Shooting in Times Square

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

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.

The poster was quoting what I said before the lunging part came into it.

If he lunged and they killed him it was self defence and no complaints from me.

Witcher

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If he lunged and they killed him it was self defence and no complaints from me.

That is what happened and still you've done nothing but complain since the start.

Chavways

Blay wrote: »

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.

It was a .44 Magnum if you must know.

Witcher

Chavways wrote: »

It was a .44 Magnum if you must know.

Still makes no difference, an hour or so spent shooting a target does not qualify you to criticise a trained police officer's marksmanship.

fasttalkerchat

Blay wrote: »

That is what happened and still you've done nothing but complain since the start.

The video I saw did not show that. When one report said he lunged with the knife I said if this was the case... etc.
Since then this has been backed up by witnesses so I said then if this is true it is self defence.

Chavways

Blay wrote: »

Still makes no difference, an hour or so spent shooting a target does not qualify you to criticise a trained police officer's marksmanship.

I'm getting the impression you are a police officer.

MadsL

In other news police can shoot accurately.

Investigators credited an Oak Creek, Wis., police officer with shooting Wade Michael Page, 40, in the abdomen, seriously wounding Page before the gunman shot himself in the head.

"I’ve seen the video -- it was an amazing shot," Teresa Carlson, FBI special agent in charge of the Milwaukee division, said Wednesday at a briefing in reference to police camera footage of the shooting.

The officer was about 75 yards from Page when he fired his weapon, according to a shooting chronology included in autopsy reports released Wednesday. Carlson said that wound probably would have been fatal.

Oak Creek Police Chief John Edwards has described the officer who shot Page as a "tactical expert," and a union spokesman said Lenda was especially skilled with firearms.

“Not only is he experienced, he also serves as a firearms instructor at a local technical college,”

URL="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sikh-temple-officer-shot-suspect-20120808,0,6207233.story"]source[/URL


Note how amazed the FBI special agent was that he made the shot, over 75 yards under stress.

Witcher

Chavways wrote: »

I'm getting the impression you are a police officer.

You would be incorrect.

Local-womanizer

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?

Ah now Chavways, come off it will you. You were in a nice range with all the time in the world shooting at paper.

The cops were dealing with a man waving a knife and ultimately trying to stab them in one of the busiest streets in the world.

With enough practice, you could get anyone shooting decent groups in a range scenario and they wouldn't hit the side of a bus in a real life situation such as this.

Cienciano

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?

Since you fired a gun at a target, maybe you can tell us this:
Was it easier to hit the big torso part, or the smaller leg part? And if someone was coming at you with a knife, what would you aim for? Imagine you hit him with your first shot and he kept coming?

Chavways

Cienciano wrote: »

Since you fired a gun at a target, maybe you can tell us this:
Was it easier to hit the big torso part, or the smaller leg part? And if someone was coming at you with a knife, what would you aim for? Imagine you hit him with your first shot and he kept coming?

Well torso obviously is easier to hit. I can't say for certain how I'd react if someone came at me with a knife but if I had a few years training behind me like the police officers do I would imagine that you would shoot at an area that would incapacitate the person without killing them, such as a leg or shoulder and if they kept coming then shoot the centre mass.

Local-womanizer

Chavways wrote: »

Well torso obviously is easier to hit. I can't say for certain how I'd react if someone came at me with a knife but if I had a few years training behind me like the police officers do I would imagine that you would shoot at an area that would incapacitate the person without killing them, such as a leg or shoulder and if they kept coming then shoot the centre mass.

If they did that it wouldn't be in line with their training.

mickydoomsux

Police also fire at center-mass so that there is less chance of people behind the attacker being hit. "Tackling" the guy is also against standard procedure because that's a great way of getting yourself stabbed when the guy does something you don't anticipate.

Paper targets at a range and pretend-fighting someone with a "weapon" in a controlled gym setting is so far away from the real world that it's almost laughable that people are making comparisons.

garv123

Chavways wrote: »

Well torso obviously is easier to hit. I can't say for certain how I'd react if someone came at me with a knife but if I had a few years training behind me like the police officers do I would imagine that you would shoot at an area that would incapacitate the person without killing them, such as a leg or shoulder and if they kept coming then shoot the centre mass.

If you had a few years police training behind you, you would go for the torso like the police in the video did,

Do a lap of a pitch then stop and shoot at the targets again and see what its like to shoot at a small target with your heard pounding and breathing heavily. throw a bit of nerves and shakes into that too, it was probably their first time drawing their guns at a live human target, as said none of them fired before now.
You stood on a range and shot at a target that wasnt moving, under no pressure with a gun with 1/3 the trigger pull the officers guns had.

Anyone that has ever played an FPS would know that you never bring guns to a knife fight. The cops were playing unfairly.

Feathers

Chavways wrote: »

I would imagine that you would shoot at an area that would incapacitate the person without killing them, such as a leg or shoulder and if they kept coming then shoot the centre mass.

Considering he was within 3 feet of them and lunging at them with a 6 inch knife, could you give a distance that you'd find acceptable for them to take a 'centre mass' shot?

mikemac1

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone that has ever played an FPS would know that you never bring guns to a knife fight.

You clearly haven't seen the Brian de Palma film The Untouchables

MadsL

garv123 wrote: »

1/3 the trigger pull the officers guns had.

I'm still astonished that NYPD have to contend with 12lb trigger pulls, that's a fcking bowling ball hanging off your trigger finger. Says a lot about their firearms training that they can hit anything.

Overheal

rubadub wrote: »

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

He's also wearing no shirt.

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?

It's more a case of if he's stationary is he really worth shooting, I would think. Whenever this guy lunged, and was in motion, thats when the bullets happened.

Manic Moran

m.j.w wrote: »

I was in the irish army for 5 years so I was trained to do a bit! We were taught that every bullet you fire has to be justified in a court of law and its my opinion that firing 6 rounds each is not justified.

Well, for starters, the US has different laws.

Secondly, I cannot think of a single instance, anywhere (and this includes Europe) where there has been a case of someone being convicted because they fired too many rounds. There is no such a thing as 'too many', there is 'threat' or 'no threat.' If the guy is still a threat after having put 14 into him, then put number 15 into him. If the guy was not a threat after #2, then #3 was unlawful.

There is the famous incident where one chap was shot 68 times out of 110 bullets fired. When asked why the police shot him 68 times, the response from the Sheriff was 'That's as many bullets as we had, if we had more, we'd have shot him more. We weren't taking chances'

http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp

Given the circumstances, understandable and legal.

I'm just saying that how I see it fewer shots = increased survival chance while still neutralising the threat.

Until the threat is obviously neutralised (i.e. the guy is on the ground and no longer advancing to the officers), how many shots do you suggest they take?

While I'm staying on Snopes, shoot a guy (not on drugs) dead centre in the face, he may not even notice. (Seriously, he didn't notice)
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/teeth.asp

Note how amazed the FBI special agent was that he made the shot, over 75 yards under stress.

I suspect the stress level from being 75 yards from the chap, who was threatening himself more than others, was substantially less than an officer about one meter from being stabbed by a guy who seemed more interested in hurting others and not himself.

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.

For the record, a lot of very popular semi-autos are SAO, from the Browning Hi-Power to the Colt .45 M1911 series. DA/SA are more common these days, they ordinarily fire from the hammer down position, but can be used as single-actions if you have time to cock. After the first shot, they perform as single-actions. Glocks are a bit special in that they don't have hammers at all, but can be considered to be DAO in practice.

Cienciano

But Manic, why didn't they shoot him in the leg/shoulder? Or why didn't they use martial arts to take the knife out of his hand? A child could have used a bog standard arm wrench technique to disarm him.

(sorry, but they were actually serious questions asked in this thread)

MadsL

Cienciano wrote: »

But Manic, why didn't they shoot him in the leg/shoulder? Or why didn't they use martial arts to take the knife out of his hand? A child could have used a bog standard arm wrench technique to disarm him.

(sorry, but they were actually serious questions asked in this thread)

• Because there is no guarantee of success in attempting these actions.
• Because that is not what they are trained to do.
• Because they were pointing a gun at the time he lunged.
• Because this is the real world and not a gym or firing range
• Because "protect and serve" is their motto.

All those questions have been answered, would you like to continue asking why?

"If my answers frighten you, Vincent, then you should cease asking scary questions."

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

• Because there is no guarantee of success in attempting these actions.
• Because that is not what they are trained to do.
• Because they were pointing a gun at the time he lunged.
• Because this is the real world and not a gym or firing range
• Because "protect and serve" is their motto.

All those questions have been answered, would you like to continue asking why?

"If my answers frighten you, Vincent, then you should cease asking scary questions."

I think he was taking the piss.

Cienciano

MadsL wrote: »

• Because there is no guarantee of success in attempting these actions.
• Because that is not what they are trained to do.
• Because they were pointing a gun at the time he lunged.
• Because this is the real world and not a gym or firing range
• Because "protect and serve" is their motto.

All those questions have been answered, would you like to continue asking why?

"If my answers frighten you, Vincent, then you should cease asking scary questions."

Yeah, was taking the piss

Overheal

Cienciano wrote: »

Yeah, was taking the piss

Thank god. /barbaric urge to kill, falling.

mardybumbum

I left Times Square about ten mins before this happened. The place is full of absolute loons.

MadsL

mardybumbum wrote: »

I left Times Square about ten mins before this happened. The place is full of absolute loons.

Try San Francisco, much worse.

mardybumbum

MadsL wrote: »

Try San Francisco, much worse.

Might give it a miss if that's the case. Can't wait to get back to Dublin. I find the Irish much easier to get along with.

MadsL

mardybumbum wrote: »

Might give it a miss if that's the case. Can't wait to get back to Dublin. I find the Irish much easier to get along with.

Plenty of loons in Dublin too...mayo is just 'special'

mardybumbum

MadsL wrote: »

Plenty of loons in Dublin too...mayo is just 'special'

There is a special type of crazy which I have only found in the States. New York had plenty of them but It's even worse here in Philadelphia.

asherbassad

MadsL wrote: »

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.

Obvious hatred of all things American?
What, like my US citizenship?

Strikes me that if I was to criticise Israeli politics then you brand me an anti-Semite or some other silly label.

You're the one who's painting in broad strokes here pal.

So please, a bit of clarity and a cogent discussion before you deliver such platitudes.

If I state the plain obvious that's unpalatable are you going to deflect from my observations and accuse me of some racist rant?

Saudi Arabia is a sickening society that murders homosexuals and persecutes women and tortures and imprisons those who would question the methods of this barbarous and autocratic thugocracy. But let me guess....for me to say so, I'm an anti-Saudi racist, right?

China facilitates Dickensian working conditions for those who assemble iPods at the behest of Apple Inc. They also dispossess peasant farmers, persecute religious minorities, torch Tibetan temples and have no problem driving tanks over civil rights activists. But I hate China for pointing this out, right? I'm anti-Chinese.

Come up with something better than this catch-all "America hater" nonsense.


And just out of simple curiosity.....why is America so above criticism and reproach?

Reindeer

Hey guys. What's up? Looks like another gun thread on boards, yeah?

I'll get the pleasantries out of the way, I guess. I've spent most of my life in America, and most of that time in Texas. Two of my friends growing up went in to law enforcement(local PD and state trooper).And I have spent time as a volunteer deputy. I started shooting firearms when I was 8. That makes it 35 years now(yes, I know I'm old). I have owned dozens and dozens of them over the years. From handguns to hunting rifles to machineguns. I have competed in numerous defensive pistol matches(IDPA), as well as bench rest rifle matches(NBRSA, and placed second my last match). I have a Glock 19 in a safe in Texas when I am not in the states that I have owned since I purchased it in 1994. It's probably older than many of the posters in this thread. It is also the standard issue handgun for NYPD. I have also owned the other firearms they issue as well. Having said all that - I am not particularly fond of our police at all. So try not to colour me a patsy for em.

Where to start. Let's go with the 'taser him' comments. I am all for that. And since it isn't MY life, I think the police should try it more often when an assailant is armed. But the funny thing is the police like to come home at the end of the day. And because of this, and the potential harm an armed person demonstrates, the police in the States are generally trained to meet lethal force with lethal force. While it may be an option in principle to use a taser on an armed person, no police force advocates this over using a firearm. Another issue is the taser is not 100% effective, especially if the person is wearing loose clothing, or multiple layers, is not even as accurate as a handgun(we'll get to that later), and it only has one chance to work. If your firearm isn't working, you pull the trigger again. Like it or not, that is the attitude and the practice.

Police officers do not use precision firearms for the same reason most of the military do not. They need something robust, fast firing, that is reliable, is easy to maintain, and carries a high capacity, and is affordable. A Glock 19 usually sells for $380 or less to police officers, and as little as $250 if they get a factory rebuilt one. I paid $475 for mine new in 1994. Robust, affordable, easy to maintain, high capacity, and reliable in adverse conditions rules out all target handguns and all revolvers. By itself, the Glock 19 when fitted to a machine designed to test the inherent accuracy of the handgun like a ransom rest, have shown to be roughly 3-4" within point of aim at typical police shooting distances. Even if you are a great marksman, the chances of you shooting someone in the leg with a Glock 19 during an altercation, with your heart pounding, maybe short of breath, sweat in your eyes, adrenaline in your veins, and a moving target, is unlikely unless the ranges are very close. All police forces train officers to shoot center mass, and to shoot to stop the threat.

Police do not train with their firearms very often in the US. Sometimes as little as 2 times a year, usually 4 times per year. They are encouraged to go to the range, but their mandatory training and practice is not as rigorous as you may think. Many civilians are far more proficient with firearms than the police are. This is another thing to consider when you see a police shoot out in the states. We have crack units of police, AKA SWAT, and special response teams that are amazingly good with firearms. However, most agencies simply can not afford such a high level of training, and some officers couldn't acquire that proficiency if they tried, regardless. But, unlike in Europe, the police in the States don't really have an option to go about unarmed. So they arm EVERY police officer and deputy and give them the training and weapons they can afford them. As a VOLUNTEER deputy, I was allowed to carry a firearm.

A Glock 19 is a 9mm caliber semi-automatic handgun that has a 15 round magazine. It is an amazingly reliable and robust firearm, and is a good choice for military and police. You may also add extensions to the magazine that allow it to contain up to 17 rounds of 9mm. If the officers that took part in the shooting had these firearms, they certainly did not 'empty their magazines', or shoot until they were out of ammunition. They could easily have fired a controlled number of shots and stopped firing when they saw that the man was no longer a threat. Evenly spread out between two shooters(and they may end up reporting more officers involved), that's roughly 1/3 the capacity of their magazines used. Should they have shot less?I don't know. I wasn't there to see how it went down. Should they try and shoot as little as possible in any shooting engagement? Of course.
But it seems unlikely an effective policy to require someone take one shot, then check and see how things are going, then another, etc. Altercations simply happen to quickly for this to be taught. Most officers will stop shooting when they see the person fall down, or relinquish their weapon. While the first shot might stop the person, you'll notice in the video the shots are fired over a span of nearly 2 seconds. It can take about that time to fall down unless your brain was instantly switched off. And that is assuming the first shot fired hit the target and was effective.

Shots do not show up on a person like you see in the movies. Peoples' shirts rarely explode in a puff of ketchup. The only real indicator that a person is being shot is their behavior. And the proper behavior most police look for is the 'falling down and losing bodily control and dropping the weapon' behavior. Handgun bullets also are not light sabres. It is, in essence, a 9mm hole you are poking into someones body. A 9mm arrives on target with less energy than your average man can punch you with, and roughly 1/4 the energy a heavy weight boxer can produce in a punch. If a person is not hit in vital areas like the heart or brain or spine, they can return fire for long after the police run out of ammunition(and have). The only way to consistently incapacitate someone with a handgun is to fire multiple shots.

Anyone who tells you they can easily disarm a knife-wielding assailant like the man we see in the video, has never tried to disarm a knife wielding assailant like the man we see in the video. The first thing an experienced instructor will teach you in any martial art worth a damn when it comes to a knife fight is - you WILL be cut. I've been in my share of fights, and I have years of shotokan and jujutsu. You couldn't pay me enough to run up to that guy with my bare hands. I wouldn't even want to join that party with a handgun. And I bet if you were to ask those officers, they would have said the same.

MadsL

Here's your attitude.

American cops (and Americans in general) are a sadistic bunch.

The Americans, for all their stupidity,

loads of slices of ham like the fat Americans do

10 dead and 50 or 60 wounded....isn't that a standard day in yoo-ESS-ay anyway?

dopey Americans will gawk at them over their bucket of cheese and popcorn and drawl...." Ahhhhm so now, safe, y'all".

And you want "a bit of clarity and a cogent discussion". Please, you are not capable of it. I have no issue with you discussing world affairs, but when it comes to America you cannot resist adding an insult into it to. If you have US citizenship, that is some chip on your shoulder. Now, doesn't conspiracy theories miss your input into false-flag attacks?

vicwatson

Reindeer wrote: »

Hey guys. What's up? Looks like another gun thread on boards, yeah?

I'll get the pleasantries out of the way, I guess. I've spent most of my life in America, and most of that time in Texas. Two of my friends growing up went in to law enforcement(local PD and state trooper).And I have spent time as a volunteer deputy. I started shooting firearms when I was 8. That makes it 35 years now(yes, I know I'm old). I have owned dozens and dozens of them over the years. From handguns to hunting rifles to machineguns. I have competed in numerous defensive pistol matches(IDPA), as well as bench rest rifle matches(NBRSA, and placed second my last match). I have a Glock 19 in a safe in Texas when I am not in the states that I have owned since I purchased it in 1994. It's probably older than many of the posters in this thread. It is also the standard issue handgun for NYPD. I have also owned the other firearms they issue as well. Having said all that - I am not particularly fond of our police at all. So try not to colour me a patsy for em.

Where to start. Let's go with the 'taser him' comments. I am all for that. And since it isn't MY life, I think the police should try it more often when an assailant is armed. But the funny thing is the police like to come home at the end of the day. And because of this, and the potential harm an armed person demonstrates, the police in the States are generally trained to meet lethal force with lethal force. While it may be an option in principle to use a taser on an armed person, no police force advocates this over using a firearm. Another issue is the taser is not 100% effective, especially if the person is wearing loose clothing, or multiple layers, is not even as accurate as a handgun(we'll get to that later), and it only has one chance to work. If your firearm isn't working, you pull the trigger again. Like it or not, that is the attitude and the practice.

Police officers do not use precision firearms for the same reason most of the military do not. They need something robust, fast firing, that is reliable, is easy to maintain, and carries a high capacity, and is affordable. A Glock 19 usually sells for $380 or less to police officers, and as little as $250 if they get a factory rebuilt one. I paid $475 for mine new in 1994. Robust, affordable, easy to maintain, high capacity, and reliable in adverse conditions rules out all target handguns and all revolvers. By itself, the Glock 19 when fitted to a machine designed to test the inherent accuracy of the handgun like a ransom rest, have shown to be roughly 3-4" within point of aim at typical police shooting distances. Even if you are a great marksman, the chances of you shooting someone in the leg with a Glock 19 during an altercation, with your heart pounding, maybe short of breath, sweat in your eyes, adrenaline in your veins, and a moving target, is unlikely unless the ranges are very close. All police forces train officers to shoot center mass, and to shoot to stop the threat.

Police do not train with their firearms very often in the US. Sometimes as little as 2 times a year, usually 4 times per year. They are encouraged to go to the range, but their mandatory training and practice is not as rigorous as you may think. Many civilians are far more proficient with firearms than the police are. This is another thing to consider when you see a police shoot out in the states. We have crack units of police, AKA SWAT, and special response teams that are amazingly good with firearms. However, most agencies simply can not afford such a high level of training, and some officers couldn't acquire that proficiency if they tried, regardless. But, unlike in Europe, the police in the States don't really have an option to go about unarmed. So they arm EVERY police officer and deputy and give them the training and weapons they can afford them. As a VOLUNTEER deputy, I was allowed to carry a firearm.

A Glock 19 is a 9mm caliber semi-automatic handgun that has a 15 round magazine. It is an amazingly reliable and robust firearm, and is a good choice for military and police. You may also add extensions to the magazine that allow it to contain up to 17 rounds of 9mm. If the officers that took part in the shooting had these firearms, they certainly did not 'empty their magazines', or shoot until they were out of ammunition. They could easily have fired a controlled number of shots and stopped firing when they saw that the man was no longer a threat. Evenly spread out between two shooters(and they may end up reporting more officers involved), that's roughly 1/3 the capacity of their magazines used. Should they have shot less?I don't know. I wasn't there to see how it went down. Should they try and shoot as little as possible in any shooting engagement? Of course.
But it seems unlikely an effective policy to require someone take one shot, then check and see how things are going, then another, etc. Altercations simply happen to quickly for this to be taught. Most officers will stop shooting when they see the person fall down, or relinquish their weapon. While the first shot might stop the person, you'll notice in the video the shots are fired over a span of nearly 2 seconds. It can take about that time to fall down unless your brain was instantly switched off. And that is assuming the first shot fired hit the target and was effective.

Shots do not show up on a person like you see in the movies. Peoples' shirts rarely explode in a puff of ketchup. The only real indicator that a person is being shot is their behavior. And the proper behavior most police look for is the 'falling down and losing bodily control and dropping the weapon' behavior. Handgun bullets also are not light sabres. It is, in essence, a 9mm hole you are poking into someones body. A 9mm arrives on target with less energy than your average man can punch you with, and roughly 1/4 the energy a heavy weight boxer can produce in a punch. If a person is not hit in vital areas like the heart or brain or spine, they can return fire for long after the police run out of ammunition(and have). The only way to consistently incapacitate someone with a handgun is to fire multiple shots.

Anyone who tells you they can easily disarm a knife-wielding assailant like the man we see in the video, has never tried to disarm a knife wielding assailant like the man we see in the video. The first thing an experienced instructor will teach you in any martial art worth a damn when it comes to a knife fight is - you WILL be cut. I've been in my share of fights, and I have years of shotokan and jujutsu. You couldn't pay me enough to run up to that guy with my bare hands. I wouldn't even want to join that party with a handgun. And I bet if you were to ask those officers, they would have said the same.

Thanks for the "history", however, the guy had a knife, there was at least 10 policepeople with at least batons, had guns, had this, and that, and the "other - pepper spray", so go kick the **** out of him might have worked better than killing him, that's all I'm saying.


Excessive force, he was murdered.

Witcher

vicwatson wrote: »

Thanks for the "history", however, the guy had a knife, there was at least 10 policepeople with at least batons, had guns, had this, and that, and the "other - pepper spray", so go kick the **** out of him might have worked better than killing him, that's all I'm saying.


Excessive force, he was murdered.

I'm sure they'll call upon you for your expert testimony when this is investigated:pac:

MadsL

vicwatson wrote: »

Thanks for the "history", however, the guy had a knife, there was at least 10 policepeople with at least batons, had guns, had this, and that, and the "other - pepper spray", so go kick the **** out of him might have worked better than killing him, that's all I'm saying.


Excessive force, he was murdered.

Oh for heavens sake. No he wasn't. There we disagree. Now lets see what the shooting inquiry says. Care to make a bet?

asherbassad

MadsL wrote: »

• Because there is no guarantee of success in attempting these actions.
• Because that is not what they are trained to do.
• Because they were pointing a gun at the time he lunged.
• Because this is the real world and not a gym or firing range
• Because "protect and serve" is their motto.

All those questions have been answered, would you like to continue asking why?

"If my answers frighten you, Vincent, then you should cease asking scary questions."

Would you ever try and come back to the real world.

With your farcical and immature "shoot first" slogans and cliches. And you sneer at others for living in a movie?

There is no guarantee that a toddler in a tantrum won't jump up and bite your throat open so go ahead and pepper spray or taze the little creature.

Such crap.

It wasn't me!

vicwatson wrote: »

Thanks for the "history", however, the guy had a knife, there was at least 10 policepeople with at least batons, had guns, had this, and that, and the "other - pepper spray", so go kick the **** out of him might have worked better than killing him, that's all I'm saying.

Here's the thing though, he's going to stab some folk if you rush him with batons. That's not realistic to expect of police officers.

Excessive force, he was murdered.

Saying it more often won't make it any more true. He was shot dead as a last resort, when no other option prevailed. Less lethal options were tried, repeatedly, while they maneouvred him into a position where he posed less of a threat, and then he escalated the situation, at which point the last resort was visited. How many police officers or members of the public is it acceptable to have stabbed in order to avoid shooting one guy?

books4sale

Got what was coming.....in the end everyone pays the piper!

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

Would you ever try and come back to the real world.

With your farcical and immature "shoot first" slogans and cliches. And you sneer at others for living in a movie?

There is no guarantee that a toddler in a tantrum won't jump up and bite your throat open so go ahead and pepper spray or taze the little creature.

Such crap.

And you wonder why no-one takes you seriously....

I've shown you your insulting attitude, care to show me where I posted a "shoot first" cliche? I'd love to see you quote one.

vicwatson

Less lethal options were tried, repeatedly

What, like at least 10 policepeople going in and battering the ****e out of him?

Hmmmm

MadsL

vicwatson wrote: »

What, like at least 10 policepeople going in and battering the ****e out of him?

Hmmmm

Then you would be commenting with disgust at the "police brutality" video.

asherbassad

Blay wrote: »

I'm sure they'll call upon you for your expert testimony when this is investigated:pac:

I'm sure that when this is investigated, it will be by a partisan panel who'll quickly find the killers non-culpable and reinstate them. Might even promote them.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but in the US Constitution is is against the LAW to employ force against anyone who is not a threat. Let's think about that for a moment because you are obviously a fan of the "law" no matter what that law is.

Now, this law, enshrined in the American Constitution casts illegality in withering terms upon agents of the State who deliver violence upon citizens or others.
Before we go any further, you will claim justifiable killing. You will also claim that the truth will out in an investigation.

I would say this to you......Tony Bologna, that thug, who pepper sprayed girls at a Wall Street demonstration hasn't faced a single sanction. The prick who maced a bunch of seated students at UC Davis hasn't so much as answered a question for being the mother of all dickheads.....and theseaction were against people who exercised their right to free assembly and who posed no threat.

You think there'll be any kind of meaningful investigation into this slaying? Think again.

It wasn't me!

vicwatson wrote: »

What, like at least 10 policepeople going in and battering the ****e out of him?

Hmmmm

What part of "You can't ask them to go in and get stabbed" is not getting through to you?

Witcher

asherbassad wrote: »

I would say this to you......Tony Bologna, that thug, who pepper sprayed girls at a Wall Street demonstration hasn't faced a single sanction. The prick who maced a bunch of seated students at UC Davis hasn't so much as answered a question for being the mother of all dickheads.....and theseaction were against people who exercised their right to free assembly and who posed no threat.

Not really the same thing as the police shooting a man waving a carving knife on a crowded street is it?

But then again you're not interested in a rational discussion.

MadsL

Blay wrote: »

Not really the same thing as the police shooting a man waving a carving knife on a crowded street is it?

But then again you're not interested in a rational discussion.

Ignore him, he's actually incapable of posting without insulting at least one person?

Br4tPr1nc3

if the guy stabbed a kid and was shot in the leg, then people would be crying for him to have been shot dead.

Manic Moran

Many civilians are far more proficient with firearms than the police are

You may been hanging around too many cops who think they are not members of the civilian community and are instead apart from it.*

The migration of the word 'civilian' from 'non-military' to equate with 'private individual' as opposed to 'public official' is a recent event, and I think a failing of the civilian policing system.

*unless you are acknowleding that many military personnel are also more proficient with their firearms by default, and are using the word as an emphasiser.

vicwatson

MadsL wrote: »

Then you would be commenting with disgust at the "police brutality" video.

What? You think "Brutality" is the same as Murder, argument over.

vicwatson

It wasn't me! wrote: »

What part of "You can't ask them to go in and get stabbed" is not getting through to you?

Is there not inherent dangers being a policeperson, perhaps not?