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

[Dogstile]

Completely unjustified. If anything let go off the dogs leash and the dog could've handled that better. What happened to tackling? I could've handled that better by myself. The crowbar wielding man isn't in the right but the police could have handled that much much better.

You think it's smart to tackle someone wielding a crowbar?

No point trying to argue with the guy, he'll either refute everything you say with "well no, you can do this instead" or he'll call you an idiot. Hell, i've tackled a bloke with a knife successfully and I can tell you i'd never do that again. Nearly died, that was with me hitting him from behind.

OP: Justified. Raising a weapon at a police officer (It looks like a fucking warhammer, google conduit breaker) and moving towards him is a stupid move and he paid for it.

 

[senordesol]

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.

Intimidation?! God, that is so asinine it's unreal. How clear does it need to be made? YOU. DO. NOT. THREATEN. AN. ARMED. POLICE. OFFICER.

You do not raise a weapon and approach a police officer. You just don't do it. They are not going to chance their lives and livelihoods because you MIGHT be bluffing. They ALWAYS take a threat seriously. If they don't, they wind up dead.

What was this so-called 'intimidation' supposed to accomplish anyway? What purpose is served by making a man with a gun scared of you? I can only conclude that this intimidation worked, because they felt so intimidated, they decided to end the threat.

 

[Aerosteam]

I'm pretty sure 10 shots is more than enough to kill an unarmoured man. That officer shot 5 times, the dead guy drops, then gets shot 5 more times. He did get tasered, in the head God damn it, but it didn't work.

I guess it's justified.

Then again... why the fuck were the officers so close to him when they see he has a bloody huge melee weapon like that!?

 

[Gilhelmi]

Yes, guy had weapon. It does not matter if it is short or long range

It's probably unjustified, a crowbar is a short tange weapon, while a taser is a medium-short. They should have had their guns at the ready in case he tried to pull something out, while another officer made to stun him.

That being said, the police will probably not have to answer for this, internal investigations almost always conclude the officers made the correct decision. A lot is given to the standard defense that the officers felt afraid for their lives.

For reference, in at Vancouver airport, RCMP officers approached an irate stranded man. The man had previously thrown a chair at the floor in frustration, he had been stranded for like 8 hours and nobody spoke his language. When the officers approached him, he turned to walk away. Without warning they tasered him, and again, and again, then they asphyxiated him by putting their full weight on him(to suppress him some more). They handcuffed him, and they refused him medical attention. He died, and they all walked free because it was deemed they acted appropriately.

What about a knife. I know of many justifiable shootings where the suspect was shot because they were welding a knife. In fact, a crowbar might be more dangerous then a knife because it has longer reach and is heaver, Like a club. Also, you are assuming that department even had Tazers. There are many still that do not because of the cost associated (Training each officer, maintaining training, and the weapons themselves) that adds up to a couple thousand per officer (I still think every cop should have one but I understand budgets too).

As for your reference, the two scenarios are very different. Different Nation, job description (airport security is not police and viceversa), and scenario (language barrier for example). So they really are not comparable.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

They tried either tasers and pepper spray, and it didn't work. Then the suspect tried to attack the cop, justifying use of lethal force.

Of course, given that your first sentence is standard anti-USA bigotry, I wouldn't expect you to actually know what you were talking about.

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

The officer who shot the suspect didn't even go for the leg shot, it just looked like he panicked and unloaded.

Officers arent trained to "wound" they're trained to stop the threat, end of story. They're trained to shoot center mass because its the most effective way to stop the threat of an attacker. On top of that, there is very few parts of the body, in which a bullet will "only wound".

As for a crowbar, its short range, yes, but its also extremely heavy, and it would take very little force to crush a skull and kill with it.

Do i think they could have used their tasers, yes, i do. But i also believe that any person, whose taking a stand against the police with a weapon in hand, is a viable threat, and has to be dealt in a way to protect those officers and civilians around them.

 

[JonnWood]

I'm pretty sure 10 shots is more than enough to kill an unarmoured man. That officer shot 5 times, the dead guy drops, then gets shot 5 more times. He did get tasered, in the head God damn it, but it didn't work.

I guess it's justified.

Then again... why the fuck were the officers so close to him when they see he has a bloody huge melee weapon like that!?

He didn't drop. He's visible behind the car. They only got close to use the taser or pepper spray or whatever it was.

People have shrugged off absurd amounts of injury, given enough motivation or drugs.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Intimidation?! God, that is so asinine it's unreal. How clear does it need to be made? YOU. DO. NOT. THREATEN. AN. ARMED. POLICE. OFFICER.

You do not raise a weapon and approach a police officer. You just don't do it. They are not going to chance their lives and livelihoods because you MIGHT be bluffing. They ALWAYS take a threat seriously. If they don't, they wind up dead.

What was this so-called 'intimidation' supposed to accomplish anyway? What purpose is served by making a man with a gun scared of you? I can only conclude that this intimidation worked, because they felt so intimidated, they decided to end the threat.

If he wasn't bluffing, why did he put the crowbar behind his head? That's not a position in which you can make an effective and accurate swing. That's a 'look at my crowbar' position.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

Intimidation?! God, that is so asinine it's unreal. How clear does it need to be made? YOU. DO. NOT. THREATEN. AN. ARMED. POLICE. OFFICER.

You do not raise a weapon and approach a police officer. You just don't do it. They are not going to chance their lives and livelihoods because you MIGHT be bluffing. They ALWAYS take a threat seriously. If they don't, they wind up dead.

What was this so-called 'intimidation' supposed to accomplish anyway? What purpose is served by making a man with a gun scared of you? I can only conclude that this intimidation worked, because they felt so intimidated, they decided to end the threat.

You just responded to someone who effectively said the perp was faster than a speeding bullet.

Course, then the bullets would've bounced off his chest.

 

[senordesol]

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.

Intimidation?! God, that is so asinine it's unreal. How clear does it need to be made? YOU. DO. NOT. THREATEN. AN. ARMED. POLICE. OFFICER.

You do not raise a weapon and approach a police officer. You just don't do it. They are not going to chance their lives and livelihoods because you MIGHT be bluffing. They ALWAYS take a threat seriously. If they don't, they wind up dead.

What was this so-called 'intimidation' supposed to accomplish anyway? What purpose is served by making a man with a gun scared of you? I can only conclude that this intimidation worked, because they felt so intimidated, they decided to end the threat.

If he wasn't bluffing, why did he put the crowbar behind his head? That's not a position in which you can make an effective and accurate swing. That's a 'look at my crowbar' position.

Maybe he's high. Maybe he's crazy. Just because he might not be 100% effective and accurate doesn't mean he's not a threat.

 

[mrblakemiller]

The only comment I think worth making, considering I know so little of the context of this incident, is that it's a bad idea to keep hold of your crowbar when two cops are pointing their guns at you, and you kinda deserve whatever you get if you take a swing at an armed man. Actually, it looks a lot more like a shovel or axe from that footage to me, making it even more dangerous.

 

[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.

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.

The moment the guy turned his back, all he would have had to do was let go of the dog. The thug would have had to move pretty fucking quickly to reach the second officer before the dog reached him - and dogs don't make much noise when they run, and in the chaos the thug wouldn't have heard the animal. He lifts his foot to make good his threat, and he loses his balance when a big fucking dog collides with him. Crowbar irrelevant, he's pretty damn defenceless at that point.

And you know what? You can tell me that the officers wouldn't have seen it that way. But they would. Because that's what they're supposed to be trained for. I do not accept that the safety of the public is in the hands of a force whose policy demands they shoot the suspect in EVERY situation.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Intimidation?! God, that is so asinine it's unreal. How clear does it need to be made? YOU. DO. NOT. THREATEN. AN. ARMED. POLICE. OFFICER.

You do not raise a weapon and approach a police officer. You just don't do it. They are not going to chance their lives and livelihoods because you MIGHT be bluffing. They ALWAYS take a threat seriously. If they don't, they wind up dead.

What was this so-called 'intimidation' supposed to accomplish anyway? What purpose is served by making a man with a gun scared of you? I can only conclude that this intimidation worked, because they felt so intimidated, they decided to end the threat.

If he wasn't bluffing, why did he put the crowbar behind his head? That's not a position in which you can make an effective and accurate swing. That's a 'look at my crowbar' position.

Maybe he's high. Maybe he's crazy. Just because he might not be 100% effective and accurate doesn't mean he's not a threat.

Well, when you're a police officer who is supposed to be trained for these situations, you're supposed to know how to handle a dangerous man with a crowbar, WITHOUT resorting to shooting him.
Once again. Look at England. We don't have tasers, or pepper spray, or guns. Tasers come out in riot situations. On the street? Doesn't matter what the guy is swinging, a solitary officer will call for backup. Then they'll handle him.

 

[Syphous]

Totally justified. That officer was about to be cracked in the head by a fucking crowbar. You try having your skull opened by a crowbar, I bet it'll suck.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

Intimidation?! God, that is so asinine it's unreal. How clear does it need to be made? YOU. DO. NOT. THREATEN. AN. ARMED. POLICE. OFFICER.

You do not raise a weapon and approach a police officer. You just don't do it. They are not going to chance their lives and livelihoods because you MIGHT be bluffing. They ALWAYS take a threat seriously. If they don't, they wind up dead.

What was this so-called 'intimidation' supposed to accomplish anyway? What purpose is served by making a man with a gun scared of you? I can only conclude that this intimidation worked, because they felt so intimidated, they decided to end the threat.

If he wasn't bluffing, why did he put the crowbar behind his head? That's not a position in which you can make an effective and accurate swing. That's a 'look at my crowbar' position.

You're right. It is absolutely impossible for someone to swing something like that effectively from that position, or one like it.


That was sarcasm, by the way. It is entirely possible to inflict lethal force from that position.

"Indimidation", by definition, means "threat". He actively tried to get closer to the officer. That's not something you do just for "intimidation".

 

[senordesol]

The moment the guy turned his back, all he would have had to do was let go of the dog. The thug would have had to move pretty fucking quickly to reach the second officer before the dog reached him - and dogs don't make much noise when they run, and in the chaos the thug wouldn't have heard the animal. He lifts his foot to make good his threat, and he loses his balance when a big fucking dog collides with him. Crowbar irrelevant, he's pretty damn defenceless at that point.

And you know what? You can tell me that the officers wouldn't have seen it that way. But they would. Because that's what they're supposed to be trained for. I do not accept that the safety of the public is in the hands of a force whose policy demands they shoot the suspect in EVERY situation.

We're talking FRACTIONS OF SECONDS here. Maybe the dog doesn't get a good grip, maybe what ever he's on that allowed him to ignore a TASER TO THE FACE would allow him to ignore the dog for just a few moments. Maybe his weapon comes down on the poor officer's head just as the dog reaches him, making even an instant takedown irrelevant.

You don't second-guess when the lives of your fellow officers are on the line. You go for the sure thing. Every time. He had his chance to walk away alive and unharmed.

 

[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.

They tried either tasers and pepper spray, and it didn't work. Then the suspect tried to attack the cop, justifying use of lethal force.

Of course, given that your first sentence is standard anti-USA bigotry, I wouldn't expect you to actually know what you were talking about.

It was a taser, which obviously malfunctioned.
I still don't think that justifies shooting the guy 9 times (4 of which is after he has fallen down) at point blank range.

Anti-USA bigotry?
I don't think so myself, I merely meant that this seems to be not very uncommon over there.

I've seen Cops, which I believe is supposed to some sort of entertainment?
I'm absolutely horrified about the way many of the police officers do their job.

Maybe that is not the way it is in "the real America", but that is the way you are presenting yourselves to the world.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Ten shots? 5 of which were in the back of a man who was laying on the ground after being shot 5 times in the front? That's a bit much. Maybe if I knew what his grievance was.
It's a little much that the cop was holding his gun sideways. It makes it seem like some Ex gang banger got a badge and now he's exacting revenge on the people who wronged him many years ago. Hmmm, that sounds like a good idea for a movie actually. Anyway, back on topic. it just goes to reinforce my theory that all cops are bad shots. The only reason to put 10 bullets in someone is to kill them but from that distance I could have dropped him in one shot.

But as far as whether or not it was justified I can't tell. I don't know the guy. Some people are just bad people who deserve to get shot 10 times (5 of which were in the back). And you know, some cops are just bad people too, they join the force for the reason of shooting a crowbar wielding man in the back 5 times, immediately after shooting him in the front 5 times. (making a total of 10 bullets in his torso)

Did I mention that he was shot 10 times? Yes, okay good, because I feel that's an important part of the story. Anyway like I said I have no way of knowing how much that guy either did or didn't deserve to get shot 10 times (of which 5 were in the back)

 

[senordesol]

Well, when you're a police officer who is supposed to be trained for these situations, you're supposed to know how to handle a dangerous man with a crowbar, WITHOUT resorting to shooting him.
Once again. Look at England. We don't have tasers, or pepper spray, or guns. Tasers come out in riot situations. On the street? Doesn't matter what the guy is swinging, a solitary officer will call for backup. Then they'll handle him.

That IS the training! When the man with a crowbar is about to kill your fellow officer your training IS to shoot him.

Find me a comparable situation in England where the suspect was a heartbeat away from bringing a crowbar on some bobby's head, and that we can talk about.