*VIDEO* Man in America shot by police

Originally Posted by Stevee
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

Did I say Stevee was all knowing or that this topic is not open for discussion? No, I did not; he provided a logical (and the most coherent post certainly in this thread by far) explanation of the police officers actions being justified, which you yourself have not been able to retort. Moreover, as this topic is open for discussion, I look forward to your point-by-point retort to his post

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.

Pretty damn obvious that they (cops) forgot to charge the taser when they were out on the beat.

But it's all OK now, one quick trip to the station and it'll be good as new.

Is anyone else not really at all phased by seeing that guy get shot to death, or is it just me? I'd like some reassurance I'm not a psychopath...

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.

Enjoy my single point.

Is anyone else not really at all phased by seeing that guy get shot to death, or is it just me? I'd like some reassurance I'm not a psychopath...

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

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

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

Ok so basically what your saying anyone carrying a weapon whether it's a bat shovel crobar, whatever we should (in England) call the armed police and get him gunned down right?

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.

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

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

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.