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

[Khada]

[

Note: Why are you stuck on unrealistic ideas like shooting him in the leg? Or are you some kind of expert that has determined against all the police that you know better than them about shooting at the center of mass?

If I'm wrong and a shot to the leg is totally unfeasible and not even worth trying before shooting a man 8 times, then OK I'm wrong. What about only shooting once to the chest and seeing if the target stops instead of 4 times to the chest? The man with the 'crowbar' can be clearly seen to stop approaching the cop after the first bullet. Yet he is fired upon 8 times.
Shouldn't the police have enough self restraint to stop when a target has been subdued?

Because bullets don't work the same way they do in films. It's designed to pierce, not to stop, basically meaning one bullet on it's own has very little stopping power unless it hits somewhere vital.

There have been several reports of people not even realising they'd been shot until after the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxzrErec8U

A suspect gets shot and continues to attack the officer.
Imagine if he had a deadly weapon.

I understand this (and reference it in the same post you quoted), I just don't see how it's so hard to take 1-2 shots, back-step a bit and THEN continue firing if the target is still approaching. What about the 4 shots fired as the man with the 'crowbar' was falling down? He was very clearly moving away at that point, how were those 4 shots necessary?

 

[Khada]

snip

I can't quote you properly due to there being too many embedded quotes in the post. Instead I'll just try to address each part in order.

1. You're right, my stop watch put the time from the first bullet to the last at 3 seconds. He was however moving away from the police well before the second round was fired, making a mele armed individual somewhat harmless at that point. If he began to move towards the cops again, a second volley would be justified.

2. I'll concede your point to the first volley of 4 bullets, but police are bound by law to not use lethal force unless necessary, and I don't see that the second volley was.

3. Of course, bouncers and police are in a risky business but they choose to be in it. You can't use lethal force in every perceivably dangerous situation and as such both fields will see injury and death to some degree.

4. In the situation as it was, I'll agree with you here. I do wonder why the other police officers were not nearby to help though. An extra taser could have ended the affair without bloodshed.

5. A little, I was genuinely accepting that I may be wrong, but mixing some sarcasm in to also get my point across (a usually fruitless endevour over the internet).

6. That video is horrific. It has to be said though that, that was a much different situation. 1 cop against 1 man with a gun is very different to 1 man with a 'crowbar' and 5 cops + an attack dog. The cop in the video was obviously justified in shooting the other man, it's a real shame he lost the fire-fight. I hope the other guy was caught and put to death (given the undeniable proof of his crime - I'm not huge on the death penalty though).

7. Refer to 4.

8. Refer to 4 but add the desire for one of those extra cops to have been at the ready with a rubber bullet gun. They pack a greater punch due to zero penetration and a sufficient volley could have stopped his approach.

9. Refer to 4.

To be clear, I'm not defending the man with the 'crowbar', I just think greater effort could have been taken to resolve the situation without bloodshed given the available resources that the police have/had. It's so very common to see police overstepping their bounds (in less grey-area ways that in this video) and perhaps that has made me a little more critical of them in this instance.

 

[Eight88]

I think there was only two and the rest arrived after the fact? I mean to me it seems like those two officers were alone when dealing with the guy. Maybe there was one or two more, but the impression I have is that the two guys on the right side of the door were responding before backup arrived.

Rubber bullets are also not allowed in handguns or dashboard locked shotguns. They use bean bags or special 40MM grenades during riots in California...and I think not all cars carry bean bag guns.

I think the rules and policy is much stricter when it comes to those types of non lethal options, plus the launching device of a bean bag is a green painted shotgun that is locked in the trunk.

As for your number 4, there was a budget crisis and stuff. I rarely see a patrol car with two officers in it. It's usually just the one per car in that area...or at least the three streets I regularly frequent

Also, I think the average response time in is like 6+ minutes in LA County. At that intersection, I usually see one patrol car headed down towards the college and a K9 car headed down Atlantic on patrol. So there are two officers usually close by and there is a freeway entrance right near there, up the street.

It's probably that they just got there first, I mean I think if there were more officers then there would of been more shots.

 

[bojackx]

I'm surprised to see so many people saying this was justified. The suspect just did what looks like an act of intimidation, because he never even began to swing the weapon, and yet the officer unloaded like 8 shots into him. He could have fired once.

Yes that guy was incredibly stupid, but the shooting was completely unjustified.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Very little that can be said after sixteen pages that hasn't already been said a dozen times over, but I thought I'd throw in my opinion anyway.

I think the officers got too close. I'm not saying that that means they would have deserved it if one of them got injured, but I think to be within the reach of that weapon is foolish. Yes, I appreciate that the idea may have been to get in close enough to taze him, and that does seem to be what they attempted, but there was no guarantee that that would work and they put themselves directly into a danger zone.

That being said, my view of the actual shooting is conflicted. The officer that fired the shots did so in order to halt a perceived deadly attack on is fellow officer, which I can't really complain about. My problem lies with the fact that police are armed in the first place, but given that that's the case in America I can't really condemn his reaction. Personally, I feel that police officers should be armed with guns that fire non-lethal projectiles, such as rubber bullets. If that were the case, then no-one would have had to die in this situation. However, the fact remains that that is not the case, so again, I don't feel as if I can fully condemn the officer.

What I do feel I can condemn is the fact that he shoots the guy after he's gone down. I'm sorry, but as soon as he has dropped to the floor, he ceases to be a threat to the officer's safety. It's not like he could have done any damage to anyone whilst lying on the floor having been shot, and there's still a chance, however slim, that the doctors could have saved him. The officer removed any chance of that when he shot the guy while he was lying prone and no longer a threat.

 

[Thyunda]

-snip-

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

Slight errors like saying a dog can move better than a meter a second from a dead stop, or saying UK police, or even the gun units, never kill people, or cutting out most of my posts? Slight errors which I don't think you've ever admitted to making, and are not even doing so now? I've already presented a lot of evidence for my claims.

You're wrong about the dog

Again, unsupported assertion.

- and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs?

Usually on fleeing suspects. You're doing that straw man thing again. My argument is that it would be physically impossible for the dog to intervene in time to hinder the suspect. Not inappropriate. Not inappropriate in all situations. Physically impossible, in this particular situation.

Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards.

As I already pointed out, someone moving backwards moves slower than someone moving forwards. In addition to that, the tool extends his range by several feet. In order to grapple with him, the officer needs to actually get within the perp's range. Without a weapon of his own out, the nearer cop is at a significant disadvantage against someone, possibly on drugs, who is attempting to use the tool with deadly force. Or do you think that it only becomes "deadly force" when the person with the weapon reaches effective range?

Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified.

Why? He could've gotten in range at any second.

But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

They tried that, then the suspect tried to bring lethal force into the equation. They are under no obligation to use less-lethal force on someone using lethal force. You've been trying to conflate "could" with "should" this entire argument, and claim that he wasn't really going to attack based on watching a Youtube video, a belief which was not apparent to the two trained officers on the scene, in person, a few feet away.

In fact, I don't think you've ever actually acknowledged that even if the suspect was "merely" attempting to intimidate the cops, he did such a good job that they thought he was actually trying to attack them. You've made the claim, but not followed through.

I looked it up [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill?ref=dictionary&word=intimidate#]. "To compel or deter by or as if by threats". So even by your own argument, he was threatening the police officer. Unless he was trying to scare the cop without actually trying to be threatening, which would be difficult in the absence of a closet to jump out of and yell "boo!"

Trained officers? Certainly not the term I'd apply to officers that slowly approach 'armed' suspects and pepper spray/taser them for WALKING AWAY. Y'know, if the first officer had gone straight for the takedown, none of this would have happened. Instead, he started arsing about with uniform-issue toys and now the suspect's dead. You need to accept that the officers fucked up. They provoked him into starting an attack and then shot him dead. That's a failure of policing.

 

[RickyRich]

It was completely justified. But, I feel that the amount of shots were completely unnecessary. But, I guess when a person is in the moment they do what they think they have to.

 

[JonnWood]

[

Note: Why are you stuck on unrealistic ideas like shooting him in the leg? Or are you some kind of expert that has determined against all the police that you know better than them about shooting at the center of mass?

If I'm wrong and a shot to the leg is totally unfeasible and not even worth trying before shooting a man 8 times, then OK I'm wrong. What about only shooting once to the chest and seeing if the target stops instead of 4 times to the chest? The man with the 'crowbar' can be clearly seen to stop approaching the cop after the first bullet. Yet he is fired upon 8 times.
Shouldn't the police have enough self restraint to stop when a target has been subdued?

Because bullets don't work the same way they do in films. It's designed to pierce, not to stop, basically meaning one bullet on it's own has very little stopping power unless it hits somewhere vital.

There have been several reports of people not even realising they'd been shot until after the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxzrErec8U

A suspect gets shot and continues to attack the officer.
Imagine if he had a deadly weapon.

I understand this (and reference it in the same post you quoted), I just don't see how it's so hard to take 1-2 shots, back-step a bit and THEN continue firing if the target is still approaching. What about the 4 shots fired as the man with the 'crowbar' was falling down? He was very clearly moving away at that point, how were those 4 shots necessary?

You shoot until the threat is neutralized, even if it means killing them. He wasn't falling yet. He was staggered, but still standing. 1-2 shots will probably not be sufficient if the guy is on drugs. He could still run away and endanger the public, or attack the officer.

 

[JonnWood]

Trained officers? Certainly not the term I'd apply to officers that slowly approach 'armed' suspects and pepper spray/taser them for WALKING AWAY.

I love how you specifically refer to their training repeatedly, but suddenly, they're not trained.

He was armed. He was using that tool the vandalize a restautaunt. One does not need to be using something that is usually a weapon to be considered armed. Angeles Cadillo-Castro beat her daughter to death with a kitchen spatula. Monique Fulgham was strangled with her own jump rope. A device that can easily be used as a weapon, that the suspect had in fact already been using in a destructive manner, means he's armed.

Y'know, if the first officer had gone straight for the takedown, none of this would have happened.

Of course not. Then again, he might've been smacked upside the head. Do you know how hard it is to subdue someone on drugs? Very. By your own admission, UK officers would call for backup, yet you're expecting US cops to do it alone. Do you know how much harder that gets when the suspect has what's basically a metal club? The officers were trying to subdue the suspect using minimum force, when he chose to escalate the situation. It is amazing how much you ignore this.

Instead, he started arsing about with uniform-issue toys and now the suspect's dead.

You left out the part where the suspect attacked the officer for no good reason.

Everything I know about use of force says the officers were acting according to standards in using their compliance tools and weapons. Officer presence, then verbal command, then less-lethal devices such as a taser. Next up likely would've been pepper spray, then if he tried to get away in a vehicle, they might try to shoot out the tires or engage in a car chase. On foot, they might've deployed the dog.

You need to accept that the officers fucked up.

You need to accept that the suspect was responsible for escalating the situation by ignoring the cops and attempting to use deadly force, and the only mistake the first cop made was not expecting a man with a club to attack him while he had a gun pointed at him. Of course, that's a mistake only in retrospect.

They provoked him into starting an attack and then shot him dead. That's a failure of policing.

So it is actively the officer's fault that the suspect chose to attack them with deadly force, after he ignored several commands to stop, as well as a taser. I'm sorry, any judge in the US would laugh at you. Any judge in the UK would laugh at you. The notion that just being that close to the suspect made an attack inevitable, and that it was therefore the police's fault, is absurd and incorrect. "He teased me" is rarely an effective legal defense.

It's cute how you're nitpicking one word--incorrectly--in a manner that contradicts your own claims--again--instead of responding to my other points, such as;
1. Dog couldn't have made it in time.
2. Dogs are used in certain situations.
3. Someone moving backwards moves slower than someone moving forwards.
4. The tool increased the suspect's range over that of the cop, unless the cop had any of his own weapons out.
5. The perp could've gotten close enough to swing at any second.
6. The officers did, in fact, try to subdue the suspect without lethal force.
7. Officers are under no obligation to use less-lethal force on someone employing or attempting to employ deadly force.
8. Even if the suspect was trying to "intimidate" the cops, he did such a good job of it they thought he was really trying to harm them. (You seem to be now asserting that he was trying to attack, which is quite a change.)

 

[JonnWood]

Very little that can be said after sixteen pages that hasn't already been said a dozen times over, but I thought I'd throw in my opinion anyway.

I think the officers got too close. I'm not saying that that means they would have deserved it if one of them got injured, but I think to be within the reach of that weapon is foolish. Yes, I appreciate that the idea may have been to get in close enough to taze him, and that does seem to be what they attempted, but there was no guarantee that that would work and they put themselves directly into a danger zone.

They weren't within reach. That's why the suspect had to try to get closer. It is entirely common for officers to approach suspects when they have a partner to cover them.

That being said, my view of the actual shooting is conflicted. The officer that fired the shots did so in order to halt a perceived deadly attack on is fellow officer, which I can't really complain about. My problem lies with the fact that police are armed in the first place, but given that that's the case in America I can't really condemn his reaction. Personally, I feel that police officers should be armed with guns that fire non-lethal projectiles, such as rubber bullets. If that were the case, then no-one would have had to die in this situation. However, the fact remains that that is not the case, so again, I don't feel as if I can fully condemn the officer.

What I do feel I can condemn is the fact that he shoots the guy after he's gone down. I'm sorry, but as soon as he has dropped to the floor, he ceases to be a threat to the officer's safety. It's not like he could have done any damage to anyone whilst lying on the floor having been shot, and there's still a chance, however slim, that the doctors could have saved him. The officer removed any chance of that when he shot the guy while he was lying prone and no longer a threat.

He shot him when he was staggered, but not gone down; look behind the car. Given his reaction to the taser, he was likely on drugs, and people on drugs, or who are just crazy, have been known to do lots of damage even with bullets in them.

 

[Thyunda]

-snip-

I'm sorry, but you're clearly blind. This incident should have been routine. Vandal on drugs swinging a heavy, easy-to-find melee weapon. This shit is deal with on a daily basis. This is one of the few times it ended with a corpse.
This was not a one-off. It was not a rare occurrence. The police should have been prepared, and they were not. They were not alone - there was a major police presence. Those two officers came too close. The officer who strolled casually behind the suspect was actively provoking him and the pistol-wielding officer was making no attempt to stop the suspect, and deliberately held the dog back while sticking his gun in the suspect's face.

The non-lethal attempt failed. So they shot him.

Keep bringing up 'deadly force' if you want, but the simple fact is you're comparing a large metal stick to a firearm. The police made the attack inevitable. They deliberately maximised the risk AND forced the suspect into an aggressive move.

God, we must have used miracles to subdue criminals before the invention of tasers and pistols. Makes me wonder why I'm not cowering in fear of the legendary Conduit Bender Gang. I mean, how can we expect the police to subdue a target without killing him? How backwards our police force is! I'm emigrating to America where I can be safe from harm, because the English police are powerless against the unstoppable force of a man with a pipe.

 

[JonnWood]

I'm surprised to see so many people saying this was justified. The suspect just did what looks like an act of intimidation, because he never even began to swing the weapon, and yet the officer unloaded like 8 shots into him. He could have fired once.

Yes that guy was incredibly stupid, but the shooting was completely unjustified.

He did begin to swing his weapon. He pulled his arms back to the start of a swing, then tried to get in range of the nearer cop. Or would you rather they shoot after he gets in range? Or has started to swing?

After the first few shots, he was still standing, so the officer continued to shoot until the threat was neutralized. People have fought off cops with bullets in their gut before, especially in a state when they shrug off a taser.

 

[Khada]

[

Note: Why are you stuck on unrealistic ideas like shooting him in the leg? Or are you some kind of expert that has determined against all the police that you know better than them about shooting at the center of mass?

If I'm wrong and a shot to the leg is totally unfeasible and not even worth trying before shooting a man 8 times, then OK I'm wrong. What about only shooting once to the chest and seeing if the target stops instead of 4 times to the chest? The man with the 'crowbar' can be clearly seen to stop approaching the cop after the first bullet. Yet he is fired upon 8 times.
Shouldn't the police have enough self restraint to stop when a target has been subdued?

Because bullets don't work the same way they do in films. It's designed to pierce, not to stop, basically meaning one bullet on it's own has very little stopping power unless it hits somewhere vital.

There have been several reports of people not even realising they'd been shot until after the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxzrErec8U

A suspect gets shot and continues to attack the officer.
Imagine if he had a deadly weapon.

I understand this (and reference it in the same post you quoted), I just don't see how it's so hard to take 1-2 shots, back-step a bit and THEN continue firing if the target is still approaching. What about the 4 shots fired as the man with the 'crowbar' was falling down? He was very clearly moving away at that point, how were those 4 shots necessary?

You shoot until the threat is neutralized, even if it means killing them. He wasn't falling yet. He was staggered, but still standing. 1-2 shots will probably not be sufficient if the guy is on drugs. He could still run away and endanger the public, or attack the officer.

Mmm, to a point. I gather from the other police officers in the background of the video that the area would have been covered enough to prevent his escape. I still assert that there was no evidential reason for the second volley. I would change that position if the second volley came after even just one step towards the officers or if he was attempting to flee (as apposed to involuntarily staggering from 4 shots to the chest).

 

[Thyunda]

It's cute how you're nitpicking one word--incorrectly--in a manner that contradicts your own claims--again--instead of responding to my other points, such as;
1. Dog couldn't have made it in time.
2. Dogs are used in certain situations.
3. Someone moving backwards moves slower than someone moving forwards.
4. The tool increased the suspect's range over that of the cop, unless the cop had any of his own weapons out.
5. The perp could've gotten close enough to swing at any second.
6. The officers did, in fact, try to subdue the suspect without lethal force.
7. Officers are under no obligation to use less-lethal force on someone employing or attempting to employ deadly force.
8. Even if the suspect was trying to "intimidate" the cops, he did such a good job of it they thought he was really trying to harm them. (You seem to be now asserting that he was trying to attack, which is quite a change.)

1. Yes it could.
2. This was a dog situation.
3. Not if the person moving forward is holding a heavy object and moving slowly.
4. Right. But the cop could easily stay out of range and let his partner and the dog handle the physical.
5. And the officer could've gotten further back and avoid the swing.
6. No, they used their gadgets. Gadgets are unreliable. They exchanged proper training for technology and it failed.
7. My brother sent me to hospital with a head injury using a spoon. Spoons are not classified as weaponry. Deadly force is relative.
8. Honestly, I still don't think he was attempting to attack the officer. If the officer had stood still, it's possible that the thug would also have stopped. Drugs make him unpredictable, however, so I wouldn't rely on that. If the officer had moved forward, then I do believe the vandal would have swung. However, at their current rate, the vandal was making no attempt to catch and injure the officer, otherwise he'd have dropped the defensive stance and actually moved to injure.

 

[JonnWood]

snip

I can't quote you properly due to there being too many embedded quotes in the post. Instead I'll just try to address each part in order.

1. You're right, my stop watch put the time from the first bullet to the last at 3 seconds. He was however moving away from the police well before the second round was fired, making a mele armed individual somewhat harmless at that point. If he began to move towards the cops again, a second volley would be justified.

2. I'll concede your point to the first volley of 4 bullets, but police are bound by law to not use lethal force unless necessary, and I don't see that the second volley was.

The first volley was itself lethal force. If you make a decision to put the subject down, you put the subject down.

3. Of course, bouncers and police are in a risky business but they choose to be in it. You can't use lethal force in every perceivably dangerous situation and as such both fields will see injury and death to some degree.

Straw man. We are discussing one particular situation.

4. In the situation as it was, I'll agree with you here. I do wonder why the other police officers were not nearby to help though. An extra taser could have ended the affair without bloodshed.

Or it could not have; the suspect had already shrugged off a taser. In any case, the suspect took that option away by choosing to use deadly force.

5. A little, I was genuinely accepting that I may be wrong, but mixing some sarcasm in to also get my point across (a usually fruitless endevour over the internet).

6. That video is horrific. It has to be said though that, that was a much different situation. 1 cop against 1 man with a gun is very different to 1 man with a 'crowbar' and 5 cops + an attack dog. The cop in the video was obviously justified in shooting the other man, it's a real shame he lost the fire-fight. I hope the other guy was caught and put to death (given the undeniable proof of his crime - I'm not huge on the death penalty though).

He received it in 2000.

7. Refer to 4.

8. Refer to 4 but add the desire for one of those extra cops to have been at the ready with a rubber bullet gun. They pack a greater punch due to zero penetration and a sufficient volley could have stopped his approach.

They are also generally shotguns or modified shotguns, and not included in officers' standard loadout, especially since they have things like tasers and pepper spray. They are not standard equipment, and might not have been effective against a guy who shrugs off a taser, even if present.

9. Refer to 4.

To be clear, I'm not defending the man with the 'crowbar', I just think greater effort could have been taken to resolve the situation without bloodshed given the available resources that the police have/had. It's so very common to see police overstepping their bounds (in less grey-area ways that in this video) and perhaps that has made me a little more critical of them in this instance.

The police were making every effort to ensure compliance without violence until the suspect tried to attack. Due to lack of other options, they were down to either a)shoot the guy, or b)risk the nearer cop getting his head stove in.

 

[JonnWood]

It's cute how you're nitpicking one word--incorrectly--in a manner that contradicts your own claims--again--instead of responding to my other points, such as;
1. Dog couldn't have made it in time.
2. Dogs are used in certain situations.
3. Someone moving backwards moves slower than someone moving forwards.
4. The tool increased the suspect's range over that of the cop, unless the cop had any of his own weapons out.
5. The perp could've gotten close enough to swing at any second.
6. The officers did, in fact, try to subdue the suspect without lethal force.
7. Officers are under no obligation to use less-lethal force on someone employing or attempting to employ deadly force.
8. Even if the suspect was trying to "intimidate" the cops, he did such a good job of it they thought he was really trying to harm them. (You seem to be now asserting that he was trying to attack, which is quite a change.)

1. Yes it could.

You have not backed this up.

2. This was a dog situation.

No, it wasn't.

3. Not if the person moving forward is holding a heavy object and moving slowly.

And if the person on question is high on drugs that let them shrug off a taser?

4. Right. But the cop could easily stay out of range and let his partner and the dog handle the physical.

That's not how Use of Force works. The cops try to scale up their use. They were doing so in a textbook fashion, until the suspect decided to attack.

5. And the officer could've gotten further back and avoid the swing.

He was trying to, as I've pointed out several times.

6. No, they used their gadgets. Gadgets are unreliable. They exchanged proper training for technology and it failed.

Their training included that technology. Those "gadgets" are "less-lethal force", just like attempting to grapple would be. This is not a personal opinon; tasers and pepper spray are considered less-lethal around the world. You seem to think that they just toss cops tasers and pepper spray and go "have fun!" The entire point of such devices is to attempt to ensure compliance without having to grapple, which is risky to both officer and suspect. You decry the officers for not taking measures that would put them in greater danger, but say they provoked the suspect by attempting to use safer options.

7. My brother sent me to hospital with a head injury using a spoon. Spoons are not classified as weaponry. Deadly force is relative.

Force that is most likely to cause serious injury or death, legally, even if it doesn't actually kill. Swinging the tool at the cops was "deadly force". The handguns are "deadly force".

8. Honestly, I still don't think he was attempting to attack the officer.

Clearly, the two trained officers disagreed.

If the officer had stood still, it's possible that the thug would also have stopped.

Wait, first you argue that the officer should've gotten out of the way, now you're arguing he should've stood still. And again, trying to conflate could with should.

Drugs make him unpredictable, however, so I wouldn't rely on that. If the officer had moved forward, then I do believe the vandal would have swung. However, at their current rate, the vandal was making no attempt to catch and injure the officer, otherwise he'd have dropped the defensive stance and actually moved to injure.

That wasn't a "defensive stance"; you yourself have argued that he was actually trying to get closer to the officer. If you are trying to close to attack range, then you are acting aggressively. If he had stayed where he was or backed away, the cops might not have considered it defensive. Might.

 

[JonnWood]

[

Note: Why are you stuck on unrealistic ideas like shooting him in the leg? Or are you some kind of expert that has determined against all the police that you know better than them about shooting at the center of mass?

If I'm wrong and a shot to the leg is totally unfeasible and not even worth trying before shooting a man 8 times, then OK I'm wrong. What about only shooting once to the chest and seeing if the target stops instead of 4 times to the chest? The man with the 'crowbar' can be clearly seen to stop approaching the cop after the first bullet. Yet he is fired upon 8 times.
Shouldn't the police have enough self restraint to stop when a target has been subdued?

Because bullets don't work the same way they do in films. It's designed to pierce, not to stop, basically meaning one bullet on it's own has very little stopping power unless it hits somewhere vital.

There have been several reports of people not even realising they'd been shot until after the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxzrErec8U

A suspect gets shot and continues to attack the officer.
Imagine if he had a deadly weapon.

I understand this (and reference it in the same post you quoted), I just don't see how it's so hard to take 1-2 shots, back-step a bit and THEN continue firing if the target is still approaching. What about the 4 shots fired as the man with the 'crowbar' was falling down? He was very clearly moving away at that point, how were those 4 shots necessary?

You shoot until the threat is neutralized, even if it means killing them. He wasn't falling yet. He was staggered, but still standing. 1-2 shots will probably not be sufficient if the guy is on drugs. He could still run away and endanger the public, or attack the officer.

Mmm, to a point. I gather from the other police officers in the background of the video that the area would have been covered enough to prevent his escape. I still assert that there was no evidential reason for the second volley. I would change that position if the second volley came after even just one step towards the officers or if he was attempting to flee (as apposed to involuntarily staggering from 4 shots to the chest).

They would've prevented his escape by shooting him. Even standing, with the presumed drug use, he's still a threat. And people who are not on drugs have shrugged off comparable injuries before.

 

[JonnWood]

-snip-

I'm sorry, but you're clearly blind. This incident should have been routine. Vandal on drugs swinging a heavy, easy-to-find melee weapon. This shit is deal with on a daily basis. This is one of the few times it ended with a corpse.

Because he attempted to attack the officers with deadly force.

This was not a one-off. It was not a rare occurrence. The police should have been prepared, and they were not.

They were prepared. That's why the K9 officer is covering his partner in textbook fashion.

They were not alone - there was a major police presence. Those two officers came too close. The officer who strolled casually behind the suspect was actively provoking him

Provoking him by telling him to stop and using tasers, as per procedure, or provoking him by calling his mommy names?

and the pistol-wielding officer was making no attempt to stop the suspect, and deliberately held the dog back while sticking his gun in the suspect's face.

Well, yes. You hold the dog back unless you want it to attack. And you don't "stick your gun in the suspect's face". He was several feet away.

The non-lethal attempt failed. So they shot him.

They shot him because he attempted or appeared to be attempting to attack them.

Keep bringing up 'deadly force' if you want, but the simple fact is you're comparing a large metal stick to a firearm.

Deadly force is, in fact, binary. You're either using it or you're not. If a suspect is running at a cop with a knife, which is a much smaller piece of metal, he is permitted to shoot them. If he is running at a civilian with a knife, the officer is permitted to shoot them. Deadly force warrants a deadly force response.

The police made the attack inevitable. They deliberately maximised the risk AND forced the suspect into an aggressive move.

How? The suspect was deliberately ignoring police attempts to take him down peacefully. He chose to attack.

Funny how in your post after this one, you argue that the suspect was in fact acting defensively. You can't even keep your arguments straight.

God, we must have used miracles to subdue criminals before the invention of tasers and pistols. Makes me wonder why I'm not cowering in fear of the legendary Conduit Bender Gang. I mean, how can we expect the police to subdue a target without killing him?

Straw man. We are discussing this particular situation, no matter how much you try to generalize.

How backwards our police force is! I'm emigrating to America where I can be safe from harm, because the English police are powerless against the unstoppable force of a man with a pipe.

Aren't you the one who said bobbies would've called for backup? Yet you expect the US cops to grapple with this man? And once again, UK cops aren't usually armed, by your own argument. It's like saying Alex is wrong for eating a banana for lunch because Bob didn't, despite the fact that Bob did not bring or purchase a banana for lunch.

EDIT: I note how you cut out the part where I pointed out you were asserting "it is actively the officer's fault that the suspect chose to attack them with deadly force, after he ignored several commands to stop, as well as a taser."

 

[Thyunda]

-snip-

I'm sorry, but you're clearly blind. This incident should have been routine. Vandal on drugs swinging a heavy, easy-to-find melee weapon. This shit is deal with on a daily basis. This is one of the few times it ended with a corpse.

Because he attempted to attack the officers with deadly force.

This was not a one-off. It was not a rare occurrence. The police should have been prepared, and they were not.

They were prepared. That's why the K9 officer is covering his partner in textbook fashion.

They were not alone - there was a major police presence. Those two officers came too close. The officer who strolled casually behind the suspect was actively provoking him

Provoking him by telling him to stop and using tasers, as per procedure, or provoking him by calling his mommy names?

and the pistol-wielding officer was making no attempt to stop the suspect, and deliberately held the dog back while sticking his gun in the suspect's face.

Well, yes. You hold the dog back unless you want it to attack. And you don't "stick your gun in the suspect's face". He was several feet away.

The non-lethal attempt failed. So they shot him.

They shot him because he attempted or appeared to be attempting to attack them.

Keep bringing up 'deadly force' if you want, but the simple fact is you're comparing a large metal stick to a firearm.

Deadly force is, in fact, binary. You're either using it or you're not. If a suspect is running at a cop with a knife, which is a much smaller piece of metal, he is permitted to shoot them. If he is running at a civilian with a knife, the officer is permitted to shoot them. Deadly force warrants a deadly force response.

The police made the attack inevitable. They deliberately maximised the risk AND forced the suspect into an aggressive move.

How? The suspect was deliberately ignoring police attempts to take him down peacefully. He chose to attack.

Funny how in your post after this one, you argue that the suspect was in fact acting defensively. You can't even keep your arguments straight.

God, we must have used miracles to subdue criminals before the invention of tasers and pistols. Makes me wonder why I'm not cowering in fear of the legendary Conduit Bender Gang. I mean, how can we expect the police to subdue a target without killing him?

Straw man. We are discussing this particular situation, no matter how much you try to generalize.

How backwards our police force is! I'm emigrating to America where I can be safe from harm, because the English police are powerless against the unstoppable force of a man with a pipe.

Aren't you the one who said bobbies would've called for backup? Yet you expect the US cops to grapple with this man?

There was enough of them present for a physical attack to have been warranted.

Now, clearly you've had no experience with violence or violent people, so I'll have to explain the thug's movements in simple terms.

An attack stance is when you deliberately move forward at a greater speed than your target in order to strike them.
A counter stance is when you prepare your weapon and maintain optimal distance between you and your target.

The thug's movements were in counter-stance. His weapon was raised in a position that would make it easy to swing. You insist he was beginning a swing when he clearly wasn't. If the officer had backed away long enough, then I doubt the thug would have persisted his movements.

I keep saying this. If the thug wanted to hit the officer, it would have taken one step to do it. The thug clearly has no regard for his own safety, so there was nothing stopping him making that aggressive move. He chose not to. He moved side-on. That's counter-stance.

Are you getting the picture yet? It's tough arguing combat with somebody who sees a metal stick and cites 'deadly force'.

 

[Khada]

[

Note: Why are you stuck on unrealistic ideas like shooting him in the leg? Or are you some kind of expert that has determined against all the police that you know better than them about shooting at the center of mass?

If I'm wrong and a shot to the leg is totally unfeasible and not even worth trying before shooting a man 8 times, then OK I'm wrong. What about only shooting once to the chest and seeing if the target stops instead of 4 times to the chest? The man with the 'crowbar' can be clearly seen to stop approaching the cop after the first bullet. Yet he is fired upon 8 times.
Shouldn't the police have enough self restraint to stop when a target has been subdued?

Because bullets don't work the same way they do in films. It's designed to pierce, not to stop, basically meaning one bullet on it's own has very little stopping power unless it hits somewhere vital.

There have been several reports of people not even realising they'd been shot until after the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxzrErec8U

A suspect gets shot and continues to attack the officer.
Imagine if he had a deadly weapon.

I understand this (and reference it in the same post you quoted), I just don't see how it's so hard to take 1-2 shots, back-step a bit and THEN continue firing if the target is still approaching. What about the 4 shots fired as the man with the 'crowbar' was falling down? He was very clearly moving away at that point, how were those 4 shots necessary?

You shoot until the threat is neutralized, even if it means killing them. He wasn't falling yet. He was staggered, but still standing. 1-2 shots will probably not be sufficient if the guy is on drugs. He could still run away and endanger the public, or attack the officer.

Mmm, to a point. I gather from the other police officers in the background of the video that the area would have been covered enough to prevent his escape. I still assert that there was no evidential reason for the second volley. I would change that position if the second volley came after even just one step towards the officers or if he was attempting to flee (as apposed to involuntarily staggering from 4 shots to the chest).

They would've prevented his escape by shooting him. Even standing, with the presumed drug use, he's still a threat. And people who are not on drugs have shrugged off comparable injuries before.

Sure, but you can't solve every threat with 4 shots to the chest. Sometimes you can/should stop and assess a situation before taking further action. I think that was one of those times.