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

[Wakey87]

I can understand the shooting to stop him, not the shootings to make sure he was dead.

 

[JonnWood]

I take it this is an entirely rhetorical question.

Incidentally, the police in the UC Davis incident did use pepper spray, and it caused a huge outcry. What the popular conception of the incident omits is that the cops were trying to leave peacefully with prisoners when a crowd of dozens decided to obstruct, surround, and actively threaten them. The students, the so-called "peaceful protestors", were actually the aggressors in that situation, which the videos tend to edit out.


Given the tone of your post, you seem to have very little knowledge of the various types of force and the situations where their use is appropriate. For example, a leg shot can and does kill people, and is specifically contraindicated. You also seem unaware that police shoot to neutralize, which includes "death". Given that the suspect was damaging the restaurant, ignoring both cops with weapons drawn and the police dog, and ignoring what looked like pepper spray, then moving in what looked like the beginnings of an attack, there is a strong possibility that he was in an altered state, and represented a deadly threat to the officers and public.

This looks justified to me. You don't stop shooting until you are sure the threat is neutralized. A cop who shoots someone does so under the knowledge they might kill the target. People who are on drugs or mentally disturbed have been known to ignore their injuries long enough to inflict serious damage, sometimes even to escape.

EDIT: I find it odd how most of the people who call this and incidents like it brutality seem to have little knowledge of the use of force as LEOs see it.

 

[LordFisheh]

To be honest, if you want people to value protecting your life at their own risk - something the police do every day - then don't wave a weapon in their faces and refuse to drop it. Otherwise, why on earth should anyone risk themselves rather than taking you down as efficiently as possible?

It's like complaining that it's unfair or disproportionate for someone to die after deliberately jumping off a clearly marked cliff. Everyone knows how to avoid the risk of arrest, injury or death at the hand of armed police. You do what they say and you don't wave a weapon at them. If you fail to do that, frankly, the gene pool is better off without you.

Besides, the lives of people like him have, in my opinion, the lowest value that can be ascribed to a human life. They take what they want through force, and if you don't like it, tough - they'll beat you with a crowbar. Chances are he'd maim or kill you or your loved ones without caring because, often, low level criminals really are that self-centred to the point of brain damage. Or perhaps he 'only' had it for stealing cars and would never harm a soul - he'd just use the power he has to take from others, for no better justification than that he can. We need more people able to tell men like that that they cannot take whatever they want.

Edit - also, guns do not fucking work that way. There is no such thing as 'shoot to incapacitate' with a lethal weapon, and things like leg shots stand a good chance of being lethal anyway.

And multiple shots - a gunshot does not send you flying back stunned for five seconds like in a film. You end up with people killed because they thought once they hit the enemy that would be it; instead the enemy shot them back. Besides, having fired once - and as a gun is a lethal weapon, that means an intended kill, otherwise the weapon shouldn't be used at all - you bloody well make sure they're dead. One shot is theoretically a kill. After that, what does another 4 shots into the corpse mean? Not to mention the brain's natural reaction to combat, which takes months of training to break. It's less a matter of calmly deciding one shot is enough and more a case of shithe'sswingingatmegoingtokillmeshootshootshootquick.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

He was tased and it didn't work, some people aren't easy to bring down with tasers, that's just the way of the world. Alternatives would be pepper spray/mace, would have to get too close to use, risking being hit with a deadly weapon or rubber bullets which they don't appear to have. The first looks like he might be going to reset the taser and try again but what else are they meant to do? They have to watch the guy so they can't run away and if he is violent and dangerous they have little choice.

You can't expect police to waltz up to an armed man and go for fisticuffs, it's nonsensical, he could be a demon with that crowbar or maybe he gets lucky and that's all he needs. Police did the right thing, OP is biased. /thread

 

[CounterReproductive]

Making a threatening move towards an armed officer. two steps, , watch the way he repositions his shoulders and arms ready to swing what looks like a long handled ice axe to me, it looks nothing at all like a crowbar, estimated reach of weapon approx 1 metre, distance to officer is less than 1 metre. that would do a LOT of damge if swung as he was clearly intending to do. Officer 2 responded to perceived threat, maybe too many rounds, but hey if you are justified in firing one, might as well empty the magazine.

 

[Kanova]

That thing to kill someone if he swung it, so yes the shooting was justified. You are to protect yourself and others before the suspect. Gg

 

[JonnWood]

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.

Any MA instructor will tell you the first thing you do in such a situation is "run away, and call the cops". The cops don't have that option. They are there to protect the public. If at all possible, you don't grapple with a man who is ignoring a taser and the demands to stop from several officers, who may be high, nuts, or both. You neutralize the threat.

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.

Joe Random does not have the training and responsibilities of a cop, and cops, in fact, don't like it when people try to do their jobs, since it tends to get more people hurt then would otherwise be the case.

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.

This guy had a stick. They had tasers, and guns. They handled it 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.

Cops are trained to avoid violence, since it involves, y'know, people getting hurt. When violence is unavoidable, they try to use as little force as necessary. That's what this was. They tried the taser, it failed, and then the suspect presented a threat of serious injury to an officer of the law. If he hadn't, the cop probably would've tried pepper spray. The suspect escalated, not the po-po.

You keep talking about how they should've handled it better, but, curiously, you don't specify how. Someone mentioned "bouncers" earlier, but I doubt the guys they "handled" were shrugging off tasers and breaking restaurant windows in broad daylight and ignoring cops with weapons drawn. Just a hunch.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Making a threatening move towards an armed officer. two steps, , watch the way he repositions his shoulders and arms ready to swing what looks like a long handled ice axe to me, it looks nothing at all like a crowbar, estimated reach of weapon approx 1 metre, distance to officer is less than 1 metre. that would do a LOT of damge if swung as he was clearly intending to do. Officer 2 responded to perceived threat, maybe too many rounds, but hey if you are justified in firing one, might as well empty the magazine.

I thought it looked like a sledgehammer, personally.

But whatever it was, it certainly didn't look like a crowbar...yet everything says it was a crowbar. It's weird.

 

[JonnWood]

lol, of course it wasn't jutified. He was walking away without hurting anybody. Then he gets tasered, and he doesn't clreary attack an officer, it's more of a "bluff". Then the officers instead of shooting him 1 or 2 times, shoot them many times.

This is just ridiculous.

The video description says that he had been breaking the restauraunt windows, which the OP conveniently forgot to mention, just like you ignored the fact that the taser didn't work, and he didn't attack an officer because he was shot before he got a chance to. He was about to, though, from where the cops were standing, and it's kind of hard to shoot the guy who's just caved your skull in.

 

[Xanthious]

I have zero problem with this. The guy just got done committing criminal acts inside the Carls Jr breaking windows with the crow bar. Then, after he leaves the building he sees police and keeps walking after attempting to be tazed and likely being told to drop his weapon. He chose not to listen. He has nobody to blame but himself.

I firmly believe in a good many of these cases if people don't want to be shot dead by police then they shouldn't go around acting like criminals with dangerous weapons. I have no sympathy at all for these idiots. If anything I'd like to see the cops empty a clip into these criminals a little more often. Maybe it would cause a few of them to wise the fuck up.

Bottom line it's easy to avoid being shot to death by the cops. All you have to do is avoid committing criminal acts.

 

[Vuljatar]

Justified. Even the seemingly excessive number of bullets.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

Except for the big fucking dog he's restraining while shooting him. Why was the dog even there? And are police not trained for these encounters? They sure as hell are over here, so why aren't they over there? Shooting him was simply out of order.

EDIT: The point I'm making is that the thug turned his back to the officer with the dog. That right there is an invitation to take him down.

Sure! All you have to do is hope your dog gets there before your partner's skull is cracked open like an eggshell. That's unlikely.

You also forgot to mention, earlier, that British police generally aren't issued firearms, nor are most criminals they deal with. The cops did respond short of "gun"; they told him to get on the ground, then they tried what looks like a taser or pepper spray, which was ineffective. Before they could try anything else, the perp started to take a swing at the cop. He decided to attempt to use deadly force, not the police. Your attempt to absolve him of responsibility is rather disturbing.

 

[JonnWood]

The first five shots when the suspect raises his weapon against the officer behind him? Probably justified. The next four shots when the suspect is already collapsing? Maybe not so much.

He wasn't neutralized yet.

Perhaps the problem here is that once you've gotten your gun out, you've only really got one way to deal with a violent situation.

The situation was not violent. It was potentially violent, which is what would require the use of your gun. It did not get violent until the suspect attempted to use what looked like deadly force. Once you have your gun out, you can still use pepper spray, or a taser, or deploy the K-9 unit.

If the two officers and the police dog had tried to stop and restrain the suspect physically, it seems like they would've been successful without lethal force.

Given that a taser/pepper spray wasn't working, it was extremely unlikely they could've done so without injury.

 

[fenrizz]

Sadly, this is not very shocking at all, seeing as it takes place in the USA.

One man with a crowbar.

3 police officers (that I was) and a police dog.
Surely they had access to tasers and pepper spray?

Oh well, no matter, it's easier to just murder him, no?

Utterly disgusting.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Except for the big fucking dog he's restraining while shooting him. Why was the dog even there? And are police not trained for these encounters? They sure as hell are over here, so why aren't they over there? Shooting him was simply out of order.

EDIT: The point I'm making is that the thug turned his back to the officer with the dog. That right there is an invitation to take him down.

Sure! All you have to do is hope your dog gets there before your partner's skull is cracked open like an eggshell. That's unlikely.

You also forgot to mention, earlier, that British police generally aren't issued firearms, nor are most criminals they deal with. The cops did respond short of "gun"; they told him to get on the ground, then they tried what looks like a taser or pepper spray, which was ineffective. Before they could try anything else, the perp started to take a swing at the cop. He decided to attempt to use deadly force, not the police. Your attempt to absolve him of responsibility is rather disturbing.

I'm sorry, but can you really not tell the difference between intimidation and an actual attack? If the thug was actually going to hit the officer, the gunman wouldn't have shot him in time.

 

[Thyunda]

Taser didn't work, the man was attempting to kill another officer...

There is no: Just shot them in the leg option. Kill or be killed.

And no, he didn't go down after the first shot... what video are you watching?

Yeah...that guy took four or five shots before even noticing he'd been hit.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

Except for the big fucking dog he's restraining while shooting him. Why was the dog even there? And are police not trained for these encounters? They sure as hell are over here, so why aren't they over there? Shooting him was simply out of order.

EDIT: The point I'm making is that the thug turned his back to the officer with the dog. That right there is an invitation to take him down.

Sure! All you have to do is hope your dog gets there before your partner's skull is cracked open like an eggshell. That's unlikely.

You also forgot to mention, earlier, that British police generally aren't issued firearms, nor are most criminals they deal with. The cops did respond short of "gun"; they told him to get on the ground, then they tried what looks like a taser or pepper spray, which was ineffective. Before they could try anything else, the perp started to take a swing at the cop. He decided to attempt to use deadly force, not the police. Your attempt to absolve him of responsibility is rather disturbing.

I'm sorry, but can you really not tell the difference between intimidation and an actual attack? If the thug was actually going to hit the officer, the gunman wouldn't have shot him in time.

Bullets travel at roughly the speed of sound. People travel significantly slower.

The suspect was moving exactly like he was about to swing. In fact, intimidation without a threat behind it is just a bluff. He didn't say "back off", he moved like he was about to swing, and then actively got closer to the cop, ignoring the other cop who was pointing his weapon directly at him. If he was "intimidating", he's a very good bluffer.

Or would you like to be the cop who takes the chance that the guy high or crazy enough to shrug off a tazer who looks like he's about to hit your partner is just bluffing?

I disagree. I think he was actively about to attack the officer. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he was not, then he appeared to be and most likely was, based on what information the police had available.

EDIT: Oh, look, you dropped the point about the dog, which I proved you wrong on. Then you said that the perp was not really about to use deadly force, merely "intimidating" cops, which is both a)unverifiable, and b)runs counter to the evidence.