*VIDEO* Man in America shot by police

Graphic and all that.

He was carrying a crowbar and went to supposedly hit one of the police officers, I suspect he was trying to keep them at a distance, but that got him shot multiple times point blank, I guess he though he was just going to get more pepper spray? Apparently not!

Oh well, have your field day TSR.



My only opinion is that he was given a LOT of bullets even when he was down and the officer firing was restraining a dog, those bullets can go anywhere, completely unprofessional and dumb, I ain't saying unnecessary.

How do you know? Are you trained in firearms use? were you close enough to judge distances and threats?

Love all the people saying "Oh, should have shot him in the arms and the legs." You try hitting a mobile target that small when adrenalin is rushing through your body. ****ing arm chair critics, the lot of you. The officers used non lethal methods, to no effect. A heavy metal pipe swung at the head can kill, and the officer was perfectly within his rights to shoot, and when you shoot you shoot to kill. None of this Hollywood shoot him in the leg *******s.

I find it amazing that some people on this thread even dare defending the policeman who killed this guy.


What did he do to deserve to die?


If all advanced countries manage to deal with these circumstances (see the video above with the british police) without killing anyone I don't see how you can justify this.

What does that make you
Oh, yeah, a hypocrite.

You know that a single bullet constitutes lethal force, right? So what does that make 10?
5 of them being with the guy already on the floor.

It's obvious to anyone with common sense that 10 bullets is completely over the top when the guy only had a spade or whatever. Assuming he did hit the officer, it most likely wouldn't have been life threatening, the officer would have been able to jump out of the way or block it. If the guy had a gun, it would be a different story.

Let's assume the first 5 bullets were necessary. Why would another 5 need to be fired when he's on the floor? What's he going to do on the floor without a gun?
Also, I could ask you exactly the same things you asked me, and get the same answers

Your missing the point, no one said he deserved to die and you can continue to argue that point to support your own conclusion as much as you like.

Well the American Police are armed unlike the Brits, they had their weapons drawn warned him, tazed him, he made a hostile action...

They get 2 seconds to make a decision, we get 6 months to tear it apart..

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

Shooting him 10 times seems reasonable?

I think they should have shot him in the arm or leg once.

How exactly is someone just shot going to be an immediate threat to the police? One shot is all it takes, not five.

They are the mafia. They can do what they like generally.

its america ... they taser 12year old girls in the street ... disgraceful police force.

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...

It's America.....

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

Lol at all the kids behind their computer screen who defend the use of violence.

The day you will be faced with a cop like this (for whatever reason) you will change your mind.

2-3 is standard training.

Yes, the Officer fired more than he reasonabley should have. Does that change his action? No. Does it make it the wrong action? No.

Yeah, and?
'Steve' isn't all knowing, I assume? Is it not open for discussion?

The side of a spade being swung at your head is life-threatening. Police officers aren't trained to block weapons and jump around, this isn't a kung fu movie. If you have guns pointed at you=, and you attack an officer, you should expect to get shot.

There is no reason at all that police should be expected to put their safety at increased risk to mitigate risk to an attacker, especially when he clearly has guns pointed at him and is being told to stop.