The American Police

Those cops were on point. They didn't instantly shoot, they bagged first, the only failure I see is their weapon handling (or lack thereof).

Poor woman, hopefully wherever she is now she can move freely.

I wouldn't say it was their weapon handling that got her shot, but their inability to use tactics other than shouting and shooting. The officer who's perspective we're seeing was the only one with a remotely clear shot at the guy yet they all decided multiple shots were an appropriate response. The outcome can't have been a surprise to any of them.

Lethal force is entirely justified when dealing with someone armed with a knife, but as EVH said they forced that situation to rapidly escalate and clearly had no plan for how to deal with it once they pushed him back.
 
This is the problem with guns for everyone. Anyone could have a gun on them and you can't take the chance, so legal force is permanently authorized and everyone is on edge. But these guys are super morons, you can't just pepper someone hiding behind a human shield.

Why not just shoot him in the leg to incapacitate him when it’s clear he isn’t cooperating?

Weirdly, if it's the same as in the UK. Purposely shooting to maim isn't allowed O_o
 
I was always under the impression that the non-lethal round hurt like buggery but that bloke hardly flinched, or did the officer miss?

Either way roflplod
 
Good chance the guy was drugged up or drunk, or mentally ill, hence didn't feel the bean bag. Does that change anything or does that come under personal responsibility. You could argue non compliance through diminished responsibility on the grounds of intoxication.

Jeez I am becoming a lawyer.
 
It’s better than what they actually did though. Shoot to kill seems much worse to me.

Why is it better?

Police don't generally intend to kill per say but stop. They aim to achieve this by shooting at the torso as it presents a large target.
 
...and they still telling him to drop the knife when he's on the floor!

They escalated that situation by moving towards him fast. I dont understand why they didnt taze and then run at him.

The US cops seem to have very little unarmed combat training.
 
It’s better than what they actually did though. Shoot to kill seems much worse to me.

Because actually hitting someone with a pistol is quite hard, not like in an FPS game where you can pick them off from 100ft away. Chances are you will miss and not stop them and have bullets flying all over the place.
 
Interesting to remember that in the US the police have no constitutional duty to protect the public. They are there to act as a deterrent toward criminals.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

In the UK it is similar but seems to be a bit of a grey area.

https://www.quora.com/In-the-UK-are-the-police-legally-obliged-to-protect-you

So yet more disinformation out there.

Initially the powers that be saw the idea of a permanent police force as abhorrent and as a standing army. This really explains the gun culture in America, you were encouraged to protect yourself and even hunt down criminals.
 
Because actually hitting someone with a pistol is quite hard, not like in an FPS game where you can pick them off from 100ft away. Chances are you will miss and not stop them and have bullets flying all over the place.

Even more so in some states where the police have ridiculous trigger pulls mandated. I know the NYPD have 12lb triggers, which is ******* insane.
 
This really explains the gun culture in America, you were encouraged to protect yourself and even hunt down criminals.

Look up Joe Horn (there's a great 911 call recording of the incident) for an example of an American doing his civic duty by hunting down criminals.

I, personally, do not trust the US police in any capacity, and they are one of the main reasons I'll never visit the US. The case of John Lang is a very sad example of police in the US committing murder and getting away with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom