[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Some saw a crowbar, you saw an axe.
[/quote]
Well I call it a kaiser blade. Some folks call it a sling blade.
Hrrrmm
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]andy1977 wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
It was a bit difficult to see what was going on what with all that rain on the window (couldn’t those dopes have opened the window first?).
But it didn’t appear that the suspect posed an immediate threat that warranted multiple fatal shots.[/quote]
Agreed. It’s never a good idea to get that close to someone who looks pissed and has a crowbar, baseball bat, etc. Most people severely underestimate how quickly they can get seriously hurt or killed by a person with a weapon of that density and length. If he’d have thrown the bar instead of pretending like he was going to hit the cop, there is no way the cop could have moved out of the way. Sure, the other cops would have gunned the guy down, but not before their co-worker got blasted by a deadly weapon.[/quote]
It was actually a fireaxe.[/quote]
Fair enough. Some videos and pictures aren’t clear on my shitty screen. It’s still a bad idea to get that close to someone with a weapon of that magnitude, and as someone else pointed out, it’s not smart to take your eyes off anyone who’s clearly ticked off and has a deadly weapon in their hand.
[quote]johnman18 wrote:
This is why I have a big smile on my face every time a cop is killed. FUCK THE POLICE YOU BITCH ASS PIGS!![/quote]
your a turd. nuff said there, moving on.
btw was that a tazer or pepper spray they hit him with…not that it matters it just looked more like pepper spray to me.
They shot him way too many times. Then again thats one less shithead using up my air.
[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
Didn’t see the need for the second cop to fire after he’d already been shot 5 times.
Then again thats one less shithead using up my air.[/quote]
What if he was just offering the axe to the cop as a gift?
See, that is why they teach “handles first”.
A case study in why cops need to be better trained in firearm usage. That said the guy definitely deserved to get shot…wielding a crowbar? really?
He definitely continued firing after the guy was going down though. Probably panicked.
So they would rather shoot to kill rather than incapacitate?
[quote]Dijon wrote:
So they would rather shoot to kill rather than incapacitate?[/quote]
There is no other way to shoot. You shoot to kill. Period. Anyone who thinks that shooting to incapacitate is even a possibility has watched way too many hollywood action flicks.
[quote]vali wrote:
A case study in why cops need to be better trained in firearm usage. That said the guy definitely deserved to get shot…wielding a crowbar? really?
He definitely continued firing after the guy was going down though. Probably panicked. [/quote]
Where do you see a problem with their firearm usage? Once the decision to fire is made, you shoot as many times as it takes until they drop. A common school of thought in home defense is that you unload your entire magazine into the intruder so there is no possibility of having your own weapon used against you. With a lot of 9mm guns, that means firing 19 or 20 times. The attacker can’t even be seen during the second round of fire, so he very well could have been attempting to come up with a weapon still in his hand.
I see an officer making a one handed shot while holding the leash of his k-9. No panicking there.
[quote]borrek wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
So they would rather shoot to kill rather than incapacitate?[/quote]
There is no other way to shoot. You shoot to kill. Period. Anyone who thinks that shooting to incapacitate is even a possibility has watched way too many hollywood action flicks.[/quote]
Why is shooting to incapacitate an impossibility? Can you explain this or do you just want to make a baseless declaration?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
However I would think a well trained police officer would have a better grasp of the situation. Did he really need to unload 5 shots point blank to the chest?
[/quote]
Have you ever been in a position where you have to shoot someone?
I have, and you are a fucking moron who watches too many cops shows on TV.
Go learn about what a pistol round does, and does not, do, and then post.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
So they would rather shoot to kill rather than incapacitate?[/quote]
There is no other way to shoot. You shoot to kill. Period. Anyone who thinks that shooting to incapacitate is even a possibility has watched way too many hollywood action flicks.[/quote]
Why is shooting to incapacitate an impossibility? Can you explain this or do you just want to make a baseless declaration?[/quote]
uhhhh…cause that’s what guns are for. the pepper spray or a tazer would be used to incapacitate. A firearm is a lethal option…lethal. They attempted to incapacitate with the non lethal option, that didn’t work.
[quote]johnman18 wrote:
This is why I have a big smile on my face every time a cop is killed. FUCK THE POLICE YOU BITCH ASS PIGS!![/quote]
If you feel that strongly about it, you need to put those words on a bumper sticker. Or, are you just a tough guy on the internets?
[quote]gonepostal wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
So they would rather shoot to kill rather than incapacitate?[/quote]
There is no other way to shoot. You shoot to kill. Period. Anyone who thinks that shooting to incapacitate is even a possibility has watched way too many hollywood action flicks.[/quote]
Why is shooting to incapacitate an impossibility? Can you explain this or do you just want to make a baseless declaration?[/quote]
uhhhh…cause that’s what guns are for. the pepper spray or a tazer would be used to incapacitate. A firearm is a lethal option…lethal. They attempted to incapacitate with the non lethal option, that didn’t work.
[/quote]
A firearm is only lethal as a result of the trauma it inflicts; not all trauma needs to be fatal. The label of lethal vs. non-lethal only refers to the tendency of a weapon’s function. You can’t kill someone with a tonfa, taser, or pepper spray?
[quote]gonepostal wrote:
At that point I don’t think he was trying to get him to comply. You shoot a guy to kill him not to subdue him.[/quote]
No, you shoot to STOP THE THREAT. That often takes more than eventually killing someone.
Look, pistol rounds make people bleed, pretty much no matter what the round. The impact is about the same as a tap with a fist.
You also have no fucking idea if you hit the guy, so you keep shooting.
REPEAT: you have no fucking idea if you hit the guy, so you keep shooting.
It’s not a video game. In combat, an experienced shooter hits less than 30% of the time.
So 10 shot = 3.3 hits, for a good shooter.
This means, you get very, very lucky, you pretty much need to empty your magazine into someone to get them to STOP ATTACKING for the next minute or so.
Rifle rounds are distinct from this (accuracy is about the same), but you can knock someone down with a single rifle round because you get actual impact damage (the round is going faster and is generally larger).
That said, I personally shot a guy, center mass, with my M4 well within combat range 10-15 times — out of probably 20 rounds fired. Just kept going in-and-out. Yeah, he was a dead man, but he was a dead man still firing a machine gun.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
Why is shooting to incapacitate an impossibility? Can you explain this or do you just want to make a baseless declaration?[/quote]
Um, because your lucky to hit center mass 30% of the time in combat?
Because, unlike video games, there is no little indicator going “good hit!” No blood, no gore, no nothing. In fact, you have no fucking idea if you hit the haji?
Because there is no real way to “incapacitate” a person with a pistol, other than blowing a hole in them?
Seriously, unless you’ve been in a combat situation STFU.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
So they would rather shoot to kill rather than incapacitate?[/quote]
There is no other way to shoot. You shoot to kill. Period. Anyone who thinks that shooting to incapacitate is even a possibility has watched way too many hollywood action flicks.[/quote]
Why is shooting to incapacitate an impossibility? Can you explain this or do you just want to make a baseless declaration?[/quote]
It is impossible to know what will incapacitate someone. The guy may be on drugs and not feeling pain. Should they have tried to shoot him in the knee cap? In all seriousness, have you ever shot a gun? Could you hit a moving 3" circle while you yourself are moving, in the fraction of a second it takes to finish that axe swing? If you could, can you guarantee that the dude wouldn’t be able to still finish that swing and kill your partner? This guy was still moving after one shot to the chest. Still moving after two. It took 5 to get him down, and I’m supposed to believe that some trick shot should be standard operating procedure?
If someone wants a long life, don’t swing deadly objects at police officers.
[quote]borrek wrote:
It is impossible to know what will incapacitate someone. The guy may be on drugs and not feeling pain. Should they have tried to shoot him in the knee cap? In all seriousness, have you ever shot a gun? Could you hit a moving 3" circle while you yourself are moving, in the fraction of a second it takes to finish that axe swing? If you could, can you guarantee that the dude wouldn’t be able to still finish that swing and kill your partner? This guy was still moving after one shot to the chest. Still moving after two. It took 5 to get him down, and I’m supposed to believe that some trick shot should be standard operating procedure?
If someone wants a long life, don’t swing deadly objects at police officers.[/quote]
This only explains the some of the difficult of incapacitation, but doesn’t make it impossible. Not feeling pain doesn’t override anatomical failure. If police wanted to make non-lethality THE goal, they could, but it would take more training. Wouldn’t it be better if someone wasn’t dead?
Of course he was moving after one shot to the “chest”, why would that stop anyone in the fraction of a second between shots?
[quote]Dijon wrote:
[quote]borrek wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
So they would rather shoot to kill rather than incapacitate?[/quote]
There is no other way to shoot. You shoot to kill. Period. Anyone who thinks that shooting to incapacitate is even a possibility has watched way too many hollywood action flicks.[/quote]
Why is shooting to incapacitate an impossibility? Can you explain this or do you just want to make a baseless declaration?[/quote]
You don’t respond to a threat with a lower level of force, you exceed it. Guy with the axe was using deadly force. It was the appropriate response.
Cops are not allowed to shoot to wound because it’s ridiculous. Where do you shoot a guy knowing that you won’t kill him? If a cop shoots someone, it’s because someone was using or was intending to use lethal force. If you shoot the guy and he ends up pulling through, great. If not, well you were fully prepared for that and even though it wasn’t the desired outcome, it was fully justified and acceptable.
What if you meant to wound him, but he ended up dying? This is what makes the Taser so controversial. It’s meant to be a non-lethal tool used in situations where lethal force isn’t quite necessary but may be warranted. Unfortunately, some people are dying from it.
Oh, yes. The good old M4. A muzzle velocity of 3,100 feet per second doesn’t amount to a whole lot with 5.56 mm rounds.