• Video shows Utah police fatally shooting man from behind as he fled
    104 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Punchy;52772107]Purely theoretically speaking, what would be the most ideal alternatives to lethal firearms? Presumably tasers or rubber bullets (which can still be a lethal firearm but provides lower likelihood, downside being scenarios deadly force actually is needed)? I feel like it should be discussed how many unnecessary deadly shootings can be avoided through alternative means, as well as if those alternative means are worth taking at all or not.[/QUOTE] There is no idea alternative when your entire country is armed with guns. The ideal alternative is a gun. Anything less than lethal force against lethal force is a lost fight
1- you shouldn't get that threatened by a knife, he's running away. Like that might be a bit of a mess if you tackled him wrong, but a trained officer should be able to do it safely. 2- you don't need to shoot 2-3 times, aim well and shoot the guy once, then he'd probably survive the single pistol round fired to places that aren't his vitals, and you can take the guy in after charging him a medical bill. Shooting any more than once is a fucking murder attempt.
[QUOTE=The Jack;52773723]1- you shouldn't get that threatened by a knife, he's running away. Like that might be a bit of a mess if you tackled him wrong, but a trained officer should be able to do it safely. 2- you don't need to shoot 2-3 times, aim well and shoot the guy once, then he'd probably survive the single pistol round fired to places that aren't his vitals, and you can take the guy in after charging him a medical bill. Shooting any more than once is a fucking murder attempt.[/QUOTE] Ah the "y not shotted em in the leg!!!! :( " meme rears its ugly head You don't shoot to wound, ever, especially with a lethal weapon in play. And you most certainly don't try and tackle a guy with a knife. You're viewing thid from the angle that it has to be an equal or fair fight for the guy with a knife- it doesn't need to be, nor should it.
[url]https://twitter.com/MuslimIQ/status/916048247042510848[/url] Apparently, the guy that shot Patrick Harmon is one of the officers thats involved in this arrest. If thats true, theres literally no reason that this guy should have his job / not be put in prison himself.
it's pretty unreasonable that he was shot in the arrest but regardless, if you're convicted or wanted for a felony then it's your duty and responsibility to cooperate with the law. i completely understand and am aware of the stigma behind 'cops shooting black people' and completely aware that the man would be afraid, but that's just as inexcusable of an argument as trying to justify the extremely sudden use of lethal force from the police in the video. The officers in the beginning were very passive, didn't shout at him, and gave him pretty simple commands. regardless of what you're being arrested for, [I]you shouldn't run from the police. it'll only make things worse for you: you could get shot, get killed, get caught & charged for resisting arrest and many other things.[/I] it doesn't make it any better that it does look like he reached for something (I.E.) a weapon in the video, that's basically sealing your own death warrant. It doesn't matter if he's running away from them, [B]he's already given the officers information that he has a weapon and that doesn't mean he couldn't have a firearm on his person.[/B] it's completely understandable that you'd value human life to the highest standard (as do i) but you need to realize that the decisions made on both sides weren't the best, which resulted in someone getting shot. poor decisions lead to poorer decisions and responses on both sides, it's only natural. Sure, an officer should be legally held accountable for using excessive lethal force but you shouldn't be putting these people on the cross 24/7. It's not an easy job at all and it's pretty fucked up in some states if you've ever been in ride-alongs or have police buddies. there's also the 'he was running away, he's not a threat' but that's not necessarily what matters in most cases. It doesn't matter if he's 'not a threat' to the officers, officers have the executive order to protect society, their duty is to protect society, [B]from threats to society.[/B] Not themselves. If you're running from the police, they're pretty much allowed to use as much reasonable force necessary to stop you. (now repeating, shooting him is unreasonable or excessive but like I said, it doesn't help that it looks like he pulled out a weapon in the video. Some other people would agree or disagree.)
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52773748]Ah the "y not shotted em in the leg!!!! :( " meme rears its ugly head You don't shoot to wound, ever, especially with a lethal weapon in play. And you most certainly don't try and tackle a guy with a knife. You're viewing thid from the angle that it has to be an equal or fair fight for the guy with a knife- it doesn't need to be, nor should it.[/QUOTE] No, I didn't say shoot the guy in the leg. I say shoot him once, not three times. Most people'll survive a bodyshot from a single 9mm if they're treated after. As for the first comment, yeah that's a bit dumb, nevermind the vest, US cops spend most of their training shooting so it's unreasonable to go physical with an unfit, elderly guy, despite clubs (and as said, you don't need to make a fight fair). But the shooting comment still stands ; Nobody needs to shoot a fleeing guy three fucking times at point blank.
[QUOTE=The Jack;52776453]No, I didn't say shoot the guy in the leg. I say shoot him once, not three times. Most people'll survive a bodyshot from a single 9mm if they're treated after. As for the first comment, yeah that's a bit dumb, nevermind the vest, US cops spend most of their training shooting so it's unreasonable to go physical with an unfit, elderly guy, despite clubs (and as said, you don't need to make a fight fair). But the shooting comment still stands ; Nobody needs to shoot a fleeing guy three fucking times at point blank.[/QUOTE] Yeah okay I'm going to need a source on all of this
[QUOTE=The Jack;52776453]No, I didn't say shoot the guy in the leg. I say shoot him once, not three times. Most people'll survive a bodyshot from a single 9mm if they're treated after. As for the first comment, yeah that's a bit dumb, nevermind the vest, US cops spend most of their training shooting so it's unreasonable to go physical with an unfit, elderly guy, despite clubs (and as said, you don't need to make a fight fair). But the shooting comment still stands ; Nobody needs to shoot a fleeing guy three fucking times at point blank.[/QUOTE] When you train for self defense (anyone, not just police officers) you DO NOT shoot to wound. You shoot to stop the threat. That means until the person is on the ground, probably dead. The officer stopped shooting when the man fell. Ignoring the if he had a knife or not for a second, the officer did exactly what he needed to. If you shoot one time and hit, and the person doesn't go down but you wait to see if 'Oh hey, you shot me because I'm a lethal threat, I'll give up now' all you have done is given a person who has shown themselves to be a deadly danger a chance to do exactly what you shot them to prevent in the first place. Continuing to ignore the if the man had a knife or not for the moment, it is abundantly clear that the man was no longer fleeing when he was shot. The video may not be clear enough to show if he had a knife (because I don't see anything, but it is a poor quality very short time frame), but there is certainly enough to be absolutely sure that he did not have his back turned to the officers and was not running, and indeed to me does look like was about to take a stance to stand his ground immediately before the shots were fired.
[QUOTE=DeathBacon;52776979] If you shoot one time and hit, and the person doesn't go down but you wait to see if 'Oh hey, you shot me because I'm a lethal threat, I'll give up now' all you have done is given a person who has shown themselves to be a deadly danger a chance to do exactly what you shot them to prevent in the first place. [/QUOTE] Not every country has protocol for cops to shoot to kill. Here how it usually plays out is that they shoot an armed suspect in the leg and then wait for them to surrender, because if someone isn't crazy they rather quickly realise they cannot win after taking a bullet. The main difference however is that the scenario where the police stop someone and they suddenly attack with a deadly weapon doesn't happen here, but seems rather common in the US.
[QUOTE=The Jack;52773723]1- you shouldn't get that threatened by a knife, he's running away. Like that might be a bit of a mess if you tackled him wrong, but a trained officer should be able to do it safely. [/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xpcrDzy344[/media] Knives are a fucking big threat [quote]2- you don't need to shoot 2-3 times, aim well and shoot the guy once, then he'd probably survive the single pistol round fired to places that aren't his vitals, and you can take the guy in after charging him a medical bill. Shooting any more than once is a fucking murder attempt.[/quote] I'd honestly like to see you try to accurately non-lethally shoot a moving target with a single shot so that they don't pose any further threat. fuck people can be delusional when it comes to police and firearms.
[QUOTE=The Jack;52773723]1- you shouldn't get that threatened by a knife, he's running away. Like that might be a bit of a mess if you tackled him wrong, but a trained officer should be able to do it safely. 2- you don't need to shoot 2-3 times, aim well and shoot the guy once, then he'd probably survive the single pistol round fired to places that aren't his vitals, and you can take the guy in after charging him a medical bill. Shooting any more than once is a fucking murder attempt.[/QUOTE] Yep, this is someone who has never shot a gun before in their life.
[QUOTE=Berman Slick;52776384]The life threatening situation was him fleeing? No, that's to be /more/ safe, it's why things run away from things. Putting distance between yourself and a threat (at the time, the cops were viewed as a threat) is what you do. Was it a bad idea to run away? Yes, because the cop wasn't going to simply say "oh well, he ran off. Guess we'll go home". A cop decided to shoot him 3 times while he posed no threat to him, whether by distance from the officer, or position (back turned). The response should never have been lethal, they could have tasered him at that distance as well, let alone tackled him if they took a few more steps when the suspect slowed down[/QUOTE] I agree that tazering should've been their first course of action but tackling somebody with a deadly weapon is an incredibly stupid idea. Tazers have also been proven to be unreliable in a lot of circumstances and like I said: the threat an individual poses to an officer does not matter; it's the threat an individual poses to society that legally matters when police deal with situations like this.
Lol these bodycams are fucking useless, half the footage is at a shit angle of a quality too low to discern, and then during the Vegas shootings you had bodycam footage that was blocked by hi-vis vests. What's the fucking point if you can't see what went on?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.