cops kill men with a crowbar *10 shots* - Page 4

The most retarded thing is the proximity of the cops to the guy with the crowbar. why so close? if crowbar is life threatening, why get close to him? agree with pretty much everything baal saying.
Also i agree, shooting in the leg or arm is very hard and if you're going to shoot, shoot to kill. What the problem to me is, why the need to shoot in the first place.

On January 29 2012 15:42 uiCk wrote: The most retarded thing is the proximity of the cops to the guy with the crowbar. why so close? if crowbar is life threatening, why get close to him?

I'm not clear on what you're suggesting the cops should have done here.

1st. Cop who tasered, was not paying attention to her distance with suspect, was checking his belt (for what ? who cares) while being 1 meter away from the guy.
2nd. The guy is already walking, obviously not threatened by the prospect of getting shot, so why so close to him? What did they think the suspect was going to do Walking away from the place?

I would of backed off and asses the situation and not expect that threatening someone with a gun is going to make them respect your authority.
The whole issue revolves of the BS that guns have some kind of authoritative power. The only thing they do is kill, and make people kill each other for the better lack of wanting to understand, rationalize and asses situations that are to complicated for some to rationalize.


These things do happen, and will happen, but stating that it was the only option, too shoot him, shows obviously lack in people in concern to using their head. That and peoples willingness to accept instinct over reason.

My beef is with the bigger picture, i don't really judge the cops of doing what they did really, i'm really not that surprised given the context, which is living in a heavy gun consumption society.

Indeed there is precedent saying this wont fly if youre a civilian http://oklahoma-criminal-defense.com/...e-for-pharmacist-who-shot-okc-robber/

On January 29 2012 16:56 Roald wrote: Indeed there is precedent saying this wont fly if youre a civilian http://oklahoma-criminal-defense.com/...e-for-pharmacist-who-shot-okc-robber/

that makes sense to me, and same should be applied to coppers. Just like it's fucking retarded that the police body encourages directly or indirectly, high speed chases in the US, which usually end up resulting in more damage done after the chase then before.

uiCk the guy is dangerous and presents a threat to all of the people hanging around in the area. They are trying to subdue him, keeping distance is not an option. The non-shooting cop was probably reaching for pepper spray or handcuffs and would have tackled and handcuffed the guy if he had not made an aggressive move. And that is not a crowbar.

RaSZi everything you post in this forum gets progressively more stupid.

On January 29 2012 16:56 Roald wrote: Indeed there is precedent saying this wont fly if youre a civilian http://oklahoma-criminal-defense.com/...e-for-pharmacist-who-shot-okc-robber/

Very different situation. The pharmacist there returned to shoot the suspect some more. Here we have all the shots being fired in less than 3 seconds. The pharmacist didn't get in trouble for the number of shots he fired, he got in trouble for having 2 separate shooting instances, which is another problem with advocating for cops to shoot him in the leg and then re-evalulate or shoot him only a couple of times and re-evaluate. They have to justify both shootings instead of only the one.

Yea sorry, there are different ways to deal with situations/ Keeping distance is an option, and making sure to clear the environment so culprit is not putting anyone else in danger is priority. Shooting the guy is just quick way of doing just that, and to some it is genius, because it's most effective way of avoiding anyone else to get hurt. the reason that is accepted, is that you accept that the culprit doesn't deserve his life.
But i'm not going to make those types of decisions, on who deserves life or not, especially on the assumption that someone else would of died in the culprits hands.

On January 29 2012 15:07 Roald wrote: Shoot to kill is 100% standard across departments. I've seen someone get shot in the leg and still put up a decent fight. Whether this policy is justified or not is obviously a matter of opinion. Intuitively it seems barbaric and wrong but I think there are likely many factors that need to be taken into consideration that aren't obvious to the layman.

^ this

they are trained to shoot to kill, nothing in between. I would have done the exact same thing in this situation.

Also ask anyone with a solid knowledge of hand guns and they'll tell you that getting shot in the leg with a 9mm - .45 will not be sufficient to put someone down.

surprised by a lot of the comments. How effective can the police be if they stayed further away? If you're standing off, here's no way to disarm apprehend him unless he complies, and clearly he was not going to comply. At some point you have to move in and put the cuffs on his ass.

He swung at the officer in clearly a threatening stance, so partner clipping him is how it goes. The other guy dumping a few rounds on the guy after he's on the ground shot five times is another story. That is pure uncontrolled pissed off cop. But it will be hard to press anything against him, maybe a reprimand at worse.

Yes cops shoot to kill, wounding is a liability.. The woulda shoulda coulda stops at "the suspect coulda woulda shoulda simply complied."

he'd be alive today if he had, and these cops wouldn't be in some viral video being second guessed for protecting themselves and each other.

On January 29 2012 16:11 uiCk wrote: I would of backed off and asses the situation and not expect that threatening someone with a gun is going to make them respect your authority.

there are members of the public all over the area.
what if he got into a car?

how is this justified in any way ?

They are professionals right ? They should have kept more distance and if the guy just tries to walk off, shoot him in the legs, problem solved.

These men should be fired, people like that shouldn't be carrying guns around.

If you are going to give a man a gun and the authority to use it, better make sure that man is a Fucking Professional.

And people wonder why cops get a bad rep.

On January 29 2012 19:28 TheTrees wrote: Also ask anyone with a solid knowledge of hand guns and they'll tell you that getting shot in the leg with a 9mm - .45 will not be sufficient to put someone down.

This is nothing short of bullshit. Please stay on the internet and don't become a cop thankyouverymuch.

On January 29 2012 19:53 curtinsea wrote: surprised by a lot of the comments. How effective can the police be if they stayed further away? If you're standing off, here's no way to disarm apprehend him unless he complies, and clearly he was not going to comply. At some point you have to move in and put the cuffs on his ass.

At that point you will hopefully not fumble with your equipment WHILE LOOKING INTO THE MOTHERFUCKING GROUND.

On February 01 2012 10:32 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2012 19:28 TheTrees wrote: Also ask anyone with a solid knowledge of hand guns and they'll tell you that getting shot in the leg with a 9mm - .45 will not be sufficient to put someone down. This is nothing short of bullshit. Please stay on the internet and don't become a cop thankyouverymuch.

wow i totally missed that... ROFL its not sufficient a fucking .45cal gunshot to the legs to stop somebody? a .45cal is massive, what does it take then, an RPG to the leg?

On January 29 2012 04:31 byrnesam wrote: @ 3 minute mark

The fact that some guy took a couple of shots to the chest and he was still semi-functional for an instant doesnt justify shooting a guy with a crowbar 10 times, tell me, do you think the guy with a crowbar is a serious threat to anybody after lets say 5 shots? do you think he can still run to you and hit you in the face? srsly

On February 01 2012 10:32 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2012 19:28 TheTrees wrote: Also ask anyone with a solid knowledge of hand guns and they'll tell you that getting shot in the leg with a 9mm - .45 will not be sufficient to put someone down. This is nothing short of bullshit. Please stay on the internet and don't become a cop thankyouverymuch.

Guessing you've never been in the military/know anyone in the military? Have you ever seen anyone cracked out of their mind? I'm guessing no, thankyouverymuch.

Shoot to kill, especially when your life is in danger.

you guys do know that here in the states shooting someone in the leg can be considered "cruel and unusual" in the court system...you usually get less shit for blasting someone in the chest than in the leg ;o

This is usually the reason why cops will use "deadly" force rather than "be humane and shoot him in the leg" because you can actually get into neck deep into law trouble by shooting even a criminal attempting to kill you in the leg/arm etc.