*VIDEO* Man in America shot by police

My only opinion is that he was given a LOT of bullets even when he was down

You shoot until you are certain the guy is not gonna get back up. Might seem like overkill, but if you are the police officer whose life is at stake then it makes sense.

Meanwhile in Britain:



I feel an appropriate police response lies somewhere between these two poles.

He went towards an officer with a weapon, the other officer responded to protect the first. Seems reasonable enough to me.

He sure as hell isn't going to threaten another officer.

I wondered if this would make it here.

So there's a few things to point out.

Firstly, in that video you can see the Police taser the man. They Taser him, and it has no effect. They clearly try to use non-lethal force first.

The man is repeatedly told to drop the weapon, he does not, instead he moves to swing what is a large metal pole or hammer at a Police Officer. At this point, the other Police Officer is perfectly within his right to use lethal force to stop the criminal. Because that criminal is using lethal force at this point.

Now, as for the amount of shots fired. First of all, you should all be told, this isn't a film. In real life, Police do not shoot for the legs or arms. They aim for centre mass. For two reasons. Firstly, aiming for an arm or leg means a high chance of missing, which means that bullet has to go somewhere, possibly harming an innocent bystander. Secondly, the notion that shooting someone in the arm or leg is less dangerous than shooting the centre mass is false. It is just as deadly. When Police, especially Police in countries where they are all armed shoot, they shoot to kill. They are trained to neutralise the threat. That is why most often you will see multiple officers firing, or a single officer firing at least 2 or 3 shots. This is because under the influence of Adrenaline, a single, or even two or three 9mm rounds will not stop a full grown man, unless they sever certain arteries or nerves. It is a principle of protecting themselves and the public. If you are in a situation where you have had to use deadly force, then you, or bystanders, have been threatened with deadly force.

So let's put this into context. A criminal has been threateneing people with a lethal weapon. He has been told to put it down, by armed Police. He has refused to comply. The Police have tried to use non-lethal methods to supress him, and it has not worked. The criminal then swings a possibly leathal weapon at your fellow officer, who cannot protect himself. What do you do? Personally, I would shoot that man, I would follow my training and put 3 shots to centre mass. I would not allow my fellow officer to smacked in the head with a metal pipe, because hey, a pipe's not a gun.

That Officer followed his training and was in the right. Though the way people on this thread are talking, it would seem lethal force is only justified if the criminal has already killed someone

That officer should definitely get some kind of discipline.
The person didn't pose an immediate threat (he didn't have a gun or anything), all they needed to do was knock him off balance or stop him advancing on the other police officer, so one bullet would have completely been enough.
I guess police officers relish the opportunity to use their guns

I wondered if this would make it here.

So there's a few things to point out.

Firstly, in that video you can see the Police taser the man. They Taser him, and it has no effect. They clearly try to use non-lethal force first.

The man is repeatedly told to drop the weapon, he does not, instead he moves to swing what is a large metal pole or hammer at a Police Officer. At this point, the other Police Officer is perfectly within his right to use lethal force to stop the criminal. Because that criminal is using lethal force at this point.

Now, as for the amount of shots fired. First of all, you should all be told, this isn't a film. In real life, Police do not shoot for the legs or arms. They aim for centre mass. For two reasons. Firstly, aiming for an arm or leg means a high chance of missing, which means that bullet has to go somewhere, possibly harming an innocent bystander. Secondly, the notion that shooting someone in the arm or leg is less dangerous than shooting the centre mass is false. It is just as deadly. When Police, especially Police in countries where they are all armed shoot, they shoot to kill. They are trained to neutralise the threat. That is why most often you will see multiple officers firing, or a single officer firing at least 2 or 3 shots. This is because under the influence of Adrenaline, a single, or even two or three 9mm rounds will not stop a full grown man, unless they sever certain arteries or nerves. It is a principle of protecting themselves and the public. If you are in a situation where you have had to use deadly force, then you, or bystanders, have been threatened with deadly force.

So let's put this into context. A criminal has been threateneing people with a lethal weapon. He has been told to put it down, by armed Police. He has refused to comply. The Police have tried to use non-lethal methods to supress him, and it has not worked. The criminal then swings a possibly leathal weapon at your fellow officer, who cannot protect himself. What do you do? Personally, I would shoot that man, I would follow my training and put 3 shots to centre mass. I would not allow my fellow officer to smacked in the head with a metal pipe, because hey, a pipe's not a gun.

That Officer followed his training and was in the right. Though the way people on this thread are talking, it would seem lethal force is only justified if the criminal has already killed someone

guy is armed with a metal bar and you gave a gun, your obviously going to win. So unneeded, you should not shoot an unarmed man, if he had a gun then ok. Plus if you HAD to shoot, take out his legs, you wouldnt empty the whole round in his upper body :/
But then again, its america, you wouldn't expect common sense from them...