Shooting in Times Square

avalon68

Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: »

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

But he didn't stab someone! I agree they might have had little resort but to fire - but there was absolutely no need to rapidly fire several shots into him. Total overkill. The guy could have been mentally ill, or just high as a kite. Would you consider it as acceptable if Irish cops shot some drunk guy stumbling towards them with a broken bottle? Cos Im sure that probably happens a lot!

Local-womanizer

avalon68 wrote: »

But he didn't stab someone! I agree they might have had little resort but to fire - but there was absolutely no need to rapidly fire several shots into him. Total overkill. The guy could have been mentally ill, or just high as a kite. Would you consider it as acceptable if Irish cops shot some drunk guy stumbling towards them with a broken bottle? Cos Im sure that probably happens a lot!

Have you read any of this thread?

And I recall the RSU fired shots at a driver of a car last year in Limerick, but the driver got lucky and lived.

vicwatson

Have you read any of the thread?

fired shots at a driver of a car last year in Limerick

This thread is not about Limerick

Witcher

vicwatson wrote: »

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

So basically you want a police officer to sacrifice their life for the well being of a knife wielding lunatic? That makes perfect sense.:pac:

avalon68 wrote: »

But he didn't stab someone! I agree they might have had little resort but to fire - but there was absolutely no need to rapidly fire several shots into him. Total overkill.

This concept of 'overkill' is laughable really, this was not overkill, it took 12 rounds to put him on the ground so after the 12th round they stopped. Once the decision has been made to fire in response to a threat they don't stop until the person is on their back..they're not fcking around ya know?

Bloodwing

Isn't it great to sit at home and make a judgement call on a situation most of us will never find ourselves in from the comfort of our chairs in front of the PC. The facts are cops are never trained in any country to shoot to wound, if your firing your weapon your intention is to kill. This is real life not Hollywood, you can't shoot a gun from someone's hand or just wing them. Once in a blue moon you'll get lucky and you'll be hailed a hero. There's a video out there of a marksman shooting a gun out of a suicidal mans hand in the states. This cop was called a hero, but what if he missed and hit the man in the chest, or if the round skipped off the ground and hit a bystander he would be called a heavy handed cop who over stepped the mark.

When you make the decision to shoot someone your making the decision to end their life. Despite what people think about cops the vast majority arent out there looking for lives to take so its not an easy decision to make. You shoot them in the chest mainly because it is the largest target and the rib cage will reduce the risk of pass through. A wounded suspect can be ten times more dangerous especially if they are under the influence of something.

We don't know the full story of what happened before the video started, it's possible tazer was deployed and was ineffective it's also possible there wasn't one available. They tried pepper spray so why wouldn't they try tazer?

As for why they shot him 12 times the simple answer is when your shooting someone dead the last thing going through your mind is to count the shots, you fire off the rounds in rapid succession doing your best to put them on target. As the saying goes "walk a mile in their shoes" and then see if you still feel the same way when your standing feet from a man with a knife who seems intent to do you harm.

I for one am glad that there are people out there who choose to do these jobs because that means I can run from the knife wielding mad man whilst they choose to walk towards him.

Reindeer

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.

Though I know you're trolling, I'll post this for posterity. The police, as well as armed citizens in most states are allowed to meet lethal force with lethal force. A knife is a lethal weapon. There is no such thing as escalation in most states. If a weapon capable of 'grave bodily harm' is raised against you, you are within your rights to use any lethal weapon as well in defense. By law, it is self defense and not murder. If you were to attack someone with a baseball bat or a handgun or a machinegun, the charge is the same - assault with a lethal weapon. Rob a store with a shotgun or a knife? That's armed robbery. You could argue he deserved more of a chance, but you can not do it legally based upon the information we currently have. Even if he had not lunged at the police, they were still well within their rights to use lethal force if he refused to relinquish the weapon since he still posed a threat to the public. If you want to argue murder, you have to show the act was unlawful and premeditated. I think either of those will be difficult in this instance, unless you have a different set of laws in mind.

As for the video comments - it is very common for people to video tape our police, since we do not implicitly trust them. Afterall, they are running around with guns...

MadsL

avalon68 wrote: »

Would you consider it as acceptable if Irish cops shot some drunk guy stumbling towards them with a broken bottle? Cos Im sure that probably happens a lot!

I've been in the situation of presenting a 'threat' to a police officer and having him draw his duty pistol and point it at me.

[Once upon a time in a land far away] One 'witches night' in the Czech Republic (think Halloween, fires, fireworks and general mayhem just different date) the cops decided that would shut down our bonfire in the woods.

OK we said and headed in the centre of Prague where we knew there would be a bonfire in the middle of a city park. No bonfire and cops patrolling making sure no-one lit one. Stupidly and a little drunk and pissed off with cops putting an end to our fun I decided to put on a fire show for the people wandering around aimlessly.

So I lit up a fire staff and started twirling, huge roars and applause. Suddenly I turned me head and caught sight of a cop coming towards me and then realised he was roaring at me and pointing a gun. I dropped the staff and backed away and he kicks it away and starts stamping on it and roaring at me in Czech.

Now thankfully my Czech girlfriend came over and starts explaining to the cop what is going on, he calms down and tells my girlfriend to get me home.

However, if I had made an aggressive move towards that cop with a long flaming stick, do you not think he wouldn't be justified in protecting himself or others? That is regardless of my 'innocence' or stupidity. yes, I think he might of overreacted, but equally I can see how he probably thought "wtf is that nutter doing?"

There is a line that gets crossed in these situations and it is the point at which the officer feels he has to defend himself and others. The motivation of the 'victim' is largely irrelevant.

At the very least it taught me not to fcuk with armed cops.

Reindeer

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

I am not fond of cops, in general. I have had several friends that went that way is all, and I do not 'hang around too many cops' at all. The last time I spent any time with cops was when I worked recovery for An Garda Siochana. It was then that I discovered that not only was I wrong in thinking that cops in the US are dickheads, but after interacting with Irish cops, I realized American cops are uber-dickheads. The Irish have no idea how easy they have it when it comes to policing(unless they read the first post of this thread, I suppose).

Although the United States Constitution is cited often here, very few of those citings are remotely correct. And understood even less so are the various Acts Of Congress. One such act virtually all Texans are familiar with is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) - a direct result of the actions of soldiers after the American Civil War. The Act limits the amount of policing federal and military personnel can do. 'Limits' is the main word, as an act of congress or a presidential executive decision can put military troops on the ground. And it does not totally disallow state militias to be directed under their state government, AKA state and national guards.

There is no law that states that civilians must police Americans alone. The US Supreme Court ruled that police officers acting under the policies of their own departments are not individually liable for their actions if those actions are in accordance with local laws and department policies. They have 'official immunity'. This, in effect, makes them agents of the departments, cities, states, or whichever branch of the US government they work under. It is virtually the antithesis of 'civilian'.

When I use the word 'civilian' it is to define a group of persons that are not 'agents of the government, or of the military, and with special official immunity protection'.

The less we call police civilians in the US, the sooner we realize how dangerous they truly are in their capacities under official immunity clauses.

Christ the Redeemer

Suicide by cop, probably.

cournioni

If this had been the guy at the Swedish House Mafia gig I reckon people on here would be congratulating the Gardai. He got what he deserved.

wilson10

cournioni wrote: »

If this had been the guy at the Swedish House Mafia gig I reckon people on here would be congratulating the Gardai. He got what he deserved.

No, if this happened in Ireland we would demonise the Gardai, spend 20 or 30 million on a public inquiry, come to some ambiguous conclusion and make some extraordinarily wealthy barristers even richer.

cournioni

wilson10 wrote: »

No, if this happened in Ireland we would demonise the Gardai, spend 20 or 30 million on a public inquiry, come to some ambiguous conclusion and make some extraordinarily wealthy barristers even richer.

On boards? Not sure about that. The Joe Duffy brigade might, but they are hypocritical idiots anyway.

Anybody wielding a knife in public deserves everything they get in my opinion. It's time to stop being soft with people that puts public safety at risk with their actions. What was he doing with the knife in the first place?

Cienciano

I love the way the guy who says this

asherbassad wrote: »

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

Also says this:

asherbassad wrote: »

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.

Sorry for quoting your post again asherbassad, it just happens to be the funniest. Serious question: Have you been watching a lot of Chuck Norris or Steven Segal movies lately? Do you know they're not true to life? (Except the first Delta Force movie)

Feathers

vicwatson wrote: »

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?

There were numerous cops at the scene, but at the time he was shot he was facing two officers who had weapons raised. Now I'm going from the movies, but I presume this is done as a warning and a deterrent. Surely the last thing you want is to rush a guy with a baton & him thinking 'I can take this guy'. Keep in mind he'd already been pepper-sprayed to the face with no impediment to him.

Of course there are risks in being a cop, but I'm getting the impression from a number of ye though that you don't know how far three feet is. Are you roughly 6ft? Stretch out one arm - from your hand to your spine is roughly 3ft.

Now you're pointing a gun at a guy to try and contain him. Presumably already shouting at him to drop the knife. Instead, he comes within three feet of you and lunges at you with it.

At what point would you lower and holster your gun so you could pull a baton? Would you have time to do it before he was on top of you, or would you retreat your position to buy time? Potentially letting him back out into a crowded street?

Cienciano

cournioni wrote: »

If this had been the guy at the Swedish House Mafia gig I reckon people on here would be congratulating the Gardai. He got what he deserved.

wilson10 wrote: »

No, if this happened in Ireland we would demonise the Gardai, spend 20 or 30 million on a public inquiry, come to some ambiguous conclusion and make some extraordinarily wealthy barristers even richer.

Remember the Lusk post office robbery? Some junkie drug dealer wouldn't drop his gun when asked and he was shot by the Gardai, I actually remember people seriously suggesting that they should have shot the gun out of his hand
If I was the garda I would have use an arm lock technique to get him to drop it.

Father Damo

Did anyone else upon hearing about this think back to the standard comment on any of the regular legalise cannabis threads here?

The one where some moron has to have a dig at alcohol along the lines of "you never see anyone high on weed acting aggressive".

Not saying it is common but it is hardly impossible like some people seem to think.

Pappa Charlie

The fact that he had glasses on meant that that the pepper spray was less effective and its the main reason it did not work, hense he ended up being shot, would it be a step too far to suggest he was shot because of bad eyesight. Justice Barr where are you?

It wasn't me!

vicwatson wrote: »

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

Yes, there are dangers, which is why you give them weapons and training to mitigate against that. In this case, the danger is being stabbed, so you give them weapons which allow you to keep out of range of being stabbed (and arm's length is not a happy place to be when dealing with someone intent on doing you harm, as anyone who's been in the position, with knives involved or not, will tell you). In this case, that weapon was a firearm, and it was used, so that they didn't have to get stabbed. In that position, are you going to be the one to go in first and get stabbed in the throat while you swing a baton? You are like fook.

Cienciano

vicwatson wrote: »

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

There's ever more inherent dangers if you come at a police officer who's pointing a gun at you with a knife.
If that officer didn't continue shooting till he fell, he'd be up for a darwin award.

No one has put up a valid reason why the cop shouldn't have done what he did yet.

avalon68

Blay wrote: »

So basically you want a police officer to sacrifice their life for the well being of a knife wielding lunatic? That makes perfect sense.:pac:



This concept of 'overkill' is laughable really, this was not overkill, it took 12 rounds to put him on the ground so after the 12th round they stopped. Once the decision has been made to fire in response to a threat they don't stop until the person is on their back..they're not fcking around ya know?

Did it take 12 rounds to put him down? Cos from that video, those shots were fired so fast he wouldn't have had time to hit the ground after one shot

Feathers

avalon68 wrote:

Did it take 12 rounds to put him down? Cos from that video, those shots were fired so fast he wouldn't have had time to hit the ground after one shot

From the newspaper they said only 7 shots were confirmed hits & only 3 were confirmed to the chest, so probably did yes.

Pyr0

Cops did a pretty good job, not excessive at all.

wilson10

wilson10 wrote: »

No, if this happened in Ireland we would demonise the Gardai, spend 20 or 30 million on a public inquiry, come to some ambiguous conclusion and make some extraordinarily wealthy barristers even richer.

Not saying the circumstances were the same but.


The Barr Tribunal

On 20 July 2006 the report of Mr. Justice Robert Barr was released. The Barr Tribunal had its first public sitting on 7 January 2003 and its last on 7 December 2004. In this 519 day period it sat in public for 208 days. It cost almost €18 million, and extended to a substantial 744 pages. The report was comprehensive and did not limit its focus to the Abbeylara siege alone but investigated the reasons why John Carthy had so much distrust for An Garda Síochána. In this latter category, Mr. Justice Barr focused on two particular incidents where, he found, John had good cause to distrust the force. The first revolved around the Garda withdrawal of John's gun in 1998 following rumours that John Carthy had threatened the lives of children in the Handball Alley, which he had used, and which he had been central to restoring, on a quotidian basis. On the basis of these rumours his gun was taken from him. The Tribunal found no basis for these threats and found the behaviour of the Garda to amounted to "deception" and "subterfuge".[16] On the second background issue, the allegation that John's "deep animosity" to the Garda was as the result of being beaten in Garda custody, Justice Barr found against the force. Basing his view on evidence from his GP and neighbour Justice Barr concluded that John Carthy was "probably subjected to physical abuse while under interrogation" by two Gardaí. Barr stated that he believed Carthy was assaulted and did not believe the two Gardaí who denied this.[17] John Carthy's previous treatment in Garda custody is the central theme behind his distrust of the force throughout the siege.
On the actual siege itself the report was damning of An Garda Síochána. The above mentioned FBI inquiry into the force's actions on that day found that the Garda made one principal fault on the day, namely by not shooting John Carthy soon enough. In contrast, Justice Barr identified twenty-three ‘fundamental’ and four ‘crucial’ mistakes by the Garda command during the siege in Abbeylara. Justice Barr was unequivocal in his condemnation of the management of An Garda Síochána. He described John Carthy’s death as ‘avoidable’ and his death as ‘unique’ because, although An Garda deal with armed individuals regularly, they were proven to be incompetent when dealing with a young man with a history of mental illness who, crucially, was of no threat to any other member of society other than himself. Justice Barr elucidated fourteen mistakes which were made by Sgt Michael Jackson of the ERU in his role as the negotiator at Abbeylara.

Bloodwing

wilson10 wrote: »

Not saying the circumstances were the same but.


The Barr Tribunal

On 20 July 2006 the report of Mr. Justice Robert Barr was released. The Barr Tribunal had its first public sitting on 7 January 2003 and its last on 7 December 2004. In this 519 day period it sat in public for 208 days. It cost almost €18 million, and extended to a substantial 744 pages. The report was comprehensive and did not limit its focus to the Abbeylara siege alone but investigated the reasons why John Carthy had so much distrust for An Garda Síochána. In this latter category, Mr. Justice Barr focused on two particular incidents where, he found, John had good cause to distrust the force. The first revolved around the Garda withdrawal of John's gun in 1998 following rumours that John Carthy had threatened the lives of children in the Handball Alley, which he had used, and which he had been central to restoring, on a quotidian basis. On the basis of these rumours his gun was taken from him. The Tribunal found no basis for these threats and found the behaviour of the Garda to amounted to "deception" and "subterfuge".[16] On the second background issue, the allegation that John's "deep animosity" to the Garda was as the result of being beaten in Garda custody, Justice Barr found against the force. Basing his view on evidence from his GP and neighbour Justice Barr concluded that John Carthy was "probably subjected to physical abuse while under interrogation" by two Gardaí. Barr stated that he believed Carthy was assaulted and did not believe the two Gardaí who denied this.[17] John Carthy's previous treatment in Garda custody is the central theme behind his distrust of the force throughout the siege.
On the actual siege itself the report was damning of An Garda Síochána. The above mentioned FBI inquiry into the force's actions on that day found that the Garda made one principal fault on the day, namely by not shooting John Carthy soon enough. In contrast, Justice Barr identified twenty-three ‘fundamental’ and four ‘crucial’ mistakes by the Garda command during the siege in Abbeylara. Justice Barr was unequivocal in his condemnation of the management of An Garda Síochána. He described John Carthy’s death as ‘avoidable’ and his death as ‘unique’ because, although An Garda deal with armed individuals regularly, they were proven to be incompetent when dealing with a young man with a history of mental illness who, crucially, was of no threat to any other member of society other than himself. Justice Barr elucidated fourteen mistakes which were made by Sgt Michael Jackson of the ERU in his role as the negotiator at Abbeylara.

I'm not sure exactly where you got that report from but just to clarify there was no issue raised in relation to the actual shooting. The faults found where all in the lead up to the shooting, such as not allowing him to speak with his doctor. When he walked out of the house pointing a firearm at gardai, a firearm he had already discharged at officers, the only option left was to shoot.

vicwatson

Reindeer wrote: »

Though I know you're trolling, I'll post this for posterity. The police, as well as armed citizens in most states are allowed to meet lethal force with lethal force. A knife is a lethal weapon. There is no such thing as escalation in most states. If a weapon capable of 'grave bodily harm' is raised against you, you are within your rights to use any lethal weapon as well in defense. By law, it is self defense and not murder. If you were to attack someone with a baseball bat or a handgun or a machinegun, the charge is the same - assault with a lethal weapon. Rob a store with a shotgun or a knife? That's armed robbery. You could argue he deserved more of a chance, but you can not do it legally based upon the information we currently have. Even if he had not lunged at the police, they were still well within their rights to use lethal force if he refused to relinquish the weapon since he still posed a threat to the public. If you want to argue murder, you have to show the act was unlawful and premeditated. I think either of those will be difficult in this instance, unless you have a different set of laws in mind.

As for the video comments - it is very common for people to video tape our police, since we do not implicitly trust them. Afterall, they are running around with guns...

Not trolling, I've been contributing to this post from the out, unlike some;)

It wasn't me!

vicwatson wrote: »

Not trolling, I've been contributing to this post from the out, unlike some;)

I think that calling a suggestion that they rush the knife-wielding crazy person with batons and spouting the word murder a lot a contribution is stretching it a little.

Manic Moran

Reindeer wrote: »

The Act limits the amount of policing federal and military personnel can do. 'Limits' is the main word, as an act of congress or a presidential executive decision can put military troops on the ground. And it does not totally disallow state militias to be directed under their state government, AKA state and national guards.

There is no law that states that civilians must police Americans alone. The US Supreme Court ruled that police officers acting under the policies of their own departments are not individually liable for their actions if those actions are in accordance with local laws and department policies. They have 'official immunity'. This, in effect, makes them agents of the departments, cities, states, or whichever branch of the US government they work under. It is virtually the antithesis of 'civilian'.

I would disagree with this. That the various State military organisations can conduct policing actions in the States does not deny that they are military organisations and that their use amongst the civilian community is rare and noteworthy, whears civilian police forces are a daily part of the community. It certainly doesn't bootstrap the police to military status, it's like saying that because the Irish Army can conduct policing activities like checkpoints and riot control that the Gardai can be considered military.

The problem is that too many US police have begun to see themselves as not a part of the community in which they exist, and instead separate, calling themselves "Police" and the rest of us peons that they interact with as "Civilians." This is a problem both in attitude, and in the definition of the word.

When I use the word 'civilian' it is to define a group of persons that are not 'agents of the government, or of the military, and with special official immunity protection'.

There is are words for that. "Public official, public officer" and so on. You can even use "public servant" if you want to be traditional. The rest of us are "Private citizens", or "Private individuals"

The legal definition of "civilian" is "Non-military" in both US and international law. That recent editions of US non-legal dictionaries now include the emergency response organisations (to include the fire department!) as "not civilian" is a reflection of common use, but doesn't make it correct.

The less we call police civilians in the US, the sooner we realize how dangerous they truly are in their capacities under official immunity clauses.

I don't believe we should go about encouraging the concept to police that they are not a part of our civil community and are a force apart. I will always correct an officer or deputy if he uses the term 'civilian' inappropriately.

NTM

MadsL

An interesting yardstick might be the fact that an officers/deputies/volunteer firefighters and the like answer to the courts. Military on active duty answer to the military justice system.

Overheal

vicwatson wrote: »

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

Hmmmm

Rodney King much?

asherbassad wrote: »

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?

Slow golf clap for deflecting your defensive argument about deflection onto Saudi Arabia and China.

Also the way you talk about Americans leaves no room to really suggest you are yourself an American. Or at least perhaps you're so bleeding-heart liberal that you no longer consider yourself one except when it suits your attempts at trolling:

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.

All I see is a bunch of bigotry and generalizations. And if you're so concerned about Fallujans, Saudi Arabians, and the Chinese, please, be my guest and go play superhero. But you're doing a very poor job at hiding that very large brush of yours.

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

It's not, unless you are completely deaf to the criticism and reproach it gets all the time. Such as now, in this thread, and thousands of others like it. We never had a wikileaks controversy either, or the very much related helicopter gun cam video controversy, or the treyvon martin thing, or the carl jr thing, or the thousands of other things where people were free to criticize such events. Nobody said those criticisms wouldn't be met with counter-arguments though.

Local-womanizer

vicwatson wrote: »

Have you read any of the thread?


This thread is not about Limerick

I have actually and my post was not directed at you.

You obviously haven't read the thread properly going by the above.....

smcelhinney

23 pages and I gotta work, so this may already have been posted, but I immediately thought of this..

garv123

That does not look like a samurai sword unless it was in a case of some form

MadsL

Note the direction the guy was running > away from police. Now what would Canada's finest have done were he running AT them?

smcelhinney

Absolutely no idea, nor will we ever know. But their first instinct wasnt to shoot him 12 times.

MadsL

smcelhinney wrote: »

Absolutely no idea, nor will we ever know. But their first instinct wasnt to shoot him 12 times.

Way to miss the point. Someone running away from you is a vastly different scenario to someone lunging at you with a knife (as I suspect you well know)

garv123

smcelhinney wrote: »

Absolutely no idea, nor will we ever know. But their first instinct wasnt to shoot him 12 times.

Did you watch the video in times square or read any of the reports. Police were backing him down the street and weren't firing, they were waiting for a tazer and they only fired when he lunged at them with the knife.

Big difference between someone running away and someone running at you.
Would the Canadian cop have tackled him if the sword was held in a threatening manner or ran at them with it? Yes.

Manic Moran

Was that even a sword? Looks like a rectangular piece of red plastic.

MadsL

smcelhinney wrote: »

Vancouver cop video

Interesting you picked out Vancouver as an example of what cops 'should' do.

Vancouver PD have had numerous allegations against them, not the least of this apparant 'execution' incident where an unarmed bipolar man is shot dead after he has already been put on the ground by gunshots and is literally just crawling towards the cop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=207_FGF3wZk

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Vancouver+police+will+review+Paul+Boyd+shooting+after+video+surfaces+Chief+vows/6708904/story.html

Vancouver resident Yao Wei Wu who was assaulted without provocation by two plainclothes Vancouver Police Department detectives, Nicholas Florkow and Bryan London, as they responded to a domestic violence call from another living unit at the same address. They not only failed to determine if there was any actual domestic violence before acting with severe physical force, they didn’t even bother to determine if they even had the correct person at the door. When Yao Wei Wu answered the door of his home, the cops shoved the door in, hauled him outside, and proceeded to beat him in the face and back in front of his wife before handcuffing and arresting him. Only after all of this did they bother to ask his name and found out they had just assaulted a person who had absolutely nothing to do with the domestic violence call to which they were responding.

They then proceded to intimidate him into dropping civil charges.

http://www.copblock.org/52/vancouver-police-brutalize-innocent-civilians/

Some Vancouver cops also seem to need Disability Awareness training, here is how they dealt with a woman with MS. Watch video then read spoiler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8K7j5olaeg

He thought she was grabbing his gun, does that change your viewpoint. Videos can be very deceptive.

end of the road

Pyr0 wrote: »

Cops did a pretty good job, not excessive at all.

no they didn't, it was a bad job, 1 or 2 shots to the head is all it should take. then again their trigger happy americans

Witcher

end of the road wrote: »

no they didn't, it was a bad job, 1 or 2 shots to the head is all it should take. then again their trigger happy americans

No police force is trained to shoot someone in the head...ffs read the thread:rolleyes:

garv123

end of the road wrote: »

no they didn't, it was a bad job, 1 or 2 shots to the head is all it should take. then again their trigger happy americans

You must have a high rank in call of duty...:rolleyes:

MadsL

end of the road wrote: »

no they didn't, it was a bad job, 1 or 2 shots to the head is all it should take. then again their trigger happy americans

*facepalm*

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was that even a sword? Looks like a rectangular piece of red plastic.

The sword makes a metallic sound when it hits the ground, so it could be real, but sheathed?

Bloodwing

garv123 wrote: »

You must have a high rank in call of duty...:rolleyes:

Why didn't they just 360 no scope him after jumping from the roof of a building? If they keep wasting 12 bullets per kill they'll have no ammo left when he respawns.

Neilos

Neilos wrote: »

garv123 wrote: »

You must have a high rank in call of duty...:rolleyes:

Why didn't they just 360 no scope him after jumping from the roof of a building? If they keep wasting 12 bullets per kill they'll have no ammo left when he respawns.

Plus their accuracy would go down to ****.