If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
A bit ott...... (Caution: Contains graphic video of police shooting suspect)
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I can't help thinking that if this were over here, shooting him wouldn't have even been on the table.
I know it appears he shrugged off the tazer, but don't US cops have batons? They certainly had a dog.....
I know it appears he shrugged off the tazer, but don't US cops have batons? They certainly had a dog.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY5ioBvrYIgBeep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
So, was it OTT he got shot ? No. You threaten an armed policeman with a weapon that can kill expect to get shot.
Except the reason they carry 9mil's and not something bigger is to injure a criminal so they can take him into custody - kind of hard if you empty your clip into him at close range.
Seems?! It definitely is.
I could understand them backing away and maybe giving a warning shot at the most, but that police officer just went overkill.
It was definitely OTT and would never happen here, I understand there's lots of guns in the USA, but I don't understand why their police think guns-drawn and shooting is the solution to everything, is it any wonder why 99% of police brutality stories come from there.
Yeah, this.
He went overboard, but if some guy went for me like that (either for real or threatening) I would go OHFUCK *pew pew pew*.
Obviously, the cop should have a bit more training and should have shown rather more restraint than I would have (one is enough, Mr. Policeman), but I don't think it was OTT to shoot the guy at all.
Did you watch the video ? The guy with the axe appears ready to swing at the cop. Probably 1-2 seconds before it's embedded in his skull. If i was that cop i wouldn't fuck about with a 'warning shot'.
You shoot to take someone down and continue to shoot until they are. If that'd be me I'd have shot him until he was on the floor and then added a couple more on the basis that better him than me.
You aim for the body mass. That's how ours is as well. It;s hard enough to hit that and virtually impossible to hit a moving limb. And you shoot until you're definite the threat is removed.
I have a slight expertise on the use of weapons and can tell you when the adrenalin is running, the person is moving and you got miliseconds to aim and pull you may be lucky to hit the person full-stop, never mind a small target such as limb.
However, it is also irrelevant as I'm willing to bet that they'll follow standard firearm training procedure and be taught to aim for the trunk and if they're really good and really lucky they'll hit it with enough bullets to take him down
I'm normally (for obvious reasons) pro-police action, I just can't help thinking though that on this occasion they could have just given him a sound thrashing with batons, or set the dog on him. I say that, because it's what would happen in the UK. If he was that dangerous, I also can't help thinking we wouldn't have let him get so close, not without a marksman with a rifle pointed at his chest.
You have marksmen on patrol with you? Or are you saying British police would let a potentially violent criminal wander around until they could get a marksman over?
We don't know the lead up - all we know is that (from one angle) it looks like he made a move with what looks like a pretty hefty bit of metal towards one officer and the other shot him (probably in the belief his partner was in danger and that he needed to act more quickly than the dog would be able to). We don't know why they didn't use tasers, but the fact they perhaps didn't have them equipped might be one possibility...
So, when the film starts, Matey is obviously already in the store and we have no idea on what has happened up until the point he walks outside. We can see though that there are a number of police outside so I'm guessing from this that he hadn't just been doing his shopping. We can also see a number of people nervous outside and the fact that someone is filming suggests that this isn't an instant thing.
He walks out 30 seconds into the film, carrying what looks like a fireman's style axe. He's obviously surrounded by armed policemen, all pointing weapons at him. It looks like a taser is used which has zero effect other than him taking a few more steps. He them turns on the policeman who fired it at him and raises his axe as if to strike. 46 seconds into the films he's shot.
I'm not a trained marksman but I've read enough testimony from those that are to know that when you shoot, you do so to put the assailant down. Not shoot once and see what happens next. You remove the threat.
I'm really not sure what else was expected of the police... it's hardly like they were sneaking up on him and shot him in the head a few times. It's not like he was unarmed. It's not like he hadn't threatened, with a deadly weapon, a police officer.
Sure in the UK we might have taken a different approach, but then Matey would have expected a different approach here. In the US he should well expect to be confronted by armed police. They don't need a marksman because there's a few armed officers there...
Looking at it again, it does seem, as Slarti says, they do Taser him (or at least shoot him with something that stings), which is when he turns and attacks the peeler.
The first peeler shoots and you can see the man turn away, if he is hit he's still on his feet. There is a very brief pause, and the man seems to be turning back and then the peeler shoots several times again.
You might question my efficacy with weapons, but I can tell you trying to hit a moving target is a lot harder than you think, when you've got adrenalin kicking in (and also note he's firing it one handed, which isn't an easy as commonly thought) and the training is to aim for the body mass, not the limb.
Also given that on the film you can see the chap still standing after the first five or six shots and then moves behind the car, you can see that pistols aren't always great at putting people down.
I don't claim any expertise with firearms, so you may well be right, but it smacks of something-not-quite-right if the weapon I'm given to defend myself as a police officer needs to be discharged ten times at all but point-blank range in order to be effective. Imagine the victim stumbles out not wielding an axe, but a fuck-off, large calibre, automatic gun. What then? And what if he's twenty feet away?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aydoEAggsVo
The reason why the first cop unloaded five rounds is he is holding a pistol with one hand, having had some experience with firearms, Pistols both in the UK but mostly in the USA it is very hard firing a pistol with recoil one handed.
Not sure if this will work but here
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150127341224463&set=vb.503064462&type=2&theater
I was firing in slower rate, but the actual recoil is easy to see, the gun climbs quite a lot per round.
I dont think it is the same police who unloads the other five, gun report sounds very different, second shooter maybe
Anyway, the police officer in my opinion was WELL within his right, it is no where near OTT in the shooting. the assailant was close, split second reactions, it is a justified shooting.
In my personal opinion, that was a "great" shooting, no police officers were harmed, no one obviously seriously injured except an assailant who in my opinion deserves it.
It's just like the time Jean Charles was shot on the London underground, people thought it was horrific that he had been shot a number of times, yet im pretty sure that the first round to the head would have sorted him out anyway. Yes they got the wrong guy, but that was higher ups fault, guys were dealing with the situation as they saw it on the ground.
Same as in this case, the first few rounds didnt get the guy so he kept on going. I would also like to know how many people in this thread have fired a handgun single handedly and in that close quarters situation. Sometimes it is very hard to let off one round, stop, see if you're safe, then consider another round if necessarily.
Remember, a guns primary function is to seriously wound or kill, 1 single round should always be 1 round too many. Never mind 9.
He's not getting up and trying to run towards them
I don't care who they are or who he is, but that comes across as very wrong
And they stand around and do nothing, no attempt at first aid or anything. They don't even look concerned. They stand around as if nothing happened..