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

[JonnWood]

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

Wait, you're arguing that he was justified in attacking the cops.

Now, clearly you've had no experience with violence or violent people,

Incorrect.

so I'll have to explain the thug's movements in simple terms.

That shouldn't be difficult for you.

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 he moved his weapon from a position where it was not easy to swing to one where it was, that can be reasonably considered an attack and/or the start of a swing, especially since he was also trying to get closer. This isn't a martial arts tournament. This is a man who was had just been using the tool in a destructive manner raising it and trying to get close to an officer.

If the officer had backed away long enough, then I doubt the thug would have persisted his movements.

The officers are under no obligation to "back up", and you cannot prove that assertion. The nearer officer was, in fact, trying to get out of range.

I keep saying this. If the thug wanted to hit the officer, it would have taken one step to do it.

Which he tried to take, except the cop tried to get out of the way.

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.

He was not "maintaining optimal distance", he was actively trying to reduce the distance, albeit not in the most efficient manner.

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

I see a guy raising a heavy metal tool that is, combat-wise, basically a war pick and trying to close with the officer while the officer's hands are occupied and he is unarmed.

 

[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.

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.

They assessed it. They determined he was still a potential threat. They continued to fire.

 

[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.

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.

I'll agree with you for the most part (minor points put aside) but I'll continue to disagree about the second volley being justified.

For now however, I have spent enough time discussing this topic and wish to put it aside.

Good day to you sir.

 

[Thyunda]

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

Wait, you're arguing that he was justified in attacking the cops.

Now, clearly you've had no experience with violence or violent people,

Incorrect.

so I'll have to explain the thug's movements in simple terms.

That shouldn't be difficult for you.

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 he moved his weapon from a position where it was not easy to swing to one where it was, that can be reasonably considered an attack and/or the start of a swing, especially since he was also trying to get closer. This isn't a martial arts tournament. This is a man who was had just been using the tool in a destructive manner raising it and trying to get close to an officer.

If the officer had backed away long enough, then I doubt the thug would have persisted his movements.

The officers are under no obligation to "back up", and you cannot prove that assertion. The nearer officer was, in fact, trying to get out of range.

I keep saying this. If the thug wanted to hit the officer, it would have taken one step to do it.

Which he tried to take, except the cop tried to get out of the way.

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.

He was not "maintaining optimal distance", he was actively trying to reduce the distance, albeit not in the most efficient manner.

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

I see a guy raising a heavy metal tool that is, combat-wise, basically a war pick and trying to close with the officer while the officer's hands are occupied and he is unarmed.

No, he didn't try to take the step. Look at his feet. He's fucking shuffling. You do not shuffle when you're lunging for somebody. You admit, it wasn't the most efficient way to approach a target, which should be yelling at you THEN HE WASN'T CHARGING.

A violent, high thug with a heavy weapon would not shuffle toward a target if he intended to swing. With a weapon of that size, he'll be operating under the belief that if he swings it, there won't ever be a counter-attack, so there's no need to be on the defensive. So, he'll be going straight for the kill.

Our thug was shuffling. Therefore he was trying to push the cops back. If the cops had counter-attacked, then yes, he'd have swung. However, he'd turned his back to the gunman and the dog. Dogs are practically silent as they run, and provided the officers were ready, they could have taken advantage of the momentary distraction as the dog attaches itself to the thug.

If the thug HAD lunged, I'd be on your side. However, his stance and his speed all indicate a counter stance, and not an attack one. But there was no urgency to the situation - the dog had plenty of time to close the distance, and the officers were quite sizeable. Addict or no, he'd not have been able to throw them off before the backup that was surrounding them moved into perform the arrest.

And if I bring into play just how hard it would be to strike anybody with that conduit bender...it has one point of impact. You have to be at a very specific distance and height for it to hit. Even if he'd turned around to face the dog as it charged, there is no way he could strike it with the focused point of the weapon.

I didn't mention this in the initial argument because I was working under the assumption that it was a crowbar, which is much lighter and much easier to use. If it WAS a crowbar, I think he could have stopped the dog. But there's a reason conduit-bender related assaults are uncommon. They're not very good weapons.

Does raise the question - why a conduit bender? A sledgehammer would have done the same job, AND they're easier to use in combat.


Oh - when I said a physical attack would be warranted, I meant there was no need for backup as a decent number of officers were already on site. Sheer weight of numbers could be used to keep him down once he's compromised.

 

[Eight88]

Hey, how come I can't get a acknowledgement of my local knowledge and thoughts? Even if it is a scathing retort or insulting, I'd be happy.

Hmm...educatedfool, things that shaped California policing policy will not produce the same policy as what shaped Irish policing policy.

It does not matter whether or not both police organizations are armed, but what happened before and shaped their agencies.

It's like saying BOPE(Batalhão de Operações Policiais Especiais)[Brazil], Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department, the Ministry of Public Security(PRC), the Monterey Park Police/California Police/US Police, and your Irish Police Service all should have the same procedures across the board. Hell even in the United States, there are sometimes big divides in how police operate.

You are bringing out of context evidence and saying it should be the same and apply here. I think this is something like, what is the proper term here, fallacy? No...hmm...

Each police organization has their own histories and realities. In terms of legal procedures, local political climate, public standing, corruption, local criminal activity, threats, psychology, cultural history, and numerous other factors. BOPE has the cartels and favelas.In Japan they can hold you for something like 23 days without charge. China, well, it's China. In California we had the Rodney King scandal and the following riot. Your Irish Police Service had the IRA and attacks against the police. They are all different.

Also, I think the diminished responsibility does not work like that. If you commit assault while drunk or on drugs, it is still assault...in fact I am pretty sure it makes some crimes worse and carry stiffer penalties. Like hitting a person with your car, if you do it sober it might be ruled an accident. You do it drunk or on drugs, it is automatically declared a crime and you might get charged with a serious Murder-type charge or have a number of years added to a sentence.

I need to check something...hope I get I reply.

 

[senordesol]

Hey Eight88.

Thanks for contributing. Stay Classy.

 

[Eight88]

Thank you senordesol.

 

[secretsantaone]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

Because he's in a position where if he waited, and those one or two bullets didn't stop him, his buddy could have had his head caved in. I realise the irony in this statement but it's better to be safe than sorry.

Because he wasn't falling down, he was still standing. If a man who has tried to attack you with a crowbar is still standing after 5 bullets to the chest, you put some more in him. Remember, the officer had made the decision at this point that the man had to die, you don't shoot someone 5 times and then attempt to restrain them.

 

[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?

Because he's in a position where if he waited, and those one or two bullets didn't stop him, his buddy could have had his head caved in. I realise the irony in this statement but it's better to be safe than sorry.

Because he wasn't falling down, he was still standing. If a man who has tried to attack you with a crowbar is still standing after 5 bullets to the chest, you put some more in him. Remember, the officer had made the decision at this point that the man had to die, you don't shoot someone 5 times and then attempt to restrain them.

This has already been resolved in later posts. I'm sorry to say but you have wasted your time.

 

[StarCecil]

I agree with OP, it looks like the cop panicked. But isn't all the rigorous training police officers go though suppose to help them stay calm and collected in these sort of situations? Maybe if the guy had a gun and was about to point it at someone, the cop would have a make a quick decision. But he had a mallet, the cop would know since he's got a gun, he's got the advantage, so shouldn't he have made a calm decision?

Most police training is procedural. They get training with how to deal with high-stress situations like this, but it's more important for a cop to follow proper procedure - or else criminal cases get thrown out. At any rate, it looks like a justified shoot.

 

[TechNoFear]

An Australian police officer would have difficulty claiming he followed correct procedure in that case;

The officers got too close to the offender. There was no need for them to not maintain distance.

The officer with the Taser shot at the head not body.

The officer with the dog should not have fired (his job is to deploy the canine unit if required). There are numerous other officers available and more back-up on the way.

The officer should not have emptied his entire clip into the offender.

IMO the officer paniced and used more force than required, probably resulting in a fatality that could ahve been avoided.

 

[Smagmuck_]

First of all, I'm pretty sure everyone who's spouting off "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg?" or an variation of there of, doesn't know shit about ballistics and the human body.

There's an easy way to explain why the LEO put seven to ten rounds into the man's chest. It could easily have been the burst of adrenaline after the suspect just shook of a fucking taser that is capable of bringing down a large animal.

And to put down the shooting to wound argument. All LEOs are trained to shoot to kill. No shooting to disable, that's bullshit and any junkie drugged out of his mind could easily shake off the effects of a .45 ACP if they're off their rocker enough. The LEO was in imminent danger and shot to kill to defend others and himself. Again, the reason he fired the majority of his weapon's magazine into the suspect was probably due to an adrenaline surge in his blood stream.

Why people are crying murder over an Officer of the Law that did his fucking job is beyond me.
Besides, it's one less junkie that the State has to support in a Government funded Day Care Center.

 

[StarCecil]

I wonder if people are considering the situation from the cop's point of view.

The armed suspect has just been tazered. My comrade to my right is now unarmed until he resets the tazer or pulls his gun. I have the suspect covered with my gun, my other hand is occupied with the dog. Now the man is making a threatening motion with his weapon towards my comrade. I fire my gun to protect my fellow officer.


And for that matter, the five rounds both officers fired is standard. A suspect, even one not on drugs, can easily shake off five rounds and anything less. We see the man fall behind the car, out of frame, so we can't say with any certainty what happened next; the guy could not have fallen and been in the process of standing back up, he could have been crouched but not visibly neutralized or he could have been prone on the deck.

The other officer, the one who was being threatened, manages to pull his gun and fire another, standard, five rounds. That probably killed the suspect. Police, as with any shooter, are trained to fire until the target is dead. All was standard. Did the officers get too close? Possibly. At any rate, it all happened in seconds. How well could any of the Escapists have handled the situation, in as much time?

EDIT: This is also assuming that every round hit. It's highly probable that between the two cops only half of the rounds fired hit.

 

[secretsantaone]

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?

Because he's in a position where if he waited, and those one or two bullets didn't stop him, his buddy could have had his head caved in. I realise the irony in this statement but it's better to be safe than sorry.

Because he wasn't falling down, he was still standing. If a man who has tried to attack you with a crowbar is still standing after 5 bullets to the chest, you put some more in him. Remember, the officer had made the decision at this point that the man had to die, you don't shoot someone 5 times and then attempt to restrain them.

This has already been resolved in later posts. I'm sorry to say but you have wasted your time.

Dat last word attempt.

 

[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?

Because he's in a position where if he waited, and those one or two bullets didn't stop him, his buddy could have had his head caved in. I realise the irony in this statement but it's better to be safe than sorry.

Because he wasn't falling down, he was still standing. If a man who has tried to attack you with a crowbar is still standing after 5 bullets to the chest, you put some more in him. Remember, the officer had made the decision at this point that the man had to die, you don't shoot someone 5 times and then attempt to restrain them.

This has already been resolved in later posts. I'm sorry to say but you have wasted your time.

Dat last word attempt.

"Dat" is bad English. Either way, the motive doesn't affect the truth of a statement.

 

[blacking512]

i can see why the cop shot him but putting 8 bullets in him was too far

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The other officer, seeing this, immediately starts shooting in defense of his fellow officer who at that very moment does not appear ready for such an attack.

A "leg shot" or anything other than center-mass shot is exceedingly stupid and just as likely to be lethal.

My conclusion is: Absolutely justified shooting. If the officer with the dog hadn't started shooting, the other officer might well be seriously injured or even dead right now.

This. Absolutely this.

If a cop hesitates when being attacked, no matter the weapon, that cop may die.

Cops don't point guns for fun. If they are pointing a gun at you, then they believe that you are trying to KILL them.

Cops shoot for center mass. Actually, anyone who's had any weapon training shoots for center mass. Anything else is movie magic - no one in the real world shoots for legs. It isn't possible (and as noted, leg shots are actually MORE fatal than many body shots - the femoral artery is a *****) to accurately hit the leg of a moving target.

So yeah - totally justified. The guy with the recording was still being an asshole though - I'll give you that one OP.