Can those of you who have been in those situations say that you wouldn't have liked to have had a weapon and shot your assailants to save your life?
I've been in situations where not having a weapon (possibly) saved my life.
Check, I'm not against people having weapons and using them for self defense, once I did wish I had adamantium claws, you know. Like Wolverine. (It was quite an intense situation)
So weapons, fine, I'm cool with that, Just only use them as a last resort. What the cops did, they followed protocol, rather than follow whats 'right'. (maybe?)( and by 'right' I mean, we know that saving a life is greater than taking a life unless truly necessary)
So Was it actually 'right' to just shoot him so quickly? (I get that it was 'legal') and from my personal experience, that situation could of been handled without the loss of a life. Granted every situation is different, so I don't really know, I'm just reflecting my thoughts.
But what happened, happened,
We also need to re think that not shoot at the legs deal, because if it's for the protection of people around, cause it's a smaller harder to hit target and a bullet may stray,
Well, shooting that many times into (even) a large target, while that targets body is moving around, falling to the ground, and bullets still firing. That's not (potentially) dangerous for people around?
I say, go for the leg if 'safe' to do so, new policy.
and I know it's not the movies, I've seen it done before, shock and horror, I've seen a few things.
So ya, officers were 'right', but were they...really, Right?
Ok, I hear and understand the argument against shooting this guy. I 100% disagree with the OP saying this is first degree murder and that if they were in Greece, they'd be in jail nonsense. Could the officers handled the situation differently? Absolutely. And I'm pretty confident that had this incident happened in let's say, Ohio or South Carolina that it probably would have been handled different. The fact that it happens in Missouri where tensions are sky high, IMO, played a huge role in how this incident panned out. The police and the people are all on edge.
I would bet that those officers responding to that incident had no intentions of killing a man when they woke up that morning. But I would also bet that when they woke up that morning, they were aware that the odds of them using their firearms were probably higher than any other "normal" day.
Also, consider the guy that got shot. I have not read or heard anything about this guys background. Maybe the local news have been researching that and gimmie can possibly enlighten us. But this guy was looking for trouble. Whether or not he was suicidal remains a mystery. But he was definitely up to no good. I know some of you will say that being up to no good does not warrant being shot to death. But considering the circumstances and seeing what happened, I do not blame the police for their actions. They were actively being threatened. That can't be debated. It's on video. Regardless of how fast he was moving or the size of the knife, he was not following the cops specific instructions.
Some of you have asked why not shoot to wound. Let's say the cops fired one shot each, both shots hits the guy in both legs. The guy goes down, reaches under his shirt and pulls out a gun and starts blasting away at the cops? I don't know if the guy had any other weapons on him, I would doubt he did. But those cols definitely don't know that. That's why they shoot to kill.
Someone said it earlier and I will say it now. I'm glad that most of us here have been able to have a very civil debate in the two threads related to the Ferguson tragedy without the personal attacks and fighting that goes on in a lot of these threads. I'm proud of all of us for.that.
It's so much easier to follow and understand all of the different viewpoints when everybody is civil to one another. Thank you guys for that.
It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.
I've faced deadly situations before, I know what I'm talking about. Thanks for your conjecture.
(I was also stabbed once before, trust me, I get it)
@-) Shi-it! Sorry to deflect the conversation for a moment but, damn Idris, I'm sorry to hear that!
Oh thanks.
You know my point of saying it was just to point out (as pjsoul showed as well) that we all have stories, heavy, intense, in some form or another,
everyone's got a story, everyone's got problems, We all have some experience in something that may be small to one person, big to another.
I was trying to make a greater point that just because we are posting on this forum, does not mean we can have no understanding of such an intense situation.
Which is what a couple of folks here have seemingly alluded to.
But this guy was looking for trouble. Whether or not he was suicidal remains a mystery. But he was definitely up to no good. I know some of you will say that being up to no good does not warrant being shot to death. But considering the circumstances and seeing what happened, I do not blame the police for their actions. They were actively being threatened. That can't be debated. It's on video. Regardless of how fast he was moving or the size of the knife, he was not following the cops specific instructions.
Some of you have asked why not shoot to wound. Let's say the cops fired one shot each, both shots hits the guy in both legs. The guy goes down, reaches under his shirt and pulls out a gun and starts blasting away at the cops? I don't know if the guy had any other weapons on him, I would doubt he did. But those cols definitely don't know that. That's why they shoot to kill.
"But this guy was looking for trouble"
Indeed he was, 'why' was he? We don't know yet, crazy? drugged up? emotions got the best of him?
How threatened were they really? I mean really? Yes he did not obey the commands, but he still did not really 'threaten' them. No? I mean sure, not obeying an officer, the officer will feel threatened. It's an interesting line.
The second part.
So the guy goes down, both legs shot, how quickly is the guy really gonna be able to reach for his gun and start blasting cops? Cops I reckon will be right on top of that, guns still pointed at guy after leg shots.
We should have national steal some donuts and drinks day. This way we could rid the country of these low life fuckers all at once. Everyone in the video is wearing short sleeve shirts except the victim. I suppose it's easier to conceal things when wearing wearing a long sleeve hoodie.
1. don't wear a hoodie on a summer day 2. stop stealing 3. get on the ground when confronted by police
Do you really think that petty theft warrants being shot and killed?
Good job you weren't around when I was a kid, or you'd have shot me and all my friends, and practically everybody I knew who on the odd occasion used to nick sweets (candy), magazines, and cigarettes, e.t.c.
We should have national steal some donuts and drinks day. This way we could rid the country of these low life fuckers all at once. Everyone in the video is wearing short sleeve shirts except the victim. I suppose it's easier to conceal things when wearing wearing a long sleeve hoodie.
1. don't wear a hoodie on a summer day 2. stop stealing 3. get on the ground when confronted by police
Do you really think that petty theft warrants being shot and killed?
Good job you weren't around when I was a kid, or you'd have shot me and all my friends, and practically everybody I knew who on the odd occasion used to nick sweets (candy), magazines, and cigarettes, e.t.c.
Petty theft... no- definitely not, but this wasn't petty theft.
Confronting and advancing on an officer with a knife... yes.
I spoke with my father in law last night about this very situation. He's a retired cop and a great guy. 21 feet is the range at which officers are trained to shoot an assailant with a knife. This has not been haphazardly developed by cops sitting around the donut shop filling in the blanks in the original manual.
Cops also are trained to shoot at the largest center of mass. They don't shoot at moving legs and arms- when facing a knife... their task moves from controlling the subject to ensuring their own safety. This is hardly unreasonable: I get (from what some people are saying) that they think an officer should risk suffering a potentially fatal injury from their assailant before using deadly force.
You know how this should have been handled? The guy wielding the knife should have shit his pants when the cops drew their weapons and respected the situation. He defiantly and foolishly ignored them and tried to get proximal to the one officer so that, given his actions to that point, he might be able to attack the officer.
The cop took it too far- there is no argument for that, but to say he should have explored additional options before using his weapon as he has been trained- like some of the options suggested in this thread- is silly.
You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.
This cop has the best solution.
u can with one bullet at not critical spot on the body of suspect when u want to kill you shoot 10+ times.. murder,1st degree
Again, cops are trained to shoot center mass, which is the torso. This isn't the movies, there are no warning shots, there is no shooting at legs or arms. We can argue that maybe they shot too many times but they had every right to shoot this man approaching them with a weapon. Honestly, I would rather see this man shot then one of the officers being hurt. Murder in the 1st I believe is when you have every intent to go out and kill someone, I may be wrong and ill stand corrected if proven otherwise. I highly doubt these officers left their house that morning with the intent to go kill this man or anyone else.
You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.
This cop has the best solution.
u can with one bullet at not critical spot on the body of suspect when u want to kill you shoot 10+ times.. murder,1st degree
Again, cops are trained to shoot center mass, which is the torso. This isn't the movies, there are no warning shots, there is no shooting at legs or arms. We can argue that maybe they shot too many times but they had every right to shoot this man approaching them with a weapon. Honestly, I would rather see this man shot then one of the officers being hurt. Murder in the 1st I believe is when you have every intent to go out and kill someone, I may be wrong and ill stand corrected if proven otherwise. I highly doubt these officers left their house that morning with the intent to go kill this man or anyone else.
they shoot to kill..they didnt want to stop him,arrest him,unarm,save the civilians,put the city back in peace they want to kill and empty their guns exactly.,this isnt the movies..they took a man life,the same time they could do so many things to not kill him and stop him.. they dont give a shit next time when is someone u know or a loved one the one will shoot like a dog on the street,tell me the theories about what cops are trained are for.,.
Luckily most people I know are law abiding citizens who wouldn't put themselves in a situation like this.
I've personally been stopped by officers for no other reason than me being a certain color in a certain neighborhood which is known to be a drug hotbed. I stop and acted politely, answered their questions and was told to move on once they were satisfied. Was a I upset that I got racially profiled in the neighborhood I grew up in? Hell yes, but arguing with an officer at that point would be senseless and I know that in doing so could and would probably lead to me being arrested. We have to stop and think as well and wonder is it worth it? When a situation is going down we have to look at the actions of the suspect as well as the actions of officers. There are plenty occasions where officers take things too far and I personally will call them out for that. I honestly don't think this is a situation where the cops did wrong. Obviously some think otherwise, and that's fine, we at allowed to have different opinions. As someone else said, at least we have been able to air those opinions in a civil matter and this thread has stayed away from the nastiness I've seen in others.
We should have national steal some donuts and drinks day. This way we could rid the country of these low life fuckers all at once. Everyone in the video is wearing short sleeve shirts except the victim. I suppose it's easier to conceal things when wearing wearing a long sleeve hoodie.
1. don't wear a hoodie on a summer day 2. stop stealing 3. get on the ground when confronted by police
Do you really think that petty theft warrants being shot and killed?
Good job you weren't around when I was a kid, or you'd have shot me and all my friends, and practically everybody I knew who on the odd occasion used to nick sweets (candy), magazines, and cigarettes, e.t.c.
Petty theft... no- definitely not, but this wasn't petty theft.
Confronting and advancing on an officer with a knife... yes.
I spoke with my father in law last night about this very situation. He's a retired cop and a great guy. 21 feet is the range at which officers are trained to shoot an assailant with a knife. This has not been haphazardly developed by cops sitting around the donut shop filling in the blanks in the original manual.
Cops also are trained to shoot at the largest center of mass. They don't shoot at moving legs and arms- when facing a knife... their task moves from controlling the subject to ensuring their own safety. This is hardly unreasonable: I get (from what some people are saying) that they think an officer should risk suffering a potentially fatal injury from their assailant before using deadly force.
You know how this should have been handled? The guy wielding the knife should have shit his pants when the cops drew their weapons and respected the situation. He defiantly and foolishly ignored them and tried to get proximal to the one officer so that, given his actions to that point, he might be able to attack the officer.
The cop took it too far- there is no argument for that, but to say he should have explored additional options before using his weapon as he has been trained- like some of the options suggested in this thread- is silly.
i think we should all be able to agree that police should receive AT LEAST equal training in both how to use deadly force and how to manage crisis without resorting to deadly force. Unfortunately it is very skewed toward deadly force in america.
Ok, I hear and understand the argument against shooting this guy. I 100% disagree with the OP saying this is first degree murder and that if they were in Greece, they'd be in jail nonsense. Could the officers handled the situation differently? Absolutely. And I'm pretty confident that had this incident happened in let's say, Ohio or South Carolina that it probably would have been handled different. The fact that it happens in Missouri where tensions are sky high, IMO, played a huge role in how this incident panned out. The police and the people are all on edge.
I would bet that those officers responding to that incident had no intentions of killing a man when they woke up that morning. But I would also bet that when they woke up that morning, they were aware that the odds of them using their firearms were probably higher than any other "normal" day.
Also, consider the guy that got shot. I have not read or heard anything about this guys background. Maybe the local news have been researching that and gimmie can possibly enlighten us. But this guy was looking for trouble. Whether or not he was suicidal remains a mystery. But he was definitely up to no good. I know some of you will say that being up to no good does not warrant being shot to death. But considering the circumstances and seeing what happened, I do not blame the police for their actions. They were actively being threatened. That can't be debated. It's on video. Regardless of how fast he was moving or the size of the knife, he was not following the cops specific instructions.
Some of you have asked why not shoot to wound. Let's say the cops fired one shot each, both shots hits the guy in both legs. The guy goes down, reaches under his shirt and pulls out a gun and starts blasting away at the cops? I don't know if the guy had any other weapons on him, I would doubt he did. But those cols definitely don't know that. That's why they shoot to kill.
what response do you have to the fact that all around the world, where cops dont have guns, they are able to deal with knife wielding maniacs without the use of deadly force? Should our police not be trained to handle crisis without bullets. You continually point out that the police are doing as they are trained, and you are correct. Do you agree with this style of training? And if so, what have you to say about the rest of the worlds crisis management abilities spanking ours?
We should have national steal some donuts and drinks day. This way we could rid the country of these low life fuckers all at once. Everyone in the video is wearing short sleeve shirts except the victim. I suppose it's easier to conceal things when wearing wearing a long sleeve hoodie.
1. don't wear a hoodie on a summer day 2. stop stealing 3. get on the ground when confronted by police
Do you really think that petty theft warrants being shot and killed?
Good job you weren't around when I was a kid, or you'd have shot me and all my friends, and practically everybody I knew who on the odd occasion used to nick sweets (candy), magazines, and cigarettes, e.t.c.
Petty theft... no- definitely not, but this wasn't petty theft.
Confronting and advancing on an officer with a knife... yes.
I spoke with my father in law last night about this very situation. He's a retired cop and a great guy. 21 feet is the range at which officers are trained to shoot an assailant with a knife. This has not been haphazardly developed by cops sitting around the donut shop filling in the blanks in the original manual.
Cops also are trained to shoot at the largest center of mass. They don't shoot at moving legs and arms- when facing a knife... their task moves from controlling the subject to ensuring their own safety. This is hardly unreasonable: I get (from what some people are saying) that they think an officer should risk suffering a potentially fatal injury from their assailant before using deadly force.
You know how this should have been handled? The guy wielding the knife should have shit his pants when the cops drew their weapons and respected the situation. He defiantly and foolishly ignored them and tried to get proximal to the one officer so that, given his actions to that point, he might be able to attack the officer.
The cop took it too far- there is no argument for that, but to say he should have explored additional options before using his weapon as he has been trained- like some of the options suggested in this thread- is silly.
i think we should all be able to agree that police should receive AT LEAST equal training in both how to use deadly force and how to manage crisis without resorting to deadly force. Unfortunately it is very skewed toward deadly force in america.
What makes you think they don't...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Ok, I hear and understand the argument against shooting this guy. I 100% disagree with the OP saying this is first degree murder and that if they were in Greece, they'd be in jail nonsense. Could the officers handled the situation differently? Absolutely. And I'm pretty confident that had this incident happened in let's say, Ohio or South Carolina that it probably would have been handled different. The fact that it happens in Missouri where tensions are sky high, IMO, played a huge role in how this incident panned out. The police and the people are all on edge.
I would bet that those officers responding to that incident had no intentions of killing a man when they woke up that morning. But I would also bet that when they woke up that morning, they were aware that the odds of them using their firearms were probably higher than any other "normal" day.
Also, consider the guy that got shot. I have not read or heard anything about this guys background. Maybe the local news have been researching that and gimmie can possibly enlighten us. But this guy was looking for trouble. Whether or not he was suicidal remains a mystery. But he was definitely up to no good. I know some of you will say that being up to no good does not warrant being shot to death. But considering the circumstances and seeing what happened, I do not blame the police for their actions. They were actively being threatened. That can't be debated. It's on video. Regardless of how fast he was moving or the size of the knife, he was not following the cops specific instructions.
Some of you have asked why not shoot to wound. Let's say the cops fired one shot each, both shots hits the guy in both legs. The guy goes down, reaches under his shirt and pulls out a gun and starts blasting away at the cops? I don't know if the guy had any other weapons on him, I would doubt he did. But those cols definitely don't know that. That's why they shoot to kill.
what response do you have to the fact that all around the world, where cops dont have guns, they are able to deal with knife wielding maniacs without the use of deadly force? Should our police not be trained to handle crisis without bullets. You continually point out that the police are doing as they are trained, and you are correct. Do you agree with this style of training? And if so, what have you to say about the rest of the worlds crisis management abilities spanking ours?
Cops all around the world ... really, so how many nations elect not to arm their police forces? And I would suspect those countries that do not arm their police and when those unarmed police officers come across a volatile situation keep their distance until the armed police arrive.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
My cousin a retired police officer has said to me that confronting someone with a knife is extremely dangerous because a knife requires 0 skill to operate, once inside the body the attacker can do a lot of damage and a knife attack requires you to be at close range where as a gun requires some knowledge, could miss, gun could jam etc...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
We should have national steal some donuts and drinks day. This way we could rid the country of these low life fuckers all at once. Everyone in the video is wearing short sleeve shirts except the victim. I suppose it's easier to conceal things when wearing wearing a long sleeve hoodie.
1. don't wear a hoodie on a summer day 2. stop stealing 3. get on the ground when confronted by police
Do you really think that petty theft warrants being shot and killed?
Good job you weren't around when I was a kid, or you'd have shot me and all my friends, and practically everybody I knew who on the odd occasion used to nick sweets (candy), magazines, and cigarettes, e.t.c.
Petty theft... no- definitely not, but this wasn't petty theft.
Confronting and advancing on an officer with a knife... yes.
I spoke with my father in law last night about this very situation. He's a retired cop and a great guy. 21 feet is the range at which officers are trained to shoot an assailant with a knife. This has not been haphazardly developed by cops sitting around the donut shop filling in the blanks in the original manual.
Cops also are trained to shoot at the largest center of mass. They don't shoot at moving legs and arms- when facing a knife... their task moves from controlling the subject to ensuring their own safety. This is hardly unreasonable: I get (from what some people are saying) that they think an officer should risk suffering a potentially fatal injury from their assailant before using deadly force.
You know how this should have been handled? The guy wielding the knife should have shit his pants when the cops drew their weapons and respected the situation. He defiantly and foolishly ignored them and tried to get proximal to the one officer so that, given his actions to that point, he might be able to attack the officer.
The cop took it too far- there is no argument for that, but to say he should have explored additional options before using his weapon as he has been trained- like some of the options suggested in this thread- is silly.
i think we should all be able to agree that police should receive AT LEAST equal training in both how to use deadly force and how to manage crisis without resorting to deadly force. Unfortunately it is very skewed toward deadly force in america.
What makes you think they don't...
someone posted some figures in the Police Abuse thread relative to how many hours they train to fire weapons as opposed to how many hours training in dealing with mental illness that plus anecdotal evidence gathered from police i know and internet articles
I'm not aware of any other nations not arming its police force. I think that is silly. What countries do this? I am personally ok with the tactics and protocols that American police forces use.
I'm not aware of any other nations not arming its police force. I think that is silly. What countries do this? I am personally ok with the tactics and protocols that American police forces use.
off the top of my head i know the UK and Japan. Thats not to say the depts dont have guns, but the average street cops dont carry firearms. I hope sincerely that nobody here is ever connected to one of these senseless acts of violence perpetrated by cops acting within the scope of their training. I guess im just a hippy dippy for thinking that shooting to kill is not the ONLY option out there... In this scenario there is no reason to kill this man. 2 cops on scene, 1 draws a taser, the other draws firearm and takes the safety off. Taser cop "fires" and gun cop on standby. But, no, apparently their training doesnt provide for such a common sense scenario, and thats fine by you?
I am fine with how the cops handles that situation. It certainly could have been handled differently, but it wasn't. I feel bad for that man's family, but the cops protected themselves. No matter how the threat was perceived by you and me, they did what they felt they had to do.
I am fine with how the cops handles that situation. It certainly could have been handled differently, but it wasn't. I feel bad for that man's family, but the cops protected themselves. No matter how the threat was perceived by you and me, they did what they felt they had to do.
If you have read any of my posts, you'll know I am on the cops' side; however, I do think there is a strong argument to the 'overkill' notion.
The additional shots fired after the assailant was on the ground bear noting and investigating.
Is this a case of an officer pushed into a stressful situation where his adrenaline, training and survival instincts got the best of him? Or is this a case of a homicidal cop who couldn't wait to get a suspect between his crosshairs so he could empty his gun into him?
It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.
So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?
What you say here isn't congruent.
We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.
I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.
But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.
I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.
We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.
It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.
I've faced deadly situations before, I know what I'm talking about. Thanks for your conjecture.
(I was also stabbed once before, trust me, I get it)
@-) Shi-it! Sorry to deflect the conversation for a moment but, damn Idris, I'm sorry to hear that!
Me too!
And for the record, I think a lot of us have been in very very threatening situations. For me, it was a van full of men who pulled up and tried to drag me in and kidnap me (presumably to rape me or kill me or beat the shit out of me or something). I had to fight the one who jumped out off. Got him in the sternum with my keys hard enough for him to let go so I could run. Luckily he wasn't a big guy.
I also had a drunk aggressive dude pull out a revolver at a camp site and start waving it around and threatening people. He could have shot anyone who was there and not even remember it the next day.
I'm sure plenty of people have had stuff happen to them where they felt like their lives were I danger. So it's not that hard to understand the immediate stress that cops might be under... of course they have special training as well as a reasonable expectation to be in danger, which should make them much more prepared to properly deal with such situations.
They are humans JUST like you. Expecting them to be super human is easy way to distance one selves from their realities. Human suck, glad thee are cops to deal with them.
Comments
Check, I'm not against people having weapons and using them for self defense, once I did wish I had adamantium claws, you know. Like Wolverine. (It was quite an intense situation)
So weapons, fine, I'm cool with that, Just only use them as a last resort. What the cops did, they followed protocol, rather than follow whats 'right'. (maybe?)( and by 'right' I mean, we know that saving a life is greater than taking a life unless truly necessary)
So Was it actually 'right' to just shoot him so quickly? (I get that it was 'legal') and from my personal experience, that situation could of been handled without the loss of a life. Granted every situation is different, so I don't really know, I'm just reflecting my thoughts.
But what happened, happened,
We also need to re think that not shoot at the legs deal, because if it's for the protection of people around, cause it's a smaller harder to hit target and a bullet may stray,
Well, shooting that many times into (even) a large target, while that targets body is moving around, falling to the ground, and bullets still firing. That's not (potentially) dangerous for people around?
I say, go for the leg if 'safe' to do so, new policy.
and I know it's not the movies, I've seen it done before, shock and horror, I've seen a few things.
So ya, officers were 'right', but were they...really, Right?
I would bet that those officers responding to that incident had no intentions of killing a man when they woke up that morning. But I would also bet that when they woke up that morning, they were aware that the odds of them using their firearms were probably higher than any other "normal" day.
Also, consider the guy that got shot. I have not read or heard anything about this guys background. Maybe the local news have been researching that and gimmie can possibly enlighten us. But this guy was looking for trouble. Whether or not he was suicidal remains a mystery. But he was definitely up to no good. I know some of you will say that being up to no good does not warrant being shot to death. But considering the circumstances and seeing what happened, I do not blame the police for their actions. They were actively being threatened. That can't be debated. It's on video. Regardless of how fast he was moving or the size of the knife, he was not following the cops specific instructions.
Some of you have asked why not shoot to wound. Let's say the cops fired one shot each, both shots hits the guy in both legs. The guy goes down, reaches under his shirt and pulls out a gun and starts blasting away at the cops? I don't know if the guy had any other weapons on him, I would doubt he did. But those cols definitely don't know that. That's why they shoot to kill.
It's so much easier to follow and understand all of the different viewpoints when everybody is civil to one another. Thank you guys for that.
You know my point of saying it was just to point out (as pjsoul showed as well) that we all have stories, heavy, intense, in some form or another,
everyone's got a story, everyone's got problems, We all have some experience in something that may be small to one person, big to another.
I was trying to make a greater point that just because we are posting on this forum, does not mean we can have no understanding of such an intense situation.
Which is what a couple of folks here have seemingly alluded to.
Indeed he was, 'why' was he? We don't know yet, crazy? drugged up? emotions got the best of him?
How threatened were they really? I mean really? Yes he did not obey the commands, but he still did not really 'threaten' them. No? I mean sure, not obeying an officer, the officer will feel threatened. It's an interesting line.
The second part.
So the guy goes down, both legs shot, how quickly is the guy really gonna be able to reach for his gun and start blasting cops? Cops I reckon will be right on top of that, guns still pointed at guy after leg shots.
That's why you don't just shoot to kill.
Good job you weren't around when I was a kid, or you'd have shot me and all my friends, and practically everybody I knew who on the odd occasion used to nick sweets (candy), magazines, and cigarettes, e.t.c.
This wasn't a kid.
Confronting and advancing on an officer with a knife... yes.
I spoke with my father in law last night about this very situation. He's a retired cop and a great guy. 21 feet is the range at which officers are trained to shoot an assailant with a knife. This has not been haphazardly developed by cops sitting around the donut shop filling in the blanks in the original manual.
Cops also are trained to shoot at the largest center of mass. They don't shoot at moving legs and arms- when facing a knife... their task moves from controlling the subject to ensuring their own safety. This is hardly unreasonable: I get (from what some people are saying) that they think an officer should risk suffering a potentially fatal injury from their assailant before using deadly force.
You know how this should have been handled? The guy wielding the knife should have shit his pants when the cops drew their weapons and respected the situation. He defiantly and foolishly ignored them and tried to get proximal to the one officer so that, given his actions to that point, he might be able to attack the officer.
The cop took it too far- there is no argument for that, but to say he should have explored additional options before using his weapon as he has been trained- like some of the options suggested in this thread- is silly.
I've personally been stopped by officers for no other reason than me being a certain color in a certain neighborhood which is known to be a drug hotbed. I stop and acted politely, answered their questions and was told to move on once they were satisfied. Was a I upset that I got racially profiled in the neighborhood I grew up in? Hell yes, but arguing with an officer at that point would be senseless and I know that in doing so could and would probably lead to me being arrested. We have to stop and think as well and wonder is it worth it? When a situation is going down we have to look at the actions of the suspect as well as the actions of officers. There are plenty occasions where officers take things too far and I personally will call them out for that. I honestly don't think this is a situation where the cops did wrong. Obviously some think otherwise, and that's fine, we at allowed to have different opinions. As someone else said, at least we have been able to air those opinions in a civil matter and this thread has stayed away from the nastiness I've seen in others.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
that plus anecdotal evidence gathered from police i know and internet articles
The additional shots fired after the assailant was on the ground bear noting and investigating.
Is this a case of an officer pushed into a stressful situation where his adrenaline, training and survival instincts got the best of him? Or is this a case of a homicidal cop who couldn't wait to get a suspect between his crosshairs so he could empty his gun into him?