He sent a letter to the cop that shot him, thanking him for saving his life in the end.
American Cops Doing What They Do Best
- Thread starter DatIrishFella
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
If he managed to get hold of the gun in all of that, they had to shoot him. That's all I'm saying.
Whether that happened by their incompetence, and whether they should get any penalty for that incompetence, it's another matter entirely. I'm just saying that if there's a time when I can understand a police officer using deadly force is when his life is in peril. And obviously it is, if a criminal they're restraining reaches and gets a hold of their gun.
Alleged criminal.
Correct. But I suppose when he's trying to grab a lethal weapon that consideration becomes meaningless.
I don't know.
My bad. Always assumed it's a dangerous job, but really don't know how it fares in comparison with "our" cops.Surely the issue her eis that Americna police increasingly seem to make the 'decision to shoot' far too quickly. I mean the fact that this stuff seems to make the news once a week in America, whilst being relatively unheard of in about 300 of the world's other countries suggests there's an obvious issue.
I just feel that a lot of these cops in America really don't care if they take someone else's life. It should be an absolute last resort, not a plan B.
Surely the issue her eis that Americna police increasingly seem to make the 'decision to shoot' far too quickly. I mean the fact that this stuff seems to make the news once a week in America, whilst being relatively unheard of in about 300 of the world's other countries suggests there's an obvious issue.
I just feel that a lot of these cops in America really don't care if they take someone else's life. It should be an absolute last resort, not a plan B.
Oh I agree with you. I just remember hearing someone from an armed response squad in the UK talking about their training. Firing their gun is always an absolute last resort but if they do need to shoot they aim at a part of the body they definitely won't miss. They're extremely highly trained, though and wouldn't be given a gun without passing all sorts of rigrorous tests. I get the impression American cops get given a gun just for turning up to work.
Yeah, I've heard that yearly firearms qualification requires only 50 shots in most jurisdictions. That's shocking.
Smashed's graphic ignores a crucial point, what is actually beyond the target. It appears the German cop can afford to take the lower percentage shot and miss, if the American cops miss, random bystanders get shot.
12 bullets seems a bit excessive though? Surely one bullet could subdue the fella and an ambulance could be called?
This is by no means a direct attack at you Pogue but hindsight is all good and well. Cops, whether American, British, French or wherever else have split seconds to make potential life changing decisions. The media and everyone else can pick apart in details everything that happens but ultimately the Police are human beings not robots and the decisions they make they have to live with for the good or bad.
Surely the issue her eis that Americna police increasingly seem to make the 'decision to shoot' far too quickly. I mean the fact that this stuff seems to make the news once a week in America, whilst being relatively unheard of in about 300 of the world's other countries suggests there's an obvious issue.
I just feel that a lot of these cops in America really don't care if they take someone else's life. It should be an absolute last resort, not a plan B.
Or you could have included the UK where the cops often tackle people with knives with little more than there hands, a baton and CS spray !
For sure. Was being glib and the French cop was obviously well-intentioned and got a great outcome, so good on him.
Allegedly tried to grab the gun. During/just after being tasered.
Lets assume his innocence eh?
All my posts on this subject have been in the realm of "what if". My assumption has always been one that he's guilty of that, not because I think he is, but because that's the only scenario where my reasoning applies.
Anyway, if we assume his innocence we have to assume the cops guilty. I don't see why one assumption of guilt is any worse than the other. In fact, to assume the homeless innocent you have to assume several cops guilty, so for an economy of guilt, the other way around is the better option.
A fair point about the cops, i guess we will have to wait and see if the truth is revealed. I may be biased given some of the recent policing incidents.All my posts on this subject have been in the realm of "what if". My assumption has always been one that he's guilty of that, not because I think he is, but because that's the only scenario where my reasoning applies.
Anyway, if we assume his innocence we have to assume the cops guilty. I don't see why one assumption of guilt is any worse than the other. In fact, to assume the homeless innocent you have to assume several cops guilty, so for an economy of guilt, it's the better option
RE: the suicide man saved by police gunshot to the leg.
On one hand, the man may get mental health treatment and carry on with his life, and perhaps his family is temporarily relieved of whatever hell he has caused them.
On the other hand, if one feels life has lost hope, why not let him/her go?
On one hand, the man may get mental health treatment and carry on with his life, and perhaps his family is temporarily relieved of whatever hell he has caused them.
On the other hand, if one feels life has lost hope, why not let him/her go?
I'm fairly certain the K9 would have ended that incident before the man had a chance to grab/hoist a weapon.
There was an incident not to long ago, in NYC, where cops fired at a perpetrator, missed, and hit a civilian or two.
Surely the issue her eis that Americna police increasingly seem to make the 'decision to shoot' far too quickly. I mean the fact that this stuff seems to make the news once a week in America, whilst being relatively unheard of in about 300 of the world's other countries suggests there's an obvious issue.
I just feel that a lot of these cops in America really don't care if they take someone else's life. It should be an absolute last resort, not a plan B.
12 bullets? Agains a Kitchen knife? And they're supposed to be trained in martial arts or something?
fecking useless cops
I remember that, didn't a few bullets go through even though they're designed not to? Could have imagined that last bit but I definitely remember some public getting hit when they started firing on a busy street.
Not sure that argument holds up. 12 shots above waist height with many bystanders is risky. 1 shot is 12 times less risky. Not a gun person at all so naive question... What happens if from say 10ft a shot is fired at a leg (I.e. low) and misses hitting the road. Does the bullet travel 50 or more feet into the crowd?
That's a very interesting question. When I have time I may look into it. Its always stated but I've never seen actual figures. There's some surprisingly dangerous jobs aside from policing.
Problem is they take non carriers with them.
Surely the issue her eis that Americna police increasingly seem to make the 'decision to shoot' far too quickly. I mean the fact that this stuff seems to make the news once a week in America, whilst being relatively unheard of in about 300 of the world's other countries suggests there's an obvious issue.
I just feel that a lot of these cops in America really don't care if they take someone else's life. It should be an absolute last resort, not a plan B.
When you have an armed society as the US does, the risk calculus for cops changes dramatically. Each encounter with a potential criminal then becomes an existential threat which often legitimizes the mentality of using deadly force.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america.htm
1. Logger
2. Pilot
3. Fisher
4. Iron/Steel Worker
5. Garbage Collector
6. Farmer/Rancher
7. Roofer
8. Electrical Power Installer/Repairer
9. Sales, Delivery, and Other Truck Driver
10. Taxi Driver/Chauffeu
No stats there whatsoever so I won't trust it just yet. One that doesn't make the list but should is meat industry. Not too many deaths but huge number of severe injuries that never go reported for various reasons.
Garbage collecting-America's secret killer
You can't really argue with ballistics. A standard police issue 9mm round travels at about 1200 feet per second when it exits the barrel. Any fast moving projectile impacting a hard surface will ricochet and can end up anywhere. Even water can cause ricochets. This makes such a shot risky because you need to be sure of your target and what's behind it for every shot you take.
So 12 shots? And in the other video with nobody behind why not one to the leg, if miss try again.
With respect to the 12 shots, They would have aimed at centre mass, it's a high percentage shot that poses minimal danger. If they shot at his legs it's a low percentage shot and they are more likely to miss, which is a unacceptable risk.
In the video there are vehicles parked and moving in their sight picture. They may look far away but again the potential for injury or death to bystanders is too much of a risk.
Here's a video to exemplify just how crazy ricochet can be. Granted it's an AR10 (7.62 NATO) which has a lot more muzzle velocity, more than twice as much as a 9mm handgun, but it clearly shows what can happen to rounds that do not hit their intended target. What's really crazy is that it looks like a relatively soft hillside is causing the ricochet. Say what you will about Police conduct in these examples but at least they aren't going full cowboy and recklessly endangering everyone.
So presumably the human body can do the same?
I'm not disagreeing with your premise that aiming for the torso is marginally safer than aiming for a limb but if their main priority was the safety of bystanders in that particular clip they'd have been a lot slower to shoot at all and wouldn't have fired 12 times.
Generally, we're a soft target that lacks sufficient surface tension to cause an immediate ricochet, unlike a body of water. That said, bullets often hit bone and ricochet but by then they've used up a lot of energy getting in and there's usually not enough left to get very far after.
The premise is simple. A torso is a much larger target and therefore it is more likely that a shot aimed at the torso will hit the torso versus aiming and firing at a limb. Firearms training at any level instructs shooters to be sure of their target and beyond before shooting. For sure, these incidents are dangerous to bystanders but if the cops have decided to shoot, they're going to shoot at a target they are more likely to hit.
Stop discussing whether to shoot for the torso or a leg for feck's sake. Why shoot the guy 12 times? How many of us would be a threat after being hit once?
People keep asking why they don't aim for the leg, I'm trying to explain why they don't.
As for the number of shots, well, there are multiple officers so there are multiple shots. Their training probably instructs them to shoot until the target is downed/no longer a threat so you're going to get big numbers. Fear probably plays a factor as well, it's very easy to dump rounds once you start firing.
Your last sentence is very pertinent, though. I doubt than many of us would even get to that point with the Police. I think they need to reexamine their training on how to deal with people because the super authoritarian hard ass approach clearly isn't working.
It's just from my position here on the sidelines it looks like people are mainly having an issue with the amount of shots while muddling it with points about shooting for the legs or whatever.
As for the multiple officers thing: It's only really at point blank that you don't get to see the "results" of your first shot I would think (I know nothing about guns by the way). Shoot once, is he still coming closer with his kitchen knife? Yes/no?
That would be common sense I think (if you absolutely have to shoot). But everyone one shooting is just dispersing the guilt.
Yeah, I don't disagree with your interpretation but I've never shot anyone or been in a fearful situation so it's hard to say.
It does seem odd to me that police wearing level 2 vests and holding guns would be so afraid of a knife wielding perp that they'd shoot them. I can't fathom any other explanation, though. They're afraid of something, they have to be. Maybe not of being stabbed or cut, maybe of being bitten or having someone spit in their mouth up close and contracting a communicable disease?
Last edited:
You're taking the piss with the bolded part, yeah? Surely no one's afraid of that?
Just putting it out there, they deal with all sorts. Human bites almost always result in nasty infections.
You may not agree but I think it's clear there's a lot of fear on the part of the Police in these things. All of the situations are somewhat unique but none of them appear to involve life threatening scenarios for the officers involved. If it was pure racism I think we'd see a lot more shootings like this. Maybe I'd like to think people are mostly good and so fear is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
It's just such an overreaction. 'Oh no, I might get an infection. Better shoot him dead.'
What if the person had HIV?