Mortai Gravesend said:
AngloDoom said:
Is this really justified? I mean - I thought police-officers would require some sorts of training against people with such weapons. On his own, a police-officer should - in my opinion - stand heads and shoulders above the average thug. Two of them should have made it relatively easy.
But no, let's just shoot him eight times in the chest. That's easier.
Yes, clearly the officers should have more HP and be able to deal with having crowbars or whatnot swung at them. Is there any realistic basis for expecting 2 officers to be able to easily deal with someone with a weapon like that?
I was thinking someone who receives regular training in how to grapple with or interrupt the swing of a hand-held weapon would be pretty good at doing just that. I never said it would be actually
easy, but
relatively. My basis is, of course, only speculative - but I have practised martial arts for a short while and the weapons defence enabled many of the students who had been there to disarm an attacker with
relative ease. A random thug swinging a crowbar at these guys would still have an advantage of reach and of course general skull-splitting damage, but I don't see why teenagers studying a martial art once a week for a hobby should apparently be better at disarming an individual than an individual who's duties include dealing with armed criminals.
Of course, real-life situations are a lot more unpredictable, but I don't think it's a stretch to think that someone who is trained to regularly defend themselves against armed attackers would be pretty good at it after a while. With two of them, it should be a lot easier.
Mortai Gravesend said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Thyunda said:
Mortai Gravesend said:
Brawndo said:
News story under the video, shooting occurs at 0:42.
Is a human life really worth so little that a half a dozen police officers will not try to overpower and disarm one man with a crowbar? I mean what is event the point of spending thousands of dollars equipping and training police with batons, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and police dogs if the cops aren't going to use them? The officer who shot the suspect didn't even go for the leg shot, it just looked like he panicked and unloaded.
There were two of them and it looked like he was about to attack one of them with the weapon. I don't think they needed to take the time to pull out another weapon when he's going to attack with something that can clearly injure that officer. He didn't have access to thousands of dollars of equipment right then and there.
And the leg shot nonsense is just ignorant. That's not how it works IRL. You don't shoot for the legs.
I'm sorry, but our police in England are trained to physically restrain an armed man. Plus he had a big fucking dog. The thug actually turned away from the officer with the dog, who responded by shooting him dead. If these officers were trained to actually respond to situations rather than just pulling a gun, that man would still be alive, and he'd be in a jail cell. If I can see an opportunity presenting itself, I'm quite sure a trained, baton-armed, dog-leashed police officer can.
I'm doubtful they're going to have a nice chance to physically restrain him when he's about to swing that weapon at one of them. At least not before one of them gets hurt badly.
Sorry, but I had to quote this part.
That's part of the risk of the job. Just as how a bouncer at a club may have to deal with groups of people bigger than him brandishing weapons, a police-officer should be trained to deal with a situation with one man and a weapon. Hell, I actually think a bouncer could have handled that situation better. If the police just shoot everything that presents a danger to themselves, in a country where the average citizen can choose to do the same thing, what's the point of the police?
Well it's nice that you value lives so much that it's okay if the police officer ends up dead. But as for why have police... well I'm going to assume you're just being a silly anti-American nuisance who doesn't realize that most confrontations with the cops don't end in violence. Nor do people necessarily have a weapon like that.
It is not about value of life, but what you should expect. It is still a tragedy is a police officer or a fireman ends up losing their life doing what is a noble job - however, a fireman is trained to deal with such a situation better than the average guy if he were handed the same equipment. That is what I am referring to - that an American citizen (at least, I believe in some states, not all) can obtain a firearm. In that sense, such an individual who purchases a gun is just as well equipped as a police-officer, yet I believe they should still be in a worse position to handle such a situation than a police-officer. In reference to that video, I have seen club bouncers deal with a similar the situation better: especially when there's two of them.
This isn't a dig at America - I didn't even mention a specific country - but if a man is allowed to use a stick to defend himself in a country, and the local law-enforcement agencies are using the same sticks, then you would certainly want the law-enforcers to be much better at using that stick, and against a man without a stick they should be able to handle the situation with ease.
I didn't say that all situations involving the police end in violence? It's just that it's part of the job - a policeman should expect and be trained for situations which involve violence since it's part of the job.
