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?

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.

Yeah, nah. There's no such thing as 'bad English'. Nice attempt to hold the high ground though.

I really hope you're intentionally trolling me because "There's no such thing as 'bad English'" is easily one of the stupidest things I've heard. Again, high ground or not, truth is truth. Not that I would trust your assessment of it.

Done with this conversation. Good day.

 

[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.

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

Yeah, nah. There's no such thing as 'bad English'. Nice attempt to hold the high ground though.

I really hope you're intentionally trolling me because "There's no such thing as 'bad English'" is easily one of the stupidest things I've heard. Again, high ground or not, truth is truth. Not that I would trust your assessment of it.

Done with this conversation. Good day.

I stand by it, there is no such thing as 'bad English', only non-standard or misspelt. There are literally thousands of dialects in English and to label any of them as 'bad English' is horribly arrogant.

Again, nice last word attempt, the whole 'I'll say I'm finished with this conversation so I can get out of a debate and still come out on top' trick always works.

 

[mb16]

Afterall, a taser in the face clearly did not work. If I may ladies and gentlemen, I can say without a doubt that 25,000 volts applied to my face would not encourage me to any actions other than surrendering and I would wager most of us average citizens would do the same.

I can tell you that tasers wont always stop someone. The story that comes to mind is when a guy (normal guy) with a baseball bat was going to attack his girlfriend for cheating on him, but he got intercepted by the police who had caught wind. They found him crossing a field on the way to the house and surrounded him. After he refused to drop the weapon he was hit with a taser, officers then went in for the arrest. But he managed to break 3 fingers in the officer's hand and then made a dash for it. It then took 2 more taser to cause him to stumble so that the police could catch up and tackle him.

EDIT: whoops i just saw the date when you posted

 

[Ickorus]

He was slowing down because the cop backed away from him. He wasn't about to attack and at most he should have got a shot in the leg, not multiple shots, anywhere.
I understand that making a choice in thes scenario is hard, but they are supposed to be trained in making the right choice, and killing someone for making a step forward with a weapon is not the right one.

If you shoot someone in the leg there's a fairly high chance it'll hit the femoral artery and kill them from blood loss anyway.

On-topic: Whilst he was armed and did threaten the police officer I must ask why they walked so close to him in the first place, surely when someone is armed with a close-range weapon as a police officer i'd imagine you'd be trained to keep a distance so the suspect wouldn't have a chance to threaten you.

If that's the case they should be at the very least suspended and retrained since their actions are what allowed the man to become a big enough threat to warrant taking his life.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

He was slowing down because the cop backed away from him. He wasn't about to attack and at most he should have got a shot in the leg, not multiple shots, anywhere.
I understand that making a choice in thes scenario is hard, but they are supposed to be trained in making the right choice, and killing someone for making a step forward with a weapon is not the right one.

If you shoot someone in the leg there's a fairly high chance it'll hit the femoral artery and kill them from blood loss anyway.

...but multiple shots to the torsa where the aorta, heart, lungs, liver, colon etc. are mean pretty much certain death. Fairly high chance against almost certain death gives him more chance of survival. They panicked. Anyone, even a cop can panic and react this way, but that doesn't make it right to shoot away.