and the outcome is rarely this. The crowbar (or similar) is a fairly commonly used weapon and the cops should know how to deal with it without killing.

The cop acted wrong, this situation could have been defused in any number of ways other than lethal force. I don't think he should face any charges, it is understandable that any person unfamiliar with the situation would act in that manner. He should either be (re)trained, behind a desk or not a police officer.


Another big reason why this was a fuck up was shooting that many times in a populated area, it should just not be done. Any trained police officer should tell you that. One of those rounds could have gone anywhere, it is not unheard of for bystanders to be hit by strays.

They're 'supposed to deal' with nearly being brained? Look the issue wasn't that the man had a weapon, it was that he was putting an officer in immediate mortal peril.

 

[Swiftkillz]

He was shot way to many times. 8 freaking rounds. Dude pause and evaluate the situation further before unloading like a mad man

'Shot way too many times' would be if the officer had reloaded his weapon and continued to fire on a downed suspect. When the decision to use lethal force is made, there is no stopping. You don't fire twice, go "okay that's good enough" and risk that it isn't actually good enough. You do not pause. You do not give a person perceived as an imminent threat to life and limb a chance to continue their assault. You take them down with the totality of force available to you. That is how you are trained, that is how you survive and protect your fellows.

No. It was even debatable that he was that much of a threat,that was overkill. When the guy was shot twice he was falling back, the rest was overkill and unnecessary. The cops were not in imminent life threatening danger

 

[blindthrall]

Should've released the hound on him. Even if he does kill the dog-it's a dog. Happens in traffic all the time. At the same time, if the dog killed him, I wouldn't be shedding any tears. Wasn't a fair fight, only problem I have with it. Gun=/=crowbar, crowbar=attack dog.

Why should police be obligated to fight 'fair'?

If the cop didn't have the dog, I'd wouldn't have a problem with this. I just don't get why the cop had a gun in one hand and a dog in the other, and chose to use the gun. Oh well, the perp isn't worth all the posthumous attention anyway. Guy was asking for whatever he got.

 

[Thyunda]

I'm sorry, but I saw a perfect opportunity to use the police dog the second the vandal turned around to face the first officer. Dog goes for the arm, the suspect, no matter how drugged, could not physically swing the conduit bender without removing the dog first. That leaves him wide open to being grounded by a pair of police officers.

You do realize the dogs are considered fellow officers, right? If the dude can take a tazer to the face, he just might not register the requisite amount of pain to be disabled before caving in the dogs head (provided, of course, the dog was able to reach him in time before he killed or injured the distracted officer).

Besides, bullets are faster than dogs. They ended the threat as quickly as possible.

The situation was under control. There were no civilians in the danger zone, only trained officers. Time was not of the essence. It does not require the suspect to feel pain - but if you can swing a conduit bender with a police dog hanging off your arm, you should be out fighting supervillains, not wrecking restaurants.
Oh, and the officer wasn't distracted. He could have turned and ran, he could avoid an incoming strike. It was under control. If the targeted officer was on the floor and unable to move, I would be with you 100%. But he wasn't. So I'm not.

 

[Thyunda]

They're 'supposed to deal' with nearly being brained? Look the issue wasn't that the man had a weapon, it was that he was putting an officer in immediate mortal peril.

And my issue is that whatever training these officers had made the situation worse and eventually ended in an unnecessary death.

The best way to avoid the mortal peril caused by the crowbar (or whatever it is) is to stay out of the way. The second police officer distracted by the taser continues to walk toward the suspect, and as a result is caught off guard by the raised weapon. There is no need to be that close, the taser has a longer range than that. They let their guard down. Look at the way the police officer is holding his firearm walking alongside the suspect, does that look like procedure to you?

He is shocked at the raised weapon and acts accordingly. The actions of the police officers led to the situation were the discharge of a firearm was inevitable. Any good police officer will not let that happen, especially on such a minor incident.

I have been arguing this point for two days now. Trust me, they're not going to get it.

 

[Yureina]

I'd say that was justified. It looks like the guy was coming at the policeman. In that scenario... you either deal with him or you leave open the chance to get beat up yourself.

I'd say this was pretty straight-forward.