al4x Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 the police had done the job they are trained to do which is protect other members of the public. interesting that protecting people is loosing off a number of shots on a fairly busy street, to my mind that is endangering the public more than protecting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 As I see it someone with a big Knife in a public place the police tell him to put the knife down if man runs off police shoot man I have not problem with that all that he needed to do was drop it and he would have been ok moto to this story is if you are going to take drugs stay home and do it where you are no danger to anyone but yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gixer1 Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 interesting that protecting people is loosing off a number of shots on a fairly busy street, to my mind that is endangering the public more than protecting. Why? as long as the ammo was of a certain type and there were no persons in the immediate vacinity...I would guess the ammo they use is designed to loose energy as soon as it hits something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 come on whats the odds of every hit being on the subject, from what I saw they were lucky not to shoot each other let alone any passers by, or the idiot trying to film the palava on his phone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) He decided to carry a knife in a large tourist area He decided to smoke drugs He decided to pull the knife on the police He posed a risk to police and members of the public with a weapon capable of inflicting fatal injuries He did not listen when told to put the knide down numerous times and he did not comply with police instructions He got himself shot. It's about time people learnt that actions have concequences Edited August 14, 2012 by Livefast123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 I don't think they are any more trigger happy than armed response in the UK. Was their not a riot in the UK a while back because armed response shot a unarmed man. PS. Talk about stray rounds i think they managed to shoot one of their colleges as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olliesims Posted August 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 I presume that the police wouldn't use standard 9mm rounds in there handguns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olliesims Posted August 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 According to Wikipedia the police used Winchester "black talon" rounds which have a extremely rapid expansion doesn't state if they still use them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastiebap Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 Interesting conversations. As a copper everyone is entitled I their opinion and I'm not going to get into a debate about some of the topics. Aside from arvs plenty of uk police are taser equipped now, including me and plenty of my colleagues in Devon and Cornwall. In the scale of use of force it is below baton and captor (or CS) and is just another item of PPE to be used where justified. As for warning shots, we are trained to aim and shoot at centre of mass, to put the subject down, you try to hit and arm or leg that's moving with a pistol, only happens in the movies I'm afraid. Speaking for Uk police every round has to be justified, if you can't justify it thats you in the brown smelly stuff! The yanks are trigger happy which might explain it! Just my tuppenyworth!!! Nail, Head, Hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 Interesting conversations. As a copper everyone is entitled I their opinion and I'm not going to get into a debate about some of the topics. Aside from arvs plenty of uk police are taser equipped now, including me and plenty of my colleagues in Devon and Cornwall. In the scale of use of force it is below baton and captor (or CS) and is just another item of PPE to be used where justified. As for warning shots, we are trained to aim and shoot at centre of mass, to put the subject down, you try to hit and arm or leg that's moving with a pistol, only happens in the movies I'm afraid. Speaking for Uk police every round has to be justified, if you can't justify it thats you in the brown smelly stuff! The yanks are trigger happy which might explain it! Just my tuppenyworth!!! That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Their are a 50 states in America all with different police departments all with different training and attitudes to firearms and when they are justified in using them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 Interesting conversations. As a copper everyone is entitled I their opinion and I'm not going to get into a debate about some of the topics. Aside from arvs plenty of uk police are taser equipped now, including me and plenty of my colleagues in Devon and Cornwall. In the scale of use of force it is below baton and captor (or CS) and is just another item of PPE to be used where justified. As for warning shots, we are trained to aim and shoot at centre of mass, to put the subject down, you try to hit and arm or leg that's moving with a pistol, only happens in the movies I'm afraid. Speaking for Uk police every round has to be justified, if you can't justify it thats you in the brown smelly stuff! The yanks are trigger happy which might explain it! Just my tuppenyworth!!! That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Their are a 50 states in America all with different police departments all with different training and attitudes to firearms and when they are justified in using them. As for accounting for rounds fired i wonder did the **** hit the fan when a round ended up hitting one of their colleges in a recent shooting. The **** must hit the fan brave and regular. Police marksmen have fired their guns more times by mistake than when responding to threats in the last three years, an investigation has found. One policeman was accidentally shot dead and two others were left with chest and hand injuries following 110 weapon blunders. Officers have only used their guns 29 times in response to actual incidents - and six members of the public have been killed by armed police in the last three years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colliwobbles Posted August 14, 2012 Report Share Posted August 14, 2012 That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Their are a 50 states in America all with different police departments all with different training and attitudes to firearms and when they are justified in using them. As for accounting for rounds fired i wonder did the **** hit the fan when a round ended up hitting one of their colleges in a recent shooting. The **** must hit the fan brave and regular. Police marksmen have fired their guns more times by mistake than when responding to threats in the last three years, an investigation has found. One policeman was accidentally shot dead and two others were left with chest and hand injuries following 110 weapon blunders. Officers have only used their guns 29 times in response to actual incidents - and six members of the public have been killed by armed police in the last three years. Your point is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) Your point is? My point to what. Pointing out that to just say America doesn't make sense as their are many different police forces with different rules regulations and attitude to when deciding when to use lethal force. Some might argue its not reasonable the say all American police are trigger happy. Just like you might say that its not reasonable to say UK police are trigger happy because of some shooting incidents. Or the number of negligent discharges among the so called highly trained armed response units. Or some other part of my post. ? More i might add than the PSNI and they are all armed. Not just when on duty but also when off duty which would give them more opportunity for negligent discharges. Edited August 15, 2012 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) Edit. Edited August 15, 2012 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 *warning – I get a bit ranty below* I think the problem is that most people can’t empathise with the police but can empathise with the criminal. Most people have got drunk or stoned. Most people have been loud and larey. Most people have had encounters with the police where they have been told off or given a fine. Most people can only understand the situation from the point of view of the criminal, because that’s who they most identify with, so they see the criminal as a victim. They can understand drunk stupidity, but they can’t understand a job that involves trying to stop a drunk nutter with a knife. Most people have never had to face a riot from the wrong end, deal with a rape victim, visit a recently burgled home, comfort some teenage girls who’s had a glass smashed in her face or have to pull apart a serious fight. When they see a bit of violent disorder most normal people walk away – or hang back and watch – the police are the ones that have to walk into the middle of it – most of us can’t understand or empathise with that. But, although they empathise with the criminal they only relate in terms of their own experience. They might have experience of a drunken bar fight, so they think of that level of violence rather than face stabbing arm breaking violence. They might have been stopped for speeding, but not for driving a stolen car while high on cocaine. They might have been told to stop by armed police – but they stopped and got angry about, they didn’t actual try and attack or threaten the police. Most people try and see the criminal as a victim. As a rational person that’s been misunderstood by the police. In this case, some people want to think of the criminal as a normal bloke who just got stoned and did something silly. That’s nonsense. Normal people don’t carry big bloody knives and sit outside a military recruitment office getting stoned. They sit at home and get stoned while watching cartoons and eating muffins. Even if they are stoned and get stopped by the police they don’t get violent – they just get paranoid. This guy wasn’t rational to begin with. So, they criticise the police and feel sorry for the criminal/victim. When a bad situation occurs and people get angry and emotional it’s easier for them to target that at the police. Maybe it’s because the police are supposed to stop bad things happening, maybe it’s because they are the only target left. Anyhow… stop blaming the police. Blame the criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted August 15, 2012 Report Share Posted August 15, 2012 Thats a hell of a rant lol My point remains regardless of your rant and that is that the NYC COULD have used non lethal force in this instance, I really cant see how everyone is defending them firing what was it? 12rounds in a busy street!! Thats as dangerous if not more so than the lad with the knife!! By the way I am not anti Police and have worked alongside them on many occasions and I do sympathise with the **** they need to deal with on a daily basis, but sadly that is their job!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colliwobbles Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 *warning – I get a bit ranty below* I think the problem is that most people can’t empathise with the police but can empathise with the criminal. Most people have got drunk or stoned. Most people have been loud and larey. Most people have had encounters with the police where they have been told off or given a fine. Most people can only understand the situation from the point of view of the criminal, because that’s who they most identify with, so they see the criminal as a victim. They can understand drunk stupidity, but they can’t understand a job that involves trying to stop a drunk nutter with a knife. Most people have never had to face a riot from the wrong end, deal with a rape victim, visit a recently burgled home, comfort some teenage girls who’s had a glass smashed in her face or have to pull apart a serious fight. When they see a bit of violent disorder most normal people walk away – or hang back and watch – the police are the ones that have to walk into the middle of it – most of us can’t understand or empathise with that. But, although they empathise with the criminal they only relate in terms of their own experience. They might have experience of a drunken bar fight, so they think of that level of violence rather than face stabbing arm breaking violence. They might have been stopped for speeding, but not for driving a stolen car while high on cocaine. They might have been told to stop by armed police – but they stopped and got angry about, they didn’t actual try and attack or threaten the police. Most people try and see the criminal as a victim. As a rational person that’s been misunderstood by the police. In this case, some people want to think of the criminal as a normal bloke who just got stoned and did something silly. That’s nonsense. Normal people don’t carry big bloody knives and sit outside a military recruitment office getting stoned. They sit at home and get stoned while watching cartoons and eating muffins. Even if they are stoned and get stopped by the police they don’t get violent – they just get paranoid. This guy wasn’t rational to begin with. So, they criticise the police and feel sorry for the criminal/victim. When a bad situation occurs and people get angry and emotional it’s easier for them to target that at the police. Maybe it’s because the police are supposed to stop bad things happening, maybe it’s because they are the only target left. Anyhow… stop blaming the police. Blame the criminals. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) +1 Your point. You earlier criticized the American police as trigger happy. And are now agreeing with a post stop blaming the police blame the criminals. The armed police in the UK are not slow to use lethal force. Even when they have the situation is contained and the only danger is posed is to him self. If the police don't have the training tactics and equipment to minimize the chances of being injured by someone with a shotgun then they need more training. Example body armor ballistic shields the sense to expose themselves . Example stay behind cover. A barrister shot dead by police in an armed siege had descended into a drunken hell of binge drinking and cocaine abuse, it emerged yesterday. Mark Saunders, 32, died in a volley of bullets fired by police marksmen who surrounded his £2.2million Chelsea home after he started blasting out of a kitchen window with a shotgun. His inquest today heard how he had fought a desperate battle with alcoholism, disapperaring on massive binges every three months before returning home at 2am full of remorse and shame. Edited August 16, 2012 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Thats a hell of a rant lol My point remains regardless of your rant and that is that the NYC COULD have used non lethal force in this instance, What non-lethal force could those two policemen have used? It would have been foolish to go hand to hand – even CS spray against a knife is dangerous to the cop. They didn’t have tasers or baton rounds available to them. Shooting for legs or arms isn’t a viable option. Personally, I don’t see any non-lethal (or non-shooting) options. Perhaps they could have shot fewer bullets into the man. But, I see two issues with this; Firstly, Once you’ve made the decision to shoot you may as well make sure he’s down. When double tap isn’t enough, go for dozen tap. Secondly, no matter the level of training, I assume that once it’s kicked off there’s some adrenaline in the system and perhaps they shot more than they meant to. Those police made a good decision in the situation and it worked. But what they did do stopped anyone else from getting hurt, that’s commendable. There may have been other choices available to them, but there’s often more than one good answer to a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livefast123 Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 The situation could have been easily avoided by HIM putting the knife down when he was asked, HE was the master of his destiny and chose the route of criminality. Dead is dead, it doesn't matter if they fired 1 or 12 shots. Nobody can see in the video where any of those shots impacted or what was behind the suspect when the police opened fire so the arguements about innocents etc are lagely irrelevant until you can see what the cops could see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 That’s a tragic story about the lawyer with the shotgun. However, if you start shooting a shotgun out of a window then sooner or later the police will shoot back. The journalistic language is great – a volley of bullets. It sounds like some Rambo killing with an M60 or a 50 cal giving the while 9 yards.* In actual fact I seem to recall it was just a few bullets. 2 police shooters with 2 or 3 bullets each , which is a standard thing. Also, I’m pretty sure it was found to be a totally legal shooting of a criminal. The police (in both UK and US) only shoot as a last resort, and only after several warnings. It’s really easy NOT to get shot by the police, I do it several times a day. I’ve done it on several continents too. To get shot by the police a person really need to do something monumentally illegal and dangerous. Ultimately (as others have said) it’s their own fault. i. Notwithstanding the genuine mistake that have been made. Ii. Although I’m fairly ambivalent to known armed criminals getting shot then finding they had nothing in their pocket. iii. Mistakes like Menezes are truly tragic, however, we need to remember the climate of fear at the time. * Yes, that was me showing off that I know what “the whole 9 yards” means J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Here is another one for you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy58M6-XPNQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robl Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 That’s a horrible and very sad situation in the link above. Very unpleasant to watch – I wish I hadn’t clicked it. But, what was the policeman supposed to do. The dog was attacking him. You only have to look at the news from last month or so in the UK and you can see how three of four police ended up in hospital when they were attacked by a single dog – one officer may have actually lost several fingers (or close to it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 Tell you what if you look at the line of fire, had he missed the dog I reckon he would have taken the owners head off!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted August 16, 2012 Report Share Posted August 16, 2012 What non-lethal force could those two policemen have used? It would have been foolish to go hand to hand – even CS spray against a knife is dangerous to the cop. They didn’t have tasers or baton rounds available to them. Shooting for legs or arms isn’t a viable option. Personally, I don’t see any non-lethal (or non-shooting) options. Perhaps they could have shot fewer bullets into the man. But, I see two issues with this; Firstly, Once you’ve made the decision to shoot you may as well make sure he’s down. When double tap isn’t enough, go for dozen tap. Secondly, no matter the level of training, I assume that once it’s kicked off there’s some adrenaline in the system and perhaps they shot more than they meant to. Those police made a good decision in the situation and it worked. But what they did do stopped anyone else from getting hurt, that’s commendable. There may have been other choices available to them, but there’s often more than one good answer to a problem. TWO POLICEMEN?? There must have been at least a dozen in pursuit on the ground PLUS those in the vehicles, dont tell me for a second that you dont think there was a taser between them? unless maybe NYPD dont issue them??? Sorry but having now watched the video I believe they could have handled this better! Not to say the same outcome wouldnt still have happened, just with the numbers of police involved I think they could have done better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.