• SWAT on a drug raid, shot and killed man with a golf club.
    239 replies, posted
"Police, get on th..." *Pow Pow Pow* At least finish your sentence before you shoot. Its not like the guy was charging at them.
[QUOTE=Makol;27045246]Should have tazered the guy, shooting him was unnecessary.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because whenever I go and serve warrants on potentially armed men, I carry my taser instead of my gun.
Shooting him three times then asking him to get on the ground Interesting bit of linearity there
Most of the times I'm on the cops side, but fuck this is just outraging. Those cops are fucking idiots who should be fired
You all act like the Swat team yelling POLICE absolves them of any responsibility of shooting whoever they want. So what if he had a golf club, he wants to defend his home. For all he knows it was some robbers yelling police trying to catch him without a weapon. This officer in question was an idiot, he was a good 10-15 feet away from the guy, (Waaay out of arm's or even golf club's reach). To top that off he was wearing kevlar and pads and could have easily deflected any blows the guy could have thrown at him. To top that off, to all you saying it was a split second decision, if a SWAT officer (the best the police force has to offer) can't tell the difference between a golf club and a gun, he shouldn't be SWAT. [editline]29th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Apache249;27052524]Yeah, because whenever I go and serve warrants on potentially armed men, I carry my taser instead of my gun.[/QUOTE] Yeah and whenever you see a man defensively holding a golf club you shoot him before giving him a chance to drop it.
Wow, damn. It's like me playing SWAT 4 for the first time.
all cops r bad becuz dey shot sum1 dat cud hav bin a thret!
Ok, I can see this is from Utah. It explains A LOT. Trust me, there have been many cases in Utah where unjustified shootings from police have occurred. Just 2 months in a house right next to mine a man ran towards two officers with a knife. They tried to tazer him but the clothes he was wearing prevented electrocution. So instead of incapacitating him with a bullet in the foot or chins? They shot him straight in the face. Cops are dicks in Utah, it's well known.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;27053081]You all act like the Swat team yelling POLICE absolves them of any responsibility of shooting whoever they want. So what if he had a golf club, he wants to defend his home. For all he knows it was some robbers yelling police trying to catch him without a weapon. This officer in question was an idiot, he was a good 10-15 feet away from the guy, (Waaay out of arm's or even golf club's reach). To top that off he was wearing kevlar and pads and could have easily deflected any blows the guy could have thrown at him. To top that off, to all you saying it was a split second decision, if a SWAT officer (the best the police force has to offer) can't tell the difference between a golf club and a gun, he shouldn't be SWAT. [/QUOTE] We've been over this, the whole "BUT HE MAY HAVEE THAUGHT DEY WERE ROBBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is utter bullshit and totally stupid. [editline]29th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=BenJammin';27053474]Ok, I can see this is from Utah. It explains A LOT. Trust me, there have been many cases in Utah where unjustified shootings from police have occurred. Just 2 months in a house right next to mine a man ran towards two officers with a knife. They tried to tazer him but the clothes he was wearing prevented electrocution. So instead of incapacitating him with a bullet in the foot or chins? They shot him straight in the face. Cops are dicks in Utah, it's well known.[/QUOTE] Yeah because he was attacking them so they removed the threat. Hell, you even justified their actions and yet you still blame them. Idiot.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;27054258]We've been over this, the whole "BUT HE MAY HAVEE THAUGHT DEY WERE ROBBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is utter bullshit and totally stupid.[/QUOTE] Still doesn't give SWAT the right to fatally shoot someone who posed virtually no threat to them. Lets look at the odds. Swat - Tons of them, Armed, Pads, Kevlar, armor all over their bodies. Man - T-Shirt, Golf club, standing outside of weapon's effective range Phew good thing swat took that psychopath out huh? He could have gone on a rampage! SWAT also took 3 shots. First off they could have fired a warning shot. Second, they could have shot the guy once so he had a better chance of surviving.
(being a member of the armed forces) from the video it looks as if the officer leading the raid acted accordingly. The man was clearly rushing the officer with the golf club intending to seriously harm him. That being said, I would have disarmed him and subdued him. I beleive the action was appropriate because one can not tell the officer's skill level or familiarity in stressful situations such as this one
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;27054349]Still doesn't give SWAT the right to fatally shoot someone who posed virtually no threat to them. Lets look at the odds. Swat - Tons of them, Armed, Pads, Kevlar, armor all over their bodies. Man - T-Shirt, Golf club, standing outside of weapon's effective range Phew good thing swat took that psychopath out huh? He could have gone on a rampage! SWAT also took 3 shots. First off they could have fired a warning shot. Second, they could have shot the guy once so he had a better chance of surviving.[/QUOTE] I see the suspect -> Armed, could be lethal -> I'm taking the shot Exactly what was wrong with this line of thinking? Just because it actually was a golf club doesn't mean it couldn't have been something more lethal. [editline]29th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=(CH2-N-NO2)3;27054416](being a member of the armed forces) from the video it looks as if the officer leading the raid acted accordingly. The man was clearly rushing the officer with the golf club intending to seriously harm him. That being said, I would have disarmed him and subdued him. I beleive the action was appropriate because one can not tell the officer's skill level or familiarity in stressful situations such as this one[/QUOTE] He didn't rush them, not even close.
For the cops: 1. They had to rush the building if it was a drug raid. If they just set up a perimeter, they could have a shootout on their hands with potential hostages. They didn't know what they would be up against. 2. Because they had to rush, they couldn't carry a tazer around. A tazer can only take down one person at a time. Two armed people in a room, against a cop with one tazer, would not be ideal. So the cop had to carry a gun. 3. The weapon the guy carried could have been anything. A sword, a metal bat, anything. The cop only had a gun and did the only logical thing there was to do, shoot. The gun was also just a pistol, it's not like he had an automatic. For the man: 1. Firing 3 shots, at a guy in a t-shirt, who obviously stopped after the first one, and then started falling after the second, was completely unnecessary and its outrageous that the cop did so. 2. Sure, I understand that they were nervous, there could have been guns and more people in there, but cops should be smart enough to understand that 1 bullet is going to stop a guy, and should be trained to sift a guy in body armor from a guy in a goddamn t-shirt. 3. The cop was obviously too trigger happy, and if he hadn't fired like that, the guy's death might have been avoided.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;27055293]For the cops: 1. They had to rush the building if it was a drug raid. If they just set up a perimeter, they could have a shootout on their hands with potential hostages. They didn't know what they would be up against. 2. Because they had to rush, they couldn't carry a tazer around. A tazer can only take down one person at a time. Two armed people in a room, against a cop with one tazer, would not be ideal. So the cop had to carry a gun. 3. The weapon the guy carried could have been anything. A sword, a metal bat, anything. The cop only had a gun and did the only logical thing there was to do, shoot. The gun was also just a pistol, it's not like he had an automatic. For the man: 1. Firing 3 shots, at a guy in a t-shirt, who obviously stopped after the first one, and then started falling after the second, was completely unnecessary and its outrageous that the cop did so. 2. Sure, I understand that they were nervous, there could have been guns and more people in there, but cops should be smart enough to understand that 1 bullet is going to stop a guy, and should be trained to sift a guy in body armor from a guy in a goddamn t-shirt. 3. The cop was obviously too trigger happy, and if he hadn't fired like that, the guy's death might have been avoided.[/QUOTE] You do realize that one bullet doesn't always stop a guy cold right? In this case it did and 3 bullets was maybe a bit excessive BUT better safe than sorry.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;27055459]You do realize that one bullet doesn't always stop a guy cold right? In this case it did and 3 bullets was maybe a bit excessive BUT better safe than sorry.[/QUOTE] yeah better safe than sorry the guy could have scraped one of their helmets with his golf club fucking moron
[QUOTE=Doriol;27056436]yeah better safe than sorry the guy could have scraped one of their helmets with his golf club fucking moron[/QUOTE] You're the moron. How about we bash the front of your face in with a golf club and see if you'll still be singing the same retarded tune. A helmet protects the top of the head, not the fucking front(unless it's like a riot helmet or something which the ones they were wearing weren't).
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;27055459]You do realize that one bullet doesn't always stop a guy cold right? In this case it did and 3 bullets was maybe a bit excessive BUT better safe than sorry.[/QUOTE] You obviously didn't watch the video. After the first shot, the guy stopped and shook, the second shot, he started to fall, the third shot was completely unnecessary. He had a melee weapon and was a reasonable distance away. They could have fired once and waited a moment, but instead they fired and kept firing.
[QUOTE=Doriol;27056436]yeah better safe than sorry the guy could have scraped one of their helmets with his golf club fucking moron[/QUOTE] Imagine if it was a sword instead of a golfclub. If he'd have hesitated he would have been killed. You wouldn't say "Oh, I didn't shoot because it could have been a golfclub."
Honestly it looked like a sword when i watched it, and it was probably hard to see in the cop's equipment. I think the cop could've done better though.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;27056756]You obviously didn't watch the video. After the first shot, the guy stopped and shook, the second shot, he started to fall, the third shot was completely unnecessary. He had a melee weapon and was a reasonable distance away. They could have fired once and waited a moment, but instead they fired and kept firing.[/QUOTE] I have watched the video many times which is more than you have. I didn't fucking say that the first bullet didn't stop him. Read my post again and you'll realize that the first sentence is not about the guy in the video.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;27056979]I have watched the video many times which is more than you have. I didn't fucking say that the first bullet didn't stop him. Read my post again and you'll realize that the first sentence is not about the guy in the video.[/QUOTE] We are not fucking computers working on irrevocable, permanent logics. We can think, and the cops here obviously didn't. They acted like the threat was huge and that one or two bullets didn't stop, because they are too fucking stupid to control themselves. Stress sure makes a big difference in all this but even in a stressful situation an intelligent being would still be able to recognize when someone from the same specie is out or not. My guess is even policemen have the image of "badass cops shootin' around with their guns and kill the bad guys because that's what the good guys do" scarred right in their mind, just like 90% percents of the population having access to action movies. And, yeah, they freaked out. Any human being can and is supposed to freak out in this situation but they are supposed to keep calm. Pointing a gun at him and shouting to get down would've been enough to remove the threat.
[QUOTE=Rock Ironrod;27046354]Jesus Christ, do you want all SWAT members to wait a second so they can be sure of exactly what the armed enemy is using? Despite the fact that the armed person would only have to squeeze his finger ever so slightly to kill you and your friends? Oh hey SWAT team I realise you're putting your life at stake to ensure that large threats to my life are taken care of, can you please cater more to the deaf fat guys by taking a second to make sure that everyone realises that he's holding is something only vaguely gunlike, even if it kills Joe days before his daughter is born? Also, hyperbole. Learn it.[/QUOTE] Uh, yeah. SWAT should put innocent lives in front of their own.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';27053474]Just 2 months in a house right next to mine a man ran towards two officers with a knife. They tried to tazer him but the clothes he was wearing prevented electrocution. So instead of incapacitating him with a bullet in the foot or chins? They shot him straight in the face. Cops are dicks in Utah, it's well known.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=En-Guage V2;27046249]I'm sure there are occasions when they shoot to wound, shooting to kill 100% of the time is stupid[/QUOTE] Just throwing it out there that guns are lethal weapons, and using one to shoot merely "to wound" means you used lethal force on a threat that didn't justify using lethal force in the first place. You also have to consider that it's very possible to kill someone by shooting them in the head, neck, chest, abdomen, and upper legs, which only leaves flailing spindly targets for non-lethal shots, which may not even stop someone hyped up on adrenaline, That's some of the legal and practical reasoning behind shooting to kill, as far as I'm aware.
[QUOTE=z0nk3d;27057378]We are not fucking computers working on irrevocable, permanent logics. We can think, and the cops here obviously didn't. They acted like the threat was huge and that one or two bullets didn't stop, because they are too fucking stupid to control themselves. Stress sure makes a big difference in all this but even in a stressful situation an intelligent being would still be able to recognize when someone from the same specie is out or not. My guess is even policemen have the image of "badass cops shootin' around with their guns and kill the bad guys because that's what the good guys do" scarred right in their mind, just like 90% percents of the population having access to action movies. And, yeah, they freaked out. Any human being can and is supposed to freak out in this situation but they are supposed to keep calm. Pointing a gun at him and shouting to get down would've been enough to remove the threat.[/QUOTE] I've already been over this but you people don't seem to learn.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';27053474]Just 2 months in a house right next to mine a man ran towards two officers with a knife. They tried to tazer him but the clothes he was wearing prevented electrocution. So instead of incapacitating him with a bullet in the foot or chins? They shot him straight in the face.[/QUOTE] First off, being shot is potentially lethal no matter where you do it. You can get shot in the leg and die, you can get shot in the arm and die. The chest and head aren't the only lethal points. The entire body is. Second, shooting for arms and legs leaves a much bigger chance that the shot will miss and hurt someone. If you have to shoot, you aim for the torso, because it's the easiest part to hit. Shooting to incapacitate is just something you see in the movies. Cops don't shoot to incapacitate, they shoot to kill. They don't shoot someone's leg to hinder them, they shoot at the chest to stop them (if they survive, then good, but if stopping them means they die, then so be it).
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;27058761]First off, being shot is potentially lethal no matter where you do it. You can get shot in the leg and die, you can get shot in the arm and die. The chest and head aren't the only lethal points. The entire body is. Second, shooting for arms and legs leaves a much bigger chance that the shot will miss and hurt someone. If you have to shoot, you aim for the torso, because it's the easiest part to hit. Shooting to incapacitate is just something you see in the movies. Cops don't shoot to incapacitate, they shoot to kill. They don't shoot someone's leg to hinder them, they shoot at the chest to stop them (if they survive, then good, but if stopping them means they die, then so be it).[/QUOTE] Holy shit, some guy who actually knows what he's talking about(I hope)!
Alright, so the man has a shotgun pointed at the police officers instead of a golf club. They taser him. The muscle convulsions cause him to pull the trigger and turn an officer's head into apple sauce. Congrats, you didn't hurt the suspect but you killed a cop. GG
[QUOTE=Snapzies;27059152]Alright, so the man has a shotgun pointed at the police officers instead of a golf club. They taser him. The muscle convulsions cause him to pull the trigger and turn an officer's head into apple sauce. Congrats, you didn't hurt the suspect but you killed a cop. GG[/QUOTE] uh okay that hypothetical situation makes all kinds of... nonsense
House call!
"Oh shit this guy has a golf club and can seriously hurt us in our armor, better shoot him to death then tell him to get on the ground after that."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.