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 07:24 Shiladie wrote: Man threatened police with deadly weapon Man gunned down
As another person mentioned in this thread, the number of shots doesn't matter at all, every shot is a shot to kill. From the moment the first shot was fired, he was a dead man. This is also aided by the fact that as a police officer, if a partner starts shooting you don't question them about why, you cover them.
The subject was either suicidal, not in his right mind, or just straight up dumb to do that turn and heft of his weapon. To be blunt I very likely would have made the same choice as the first officer to shoot. The second set I'd need to have more information, but from what I've seen I cannot fault it either.
Police are serious business, don't fuck with them. While I hate to do it, I have to ask the question, how many people who think the cop was entirely in the wrong here have fired a gun more than a few times. How about had a friend/family member killed on duty?
There are a LOT of examples of police brutality and abuse of power, this is NOT one of those times.
That's the problem. It's a sickening mindset that cops have if they are trained to "shoot to kill" instead of "shoot to neutralize". It's not in a cop's jurisdiction to decide a death sentence for a man just because he turns around and makes an imposing move towards someone else. That man was neutralized as a threat perfectly well after the first five shots - the next five were purely to make sure that he was dead. That's wrong on so many levels.
OK for the 1 millionth time. Cops are not trained to shoot to kill. they are trained to end the threat immediately. This translates to bursts of 3-5 rounds at the center mass. The suspect was not neutralized after the 1st 5 shots so a second round was fired.
You are making an UNBELIEVABLY suicidal assumption to say he was neutralized after 5 shots from a low caliber side arm. 1. He was still standing. 2. his back was to the officers so they could not see his hands.
It is just as likely he was pulling out a concealed gun as it is that he was about to fall over/surrender. You ABSOLUTELY cannot give the suspect the benefit of the doubt in that situation. You WILL put you and your partners and the general public at risk.
I agree completely and thank you for putting it in better words than me. I hope people can get around their anti-cop bias that's being fostered by the times the police DO act poorly. This situation is almost entirely by the book, just with an unfortunate end to it.
For the record, I am Extremely critical of police behavior. I have made multiple OPs on incidents that I believe are example of police abuse. I am well aware of how police are trained, and when Police substitute proper training and procedure for bullying or blatant assault I am sickened.
BUT, what sickens me even more, is when people look the video posted in the OP, and from the comfort of their desktops, pretend there was ANY OTHER COURSE OF ACTION, that could have been taken to guarantee the safety of the officers, other than the 1 taken.
Have a good evening everyone, I may check up on this later tonight, we'll see X___X
Same sentiment here, there is little more infuriating than a cop abusing their power. One of those things that is worse though, is giving a police officer flak for doing exactly what was required of him in a dangerous scenario.
Zasz is another in this thread I agree completely with, and as stated multiple times in this thread, but it bears repeating it seems, because people keep bringing it up: Shooting a gun at a person = intent to kill This is especially true with police officers, who are trained as Stokes said, to put 3-5 in the center of mass until the target is 'neutralized' which 9.9/10 means dead or about to die.
On January 26 2012 07:24 Shiladie wrote: Man threatened police with deadly weapon Man gunned down
As another person mentioned in this thread, the number of shots doesn't matter at all, every shot is a shot to kill. From the moment the first shot was fired, he was a dead man. This is also aided by the fact that as a police officer, if a partner starts shooting you don't question them about why, you cover them.
The subject was either suicidal, not in his right mind, or just straight up dumb to do that turn and heft of his weapon. To be blunt I very likely would have made the same choice as the first officer to shoot. The second set I'd need to have more information, but from what I've seen I cannot fault it either.
Police are serious business, don't fuck with them. While I hate to do it, I have to ask the question, how many people who think the cop was entirely in the wrong here have fired a gun more than a few times. How about had a friend/family member killed on duty?
There are a LOT of examples of police brutality and abuse of power, this is NOT one of those times.
That's the problem. It's a sickening mindset that cops have if they are trained to "shoot to kill" instead of "shoot to neutralize". It's not in a cop's jurisdiction to decide a death sentence for a man just because he turns around and makes an imposing move towards someone else. That man was neutralized as a threat perfectly well after the first five shots - the next five were purely to make sure that he was dead. That's wrong on so many levels.
You seem to be confused about what firearms are for. Rubber bullets were invented to "neutralize" dangerous suspects. Gunpowder, and a result, modern firearms, were invented to kill people. It's the reason discharging a firearm is the absolute last resort for an officer of the law. You'll notice that these officers attempted to subdue the suspect with nonlethal means first (the tazer) and when that failed and he started to attack, they fell back to their guns.
Unless you are a crackshot or a sniper, you don't fire a gun at someone with the intent of "neutralizing" them. It's naive, and shows a lack of respect for firearms, for you to think that this is even possible. As soon as you fire the gun, you are taking responsibility for the death of the person you are firing at.
The standard operating procedure is probably something like "act to neutralize" which includes pepper spray and tasers. The standard operating procedure for using your firearm when left with no other option is "shoot to kill."
And yes, it is in a cop's jurisdiction (and any civilian's jurisdiction) to decide a death sentence for someone threatening their life. Have you never heard of self-defense?
I'm so tired of this crap. Learn to fucking read. The first five shots to the chest were fine. The second fine after the man was clearly no longer a threat were excessive and police brutality. There was literally no point to shooting him five times in the back except to make absolutely sure he was dead. He wasn't posing a threat.
the suspect could've had a concealed gun in his hoodie?
Then shoot him if he reaches for something. If your everyday officer has the reaction time to shoot a man before he even starts making a swinging motion while simultaneously holding back a dog, he has the reaction time to shoot him if he pulls something out of his pocket. The thing is, that's obviously not what happened here. The tazing officer didn't even hesitate to check the situation. He just opened up fire as soon as he could pull out his gun as a gut reaction.
I am starting to wonder if we are watching the same video. We did not see ANYTHING to imply he was a threat or not. Yes the tazing officer didn't hesitate, he brought his gun in line and shot exactly as he was supposed to do. Maybe he should have been a tad faster so his salvo had overlapped with his partner. But i think we can excuse that as a shock reaction to actually being attacked, during a situation where they both did not truly expect such an irrational action. (And prior to his move he had in fact not reacted in any way which would set off alarms).
On January 26 2012 07:25 Tetralix wrote: this thread shows that the best shippers are always on the shore.
This, this and this. I do find it interesting that many of the comments supportive of the officers come from the U.S./Canada, while many (not all, mind you) of the comments critical seem to come from Europe. Anyway keep in mind that the entire shooting time was approximately 3 seconds, and we are watching this from a video perspective for the likely 10,000th time.
I have my CCW and own several firearms. Although I have not been in an incident as elevated as this, my wife and I were startled one night at 3AM by a drunk man pounding on our door. It was dark (obviously), I couldn't tell what he was trying to do and if he had any weapons on him. My heart was beating faster than any other time in my life, I had my weapon drawn and fixed on the front door. If he busted down the door, I would have opened fire and continued until I knew he was down and no longer a threat. I had a scared wife huddled in the closet of the house, I couldn't take any chances and if he would have broken down the door, it would have been entirely likely that I would have fired more times than necessary,as I would err on the side of caution and these super tense moments with grave consequences often play out in a matter of seconds. Thankfully a police officer detained the man (apparently he had been banging on doors around the neighborhood and someone had called the police a while back).
Try to imagine yourself in that situation, with all the feelings.
For the fifth time, this is not an excuse when you are a trained officer that accepted this job and is getting paid to do it. Their training should help them go beyond that kind of instinctual reaction because they are being paid to and are given the legal go-ahead to use deadly force in such a manner. Are you really going to be comfortable if cops are given the ok to just emotionally react when using a gun?
On January 26 2012 07:51 rotinegg wrote: the amount of cop hate in this thread sickens me, that video of officer Dinkheller getting executed sickens me, and the fact that police officers around the country are risking their lives to protect our lives while there are people sitting behind their keyboards shitting on them for using one-too-many-shots to neutralize a threat sickens me the most.
This x a million.. I dont live in a country where these things happen, but i do see the need for the officer to react this way... Shooting to neutralize, is hard. A guy running at you with a crowbar, and you trying to shoot him in the leg is nearly impossible.... You aim for his chest, and you are scared, and trying to save your life, so you shoot a few more times....
I dont think the cop overreacted at all... Its their job, the guy running at the cop with the weapon had it coming.
Also, a similar story happened in the netherlands, iirc, a few years back. A guy started walking/running at an officer with a knife... And the officer shot the guy in the face... <.<...
On January 26 2012 07:25 Tetralix wrote: this thread shows that the best shippers are always on the shore.
This, this and this. I do find it interesting that many of the comments supportive of the officers come from the U.S./Canada, while many (not all, mind you) of the comments critical seem to come from Europe. Anyway keep in mind that the entire shooting time was approximately 3 seconds, and we are watching this from a video perspective for the likely 10,000th time.
I have my CCW and own several firearms. Although I have not been in an incident as elevated as this, my wife and I were startled one night at 3AM by a drunk man pounding on our door. It was dark (obviously), I couldn't tell what he was trying to do and if he had any weapons on him. My heart was beating faster than any other time in my life, I had my weapon drawn and fixed on the front door. If he busted down the door, I would have opened fire and continued until I knew he was down and no longer a threat. I had a scared wife huddled in the closet of the house, I couldn't take any chances and if he would have broken down the door, it would have been entirely likely that I would have fired more times than necessary,as I would err on the side of caution and these super tense moments with grave consequences often play out in a matter of seconds. Thankfully a police officer detained the man (apparently he had been banging on doors around the neighborhood and someone had called the police a while back).
Try to imagine yourself in that situation, with all the feelings.
For the fifth time, this is not an excuse when you are a trained officer that accepted this job and is getting paid to do it. Their training should help them go beyond that kind of instinctual reaction because they are being paid to and are given the legal go-ahead to use deadly force in such a manner. Are you really going to be comfortable if cops are given the ok to just emotionally react when using a gun?
I think you are mis-interpreting my post. Although in my scenario I was very tense, this was a decision I already made in my mind, emotions had no impact. If he broke through my door, I assume he is a threat, I shoot until no longer a threat.
Also, please review one of the referenced posts in the OP from an individual with much more experience than myself. Training for the officers is to provide the officers with an instant reaction to a scenario. They are supposed to have an instinctual reaction, and that reaction is what the training is to provide. There are far too many posts regarding that, so you may review them if you desire.
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
No, it isn't, it isn't a remotely logical conclusion. If a woman said she was glad not to live in Afghanistan after watching a stoning, then what you're saying would be analogous to suggesting that woman is the type to cheat on her husband because she feels threatened by the prospect of being stoned to death. It doesn't follow that if one has a distaste for stoning used in that way, it indicates a propensity for infidelity. I have an enormous distaste for what happened, but it doesn't follow that I would attack an officer (or anyone else for that matter, I'm as much a pacifist as you're likely to find).
It isn't logical to conclude that this is a reflection on the U.S.A. as a whole, but I can tell you I'm glad I wasn't anywhere near that street at the time. I neither wish to witness such a thing, nor be hit and killed by a stray bullet, and to be completely frank I wouldn't want to live anywhere where this type of thing is considered appropriate.
Edit: For people suggesting this is a reflection of cop hating: I don't hate cops. They have a difficult job to do, and I respect what many of them do. That doesn't mean I can't be critical of some of the things they do. Similarly, I don't have any experience in law enforcement, and will likely never find myself in a position to make this kind of choice. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the conditions that need to be satisfied in order for such a choice to be fully appropriate.
On January 26 2012 07:25 Tetralix wrote: this thread shows that the best shippers are always on the shore.
This, this and this. I do find it interesting that many of the comments supportive of the officers come from the U.S./Canada, while many (not all, mind you) of the comments critical seem to come from Europe. Anyway keep in mind that the entire shooting time was approximately 3 seconds, and we are watching this from a video perspective for the likely 10,000th time.
I have my CCW and own several firearms. Although I have not been in an incident as elevated as this, my wife and I were startled one night at 3AM by a drunk man pounding on our door. It was dark (obviously), I couldn't tell what he was trying to do and if he had any weapons on him. My heart was beating faster than any other time in my life, I had my weapon drawn and fixed on the front door. If he busted down the door, I would have opened fire and continued until I knew he was down and no longer a threat. I had a scared wife huddled in the closet of the house, I couldn't take any chances and if he would have broken down the door, it would have been entirely likely that I would have fired more times than necessary,as I would err on the side of caution and these super tense moments with grave consequences often play out in a matter of seconds. Thankfully a police officer detained the man (apparently he had been banging on doors around the neighborhood and someone had called the police a while back).
Try to imagine yourself in that situation, with all the feelings.
For the fifth time, this is not an excuse when you are a trained officer that accepted this job and is getting paid to do it. Their training should help them go beyond that kind of instinctual reaction because they are being paid to and are given the legal go-ahead to use deadly force in such a manner. Are you really going to be comfortable if cops are given the ok to just emotionally react when using a gun?
For the 26th time, they reacted exactly as their training and regulations expect them to. There can be no other reaction to a threat to the life of an officer than open fire. Anything else would mean we might as well give up and let the gangs run the streets.
Let me repeat that one more time, the reaction trained into police to such a threat is to fire a controlled salvo and then reevaluate. That is exactly what both officers did. Yes maybe in hindsight the second officer was too late, but that "too late" means approx. 1s slower than his partner. That is not nearly enough to reevaluate a situation in such a stressed enviroment. Even if his brain had been able to make such a call, it was stressed to a level that instinctive training took over, just as it is supposed to.
You can argue that we should only employ superman as an officer, so that we would not need to worry about protecting them during their dangerous jobs, but sadly it seems such super heros are in short supply.
On January 26 2012 07:51 rotinegg wrote: the amount of cop hate in this thread sickens me, that video of officer Dinkheller getting executed sickens me, and the fact that police officers around the country are risking their lives to protect our lives while there are people sitting behind their keyboards shitting on them for using one-too-many-shots to neutralize a threat sickens me the most.
You can stop with the guilt-tripping BS. I think I can include the vast majority of people in this thread that don't agree with the officer's actions in saying that we fully support officers/soldiers and are very appreciative of what they do. That said, they are still paid to do it, they accepted the job, and they are given training to handle the situation and rights/responsibilities given to them. I'm not ok with people just giving cops free passes to act emotionally when they are given the right to use deadly force in such a manner. If you are given this kind of tool, you should be held to a higher standard than your average joe that just buys a gun. Furthermore, a policy of "shoot until you're absolutely sure he's dead" is disturbing, especially when it's against a random drugged-up guy with a hammer-like item, not a guy with a damn M-16 holding a bunch of people hostage.
For the 26th time, they reacted exactly as their training and regulations expect them to. There can be no other reaction to a threat to the life of an officer than open fire. Anything else would mean we might as well give up and let the gangs run the streets.
Let me repeat that one more time, the reaction trained into police to such a threat is to fire a controlled salvo and then reevaluate. That is exactly what both officers did. Yes maybe in hindsight the second officer was too late, but that "too late" means approx. 1s slower than his partner. That is not nearly enough to reevaluate a situation in such a stressed enviroment. Even if his brain had been able to make such a call, it was stressed to a level that instinctive training took over, just as it is supposed to.
You can argue that we should only employ superman as an officer, so that we would not need to worry about protecting them during their dangerous jobs, but sadly it seems such super heros are in short supply.
Where was the re-evaluation? Oh, there wasn't one. The cop that was threatened dropped his tazer and took out his gun as fast as he could and just opened up a second salvo into the guy. I'm arguing specifically for re-assessment after the first round, and that's not what occured here. You guys are giving the threatened officer a pass for emotionally reacting, and that's not ok in my book when you are given the responsibility/paid to use deadly force in situations like this.
On January 25 2012 15:27 Curu wrote: Dunno if it's been posted already but this immediately came to mind:
Justified IMO. If you blatantly disregard multiple warnings and make any indication you are going for a weapon you deserve to be shot.
(Warning the video will make you feel like shit afterwards)
god dammit i dont understand how people can still side with the criminal after watching this FUCK i lose more faith in humanity with each passing day
This is a very different situation and comparing the two is just bullshit that's trying to bring up an overly emotional reaction to side with cops in all cases.
The situation was not that different at all, only the reaction of the policeman in question was different, this officer took the initiative and went for a kill once he saw the dude was raising his crowbar for a swing at his partner. If you are willing to use force against a police officer then you have to be ready to die, a officer under attack will try to kill he is only human as well after all. There are no excuses, he held on tight to that crowbar willing to swing it and he reaped what he sowed.
The situation is very different. Completely different circumstances with the suspect and completely different reactions by the officers. The officers is this video did everything right until they unloaded five extra shots into the man's back just to make sure he was dead.
The only thing that really matters is that in both cases the police officers where in danger by a aggressive suspect, being at close range to a nut with a crowbar is being in mortal danger as well. The officer that died in the first case payed the price for waiting to long. This is why the policeman in the crowbar case shot so fast, it was on impulse. But yes all shots where intended to kill, from the first to the last as it should be in such a scenario. If the time between the 2 salvo's of fire would have been greater I would have a different opinion but this happened in a instant.
Justified IMO. If you blatantly disregard multiple warnings and make any indication you are going for a weapon you deserve to be shot.
(Warning the video will make you feel like shit afterwards)
god dammit i dont understand how people can still side with the criminal after watching this FUCK i lose more faith in humanity with each passing day
Seriously this video is sickening, can you at least put spoilers please to tell us that it's fucking sickening. You are hearing the cry of a man dying seriously, what the hell. Of course the police officer should have killed the guy as soon as he saw that weapon, nobody is ever saying the opposite.
The situation are still very different : the guy has a cover (his vehicule), and he is at a certain distance so it's not easy to shoot him (while in the situation we are discussing, they are really close). Our hoddy boy have a crowbar and even if he had a gun, he would not have had the chance to put a gun out. Also, in this video, the policeman is alone, while they are at least two and a dog in against the crowbar boy.
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.
Or trying to protest peacefully.
Hope this puts that situation into perspective.
This got me interested, so I read up quite a bit on the matter. There is no way that situation should have ended that way. If they warned them a few times in advance, would it be okay if the officers shot the students with shotguns? Makes you wonder what the role of the police in a democratic society is.
No it wouldn't but the police didn't say they would shoot anyone and they didn't shoot anyone. Your point is moot.
The police used incredible restraint to not use any physical force on the protesters, merely spraying pepper spray so they could get out.
One last thing I'd like to say before I leave this thread for good. Imagine yourself in the shoes of the police. It's very easy to be critical of people but it's not as easy to do things. If you were trapped by a bunch of college students in a circle around you, you wouldn't feel threatened? If someone pulled out a gun and seemed drunk in front of you, you wouldn't shoot them? If someone pulled a crowbar at you and was about to hit you with it (mid swing), you wouldn't shoot them ten times? You'd just magically have the control to shoot them twice and only in the legs? And you'd have the time to react to them pulling out a gun and shooting you? Your answer to all these questions should be no. Otherwise I think you're deluded and there's no point arguing with deluded people.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar.
On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote: Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar.
Just because you have a gun in your hand doesn't mean that a guy about to crack you on the head with a conduit bender is any less lethal. This isn't call of duty and the cops weren't just about to drop a juggernaut care package. The guy was about to perform an action that would have killed someone, and after the tazer failed to affect him at all, they defended themselves.
On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote: Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar.
i do not think that the officers where going to shoot him at all, but the hardass with the crowbar decided to go ''lol derp crowbar strike''.
On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote: Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar.
Just because you have a gun in your hand doesn't mean that a guy about to crack you on the head with a conduit bender is any less lethal. This isn't call of duty and the cops weren't just about to drop a juggernaut care package. The guy was about to perform an action that would have killed someone, and after the tazer failed to affect him at all, they defended themselves.
The suspect was able to pose a threat because of the poor positioning of the officers, they created a life threatening situation out of a guy walking.
Wow reading some of the posts here makes me glad I'm not a police officer...seems like "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Also, I second the motion of have a more emphatic warning about the video referenced in the OP. It is seriously disturbing and perhaps it would be good to add a warning either stating the video is extremely disturbing or for the viewer to perhaps disable sound toward the end of the video. I don't normally push for warnings, but that video was horrifying and I can't get it out of my mind.
On January 26 2012 07:51 rotinegg wrote: the amount of cop hate in this thread sickens me, that video of officer Dinkheller getting executed sickens me, and the fact that police officers around the country are risking their lives to protect our lives while there are people sitting behind their keyboards shitting on them for using one-too-many-shots to neutralize a threat sickens me the most.
It's Europeans who have different viewpoints because they live in a different society and have different rules ...
On January 26 2012 08:11 Ldawg wrote: Wow reading some of the posts here makes me glad I'm not a police officer...seems like "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Also, I second the motion of have a more emphatic warning about the video referenced in the OP. It is seriously disturbing and perhaps it would be good to add a warning either stating the video is extremely disturbing or for the viewer to perhaps disable sound toward the end of the video. I don't normally push for warnings, but that video was horrifying and I can't get it out of my mind.
I have been thinking about that video the whole day on my work, it troubles me as well.
On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote: Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar.
No, I think you're the one who needs a new set of eyes. Multiple cops with fully loaded guns? I see only one cop with a gun ready- the other is fumbling around with his taser. And contrary to your ignorant belief, winding up to swing a crowbar against someone IS a lethal threat. And especially at such close range, even with if they had shot him in the arms or legs, it wouldn't have neccessarily stopped him from swinging, which again, is LETHAL. If you don't believe me, feel free to have a friend swing a crowbar (or in this case, a conduit bender) against your head or arms and see how it feels.
EPT
![[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)
