Shooting in Times Square

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

The number of shots is irrelevant, whether you die from one or survive 20 is a matter of luck. All officers do is put the shots into the torso until the threat goes down. That is their training. The decision to fire is quite binary, the variables cannot be blamed of the officers. Is he threat, yes. Put him on the ground. Everything else is secondary.

I thought their training is to fire twice then assess before considering firing again? In the video I hear a barrage of shots.

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I would have used a gun only to disarm the guy ........

Fer the love of christ........

Dyr

MadsL wrote: »

6 shots is not "emptying magazines" - stock G19 has 17 capacity.

Plus nypd guns are all DAO so they would have fired three times for six rounds

fasttalkerchat

Let me put it this way then?

Was the purpose of shooting to make it safe to arrest him or to solve the problem by killing him?

I don't agree that they had to do both.

Witcher

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I would have used a gun only to disarm the guy so that he could be arrested and they seem to have skipped that step and went straight to ending his life.

You cannot do that..it has been said about 10 times..it is not done. It is difficult to hit any small object with a pistol due to a short sight radius...a slight movement in the foresight between translates into a larger distance between the rounds once they hit the target...now try hit someone's leg while they're moving. The average cop is not James Bond.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Let me put it this way then?

Was the purpose of shooting to make it safe to arrest him or to solve the problem by killing him?

I don't agree that they had to do both.

They fire to neutralise the threat i.e put him on the ground. Now after that if he lives good, if he dies..that's unfortunate. Again..they fire to neutralise the threat...not to either kill or to have the person survive it.

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Let me put it this way then?

Was the purpose of shooting to make it safe to arrest him or to solve the problem by killing him?

I don't agree that they had to do both.

It was to put him down. If he survived, he survived.

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I thought their training is to fire twice then assess before considering firing again? In the video I hear a barrage of shots.

He was wearing a white Tshirt against a stone background, how fast do you think you would need to check he was still standing.

Bang Bang
Still there
Bang Bang
Still there
Bang Bang
OK, get him an ambulance.

garv123

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

He was not an immediate threat unless he lunged at the officers. Assuming that this did not happen, their reason for using force is to get the knife off him and get the cuffs on. Using a baton is not viable since he has a knife and pepper spray didn't work, they don't have tazers. So they decide to use their guns.
Now here's where I differ from the 2 officers who fired...
I would have used a gun only to disarm the guy so that he could be arrested and they seem to have skipped that step and went straight to ending his life.

Why are u assuming this didn't happen when all the links posted said it did happen?

tell me how you would have disarmed the guy using the gun? Throw it at him? shoot him in the shoulder and hope you dont miss and hit a child straight between the eyes?
The only way to disable him using a gun is shoot till he falls

Dyr

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

He had been backing away for a few minutes. If he was armed with a gun I would have regarded him as an immediate threat but from that video it looks like he was a safe distance from everyone.

If they shot him once he would have rolled around screaming for his mommy until the men in the white suits came. I don't see how killing him was necessary in order to save any other human life.

You're either trolling or I'm going to have to worry that there's people like you allowed to vote and do adult things

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

He was wearing a white Tshirt against a stone background, how fast do you think you would need to check he was still standing.

Bang Bang
Still there
Bang Bang
Still there
Bang Bang
OK, get him an ambulance.

And if he hit the ground after 2 bullets they would have stopped, asked him to drop the knife. And if he's lying on the ground still clutching the knife... shoot again?

omgitsthelazor

Stuff like this really makes me appreciate living in a safe country. The homicide rate in the USA is so high their people must live in fear.

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

And if he hit the ground after 2 bullets they would have stopped, asked him to drop the knife. And if he's lying on the ground still clutching the knife... shoot again?

What did I say earlier about no fixed guarantee with regard to firing bullets?

What did I say earlier about the proximity of civillians in shops and cars?

Witcher

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

And if he hit the ground after 2 bullets they would have stopped, asked him to drop the knife. And if he's lying on the ground still clutching the knife... shoot again?

Kick the knife away, a man lying on his back isn't going to cause a lethal wound...you've neutralised his capacity to threaten life. But again it depends on the situation....the situation as it stands dictates what action is taken.

Clearly you're out to prove they were in the wrong here..from the news that has emerged on this they were correct in their action.

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

And if he hit the ground after 2 bullets they would have stopped, asked him to drop the knife. And if he's lying on the ground still clutching the knife... shoot again?

It is a simple mantra but I will keep repeating until you get it. They would assess the threat and respond according to the threat.

As probably the only person here who has ever had a gun pointed at them by a cop, let me tell you that you do what they say very quickly. That includes dropping what ever you have in your hands.

fasttalkerchat

garv123 wrote: »

Why are u assuming this didn't happen when all the links posted said it did happen?

I was assuming that it didn't happen when I made my argument, eye witnesses have since been reported to have said he did lunge so that could well have been the case in which case they were justified in what they did.

garv123 wrote: »

The only way to disable him using a gun is shoot till he falls

I didn't think that they did this. On the video I heard a barrage of shots. 2 bullets to the chest and a 1 second break would mean that they assessed if that was enough as per their training before continuing to fire until he falls.

Witcher

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I didn't think that they did this. On the video I heard a barrage of shots. 2 bullets to the chest and a 1 second break would mean that they assessed if that was enough as per their training before continuing to fire until he falls.

You are either trolling or not reading every post. If he was still standing then they do not need 1 second to reassess.

The gun comes up;

Bang Bang(Cop still sees him where he was when he looks down his sights)

Bang Bang(Repeat until he is down)

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I was assuming that it didn't happen when I made my argument, eye witnesses have since been reported to have said he did lunge so that could well have been the case in which case they were justified in what they did.


I didn't think that they did this. On the video I heard a barrage of shots. 2 bullets to the chest and a 1 second break would mean that they assessed if that was enough as per their training before continuing to fire until he falls.

Why would you wait one full second?

omgitsthelazor wrote: »

Stuff like this really makes me appreciate living in a safe country. The homicide rate in the USA is so high their people must live in fear.

Actually it is lower than some EU countries. Estonia and Latvia for instance.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

And overall crime is lower than many EU countries...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

garv123

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I was assuming that it didn't happen when I made my argument, eye witnesses have since been reported to have said he did lunge so that could well have been the case in which case they were justified in what they did.


I didn't think that they did this. On the video I heard a barrage of shots. 2 bullets to the chest and a 1 second break would mean that they assessed if that was enough as per their training before continuing to fire until he falls.

The first link in the thread said it happened like that, if thats the case I'll assume only 8 shots were fired because u can only hear 8.


The barrage of shots could have been.. officer one, bang bang, as he assessed officer 2 fired twice and assessed and repeat.

Adrenalin does amazing things.

MadsL

One officer fired nine shots, and the other fired three, Mr. Browne said. He added that neither officer previously fired a weapon in the line of duty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/nyregion/police-fired-12-shots-in-killing-near-times-square.html

First line-of-duty firing for these guys.

When he moved within three feet of the officers, still holding the knife, the police said, they let loose a burst of bullets, drawing gasps from the rapt witnesses.

Three feet, can't do much at that range unless you wanna be a stabbed hero.

Note that we have 12 shots and only 7 confirmed hitting at three feet!!

RedRightHand

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I didn't think that they did this. On the video I heard a barrage of shots. 2 bullets to the chest and a 1 second break would mean that they assessed if that was enough as per their training before continuing to fire until he falls.

None of the shots were fired after he fell. If he is still on his feet he remains a threat. Indeed if he is still standing after being shot twice in the chest the officers instinctive reaction may have been to fear that they were in more trouble than they previously thought. They also would have been aware that the first shots were likely to result in his death, if not in the following 15 seconds he would most likely die on the operating table. At that stage the only thing that mattered was the situation ending as quickly as possible.

wilson10

12 bullets, 3 cheers.

Last time I was in New York I walked the streets at night and felt safe.

I wouldn't feel safe walking O'Connell St. after 7 o'clock.

It wasn't me!

Bambi wrote: »

Plus nypd guns are all DAO so they would have fired three times for six rounds

That's not what DAO means. DAO (Double Action Only) means that pulling the trigger cocks the hammer of the gun as well as discharging it, with a correspondingly longer and heavier trigger pull. SAO (Single Action Only) means that the hammer must be manually cocked (pulled back) in order to fire the gun. Pulling the trigger alone will not do this. Triggers tend to be lighter and have little travel, and it's a feature pretty much unique to older revolvers. SA/DA means Single Action/Double Action, which as I'm sure you can guess means both are possible. DAO does not mean pulling the trigger gets you two rounds.

Standman

Firing 12 shots on one of the busiest streets in the world is ridiculously dangerous and it was a crazy thing to do in my opinion.

It wasn't me!

Standman wrote: »

Firing 12 shots on one of the busiest streets in the world is ridiculously dangerous and it was a crazy thing to do in my opinion.

Firing twelve rounds is realistically no more dangerous than firing one. Once the decision has to be made to shoot, then that line is crossed. There aren't really gradations then. Know what's more dangerous than firing twelve shots? Guys intent on stabbing folks being allowed run around doing so.

garv123

Standman wrote: »

Firing 12 shots on one of the busiest streets in the world is ridiculously dangerous and it was a crazy thing to do in my opinion.

You're right, when he lunged at police with a knife they should have fired 1-2 shots and then when he was still coming put their hands up and just let him stab them... way less dangerous

Standman

They shouldn't have fired any shots at all, what happened to tazers?

Standman

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Firing twelve rounds is realistically no more dangerous than firing one. Once the decision has to be made to shoot, then that line is crossed. There aren't really gradations then. Know what's more dangerous than firing twelve shots? Guys intent on stabbing folks being allowed run around doing so.

Surely the number of shots fires increases the risk of one of them going stray and hitting a bystander or ricocheting.

garv123

Again people under the impression that tazers will stop someone running at you from watching too many action films, and you also have to be very close to someone to use it. the man was shot from 3 feet away, Id much rather a gun than a tazer when he got that close thanks.

He was pepper sprayed twice and it did nothing.

It wasn't me!

Standman wrote: »

They shouldn't have fired any shots at all, what happened to tazers?

There wasn't one there. Can't use what you don't have. Shooting him beats being stabbed to death for you or others.

Standman wrote: »

Surely the number of shots fires increases the risk of one of them going stray and hitting a bystander or ricocheting.

Only in crude mathematics. Either the shot is safe, with an appropriate backstop, or it's not. The number fired at that point is irrelevant.

MadsL

Standman wrote: »

Firing 12 shots on one of the busiest streets in the world is ridiculously dangerous and it was a crazy thing to do in my opinion.

They were in a position where the guy was against a wall and they had that as a backstop. NYPD would not fire into a crowded street.

Standman wrote: »

They shouldn't have fired any shots at all, what happened to tazers?

Only Sergeants carry them. a tazer was on the way and they planned to use it but the guy lunged at them.

Standman wrote: »

Surely the number of shots fires increases the risk of one of them going stray and hitting a bystander or ricocheting.

Yes, it does. But once you decide to put a threat on the ground you fire as required, that is what cops are trained to do.

Why are you trying to find fault with the procedure, when you seem to have no issue with them shooting this guy?

Overheal

I'm not at all surprised that this message board is still plagued with ignorance on violence and weaponry. The majority of readers will be Irish and probably have never come within a quarter mile of a firearm that wasn't in the hands of the military.

If you've never held - or especially fired - a handgun, and your only "experience" is action movies or 24, I'm here to tell you that making placed shots (Thumb, Legs, arms, Non-vital organs, etc) is not at all simple. Even when the target is stationary, or right in front of you, or a piece of paper on a target range. Nevermind jogging up Times Square, with a knife, and lunging at you.

These types of shots are not an available tactic at all. Some of the stuff you see on Worlds Wildest police videos, like the marksman who shot a gun out of a guys hand with a sniper rifle? That was a standoff that lasted for hours and he spent a considerable length of time calculating that shot. Same with the one where the guy had a Samurai sword (he was taken out with beanbags after some length of time).

I've seen other police videos recently where we've had these same discussions. One guy had I think it was either a bat or a fireaxe - he went into a Carl Jr's and tore some **** up. Cops met up with him in the parking lot, tazed him once, he was still standing. Cop reloaded his tazer, the guy attacked him during so, and the partner shot a clip into him. End of story. Similarly, this guy was pepper sprayed, and I am not read up on the use of Tazers in the NYPD or whether officers on scene were carrying them but I know their use has been highly controversial in the last 5 years.

It's extremely easy to both see and understand how these incidents happen. Excessive force also happens (like in Miami last year - not the zombies). Couch Experts saying 1-4 bullets is enough, were not there on the scene or Police Officers, and have never fired a shot in their lives.

Whoever said go at the knife wielding attacker with a baton: hey, you first.

vicwatson wrote: »

WTF is with people wanting to taking video of him being killed? I despair

I strongly encourage it. Video evidence has been a worthwhile discussion tool in the internet age, even if it is not always conclusive.

Overheal

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

He hadn't harmed anyone. He did not pose an immediate threat to the police or anyone other than himself.

What's your definition of immediate? Don't be pedantic.

Standman

MadsL wrote: »

They were in a position where the guy was against a wall and they had that as a backstop. NYPD would not fire into a crowded street.



Only Sergeants carry them. a tazer was on the way and they planned to use it but the guy lunged at them.



Yes, it does. But once you decide to put a threat on the ground you fire as required, that is what cops are trained to do.

Why are you trying to find fault with the procedure, when you seem to have no issue with them shooting this guy?

Fair enough, I presumed if they had guns they at least would have a tazer or something. If the pepper spray had no effect and they were waiting for a tazer to come then I think they did all they could do.

asherbassad

Seaneh wrote: »

Why not one shot to disable him rather that what sounded like 8-9 shots and killing him?

American cops (and Americans in general) are a sadistic bunch. They'll go out of their way to visit extreme violence on someone if they can get away with it. They live for the thought of killing or maiming if there is even the most flimsy justification for their barbarism.

If a mentally handicapped person came onto some guy's lawn, the homeowner would definitely shoot him dead even if he knew full well the guy was lost, confused and not a threat. To Americans, violence is always the first resort coupled with a fairly lame and shabby excuse. It's never the last resort.

Savage and cowardly really.

Witcher

asherbassad wrote: »

American cops (and Americans in general) are a sadistic bunch. They'll go out of their way to visit extreme violence on someone if they can get away with it. They live for the thought of killing or maiming if there is even the most flimsy justification for their barbarism.

If a mentally handicapped person came onto some guy's lawn, the homeowner would definitely shoot him dead even if he knew full well the guy was lost, confused and not a threat. To Americans, violence is always the first resort coupled with a fairly lame and shabby excuse. It's never the last resort.

Savage and cowardly really.

Nice to see a well thought through post in this thread...was sorely needed.:pac:

rubadub

garv123 wrote: »

Again people under the impression that tazers will stop someone running at you from watching too many action films,

Or maybe from watching news footage, I have seen people drop like flies. When they release the charge they can come back again, its up to them. Dunno if you are mixing them up with regular stun guns.

This guy drops like a stone at about 58sec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxu64V93J5U

I would expect they can increase the power of the taser as deemed necessary.

garv123 wrote: »

and you also have to be very close to someone to use it. the man was shot from 3 feet away, Id much rather a gun than a tazer when he got that close thanks.

I have seen tasers used a quite a distance (wiki says 35ft is the max). Also its a non lethal weapon, the shooting was a last resort as he was lunging. If they had a taser I would doubt they would wait to use it until he was lunging, they would have used it much earlier on, from a distance. That's the whole point of them AFAIK

seamus

garv123 wrote: »

Again people under the impression that tazers will stop someone running at you from watching too many action films, and you also have to be very close to someone to use it. the man was shot from 3 feet away, Id much rather a gun than a tazer when he got that close thanks.

Tasers have quite a large range, it's catridge-dependent, but certainly 5m would be fairly normal. Any of the cops surrounding him as he backed away would have easily been within taser range.
Of course, tasers aren't designed for use when someone is running at you with a knife, they're designed to be used before the threat is imminent. If any of them had been carrying a taser, it should have been used.

Of course, there are a couple of pitfalls with the taser approach;
- You could miss. Panicky officer from 12 feet with a bolt weapon, good opportunity to miss. Then the guy loses it and makes a rush at the officer who is now weaponless (only one shot in the cartridge)
- The mechanism requires two electrodes to make contact with the skin. They can and do get caught in loose or thick clothing. Sometimes even if they do get into the skin, they attach in a wrong place and have limited effect. Again, creating an angrier perp and a suddenly unarmed officer.

So they may have decided on balance that given the weapon and the guy's highly agitated state, using a taser was just too risky; if it didn't work an officer could end up dead.

He was pepper sprayed twice and it did nothing.

The mental state of the perp is irrelevant when it comes to tasers. They induce an electric current across the body which causes the body to go into involuntary spasm. There is literally no way to control or ignore this as the shock effectively overrides the brain's signals and drops the guy. Even if he can't feel any pain, he will not be able to control his limbs.

Witcher

rubadub wrote: »

I would expect they can increase the power of the taser as deemed necessary.

I have seen tasers used a quite a distance (wiki says 35ft is the max). Also its a non lethal weapon, the shooting was a last resort as he was lunging. If they had a taser I would doubt they would wait to use it until he was lunging, they would have used it much earlier on, from a distance. That's the whole point of them AFAIK

Tasers have a predetermined output, it's not a phaser from Star Trek that you can change the power at will.

Again, as I stated earlier they are not the nuclear bomb of non lethal weapons..they do not always work. A video was put up here circa 6 months ago, the guy was shot with a taser, had absolutely no effect and it actually provoked him to attack an officer and he was shot dead in response.

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

American cops (and Americans in general) are a sadistic bunch. They'll go out of their way to visit extreme violence on someone if they can get away with it. They live for the thought of killing or maiming if there is even the most flimsy justification for their barbarism.

Ahh, your endless tirade against Americans continues. Bile and hatred.

If a mentally handicapped person came onto some guy's lawn, the homeowner would definitely shoot him dead even if he knew full well the guy was lost, confused and not a threat. To Americans, violence is always the first resort coupled with a fairly lame and shabby excuse. It's never the last resort.

If you are going to post at least know what you are talking about.

You cannot shoot someone in your yard, in most states there is a Castle Doctrine (your home is your castle) and you can presume that anyone who enters without your permission is there to do you harm and defend yourself. It used to be that there was a 'duty to retreat' clause that meant you had to wait until you could retreat no further before firing, but many states have introduced 'stand your ground' which allows for a homeowner to defend themselves where they stand.

Savage and cowardly really.

"Those who ‘abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."
George Orwell

Cienciano

Seaneh wrote: »

Why not one shot to disable him rather that what sounded like 8-9 shots and killing him?

Seaneh wrote: »

according to the report he was shot by two officers, so basically they unloaded their entire clips into his belly.

****ing hell, talk about over kill.

LOL! One shot to disable him!
Definitely some people watch too much movies.

fasttalkerchat

Overheal wrote: »

What's your definition of immediate? Don't be pedantic.

If he lunged it was immediate. If he was backing away and had not been aggressive at any point it was not immediate.

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If he lunged it was immediate. If he was backing away and had not been aggressive at any point it was not immediate.

Would resisting arrest, breaking away from cuffs and pulling out a big knife not be seen as aggressive at all?

asherbassad

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not at all surprised that this message board is still plagued with ignorance on violence and weaponry. The majority of readers will be Irish and probably have never come within a quarter mile of a firearm that wasn't in the hands of the military.

If you've never held - or especially fired - a handgun, and your only "experience" is action movies or 24, I'm here to tell you that making placed shots (Thumb, Legs, arms, Non-vital organs, etc) is not at all simple. Even when the target is stationary, or right in front of you, or a piece of paper on a target range. Nevermind jogging up Times Square, with a knife, and lunging at you.

These types of shots are not an available tactic at all. Some of the stuff you see on Worlds Wildest police videos, like the marksman who shot a gun out of a guys hand with a sniper rifle? That was a standoff that lasted for hours and he spent a considerable length of time calculating that shot. Same with the one where the guy had a Samurai sword (he was taken out with beanbags after some length of time).

I've seen other police videos recently where we've had these same discussions. One guy had I think it was either a bat or a fireaxe - he went into a Carl Jr's and tore some **** up. Cops met up with him in the parking lot, tazed him once, he was still standing. Cop reloaded his tazer, the guy attacked him during so, and the partner shot a clip into him. End of story. Similarly, this guy was pepper sprayed, and I am not read up on the use of Tazers in the NYPD or whether officers on scene were carrying them but I know their use has been highly controversial in the last 5 years.

It's extremely easy to both see and understand how these incidents happen. Excessive force also happens (like in Miami last year - not the zombies). Couch Experts saying 1-4 bullets is enough, were not there on the scene or Police Officers, and have never fired a shot in their lives.

Whoever said go at the knife wielding attacker with a baton: hey, you first.



I strongly encourage it. Video evidence has been a worthwhile discussion tool in the internet age, even if it is not always conclusive.

I have handled firearms and I also study martial arts. It doesn't take years of training to be able to disarm an assailant with a knife. A 15 year old girl with maybe a blue or purple belt could have disarmed this guy with a well aimed groin shot and a bog standard arm wrench technique.
I don't know if these cops are given any hand to hand combat training but judging by the tactics they use they're simply trained to throttle with their night-sticks or gun down anyone who looks at them the wrong way.

You'd probably justify cops butchering a kid who threw a snowball at them.

Police (e.g. Northern Ireland) have been faced with much more dangerous and unpredictable mobs throwing rocks and petrolbombs at them. They disperse the crowd with baton rounds and other non-lethal techniques. They don't rig up a 50 cal SAW gun on top of a humvee and then mow down the whole street which is what the NYPD cowboys would do.

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

I have handled firearms and I also study martial arts. It doesn't take years of training to be able to disarm an assailant with a knife. A 15 year old girl with maybe a blue or purple belt could have disarmed this guy with a well aimed groin shot and a bog standard arm wrench technique.
I don't know if these cops are given any hand to hand combat training but judging by the tactics they use they're simply trained to throttle with their night-sticks or gun down anyone who looks at them the wrong way.

You'd probably justify cops butchering a kid who threw a snowball at them.

Police (e.g. Northern Ireland) have been faced with much more dangerous and unpredictable mobs throwing rocks and petrolbombs at them. They disperse the crowd with baton rounds and other non-lethal techniques. They don't rig up a 50 cal SAW gun on top of a humvee and then mow down the whole street which is what the NYPD cowboys would do.

you know, people would listen more to what you have to say if you didn't allow your obvious hatred of all things American to spill over into your posts.

Your first paragraph is fine, operationally wrong, but fine. The 'maybe' in there will give you a clue as to why.

The rest is just hyperbole and racism dressed up as an argument.

Chavways

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not at all surprised that this message board is still plagued with ignorance on violence and weaponry. The majority of readers will be Irish and probably have never come within a quarter mile of a firearm that wasn't in the hands of the military.

If you've never held - or especially fired - a handgun, and your only "experience" is action movies or 24, I'm here to tell you that making placed shots (Thumb, Legs, arms, Non-vital organs, etc) is not at all simple. Even when the target is stationary, or right in front of you, or a piece of paper on a target range. Nevermind jogging up Times Square, with a knife, and lunging at you.

I went to a gun range in America when I was 15 and used a 9mm and a Magnum.I was able to accurately shoot at different sections of the body from 15 or so metres away once I got used to the recoil having never held a gun before that.

Why are trained police officers not able to shoot at an arm or leg when they are facing a near stationary target at very short range?

Cienciano

asherbassad wrote: »

I have handled firearms and I also study martial arts. It doesn't take years of training to be able to disarm an assailant with a knife. A 15 year old girl with maybe a blue or purple belt could have disarmed this guy with a well aimed groin shot and a bog standard arm wrench technique.
I don't know if these cops are given any hand to hand combat training but judging by the tactics they use they're simply trained to throttle with their night-sticks or gun down anyone who looks at them the wrong way.

You'd probably justify cops butchering a kid who threw a snowball at them.

Police (e.g. Northern Ireland) have been faced with much more dangerous and unpredictable mobs throwing rocks and petrolbombs at them. They disperse the crowd with baton rounds and other non-lethal techniques. They don't rig up a 50 cal SAW gun on top of a humvee and then mow down the whole street which is what the NYPD cowboys would do.

So bruce lee, you'd tackle a stranger with a knife would you? Now, are you 100% certain that you can do it? Because if the stranger is slightly quicker than you, you're stabbed.
Here's what people that aren't living in cloud cuckoo land do: if someone comes at you with a knife, and you have a gun, you shoot them. It's not rocket science.

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

Would resisting arrest, breaking away from cuffs and pulling out a big knife not be seen as aggressive at all?

Someone trying to get away from you with a knife is not an imminent threat to your life.
Someone lunging at you with a knife is.

Witcher

Chavways wrote: »

I went to a gun range in America when I was 15 and used a 9mm and a Magnum.I was able to accurately shoot at different sections of the body from 15 or so metres away once I got used to the recoil having never held a gun before that.

Why are trained police officers not able to shoot at an arm or leg when they are facing a near stationary target at very short range?

Because a person can move..you were firing at a stationary target that was never going to move and you weren't under pressure. The police are dealing with an unpredictable individual waving a knife. I don't think someone who recalls a firearm they used as 'a magnum' is qualified to question their markmanship.

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Someone trying to get away from you with a knife is not an imminent threat to your life.
Someone lunging at you with a knife is.

Which is what he did before they put him down. I assume you have read the news reports. They were waiting on a taser, but he lunged at them.

Dyr

asherbassad wrote: »

I have handled firearms

odd turn of phrase that

I also study martial arts. It doesn't take years of training to be able to disarm an assailant with a knife. A 15 year old girl with maybe a blue or purple belt could have disarmed this guy with a well aimed groin shot and a bog standard arm wrench technique.

That's funny, I too study martial arts and the one I've studied for the last decade specialises in knives, so with the greatest of respect, your blue/purple belt is going to bleed/die to like a mother****er if they follow your advice.

asherbassad wrote: »

I don't know if these cops are given any hand to hand combat training but judging by the tactics they use they're simply trained to throttle with their night-sticks or gun down anyone who looks at them the wrong way.

No, you just don't know.