|
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 26 2012 05:05 tjosan wrote:
The guy smashed windows. He got shot.
What were his options? He could run away and perhaps smash another window on the way... the reason they shouldn't have engaged is the same reason why you don't chase cars regardless of the situation - because it can put people in danger. That's really more disturbing than the rest. Those shots were in the direction of a populated street. If moving in close in that situation so they were forced to fire in self defense isn't reckless endangerment I don't know what is.
It's too bad the guy was so coked up that he was able to rip tazer barbs off of his face. You really need to use that brain inside of your skull before posting. Read the posts, watch the video, and think very very carefully about the situation. The police told him to drop it. He refused. They maced him, and he kept going. They tazed him and he ripped the barbs out, and then turned and was about to kill a police officer with a deadly weapon. Turning a gun against someone should be an absolute last resort- and in this case, it was.
|
after reading this thread im glad im not living in the US 
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 26 2012 05:04 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 04:53 NSGrendel wrote:On January 26 2012 04:41 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 04:37 NSGrendel wrote:
Terrible judgement on the part of the officers. They had a canine and ranged weapons, so they decide to go into close quarters with a guy with a melee weapon. Then they panicked and killed him.
If they'd have stood 15 feet away or unleashed the dog or pretty much done anything else, no one would have died. Given that British police deal with these situations with a truncheon (and relatively recently they've had pepper spray) you can't justify this. By getting close they eliminate his available options, which is a good thing in this scenario, even if it causes the situation to escalate. Sorry, but the dog's life is worth more than the thug in this scenario. You unleash the dog on him and he'll take her down with one swing from that conduit bender. Also, who's going to make sure the thug plays nice and only uses nonlethal weaponry? Trying to fight him with a truncheon (lol this isn't Star Wars) or get close enough to use pepper spray is suicide. He shatters your wrist and then follows it up with a blow to the head. Don't understand why people place so much value on the thug's life. Sorry to break it to you, but all life is not created equal. The cops, the bystanders, and even the dog all come before trying to preserve this guy. He asked for it as soon as he decided to attack a police officer. None of your post appears to contain any internal logic. How is escalating a situation the right call? How does coming up to a guy with a melee weapon reduce his options? As for your "Star Wars" comment, clearly you've never used pepper spray, since it has a good 6-8ft range, depending on manufacturer. And only special police units carry weapons in the UK. Usually these situations are dealt with by a mixture of diplomacy and non-lethal force. And curiously enough, I do place equal value on any human life. There are special names and societies for people who disagree with this idea. The Klan, for example. Despite the various strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks (like calling me a racist) littered throughout your post, I'll respond. My Star Wars comment referred to that poster's comment about using a truncheon or some other melee weapon to attempt to "battle" the suspect. It shows a disconnect from reality to think that this is a viable option. For one, the suspect's weapon is a whole lot more lethal than a nightstick, and two, there is no reason for the cop to put his life in danger like that. Yeah, pepper spray has a longer range than his conduit bender, but how are you going to use it on a suspect that is facing away from you? Wait until he turns around to strike you and then hope you don't miss? It also takes time to incapacitate a suspect, and he's more than capable of hurting someone by flailing around in pain. If you've forgotten, they attempted to use nonlethal force with the tazer (before he tried to strike an officer) and it didn't work. Both the tazer and the pepper spray require you to be close enough that the perp can close the distance and attack within a few seconds. Feel free to place equal value on all human lives. That's your prerogative. But there is a difference between racists and someone like me who doesn't really see a reason to care that a random thug with homicidal tendencies got taken down by the people he was trying to hurt.
I didn't call you a racist. I pointed out that assigning differing values to people's lives is a pretty fascist thing to do and it puts you in company you might not want to keep. And don't play the victim here, the statement "Star Wars" is deliberately derisory and inflammatory.
And yet again, you choose to ignore the fact that this sort of situation is dealt with ALL THE TIME without shooting people, at least by British police. It's not a "strawman argument", since it's not based on any logical fallacy but how this thing is dealt with in the UK.
|
On January 26 2012 05:12 Killcani wrote:after reading this thread im glad im not living in the US
It's actually quite a nice place to live, so many different types of places to live, and pretty safe, as long as you aren't trying to kill police officers.
|
On January 26 2012 05:13 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 05:12 Killcani wrote:after reading this thread im glad im not living in the US It's actually quite a nice place to live, so many different types of places to live, and pretty safe, as long as you aren't trying to kill police officers.
![[image loading]](http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/11/19/192897-us-davis-police-lt-john-pike-dousing-seated-students-with-pepper-spray.jpg)
Or trying to protest peacefully.
User was warned for this post
|
They could have easily shot him in the leg, they are fuckin trained to do that and the guy was like 3meters away, anyway i've seen cops killing a guy who was trying to steal a random car in the US. It's sick how easy they would just fire at you. If some of you think it's normal you're simply out of your mind.
|
Meh, 300 million people, how many protest peacefully with no problems, while that was what, 8 people? It was horribly wrong, and I complained loudly about it, but still such a tiny incident. It's not like the rest of the world is without its faults. Seem to remember a nice little bit of London on fire not too long ago.
|
On January 26 2012 05:12 Killcani wrote:after reading this thread im glad im not living in the US
If you feel threatened by what happened, you must be the sort of person who would swing a lethal weapon at a police officer. If that's the case, then we're glad you don't live here either.
|
On January 26 2012 05:18 lain2501 wrote:
They could have easily shot him in the leg, anyway i've seen cops killing a guy who was trying to steal a random car in the US. It's sick how easy they would just fire at you. If some of you think it's normal you're simply out of your mind.
Seriously? Something like twice per page of this thread someone suggests shooting in the leg, and everyone responds about how its an incredibly difficult shot, is not the area they are trained to shoot at, it wouldn't have protected them from his attack, and it would put civilians and the officers at increased risk to a ricochet.
|
police should be trained for this sort of stuff i mean it is a suspect engaging them with a blunt weapon and when there are that many cops standing around him they should be skilled enough to protect themeselves with their bare knuckles.
|
On January 26 2012 05:24 kevint wrote:
police should be trained for this sort of stuff i mean it is a suspect engaging them with a blunt weapon and when there are that many cops standing around him they should be skilled enough to protect themeselves with their bare knuckles.
Come on, use your brain. The guy resisted a tazer.
|
On January 26 2012 05:18 lain2501 wrote:
They could have easily shot him in the leg, they are fuckin trained to do that and the guy was like 3meters away, anyway i've seen cops killing a guy who was trying to steal a random car in the US. It's sick how easy they would just fire at you. If some of you think it's normal you're simply out of your mind.
Why do people think that cops are trained to make takedown shots like that? They are trained specifically to aim for center mass, and this is exactly what happened. And please do tell this story of how cops shot a guy who was trying to steal a car.
|
On January 26 2012 05:22 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 05:12 Killcani wrote:after reading this thread im glad im not living in the US If you feel threatened by what happened, you must be the sort of person who would swing a lethal weapon at a police officer. If that's the case, then we're glad you don't live here either.
Rofl nice logic and no I'd probably be the last person to do anything like that^^.
|
|
|
On January 26 2012 05:24 kevint wrote:
police should be trained for this sort of stuff i mean it is a suspect engaging them with a blunt weapon and when there are that many cops standing around him they should be skilled enough to protect themeselves with their bare knuckles.
Bare knuckle brawl a guy with a blunt metal weapon, thus giving him a damage and reaching range advantage on you?
The suspect brought a pipe to a gun fight, but you're asking the cops to bring nothing at all.
|
On January 26 2012 05:13 NSGrendel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 05:04 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 04:53 NSGrendel wrote:On January 26 2012 04:41 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 04:37 NSGrendel wrote:
Terrible judgement on the part of the officers. They had a canine and ranged weapons, so they decide to go into close quarters with a guy with a melee weapon. Then they panicked and killed him.
If they'd have stood 15 feet away or unleashed the dog or pretty much done anything else, no one would have died. Given that British police deal with these situations with a truncheon (and relatively recently they've had pepper spray) you can't justify this. By getting close they eliminate his available options, which is a good thing in this scenario, even if it causes the situation to escalate. Sorry, but the dog's life is worth more than the thug in this scenario. You unleash the dog on him and he'll take her down with one swing from that conduit bender. Also, who's going to make sure the thug plays nice and only uses nonlethal weaponry? Trying to fight him with a truncheon (lol this isn't Star Wars) or get close enough to use pepper spray is suicide. He shatters your wrist and then follows it up with a blow to the head. Don't understand why people place so much value on the thug's life. Sorry to break it to you, but all life is not created equal. The cops, the bystanders, and even the dog all come before trying to preserve this guy. He asked for it as soon as he decided to attack a police officer. None of your post appears to contain any internal logic. How is escalating a situation the right call? How does coming up to a guy with a melee weapon reduce his options? As for your "Star Wars" comment, clearly you've never used pepper spray, since it has a good 6-8ft range, depending on manufacturer. And only special police units carry weapons in the UK. Usually these situations are dealt with by a mixture of diplomacy and non-lethal force. And curiously enough, I do place equal value on any human life. There are special names and societies for people who disagree with this idea. The Klan, for example. Despite the various strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks (like calling me a racist) littered throughout your post, I'll respond. My Star Wars comment referred to that poster's comment about using a truncheon or some other melee weapon to attempt to "battle" the suspect. It shows a disconnect from reality to think that this is a viable option. For one, the suspect's weapon is a whole lot more lethal than a nightstick, and two, there is no reason for the cop to put his life in danger like that. Yeah, pepper spray has a longer range than his conduit bender, but how are you going to use it on a suspect that is facing away from you? Wait until he turns around to strike you and then hope you don't miss? It also takes time to incapacitate a suspect, and he's more than capable of hurting someone by flailing around in pain. If you've forgotten, they attempted to use nonlethal force with the tazer (before he tried to strike an officer) and it didn't work. Both the tazer and the pepper spray require you to be close enough that the perp can close the distance and attack within a few seconds. Feel free to place equal value on all human lives. That's your prerogative. But there is a difference between racists and someone like me who doesn't really see a reason to care that a random thug with homicidal tendencies got taken down by the people he was trying to hurt. I didn't call you a racist. I pointed out that assigning differing values to people's lives is a pretty fascist thing to do and it puts you in company you might not want to keep. And don't play the victim here, the statement "Star Wars" is deliberately derisory and inflammatory. And yet again, you choose to ignore the fact that this sort of situation is dealt with ALL THE TIME without shooting people, at least by British police. It's not a "strawman argument", since it's not based on any logical fallacy but how this thing is dealt with in the UK.
I don't think you know what fascism means if that's what you associate it with. But there's no point in arguing about it, I believe a person's worth can be judged by their actions and you don't. Not sure how you're tying my Star Wars comment with me playing the victim, I was just pointing out that suggesting the officer use a melee weapon to fight a suspect with a more dangerous melee weapon is quite literally suicide. It's completely unrealistic and not even worth bringing up.
Believe it or not, police in the U.S. deal with this situation without lethal force most of the time too. But when you try to subdue the suspect with nonlethal force, it doesn't work, and then he retaliates, you put him down. Period. Keeping their distance would have prevented the use of a tazer or pepper spray and endangered the lives of the innocent people nearby.
|
On January 26 2012 05:27 Kiwiandapple wrote:Show nested quote +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. Don't know where you live but here cops are learn how to shoot to NOT kill. My uncle is a police officer and he has never killed anyone.
The majority of US policemen and policewomen have never fired at anyone, let alone killed them. Is that your evidence that Belgium cops are trained not to kill but US cops are not?
|
On January 26 2012 05:22 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 05:18 lain2501 wrote:
They could have easily shot him in the leg, anyway i've seen cops killing a guy who was trying to steal a random car in the US. It's sick how easy they would just fire at you. If some of you think it's normal you're simply out of your mind. Seriously? Something like twice per page of this thread someone suggests shooting in the leg, and everyone responds about how its an incredibly difficult shot, is not the area they are trained to shoot at, it wouldn't have protected them from his attack, and it would put civilians and the officers at increased risk to a ricochet.
Anyway...
User was warned for this post
|
On January 26 2012 05:27 Kiwiandapple wrote:Show nested quote +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. Don't know where you live but here cops are learn how to shoot to NOT kill. My uncle is a police officer and he has never killed anyone.
Probably because he's never been put in the position where he had to. Do you think these cops like killing people?
People don't seem to be able to distinguish between "shoot to kill" and "kill on sight." Shoot to kill doesn't mean that it is standard procedure for dealing with dangerous suspects. It means that if you are forced to use your firearm, it is with the intention of ending a life. Any other expectation is unrealistic and naive.
|
On January 26 2012 05:26 Killcani wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 05:22 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 05:12 Killcani wrote:after reading this thread im glad im not living in the US If you feel threatened by what happened, you must be the sort of person who would swing a lethal weapon at a police officer. If that's the case, then we're glad you don't live here either. Rofl nice logic and no I'd probably be the last person to do anything like that^^.
it's actually pretty good logic since that's the topic of this thread o.o
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
