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

[JonnWood]

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.

And if the officer is about to be smacked in the head with a crowbar, then what?

I'm sorry, you cannot condemn an officer for using X option by comparing it to another officer who does not have that option. That's like saying its wrong for women to give birth because men can't.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

The guy is still standing after the first few shots. He's behind the car.

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.

There are situations where using the gun like that is actually recommended.

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.

A guy who seemed to be high enough to shrug off pepper spray? Unlikely.

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)

Assuming all the bullets hit.

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)

no, they weren't, because he was not neutralized.

 

[orangeban]

Not at bloody all. This is outrageous.

I remember when a video circulated here of about a dozen British cops trying to subdue one man with a machete. A lot of people laughed and said they should of just shot the guy, but those cops acted totally in the right.

The cop in this video panicked and fired his gun. The man in the video had threatened a nearby cop with the crowbar, but last time I checked, threatening isn't punishable by death.

This is why the police shouldn't be armed, I don't think the majority of cops can be trusted to act responsibly

Edit: Oh, and the people filming this are total assholes. What kind of person thinks, "A person just got shot and probably died! Hilarious!"

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Are you serious? Alright. Fractions of seconds. Assuming the officer stands stock-still. Assuming the officer makes no attempt to defend himself. Assuming the officer isn't actually a police officer but is in fact an innocent bystander frozen to the spot with fear. Now you're just being stupid.
Whatever stopped the taser affecting him won't stop the momentum of a full-grown animal. He can't ignore that. Assuming he even got a swing off, because from what I saw, he was in no place to land a proper strike within the next two seconds.

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".

Oh shit, I forgot. Baseball and combat are the same thing. Fuck, man. Next time I'm in self-defence, I'll tell them to call the lesson off, because baseball.

Actively getting closer to somebody is EXACTLY what you do for intimidation. I'm sorry, but once again, how do you think English officers handle these situations? Do you think that swinging a crowbar is the easy route to consequence-free crime?

The ONLY time a gun is necessary is in a situation with either an animal or another gun.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

...this is the single most ignorant comment written in any thread...ever.

Y'know what. I won't even dignify it with a response. It doesn't even need one. Because at no point in the history of the English police force has a suspect ever attempted to use a crowbar against a police officer.

 

[senordesol]

Not at bloody all. This is outrageous.

I remember when a video circulated here of about a dozen British cops trying to subdue one man with a machete. A lot of people laughed and said they should of just shot the guy, but those cops acted totally in the right.

The cop in this video panicked and fired his gun. The man in the video had threatened a nearby cop with the crowbar, but last time I checked, threatening isn't punishable by death.

This is why the police shouldn't be armed, I don't think the majority of cops can be trusted to act responsibly

Let's see how dry your pants stay when some mofo high on godknowswhat comes at you with a crowbar...AFTER said mofo took a taser to the face without even flinching.

 

[Aerosteam]

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

To use a taser maybe?

They only got close to use the taser or pepper spray or whatever it was.

The officer with the taser saw that it didn't work, and continue to walk towards him whilst readying the taser again. Dumb move, I think.

He didn't drop. He's visible behind the car.

Sorry, I didn't see him =/ But still, the first five shots still made him back off from the officer with the taser and those shots would have killed him anyway. So yeah, the 5 extra ones still weren't needed.

 

[JonnWood]

No, not "obviously". People who are on drugs have been known to ignore tasers. And bullets.

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.

You're right. They should've backed away, out of point-blank range, while he was trying to hit them, then shot him. Incidentally, he did not go down after the first few bullets.

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

Most other countries' cops don't carry guns, and even in the US, most cops never fire their guns off the range.

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.

So have I. I've also researched how cops do their jobs, not judged based on a TV show.

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

I'm not American, nor do I live there. Stop trying to shift blame for your ignorance.

 

[Jedoro]

Don't know about other states, but here in TN you've got to be licensed to carry a baton because they're easily lethal weapons. Crowbars are a good deal heavier and have pointy ends, so those are definitely considered lethal. I see no problem with shooting someone who is about to or actually is attacking me with one.

 

[orangeban]

Not at bloody all. This is outrageous.

I remember when a video circulated here of about a dozen British cops trying to subdue one man with a machete. A lot of people laughed and said they should of just shot the guy, but those cops acted totally in the right.

The cop in this video panicked and fired his gun. The man in the video had threatened a nearby cop with the crowbar, but last time I checked, threatening isn't punishable by death.

This is why the police shouldn't be armed, I don't think the majority of cops can be trusted to act responsibly

Let's see how dry your pants stay when some mofo high on godknowswhat comes at you with a crowbar...AFTER said mofo took a taser to the face without even flinching.

Well yeah, but I'm not a police officer am I? I'm not trained to deal with situations like this, and I'm not expected to carry around a gun.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

And if the officer is about to be smacked in the head with a crowbar, then what?

I'm sorry, you cannot condemn an officer for using X option by comparing it to another officer who does not have that option. That's like saying its wrong for women to give birth because men can't.

...They were in the PERFECT situation to take him down. He had his fucking back to one of them. One of them who had a fucking attack dog. Why is this so hard for people to understand?! The police officer being targeted by the thug was still perfectly capable of backing away, of avoiding the crowbar. You all talk like the crowbar was halfway through the air! It was behind his head. He was making a threatening advance. And now he's dead.

So why is vigilantism illegal? I mean, if I had a gun, I could just shoot criminals. No danger to myself there. I'm pretty sure the reason we're advised not to attack criminals ourselves is because we're not trained or equipped to handle the situation, and we're more likely to bring harm on ourselves. The police officer who fired that gun should be held as responsible as a member of the public would be, had they ran onto the scene and shot the thug. Surrre, they 'saved the officer's life', but they still used a firearm in a situation that didn't call for one.

 

[lockgar]

I have to say, considering how the perp clearly had plenty of time to put down the weapon, since they cleared out the entire building at that point, and was probably on something if the taser wasn't dropping him, he could have easily killed that officer. Its pretty stupid to want to take a swing at a Cop with what looked like an axe, it didn't look like a crowbar, ether way, if someone hits you in the head with a crowbar, you are probably going to die.

What even dumber is doing that WHEN SOMEONE HAS A GUN POINTED AT YOUR FACE! I can't say I blame the cops, itchy trigger fingers and all, this guy clearly didn't seem to give a fuck. Leg shots don't exist, any shot to the body is a kill shot. Bullets where meant to kill, there is no "non-lethal" take down with a device that shoots shards of metal going somewhere of 800 mph.

If he was on something, then at that point, one or two rounds would not have dropped him, at this point they where trying to drop him. It is sad, but it is something they have to do.

Got to love how desensitized people today are. Growing up, everyone was playing moral chicken, and the less something horrendous effected you the "stronger" or "bad ass" you where. I don't know if that was the same for everyone else though.

 

[AlexWinter]

He was moving for the other officer, in the circumstances that's perfectly justified. If you don't like it, petition your police to carry tasers or mostly nothing at all, as it seems to work fine in the UK.

Seems like he's carrying...

...Nothing at all
...Nothing at all
...Nothing at all


Unfortunately, looks alone do not quite do it for a guy in a cop's line of duty.

Thank you for making me laugh whilst reading such an upsetting thread.

OT: The officer did the right thing, however I wish there had been an alternative.

I wonder what might drive someone to behave like that.

EDIT: I don't think the shooting officer should be punished as I totally understand why he responded like that and I believe that is probably how I would have reacted too, but I do not think the shooting was justified.

 

[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.

...this is the single most ignorant comment written in any thread...ever.

Y'know what. I won't even dignify it with a response. It doesn't even need one. Because at no point in the history of the English police force has a suspect ever attempted to use a crowbar against a police officer.

It's ignorant to say that American police officers are trained to respond to deadly force with deadly force? Sorry, that is a fact.

Again, all I asked was to find me a similar situation so that we can compare resolutions. A seemingly simple challenge given your position on the matter.

So far as I'm concerned with regard to this situation, the man had plenty of chances. He continued to choose actions that would not end well for anyone in his circumstances. I do not and cannot expect my police force to put their lives on the line to save his dumb ass, particularly when he threatens them. It is enough to ask them to put their lives on the line to be the ones who have to deal with this a-hole.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

...this is the single most ignorant comment written in any thread...ever.

Y'know what. I won't even dignify it with a response. It doesn't even need one. Because at no point in the history of the English police force has a suspect ever attempted to use a crowbar against a police officer.

It's ignorant to say that American police officers are trained to respond to deadly force with deadly force? Sorry, that is a fact.

Again, all I asked was to find me a similar situation so that we can compare resolutions. A seemingly simple challenge given your position on the matter.

So far as I'm concerned with regard to this situation, the man had plenty of chances. He continued to choose actions that would not end well for anyone in his circumstances. I do not and cannot expect my police force to put their lives on the line to save his dumb ass, particularly when he threatens them. It is enough to ask them to put their lives on the line to be the ones who have to deal with this a-hole.

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Crazed-crowbar-attacker-told-police-ll-kill/story-12825128-detail/story.html


Oh. And not only that, but the officers in question survived the crowbar hits.

Deadly force, you say?

 

[Andothul]

Was it the best choice? Maybe not but was it justified?

Of course it was! The man had a potentially deadly weapon why should those officer risk serious injury or death to try to subdue him?

He gave them limited choices.

 

[senordesol]

Well yeah, but I'm not a police officer am I? I'm not trained to deal with situations like this, and I'm not expected to carry around a gun.

Do you think they're trained to have no fear? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting.

Bullets do not bounce off their skin, that weapon would not have slid off his head like a droplett of rain. The fear of death is not trained out of police officers, it's not even trained out of soldiers.

So it doesn't matter if you are or are not a police officer, that weapon would have cracked his or your head like an overripe melon all the same. And if you think that notion was lost on the cops here, then you should have another think coming.