|
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING:The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. If you feel the need to post a reaction to the news, post a comment on the youtube video. Don't bring it here. This thread is for a discussion on the topic, and your post better have substance to it. Low content posts will be met with moderator action. Here is a good post by someone with experience in escalation of force training. Read that too. This post might change your opinion of in the incident. |
On January 25 2012 06:40 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:39 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:35 nam nam wrote:On January 25 2012 06:28 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. ^ this is what all the people who agree with the cops actions are missing fromt heir thought process Eh no... you have watch to many bad cop movies. You don't tackle someone that have a weapon in hand as the first alternative. ^ no but you should do everything within your power to save and preserve life and peace, had they waited for more back up simply zoned the perp so he wasnt a danger to the public they couldve taken down the perp without bloodshed, but instead they jumped the gun approached him and antagonized the situation THEY ARE CALLED OFFICERS OF THE PEACE FOR A REASON Once they attack armed officers, it's the officers' duty to protect their own life.
^ only if they ahve fullfilled the above of doign every single thing in their power to make sure there is a non violent solution to the situation which they didnt do they went in dicks in their hand flying by the seat of their pants, probly in order to illicit the adrenaline rush everyone is talkiung baout which supposively clouded their judgement
|
On January 25 2012 06:44 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:38 Emnjay808 wrote:On January 25 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:28 Calm wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Did you even watch the video? The crowbar was moving towards the cop's head. Too late for backup, taser was tried... You're suggesting the cop lay down his life, get his head split open, and then the maniac be allowed to run around longer? That doesn't pose a threat to the public? The weapon wasn't even close to the tazing cop's head. It was still by the man's shoulder - he hadn't even made the swinging motion yet. Not only that, the officer was dumb enough to try to reload his tazer (or something to that effect) while looking down and walking toward the man. Finally, the second five shots (by the officer with the tazer) were into the man's back - pay attention and you can see the man turn around after getting shot the first five times and then go down behind the car after the second five. There was no reason for those second five and there was no reason for the tazing officer to place himself in that position. The offcers could have easily tackled the man and taken the weapon from him, especially since there's a good chance that the man was about to fall over dead anyway after five shots to his chest. and you got this all through a youtube video, shot through a water-tainted window, dozens of yards away from the actual scene? ill take your judgement over the cop's any day. Unless you have vision problems it's not that hard to notice. How about you actually come up with some points instead of coming up for a BS response to try to invalidate my statements? i think ur the one with vision problems, you posted earlier why they didnt use tasers.
I did?
....
Hmm, no, actually, I did not. Try again.
|
the cop was justified there, see the movement towards the cop closer to the shop, that was a very aggressive, swinging position which could have really hurt the other cop. a taser would have been nice but the cop had his gun out in his hand and that was what got fired, the force put the guy down after a very aggressive movement
|
On January 25 2012 06:46 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:40 seiferoth10 wrote:On January 25 2012 06:39 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:35 nam nam wrote:On January 25 2012 06:28 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. ^ this is what all the people who agree with the cops actions are missing fromt heir thought process Eh no... you have watch to many bad cop movies. You don't tackle someone that have a weapon in hand as the first alternative. ^ no but you should do everything within your power to save and preserve life and peace, had they waited for more back up simply zoned the perp so he wasnt a danger to the public they couldve taken down the perp without bloodshed, but instead they jumped the gun approached him and antagonized the situation THEY ARE CALLED OFFICERS OF THE PEACE FOR A REASON Once they attack armed officers, it's the officers' duty to protect their own life. Which he did with the first five shots. Hell, he probably did it with the first two. Not only that, it's the tazing officer's fault that he was in harm's way in the first place. No, I would suspect that it was probably because he was a cop tasked with taking down a dude armed with a crowbar. He'd still be in harm's way if he shot it ta 30ft at the very edge of the range. The guy came at the officers
More range = significantly more time to react. At that range, the thought of releasing ten shots into the man should've never even gone through the officer's brain. Not only that, at 30 feet, the man might not have even tried and just given up due to the advantage of thirty feet and a fucking gun over a close-ranged weapon.
|
On January 25 2012 06:44 timwac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:38 jeremycafe wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Completely? LOL. So when the guy makes what appears to be an attempted use of a deadly weapon, the copy should curl up in a ball and hope it doesnt hurt? Fuck off you hippie. They made an attempt to subdue him, and then he made a move towards the cop. COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. In the United Kingdom, the average police officer does not carry a firearm. Do you think they have never been faced with someone with a crow bar? Of course they fucking have. Did it end up in the police officer being dead, ofc not! There are various ways in which to take down this guy without killing him.
This.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 25 2012 06:42 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:35 SupLilSon wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 DannyJ wrote:On January 25 2012 06:20 KryptoStorm wrote:
*sigh* American police seem to just love shooting people. I don't think I ever want to visit America, if I step out of line i'll be beat or shot to death. If you think taunting and raising a weapon at a cop is just "stepping out of line" nobody wants you to come here. I'm American and I completely agree with him. You hear so many stories about how police in Latin America are criminals, look at our own country. The cops seemingly WANT to use their weapons every chance they get. The guy didn't even swing his weapon before the cop lit him up like a christmas tree. There were at least 2 cops and a police dog there (and if you know anything about American police, that means there were at least 3-4 squad cars). If they couldn't subdue one man with a shovel without the use of deadly force, then they are useless cops. I honestly don't care if the cop's life was threatened. That is a very real consequence of the job, and as a police officer you are expected and trained to be able to think clearly even during a life threatening situation. That cop was obviously trigger happy and unloaded the second he saw a change in pace of the situation. Anyone who thinks this is alright is delusional and it's no wonder law enforcement is so heavily resented here in America. So ripping out the non-lethal tazer and walking towards the cop with your weapon cocked back isn't good enough?? You actually have to take a crowbar upside the skull first? Option A was the tazer and that was used. A crowbar, tire iron or shovel is breaking whatever bone it comes in contact with. I'm not exactly sure what you expected to be done here Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:37 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:34 DannyJ wrote:
Why are people freaking out saying the cops were too close? They were trying to tazer and pepper spray the guy. If the dude then decides to try and whack em with a piece of metal, well that's his retarded fault. tazers effective ranegd is 10 metres or 30 feet A projectile tazer is also a lot less accurate at 30 feet than it is at 10. And that dude looks like he is wearing a thick hoodie, which I would assume is a lot harder to piecer than a tshirt or flesh on his face.
I expect TRAINED police officers to be able to overcome ONE suspect when there are TWO OR MORE of them and a KILLER DOG. Like other's have stated, there are countries, like the UK where officers don't even carry firearms. They seem to be able to handle themselve's a right without just murdering everyone who poses somewhat of a threat to them. Too bad most cops in America are uneducated individuals with terrible training. Like I said before cops are supposed to be trained to think with a level head in these situations. Putting 10 bullets into a single person, no matter how deadly they are is not thinking clearly.
|
Wow this thread turned bad fast, people arguing already, close please.
|
United States24724 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:47 Sgonzo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:40 seiferoth10 wrote:On January 25 2012 06:39 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:35 nam nam wrote:On January 25 2012 06:28 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. ^ this is what all the people who agree with the cops actions are missing fromt heir thought process Eh no... you have watch to many bad cop movies. You don't tackle someone that have a weapon in hand as the first alternative. ^ no but you should do everything within your power to save and preserve life and peace, had they waited for more back up simply zoned the perp so he wasnt a danger to the public they couldve taken down the perp without bloodshed, but instead they jumped the gun approached him and antagonized the situation THEY ARE CALLED OFFICERS OF THE PEACE FOR A REASON Once they attack armed officers, it's the officers' duty to protect their own life. ^ only if they ahve fullfilled the above of doign every single thing in their power to make sure there is a non violent solution to the situation which they didnt do
Actually, if someone is attacking a police officer with a deadly weapon, the police can and will use deadly force to protect themselves. This is true even if the acts by the police leading up to the moment have been incorrect/incompetent/etc
They would still be liable for the mistakes they made before... but it would not be murder to defend themselves against a deadly attack.
|
On January 25 2012 06:50 kobrakai wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:44 timwac wrote:On January 25 2012 06:38 jeremycafe wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Completely? LOL. So when the guy makes what appears to be an attempted use of a deadly weapon, the copy should curl up in a ball and hope it doesnt hurt? Fuck off you hippie. They made an attempt to subdue him, and then he made a move towards the cop. COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. In the United Kingdom, the average police officer does not carry a firearm. Do you think they have never been faced with someone with a crow bar? Of course they fucking have. Did it end up in the police officer being dead, ofc not! There are various ways in which to take down this guy without killing him. This.
Shockingly..this is true!
User was warned for this post
|
bet that cop waited all his career for that moment
User was warned for this post
|
On January 25 2012 06:44 timwac wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:38 jeremycafe wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Completely? LOL. So when the guy makes what appears to be an attempted use of a deadly weapon, the copy should curl up in a ball and hope it doesnt hurt? Fuck off you hippie. They made an attempt to subdue him, and then he made a move towards the cop. COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. In the United Kingdom, the average police officer does not carry a firearm. Do you think they have never been faced with someone with a crow bar? Of course they fucking have. Did it end up in the police officer being dead, ofc not! There are various ways in which to take down this guy without killing him.
^ love your logic, and i love teh UKs idea on police and guns, we have strict gun laws to try and ensure they dont get into criminals hands so we dotn need to arm our police, thus police take th esame risk as the criminals they apprehend i believe that this creates a more understanding approach form officers
|
On January 25 2012 06:51 Sgonzo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:44 timwac wrote:On January 25 2012 06:38 jeremycafe wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Completely? LOL. So when the guy makes what appears to be an attempted use of a deadly weapon, the copy should curl up in a ball and hope it doesnt hurt? Fuck off you hippie. They made an attempt to subdue him, and then he made a move towards the cop. COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. In the United Kingdom, the average police officer does not carry a firearm. Do you think they have never been faced with someone with a crow bar? Of course they fucking have. Did it end up in the police officer being dead, ofc not! There are various ways in which to take down this guy without killing him. ^ love your logic, and i love teh UKs idea on police and guns, we have strict gun laws to try and ensure they dont get into criminals hands so we dotn need to arm our police, thus police take th esame risk as the criminals they apprehend i believe that this creates a more understanding approach form officers
Your point is irrelevant because the man in this situation wasn't using a gun. He was using an object that you can get from several places in society that could be turned into a weapon, and several other everyday objects could have the exact same effect.
|
On January 25 2012 06:45 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:35 SupLilSon wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 DannyJ wrote:On January 25 2012 06:20 KryptoStorm wrote:
*sigh* American police seem to just love shooting people. I don't think I ever want to visit America, if I step out of line i'll be beat or shot to death. If you think taunting and raising a weapon at a cop is just "stepping out of line" nobody wants you to come here. I'm American and I completely agree with him. You hear so many stories about how police in Latin America are criminals, look at our own country. The cops seemingly WANT to use their weapons every chance they get. The guy didn't even swing his weapon before the cop lit him up like a christmas tree. There were at least 2 cops and a police dog there (and if you know anything about American police, that means there were at least 3-4 squad cars). If they couldn't subdue one man with a shovel without the use of deadly force, then they are useless cops. I honestly don't care if the cop's life was threatened. That is a very real consequence of the job, and as a police officer you are expected and trained to be able to think clearly even during a life threatening situation. That cop was obviously trigger happy and unloaded the second he saw a change in pace of the situation. Anyone who thinks this is alright is delusional and it's no wonder law enforcement is so heavily resented here in America. The insight you bring to the topic is very, very enlightening. You're clearly very well informed on the matter. Have you worked with police officers? Or were you a criminal who's had experience with them? Perhaps you work as an instructor for police training? In all seriousness, someone who has actual experience in the matter has been posting in the thread and it would be nice if people actually read what he's posted. That's the annoying thing with this topic (and so many other internet discussions). People who have no experience in the matter still talk as if they do and don't listen to those who have actual experience in the matter. People just don't know humility and how to be quiet and listen to someone who knows what he's talking about. It's an unfortunate tendency and it's one of the reasons the SC2 strategy forums are void of professionals discussing the game. Slightly off topic I'm sorry but I would really like to push people towards reading what Eternal posts. Thanks 
Yea, I actually do have experience with police training. And I'll tell you putting 10 shots into a man who was armed with a shovel is not protocol. Don't you feel stupid now?
|
On January 25 2012 06:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:44 Emnjay808 wrote:On January 25 2012 06:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:38 Emnjay808 wrote:On January 25 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:28 Calm wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Did you even watch the video? The crowbar was moving towards the cop's head. Too late for backup, taser was tried... You're suggesting the cop lay down his life, get his head split open, and then the maniac be allowed to run around longer? That doesn't pose a threat to the public? The weapon wasn't even close to the tazing cop's head. It was still by the man's shoulder - he hadn't even made the swinging motion yet. Not only that, the officer was dumb enough to try to reload his tazer (or something to that effect) while looking down and walking toward the man. Finally, the second five shots (by the officer with the tazer) were into the man's back - pay attention and you can see the man turn around after getting shot the first five times and then go down behind the car after the second five. There was no reason for those second five and there was no reason for the tazing officer to place himself in that position. The offcers could have easily tackled the man and taken the weapon from him, especially since there's a good chance that the man was about to fall over dead anyway after five shots to his chest. and you got this all through a youtube video, shot through a water-tainted window, dozens of yards away from the actual scene? ill take your judgement over the cop's any day. Unless you have vision problems it's not that hard to notice. How about you actually come up with some points instead of coming up for a BS response to try to invalidate my statements? i think ur the one with vision problems, you posted earlier why they didnt use tasers. I did? .... Hmm, no, actually, I did not. Try again.
Sorry I got it wrong you posted this: + Show Spoiler +On January 25 2012 06:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:21 Emnjay808 wrote:
Apparently everyones an expert on being a trained policeman.
Its pretty apparent that they warned they guy that they would use deadly force to stop him. And he wasnt listening. Then he starts swinging at the neaby officer. Wtf, else you expect to happen? These things happen in mere seconds, they dont have the luxury to stop and think about the sitation when the suspect starts attacking. He was forced to use deadly force, that is what they were trained to do. Again, the officers were stupid to be that close. The man had a close-ranged weapon and they had guns in their hand. The only reason that man is dead is because they put themselves into the situation to potentially be attacked. Not only that, he fired off probably double the amount of shots that were necessary to subdue the guy. I don't give a fuck if you are in a high adrenaline/dangerous situation - if you are given the legal right to use deadly force on someone, you better get a lot of fucking training on how to do it right.
They "put themselves in a position to be attacked" to use non-lethal force at him. After proving to be ineffective, and being attacked, they shot him. Doesnt take a genius to figure out why they used deadly forced.
|
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him.
Topic over, first page.
No it's never a nice thing if somebody gets shot, but la vita e` cosi. Overreacted? Not at all. On the same token I don't think the cop is going around thinking he's a hero or he did some great thing today. It's just as sad for him to be forced to do that.
Anyone saying "oh he could shoot him 1 time instead..." You serious? You're asking someone to predict the future about someone will do when they get shot and THEN try to disarm them. Police aim for center mass, anything else is stupid (exponentially easier to miss) and dangerous (miss and hit someone else, miss and then he goes for a killing strike on you, etc). There are plenty of examples of police brutality if you look hard enough. This isn't.
|
I dont understand why cops dont fire somewhere like his arms or feet, i don't think anyone will be able do to anything if you get shot like 3 times in your thighs/legs/arms
|
On January 25 2012 06:43 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:35 azdzaazfaz wrote:
I get really scared when I read some of your statements. How do you think the rest of the worlds police forces handles potentially dangerous situations? Do you honestly believe shooting that guy ten fucking times to DEATH was the only proper solution to that situation?
And just a side thought, what the FUCK was the use of the dog? Send the beast on that metal swinging fuck wad, or wrestle that ass to the ground, or pepper spray the shit out of him, or use the 5 TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS to 1 STREET PUNK advantage and overwhelm that sorry ass. But no, in America, shooting the fucker dead is the proper response apparently, an attitude which you bring with you when you meddle in other nations affairs across the globe. I honestly can't find words for how sick your country has become.
I apologize for generalizing like this, but you guys are fucking insane.
Yea, that's exactly what I was thinking. Obviously cops around the world just go around capping criminals, because you know thats their job. Haven't any of you seen Training Day? Get a clue... cops are supposed to be protecting citizens and stopping criminals. Not driving around like a street gang putting 10 bullets into one man. If 3+ trained officers can't take on 1 man without first killing him, then they need to be fired. I for one don't like the idea of armed maniacs gunning people down in the streets and calling it "self defense".
I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but the main reason I think why American police are more brutal is because of the US 2nd Amendment. The fact is, people can carry guns in America, which promotes the "shoot first ask later" mentality.
On an unrelated note, I really wish the 2nd Amendment can be amended so that people can't own guns so easily. Shit's crazy mang.
|
On January 25 2012 06:54 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:44 Emnjay808 wrote:On January 25 2012 06:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:38 Emnjay808 wrote:On January 25 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:28 Calm wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Did you even watch the video? The crowbar was moving towards the cop's head. Too late for backup, taser was tried... You're suggesting the cop lay down his life, get his head split open, and then the maniac be allowed to run around longer? That doesn't pose a threat to the public? The weapon wasn't even close to the tazing cop's head. It was still by the man's shoulder - he hadn't even made the swinging motion yet. Not only that, the officer was dumb enough to try to reload his tazer (or something to that effect) while looking down and walking toward the man. Finally, the second five shots (by the officer with the tazer) were into the man's back - pay attention and you can see the man turn around after getting shot the first five times and then go down behind the car after the second five. There was no reason for those second five and there was no reason for the tazing officer to place himself in that position. The offcers could have easily tackled the man and taken the weapon from him, especially since there's a good chance that the man was about to fall over dead anyway after five shots to his chest. and you got this all through a youtube video, shot through a water-tainted window, dozens of yards away from the actual scene? ill take your judgement over the cop's any day. Unless you have vision problems it's not that hard to notice. How about you actually come up with some points instead of coming up for a BS response to try to invalidate my statements? i think ur the one with vision problems, you posted earlier why they didnt use tasers. I did? .... Hmm, no, actually, I did not. Try again. Sorry I got it wrong you posted this: + Show Spoiler +On January 25 2012 06:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:21 Emnjay808 wrote:
Apparently everyones an expert on being a trained policeman.
Its pretty apparent that they warned they guy that they would use deadly force to stop him. And he wasnt listening. Then he starts swinging at the neaby officer. Wtf, else you expect to happen? These things happen in mere seconds, they dont have the luxury to stop and think about the sitation when the suspect starts attacking. He was forced to use deadly force, that is what they were trained to do. Again, the officers were stupid to be that close. The man had a close-ranged weapon and they had guns in their hand. The only reason that man is dead is because they put themselves into the situation to potentially be attacked. Not only that, he fired off probably double the amount of shots that were necessary to subdue the guy. I don't give a fuck if you are in a high adrenaline/dangerous situation - if you are given the legal right to use deadly force on someone, you better get a lot of fucking training on how to do it right. They "put themselves in a position to be attacked" to use non-lethal force at him. After proving to be ineffective, and being attacked, they shot him. Doesnt take a genius to figure out why they used deadly forced.
No, the tazing officer put himself in the position to be attacked by being too close when using the tazer and then walking towards the armed man while looking away from him. He was trying to reload his tazer (at least that's what it looked like) and while doing this he looked away from the man, only to look up at the last second to see the man coming at him and then drawing his gun and shooting as pure reaction.
I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but the main reason I think why American police are more brutal is because of the US 2nd Amendment. The fact is, people can carry guns in America, which promotes the "shoot first ask later" mentality.
On an unrelated note, I really wish the 2nd Amendment can be amended so that people can't own guns so easily. Shit's crazy mang.
That and our crime rates are significantly higher than the vast majority of developed nations.
|
Those who aren't thinking clearly are the poor souls in this thread who are sticking fast to their idealistic opinions without having any experience whatsoever in the matter. If you want to do yourselves any good, try to think again about the entire story.
|
On January 25 2012 06:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:51 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:44 timwac wrote:On January 25 2012 06:38 jeremycafe wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Completely? LOL. So when the guy makes what appears to be an attempted use of a deadly weapon, the copy should curl up in a ball and hope it doesnt hurt? Fuck off you hippie. They made an attempt to subdue him, and then he made a move towards the cop. COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. In the United Kingdom, the average police officer does not carry a firearm. Do you think they have never been faced with someone with a crow bar? Of course they fucking have. Did it end up in the police officer being dead, ofc not! There are various ways in which to take down this guy without killing him. ^ love your logic, and i love teh UKs idea on police and guns, we have strict gun laws to try and ensure they dont get into criminals hands so we dotn need to arm our police, thus police take th esame risk as the criminals they apprehend i believe that this creates a more understanding approach form officers Your point is irrelevant because the man in this situation wasn't using a gun. He was using an object that you can get from several places in society that could be turned into a weapon, and several other everyday objects could have the exact same effect.
^ and in the uk they deal with these things, heavily used are machetes knives and razor blades nad they amnage to get by without weapons was the point of my post you missed taht i think
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
