Xilo Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 So "deploy them in pairs" when 8 cops cant even take down one person on PCP? You amaze me with some of your replies on this forum. EDIT: Then again all of you overseas amaze me with your replies. You take every effort you can to bash the US in one way or another. I find it funny. Its almost like your jealous that you don't live here. We all know that's all it is anyways. That's UKers for you. If you notice, the US members very rarely bash anything from other countries on this forum unless it was responding to a directed statement. Meanwhile, all the UK members on this forum CONSTANTLY bash the US for every opportunity they can. Most of their arguments are also completely illogical. I'm honestly pretty ****ing sick of it. king_of_hearts 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Easy to bash something as stupid and backassward as most American ways. I am an American, and I think we need as much bashing as it takes to open the eyes of most of the retarded people in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaP Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 And dealing with him one-on-one is just a no-go.. But why the police officer was alone ? Here they always work in a duo. I don't recall seeing a police officer alone ever in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaP Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 [/color] Being prior service USMC I would agree shooting first and asking questions later is safer for P.D, but if you see the pics of this guy he isn't buff by any standards. He could have easily had his partner behind him with his sidearm out and the cop in front pulls out his tazer and try to detain the suspect that way. Yeah but the job of a police officer is to protect people. In this case "people" were the guy who got killed. It's not a case of a cop who killed a criminal. It's a kid who lost it for one night. It happened to a lot of people when they were young. There's a risk at being a police officier. If one can't accept this risk then it's not a job for him or her. It's a case imo where the policer officer should have called backup and try to handle the situation while waiting for his partners to help. I don't think the police officer should be charged. But he certainly should lose his job as it's not a job for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerowen Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 LETHAL FORCE. Read my god damn post :p I have no problem with officers knocking someone out, spraying them, etc. Shooting an unarmed person dead is beyond ridiculous, high or not. Depending on the drug, sometimes perps fail to respond to non-lethal means of defense. I've seen people high on some of the crazy stuff take several bullets from 9mm pistols before they went down because their body was in overdrive and didn't respond until they lost too much blood for their brain to continue functioning. I'm not saying police should instantly resort to shooting everybody, but I do believe they should be armed, and if they legitimately feel that their life is in danger and that non-lethal forms of defense won't suffice (such as if the officer is being threatened with a gun and the suspect is too far away to hit with pepper spray, or if pepper spray has already failed to incapacitate the suspect), then I have no problem with them being authorized to use lethal force. Every human being, regardless if they are a police officer or not, has an innate right to defend themselves, their family and their property using whatever means they have available. I would never ask a police officer to give up that right just because they wear a uniform. Routerbad 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Drugs can sometimes render people insensible to pain, tasers however are designed to deliver enough current and voltage to temporarily disrupt the function of someone's muscles. No amount of drugs would make you insensible to being tasered because it doesn't work by delivering pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Routerbad Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Umm, so officers only have gun training in the movies? Of course this is real life and not some d**n game. He had the opportunity to shoot somewhere else besides the chest, period. You have obviously never fired at a moving target. It's not just hard, it's nearly impossible, especially with a subject moving erratically. Easy to bash something as stupid and backassward as most American ways. I am an American, and I think we need as much bashing as it takes to open the eyes of most of the retarded people in this country. If you find yourself agreeing with Europeans all the time regarding American thinking or principles, please feel free to exit the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Routerbad Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Police officers are trained to deal with strong, violent men. They carry tasers, pepper spray, batons, and usually work in at least pairs. They could send a riot cop with a shield. One rampaging man is nothing compared to a riot, even if he is high. Guns aren't the answer to everything and there's something seriously warped with that opinion. Kinda hard to call in riot police in the middle of the night for one perp. Taser may not have worked, but he should have properly escalated force rather than jump straight to deadly force. You can always draw a weapon while the taser is holding him still before the charge runs out. It would also give the officer time to think more about the situation, or call in backup, which should have been fairly close on campus. Don't they have sonic weapons or non-lethal rubberized bullets for these situations? Ears bleeding would have been better than dead. Cracked rib from a NL round would have been better as well. My point is he should have at least exhausted all of the non lethal means at his disposal before even drawing his sidearm. I don't like it when people make excuses for bad decisions where a life is the price. It doesn't matter if none of it worked, he needed to try it. They have a responsibility to protect life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDboyz Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I think you are wrong on that. There are several more vids on the issue that people on drug resisted tasers. Drugs can sometimes render people insensible to pain, tasers however are designed to deliver enough current and voltage to temporarily disrupt the function of someone's muscles. No amount of drugs would make you insensible to being tasered because it doesn't work by delivering pain. dead.cell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 You have obviously never fired at a moving target. It's not just hard, it's nearly impossible, especially with a subject moving erratically. If you find yourself agreeing with Europeans all the time regarding American thinking or principles, please feel free to exit the country. Na, I wont leave the country. I'll just continue to point out flaws and try to fix the one I'm in. Apparently you don't like the truth. If most of the world can see it, and you can't...... who do you think is viewing things wrong? It's not the rest of the world, I'll give you that hint. If you take offense to it, it's mostly likely because it resembles you in some form. Shooting at a moving target is not hard for a trained professional. Especially when they are within a certian range. We have to agree on something, Either cops are trained professionals, or they are just stupid people with guns and power.... which is it? And who cares how drugs affect people. We should be commenting on the actions done by the officers. So we have to agree now, When a cop sees someone who is high on whatever, are we going to say they should try and protect that individual in anyway, or just allow the cop to shoot the individual to protect themselves? I'd opt in for the former, as it is the more humane and right way to do something. You don't take the job as a cop to protect yourself first... if so, you are in the wrong business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 So "deploy them in pairs" when 8 cops cant even take down one person on PCP? You amaze me with some of your replies on this forum. EDIT: Then again all of you overseas amaze me with your replies. You take every effort you can to bash the US in one way or another. I find it funny. Its almost like your jealous that you don't live here. We all know that's all it is anyways. That's UKers for you. If you notice, the US members very rarely bash anything from other countries on this forum unless it was responding to a directed statement. Meanwhile, all the UK members on this forum CONSTANTLY bash the US for every opportunity they can. Most of their arguments are also completely illogical. I'm honestly pretty ****ing sick of it. Guys it's nothing to do with America; it's how this particular officer handled the situation that I don't think is right. It wouldn't matter where in the world it was, it just so happened to be in America. The victim was unarmed in this case. There were a number of things the officer could have done before resorting to shooting him. All I was saying is that if this had happened in the UK, it's highly probable that nobody would have died. Police officers are not usually killed by unarmed drug users. Depending on the drug, sometimes perps fail to respond to non-lethal means of defense. I've seen people high on some of the crazy stuff take several bullets from 9mm pistols before they went down because their body was in overdrive and didn't respond until they lost too much blood for their brain to continue functioning. I'm not saying police should instantly resort to shooting everybody, but I do believe they should be armed, and if they legitimately feel that their life is in danger and that non-lethal forms of defense won't suffice (such as if the officer is being threatened with a gun and the suspect is too far away to hit with pepper spray, or if pepper spray has already failed to incapacitate the suspect), then I have no problem with them being authorized to use lethal force. Every human being, regardless if they are a police officer or not, has an innate right to defend themselves, their family and their property using whatever means they have available. I would never ask a police officer to give up that right just because they wear a uniform. The officer didn't exhaust his options though, he just said "stop" a few times and then shot. He made a grave error in judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 So "deploy them in pairs" when 8 cops cant even take down one person on PCP? You amaze me with some of your replies on this forum. EDIT: Then again all of you overseas amaze me with your replies. You take every effort you can to bash the US in one way or another. I find it funny. Its almost like your jealous that you don't live here. We all know that's all it is anyways. Maybe it's just that we find your responses to be surprising, and in stark contrast to our own, so it generates discussion? There is no need to try and put some kind of "my country is better than yours" spin on things. Here are some interesting points though, since you brought up the United Kingdom: UK Citizens are considerably more likely to take narcotics on a regular basis than Americans Members of the UK police force do not carry guns, excluding select groups from specific inner-city constabularies and armed response units The mortality rate is lower in the UK police force than in the American police force So if it is impractical to respond to a suspect who may or may not be on drugs, why are there not more police fatalities in the UK? After all, they do not have lethal weapons with which to defend themselves and narcotics are far more commonplace. I also think it's important to note that, from what I've gathered, there is no evidence that this individual was actually on drugs. We also have a pretty limited and (possibly) biased view of events running up to the shooting, conclusions are probably at this point somewhat useless until more evidence and a report on the individuals blood work/background/mental state have been analysed and released to the public. ZakO and Ambroos 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts