• Man Seeking Help From Police Shot, Killed By Officer
    119 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42199132]you never shoot a gun to stop anyone. every time you fire a gun you shoot to kill. [editline]15th September 2013[/editline] also if i can't shoot a man who is running towards me, an officer sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to do it. he should get 2nd degree murder.[/QUOTE] sounds stupid as fuck imo
[QUOTE=Powerbrah;42199304]sounds stupid as fuck imo[/QUOTE] I have to agree with yawmen here, kinda. You do shoot to kill, else you don't shoot at all. I have to wonder if there was no other way to stop the 'suspect'. Shooting him should've been last resort, not 2nd after tazer malfunction. Do officers not get some sort of hand-to-hand combat training or anything?
[QUOTE=maqzek;42199374]Do officers not get some sort of hand-to-hand combat training or anything?[/QUOTE] They do (or atleast should) but if the suspect is suspected (hurr) of carrying a knife or worse, they don't know where it could be located on the person. And as such it's hard to judge which maneuver to use. Ideally the officers should've slowly retreated while yelling at the supposed perp to back-off and show that said person means no harm. But with the phonecall from the supposedly frantic lady that might've exaggerated or left out details, they can only assume, and they decided to assume the worst case scenario.
maybe police officers should be taught that not every single black man is a possible suspect. police profiling in action.
[QUOTE=Van-man;42199405]They do (or atleast should) but if the suspect is suspected (hurr) of carrying a knife or worse, they don't know where it could be located on the person. And as such it's hard to judge which maneuver to use. Ideally the officers should've slowly retreated while yelling at the supposed perp to back-off and show that said person means no harm. But with the phonecall from the supposedly frantic lady that might've exaggerated or left out details, they can only assume, and they decided to assume the worst case scenario.[/QUOTE] Yeah, seems so. I find that using a gun seem like cheating a bit. You have 2 guys, that went through some police training, and it seems unlikely that they can't tackle a guy. Sure, there's a risk getting injured, but what the fuck did you expect when went to police academy. I'm also curious why only one of them had a tazer? Or 2nd officer thought holstering a gun and taking out a tazer will take too much time?
[QUOTE=thisispain;42199465]maybe police officers should be taught that not every single black man is a possible suspect. police profiling in action.[/QUOTE] maybe police offers shouldn't have guns so nobody would've been killed [editline]15th September 2013[/editline] as far as I'm concerned the officer is a murderer, if this happened in a country like the UK the officer would've had hand to hand training and would've known how to detain the guy, instead of just pulling out a pistol and shooting him dead on the spot
Black man runs up to cops in England. "oiwght m8 whats up"
and some of you argue that he might have had a knife? correct, he might, but surely one man being stabbed (in the UK he would've been wearing a stab proof vest too, so the likeliness of it causing any lasting damage is low) is better than an innocent man being killed
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;42199643]And if this had been a man with a knife?[/QUOTE] A police officer dies in the UK to a knife like once every 5-10 years. We actually train and equip ours.
I don't usually pipe up like this in threads about guns but I'm fucking sick of nutjob gun rights activists thinking it's ok that a man got killed like this. Like, there are people at the start of this thread saying "oh at least the officer was punished" the officer fucking killed a man, he should spend hard time in prison instead of getting off as lightly as he did.
[QUOTE=zerosix;42199625]maybe police offers shouldn't have guns so nobody would've been killed [/QUOTE] not reasonable in some parts of the US where the nature of crime is different in england you can get away with that because a lot of crime isnt firearm based
[QUOTE=thisispain;42199762]not reasonable in some parts of the US where the nature of crime is different in england you can get away with that because a lot of crime isnt firearm based[/QUOTE] exactly, it's a shame that america was built on guns I always find it hard to put into words, but, it's far too late to change any gun laws in america. Because so many americans already have guns and their main hobby is shooting guns (wtf kind of hobby is that lol) etc, nothing can really be done about it. [editline]15th September 2013[/editline] this is why I don't debate with people on FP I'm shit at constructing sentences
thats not really the issue, the issue is just too many guns, they become cheap and easy to get. people can have their guns and have their hobby be guns, its got nothing to do with gun crime afaik
[QUOTE=thisispain;42199800]thats not really the issue, the issue is just too many guns, they become cheap and easy to get. people can have their guns and have their hobby be guns, its got nothing to do with gun crime afaik[/QUOTE] but surely if the issue is too many guns, then the fact that people can have their guns and have their hobby as guns, actually does make it impact gun crime. Because they're the reason there are so many guns in the first place.
[QUOTE=maqzek;42199374]I have to agree with yawmen here, kinda. You do shoot to kill, else you don't shoot at all. I have to wonder if there was no other way to stop the 'suspect'. Shooting him should've been last resort, not 2nd after tazer malfunction. Do officers not get some sort of hand-to-hand combat training or anything?[/QUOTE] Getting in a physical fight with a suspect you know nothing about is the last situation you want to be in, there is very little control in the situation.
Fucking hell it seems at this point you need an extensive instruction manual telling you how [I]not[/I] to get shot and killed when approaching a US police officer
[QUOTE=maqzek;42199374] I have to wonder if there was no other way to stop the 'suspect'. Shooting him should've been last resort, not 2nd after tazer malfunction. Do officers not get some sort of hand-to-hand combat training or anything?[/QUOTE] Are you for real What do you think he's gonna do? Pull a roundhouse kick and put him in the dirt?
[QUOTE=demoguy08;42199974]Fucking hell it seems at this point you need an extensive instruction manual telling you how [I]not[/I] to get shot and killed when approaching a US police officer[/QUOTE] This man learned a lesson the hard way: [B]The police are not there to help you.[/B] They are not your friend. They are not on your side.
They should have shot towards him but not directly at him or even up in the air. If anyone in their right mind had a gun shot in their direction they'd simply STOP running. But nope. Headshot him straight away, right?
Aren't police meant to be trained to take down someone like this without deadly force, i know the tazer malfunctioned but what about warning/strafing shots?
[QUOTE=Source;42200364]Aren't police meant to be trained to take down someone like this without deadly force, i know the tazer malfunctioned but what about warning/strafing shots?[/QUOTE] If you shoot you shoot to kill. Stray bullets is not something we need even from a lower power handgun.
Yeah, they're shooting to neutralize the target, not to possibly scare him off. You can't take risks when lives are involved.
This never would of happened if the man had a gun
[quote] A charge of voluntary manslaughter means the person used excessive force in self-defense, or carried out the act without intent to kill.[/quote] All police officers are trained to only use their lethal weaponry with an intent to kill, thus this wouldn't be manslaughter.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;42200299]This man learned a lesson the hard way: [B]The police are not there to help you.[/B] They are not your friend. They are not on your side.[/QUOTE] The police are there to uphold the law. They fail miserably sometimes, very miserably. [editline]15th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;42199816]but surely if the issue is too many guns, then the fact that people can have their guns and have their hobby as guns, actually does make it impact gun crime. Because they're the reason there are so many guns in the first place.[/QUOTE] Actually, especially in Rural areas, cops are usually underarmed and overwhelmed so they can't really do anything. Same thing in really bad neighborhoods. And if you start arming or equipping your police officers with retired military gear, the public gets pissed.
[QUOTE=Source;42200364]Aren't police meant to be trained to take down someone like this without deadly force, i know the tazer malfunctioned but what about warning/strafing shots?[/QUOTE] No apparently American police are trained to kill anyone who could maybe possibly be even a minor threat.
[QUOTE=Crimor;42200791]All police officers are trained to only use their lethal weaponry with an intent to kill, thus this wouldn't be manslaughter.[/QUOTE] Or. He used excessive force in self defense. Seriously, it seems that people forget that or exists when trying to argue against something they are biased against. I'd say that the police officer is in the right, as they attempted to tase, but it malfunctioned. So since less lethal failed, switch to lethal. The person who died did not deserve it, just got in a really bad situation. [QUOTE=Scot;42201044]No apparently American police are trained to kill anyone who could maybe possibly be even a minor threat.[/QUOTE] Warning shots in a populated area can cause unrelated casualties and deaths, not good at all, shooting the ground in front of them can cause ricochets, which are more dangerous as they are still high velocity.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;42199887]Getting in a physical fight with a suspect you know nothing about is the last situation you want to be in, there is very little control in the situation.[/QUOTE] I would agree with you if the shooter wasn't an officer, but man, you are there to uphold the law, so at least take some risks. I doubt a non-officer would be able to shoot at suspicious guy and get of the hook easily. [QUOTE=DeEz;42200192]Are you for real What do you think he's gonna do? Pull a roundhouse kick and put him in the dirt?[/QUOTE] Yeah? I don't see why he couldn't. What are you gonna do if you see a guy running towards you and your pal? What if both of you have some boxing and/or fighting experience?
[QUOTE=deadoon;42201248]Warning shots in a populated area can cause unrelated casualties and deaths, not good at all, shooting the ground in front of them can cause ricochets, which are more dangerous as they are still high velocity.[/QUOTE] I know it's hard for you to understand, but there doesn't have to be any shooting involved
[QUOTE=deadoon;42201248]Or. He used excessive force in self defense. Seriously, it seems that people forget that or exists when trying to argue against something they are biased against. I'd say that the police officer is in the right, as they attempted to tase, but it malfunctioned. So since less lethal failed, switch to lethal. The person who died did not deserve it, just got in a really bad situation. Warning shots in a populated area can cause unrelated casualties and deaths, not good at all, shooting the ground in front of them can cause ricochets, which are more dangerous as they are still high velocity.[/QUOTE] Was it really self-defense?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.