[E90SoFlo]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

If this would have been a Hardee's, shit would have went down different.

[JonnyM3]

Originally Posted by NYCGP

Yep, I am done. You are completely disconnected from reality. You still think life is a movie. He is swinging a weapon at a police officer. They already tried using non-lethal means to subdue him and it only made him angry. What you are saying is they should "attempt" to tackle him or find some other way to control an obviously crazy person that is prepared to swing a weapon at a police officer. You pull a weapon or brandish a weapon at a police officer and ignore commands to drop the weapon, YOU GET SHOT. That's it... end of story. You don't shoot him once and hope that does the trick.. you fire and continue firing.. Show this video to your friends in the NYPD or your friend that just returned from his tours and they will say the EXACT SAME THING I am saying to you.

First lesson you are taught when you learn about fire arms is NEVER POINT THE GUN AT SOMETHING YOU DON'T INTEND TO KILL....

I've shot M4s some miscellaneous pistols and shotguns. I agree shooting was a necessary move, or yes all the cops on scene could have tackled one man. What I'm saying is the guy wasnt holding a fire arm, when he's down with 3-5 bullets in his chest is it necessary to continue shooting? I don't think so but to each his own. The situation wasn't life threatening at that moment in time, other precautions could have been taken. Sorry we disagree

[The Ghost of Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

And you can easily hit someone specifically in the leg at 10-15 feet with a pistol, these are "cops" that have to train with these weapons. Come on.

dude...you don't know anything about what you're talking about, so just stop talking. here is a pretty standard police qualification silhouette target:



what part of this target includes 'shoot him in the knee cap'? there is not a single minute of police training that says if you're justified to use DEADLY force, aim for their legs. it's pretty obvious to see that this cop had plenty of justification to use deadly force. angry man already done damage to property, wielding a blunt object, ineffectiveness of less lethal methods, and making hostile actions towards a LEO. i don't get how there can be any grey areas here whatsoever. i'm not for killing people for the hell of it, but this guy definitely had it coming.

[The Ghost of Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by NYCGP

First lesson you are taught when you learn about fire arms is NEVER POINT THE GUN AT SOMETHING YOU DON'T INTEND TO KILL....

this, this, and this. i'm not a cop, but i am a licensed concealed handgun carrier. that's always rule #1, even if you're just out having target practice or something.

[CollinsE90]

Bullets were cheaper, good riddance.

[Mr Tonka]

I'm no advocate for taking lives at will for minor crimes. But the stiffer the consequences for breaking the law means the law gets broken less. If everyone who was attempting to rob a place or hold people hostage KNOWS that he'll get shot if he doesn't comply... well it stands to reason that less people will be robbing places or holding people hostage. At the very least, once the cops arrive the situation will like be diffused more quickly knowing they'll get shot if they don't comply.

When will people (offenders & bleeding hearts alike) realize that once you decide to live outside the laws society has put in place you stand the chance of suffering great consequences???

[RedBarron]

Originally Posted by AudiS5

Split second? The guy wasn't running at the point the shots were fired, he wasn't lunging, he wasn't airborne. He was walking and cocked his hand back to swing plenty of time for a trained officer of the law who is standing five feet away to fire 3 shots at his arms, shoulders or legs and hit one. Not saying the guy didn't deserve some sort of reprocussion for his action, but a death sentance, IMO, wasn't justified from what I saw. Sorry to anyone who disagrees with me.

Let me ask you one question how much personally have you shot a 9mm or 40 cal compact handgun? I have a concealed carry permit in Florida. If you think it's easy to hit someone in the knee with hangun either you play a lot of video games never shot a handgun or your high or pretty decent shooter. I almost never carry it though, if I have a rifle sure go for the knee caps or what but with a handgun nope never I shoot for center mass, he was a moving target and it always a split second in those situations they are not planned out. This argument is winning special prizes so I am out.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by AudiS5

That cops got some real fucking issues. Tough guy with a gun, If he felt it was necessary to shoot him it could've been handled in a different way. Leg, arm, shoulder all would've sufficed without takin this guys life

i learned that posts criticizing cops do not do well on this forum, so i just keep it to myself now. too many armchair law enforcement officers here with the standard set of excuses how its OK for a cop to tazer a 7-year old with a stick or kill a drunk dude with a hammer...

[E90SoFlo]

I agree this guy was pretty stupid, but I don't see any point were I would say any of the police officers lives where at risk.

Just like any civilian you can't shoot someone unless you are "in fear of your life" that doesn't mean if someone comes after you with a stick you can shoot them.

The guy calling me stupid with the picture of a silhouette is comical. I shoot 2-3 times a week and can easily keep a 10 round group inside the first two rings at 10-15 yards.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by RedBarron

Let me ask you one question how much personally have you shot a 9mm or 40 cal compact handgun? I have a concealed carry permit in Florida. I almost never carry it though, if I have a rifle sure go for the knee caps or what but with a handgun nope never I shoot for center mass, he was a moving target and it always a split second in those situations they are not planned out. This argument is winning special prizes so I am out.

Don't forget that a 115# German Shepherd was tugging on his none shooting hand.

Easy shot indeed; to be one handed, in the rain, holding an attack dog with your other hand. Sure, go for the 4" or 8" target.

We're not saying the guy deserved to die. But don't play with fire if you're not prepared to be burned. Cop was justified in his actions in this situation.

[E90SoFlo]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Don't forget that a 115# German Shepherd was tugging on his none shooting hand.

Easy shot indeed; to be one handed, in the rain, holding an attack dog with your other hand. Sure, go for the 4" or 8" target.

We're not saying the guy deserved to die. But don't play with fire if you're not prepared to be burned. Cop was justified in his actions in this situation.

Could have let the fucking dog go, and not have to shoot the guy..

[NYCGP]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

Could have let the fucking dog go, and not have to shoot the guy..

????? Yep... you're retarded. Once again, this is not a video game. The dog is a life and it's safety is just as paramount as an officers. You do not release a dog on a man carrying a crowbar or whatever the fuck it was.. Would you release your dog to get hit in the face by a blunt weapon? Ohh that's right you see the dog as just an object like a taser or pepper spray... Who cares if the dog is killed by the crazed meth addict...? Or is it SUPER DOG!?!? Completely impervious to blunt force trauma!

[The Ghost of Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

I agree this guy was pretty stupid, but I don't see any point were I would say any of the police officers lives where at risk.

Just like any civilian you can't shoot someone unless you are "in fear of your life" that doesn't mean if someone comes after you with a stick you can shoot them.

The guy calling me stupid with the picture of a silhouette is comical. I shoot 2-3 times a week and can easily keep a 10 round group inside the first two rings at 10-15 yards.

now do your same heroic shot group on a moving target, while moving around yourself, with a german shepherd tugging on you, all under duress. i'd bet you'd have plenty trouble hitting the broad side of a red barn.

let's look at this from a pragmatic standpoint...the officer has two options here after failed tazer...

1. potentially watch his partner's (who is innocent by all accounts) head get smashed by some crazy guy with a crowbar

OR

2. use deadly force to protect innocent people

obviously option 2 protects the people that deserve protection. logic would also say that if someone, ANYONE, was pointing a gun at you, compliance would probably be in your best interest. put the crowbar down and let the courts sort out the rest and nobody has to get hurt.

[CollinsE90]

Originally Posted by solefald

i learned that posts criticizing cops do not do well on this forum, so i just keep it to myself now. too many armchair law enforcement officers here with the standard set of excuses how its OK for a cop to tazer a 7-year old with a stick or kill a drunk dude with a hammer...

The force that hammer could have made was potentially deadly, a blow to the head with that hammer would have killed instantly.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

I agree this guy was pretty stupid, but I don't see any point were I would say any of the police officers lives where at risk.

Just like any civilian you can't shoot someone unless you are "in fear of your life" that doesn't mean if someone comes after you with a stick you can shoot them.

The guy calling me stupid with the picture of a silhouette is comical. I shoot 2-3 times a week and can easily keep a 10 round group inside the first two rings at 10-15 yards.

I can too, and i don't shoot 2-3 times a week. Just not sure i would go for legs or arms while holding an attack dog. Not to mention what might have been behind the guy should your elbow shot miss and go bouncing down the road or into another building, car, person.......

Another reason LEOs are trained to shoot center mass. Stray bullets are bad.

[RedBarron]

Cops love their dogs. They spend a lot of time with them and it's their buddy. Police dogs are not just dogs they are considered officers and think of them as their partner. So releasing a dog in a situation where it could get hurt by a person possessing a large object would not be easy.

[E90SoFlo]

OK. FIRST OFF. I have a search and rescue, very well trained defense dog, they are trained to attack places that won't get them hurt, and to bring people down, thats there job.

So if you where not to release the dog, why did they take it out of the car in the first place? Just for the barking and noise?

You can't use "what if's" in the situation, he was not attacking anyone, he hasn't shown signed of personal attack before (as the article says he smashed windows, not people)

The officer could easily have backed up if the guy was coming after them with what looks like a large hammer.

I agree the police (READ THIS PART) should have taken action, I'm just not sure the guy holding the dog (that had no reason to be out, because it wasn't going to be used) should have been the one to take him down.

[CollinsE90]

The dog was ready to run after him if he tried to flee the scene, standard protocol. The cops were in a formation to do exactly what they did, to tase and be prepared for his reaction.

[NYCGP]

Originally Posted by E90SoFlo

OK. FIRST OFF. I have a search and rescue, very well trained defense dog, they are trained to attack places that won't get them hurt, and to bring people down, thats there job.

So if you where not to release the dog, why did they take it out of the car in the first place? Just for the barking and noise?

You can't use "what if's" in the situation, he was not attacking anyone, he hasn't shown signed of personal attack before (as the article says he smashed windows, not people)

The officer could easily have backed up if the guy was coming after them with what looks like a large hammer.

I agree the police (READ THIS PART) should have taken action, I'm just not sure the guy holding the dog (that had no reason to be out, because it wasn't going to be used) should have been the one to take him down.

Ok... The dog had every reason to be out... Say the guy drops his weapon and runs. Police aren't going to shoot him at this point. But in this instance they will release the dog to chase his ass down. Or if he tries to hide under a car or any type of object that would create a dangerous situation for a person.. that would be more advantageous for a K-9. There is a reason they are used.. and their applications are quite extensive. Your argument is being torn to shreds right now and instead of seeing just how ridiculous it is.. you are holding on for dear life. The guy was a crazed drug addict.

[E90SoFlo]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

The dog was ready to run after him if he tried to flee the scene, standard protocol. The cops were in a formation to do exactly what they did, to tase and be prepared for his reaction.

I agree that could be the case that the dog was there if he fled, but why then would the officer be within 5 yards of the guy with his gun drawn. Shouldn't he?

Idk, I just feel it wasn't handled properly.

[lopealle]

Where is immiketoo

[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by lopealle

Where is immiketoo

he's busy roughing up some skateboarders or something...