Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Police Shoot And Kill Wheelchair Bound Amputee  
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7652 posts, RR: 4
Posted (2 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 4145 times:

I think this has to chalked up to another only in America story.

Quote:
A Houston police officer shot and killed a one-armed, one-legged man in a wheelchair on Saturday inside a group home after police say the double amputee threatened the officer and aggressively waved a metal object that turned out to be a pen.

Rest of the story here

I can't understand how a pen could be mistaken for a knife and how two fit and able police officers couldn't detain a person in the victims physical condition.

92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 4103 times:

It indeed always amazes me how unprofessional US police forces are when compared to Europe and most of the other world.


"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3691 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 4066 times:

A man with a knife in close quarters is more dangerous than a man with a gun. In this case though, it should be easy to overcome with a good front kick to the face of a guy sitting down.

I agree that the way these cops like to buy all the toys and puff up on steroids, they should have better ways of dealing with this than lethal force.

Here is a much better report. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/23/us/texas-amputee-shooting/index.html

I happen to have a neighbor like this. His father dumps him off in a remote cabin because he can't get along in society. He can get extremely belligerent, I nearly pulled on him once myself. He is scary enough that I cannot house my family there. The police should be trained to handle this though.


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2450 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

Sounds like a trigger happy cop...

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5703 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 3948 times:

How's about we keep the anti-American sentiment off this story, yeah? I could go right now and grab half a dozen similar incidents that have happened in Europe.


Yes, it is easy to mistake a pen for a knife when someone is waving their "hand" wildly about in a thrusting motion. That being said, this sounds all wrong. The police statement said the suspect wouldn't show his "hands" (he only had one hand!), and cornered the non-shooting officer while advancing on him (which just makes zero sense). However:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 3):
Sounds like a trigger happy cop...

Sounds like a cop who never actually recovered mentally from his incident in 2009 where he shot a knife-wielding man who had just stabbed someone to death. He likely saw the thrusting motions and instinctively fired, even though the other officer was likely in little danger.


Sounds like a sad tale all around.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinedragon-wings From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 2):
A man with a knife in close quarters is more dangerous than a man with a gun.

They could of used pepper spray or a taser. You don't have to be to close to a suspect to use that stuff.



Don't give up don't ever give up - Jim Valvano
User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 3936 times:

I just don't understand why he shot to kill. Shoot him in the arm holding the 'knife' (pen) or in the leg or something.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 6):
I just don't understand why he shot to kill. Shoot him in the arm holding the 'knife' (pen) or in the leg or something.

That's not what you do with a gun. When you shoot, you shoot center mass. Agree of disagree, that's the SOP for all the police departments I've seen. I've NEVER heard of any department training their officers to "shoot the arm."

When you draw your weapon and fire, it's to the point where you intend to kill or incapacitate the suspect. That's what the gun is for.

Now I am sure he could have backed up or something faster than drawing and shooting, but I'll leave the Monday-morning quarterbacking to the department. It appears the police officer is in fault, but the devil is in the details

Quoting dragon-wings (Reply 5):
They could of used pepper spray or a taser. You don't have to be to close to a suspect to use that stuff.

In theory (and I am not assuming the suspect is in a wheelchair) if you are in close quarters with a suspect that is trying to knife you, you are not only justified, but probably encouraged to use a gun. A knife will kill and is a threat to an officer. I think the range is something like within 21 feet a guy can charge you with a knife before an average officer can draw and fire. Now with back up and time to plan, I'm sure the police would not go in guns blazing.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 1):
It indeed always amazes me how unprofessional US police forces are when compared to Europe and most of the other world.

That's a pretty ignorant generalization   And I assume you know this officer is totally guilty because you were at his trial and were on the jury that gave a guilty sentence? Not saying he's innocent, but you weren't there.

Innocent until proven guilty... and stereotypes = bad



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 3898 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
When you draw your weapon and fire, it's to the point where you intend to kill or incapacitate the suspect. That's what the gun is for.

I think that is a pretty flawed system. Why kill a man when you can injure him to the point to which he can not injure you? I suppose the centre mass is the biggest target, but if the officer was close enough to the bloke that he thought he could've been stabbed, then he should have a good enough aim to incapacitate him without going for the torso. Maybe i'm being naive, as we never have these stories in the UK (Not US bashing by the way, i love the place). I do think police having guns is a bad idea though, especially if they can't hit an arm from 6 feet.


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 3884 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 8):
I think that is a pretty flawed system. Why kill a man when you can injure him to the point to which he can not injure you? I suppose the centre mass is the biggest target, but if the officer was close enough to the bloke that he thought he could've been stabbed, then he should have a good enough aim to incapacitate him without going for the torso. Maybe i'm being naive, as we never have these stories in the UK (Not US bashing by the way, i love the place). I do think police having guns is a bad idea though, especially if they can't hit an arm from 6 feet.

Not saying you are naive, but it just doesn't work this way outside of Hollywood. Pistol marksmanship is challenging enough...but in the heat of the moment - fear/adrenaline, time pressure, moving target etc. you aim center of mass and hope to hit the target (and nobody else).


User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 9):
Not saying you are naive, but it just doesn't work this way outside of Hollywood. Pistol marksmanship is challenging enough...but in the heat of the moment - fear/adrenaline, time pressure, moving target etc. you aim center of mass and hope to hit the target (and nobody else).

Yeah i guess so. Why not use rubber bullets then? I've been on the receiving end of one and i can tell you the pain is unbelievable. I just think it would be a better way of doing things.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 3878 times:

Why couldn't they use the taser? Isn't it SOP to use taser first, if that doesn't work then use lethal force if necessary? WTH?!

Yeah, the cop was trigger happy, it seems. I think he should be removed from the force if he cannot handle his job. After reading the article, he killed one person so far, now he killed this guy. Yeah, he's gotta go.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 3868 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 1):
It indeed always amazes me how unprofessional US police forces are when compared to Europe and most of the other world.

So, based on one incident or it could be ten or even twenty across a nation where there are over 800,000 (give or take) sworn law enforcement officers, protecting over 314,000,000 people, you declare that US police forces are unprofessional?

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 6):
. Shoot him in the arm holding the 'knife' (pen) or in the leg or something.
Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 8):
Why kill a man when you can injure him to the point to which he can not injure you?

Police officers are trained to shoot center-mass because that is the biggest target. In a stress situation, a person tends to loss fine motor skills, thus greatly affecting aim. A lot of that degradation can be mitigated by intense training, but your normal, local police officer is very unlikely to have that level of training. We're talking Special Forces type training. To assume an officer in a stress encounter can aim for any specific part of the body is unrealistic and dangerous.

To illustrate: 2 NYPD officers recently shot 9 bystanders while engaging a shooter. Do you think they would have had any luck "aiming to disarm." Why would you think a police officer in Houston is any better trained then a pair in NYC?

Just a reminder, what you see on television shows or in the movie theatre is not real.

Oh, and by the way, no one on this board was there. The police officer may be in the wrong. He may have been right. I will always give those guys the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is concluded.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 8):
I think that is a pretty flawed system. Why kill a man when you can injure him to the point to which he can not injure you? I suppose the centre mass is the biggest target, but if the officer was close enough to the bloke that he thought he could've been stabbed, then he should have a good enough aim to incapacitate him without going for the torso. Maybe i'm being naive, as we never have these stories in the UK (Not US bashing by the way, i love the place). I do think police having guns is a bad idea though, especially if they can't hit an arm from 6 feet.

If you are not trying to kill then you don't use a gun. Simple. Guns are for killing / incapacitating but pepperspray, tasers, batons, and even the officers' fists are used for less than lethal measures. Guns aren't at all for disabling body parts... pistols seem very self-explanatory but you'd be surprised at how extremely difficult it is to shoot them. The first time I shot a pistol I couldn't hit a target a few feet in front of me. Trained cops obviously have more training but it is NOTHING like the BS you see in the movies. Shoot a pistol and see for yourself.

Then if you have police departments setting SOPs for shooting arms, what happens when an officer accidentally shoots someone in the face? It will be a legal disaster.

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 10):
Why not use rubber bullets then?

You don't want your duty weapon not loaded with real bullets in case you'd need it. Not talking about the wheelchair guy, it's just a police thing in general. It needs to be readily accessible ready for deadly force. Instead of rubber bullets you have pepper spray, tasers, etc.

Now keep in mind, I'm in no way excusing anything. I'm just explaining why the commonly misunderstood use of firearms disabling body parts doesn't work, and the options for less than lethal measures. This is true for the US, but I'm pretty sure it is the same in most western countries. Guns are absolutely for killing/incapacitating... NOT anything else. Other measures like pepper spray and tasers are for threats not involving death or seriously bodily harm. I'm sure if you google it, the only place you'll see an officer (following SOP) shooting someone in the arm or something would be in a movie. Could be wrong, but that's how it is in all the American law enforcement agencies I've heard about. (I'm a Criminal Justice major so I know a lot about it.)

Further more, notice when an officer draws his/her firearm... it's very strict. You have to be in a situation where you think death or serious bodily harm will result. You can't get someone out of a car at gunpoint because they don't like the speeding ticket (unless you can substantiate you think there is a threat I mentioned.)



To summarize and for those that skipped to the bottom of my post: guns are for killing and incapacitating only!!! It is not inhumane because other methods are to be used in less major situations. In fact, using a gun for a situation that only requires a taser or pepper spray will get a cop in trouble. This does not take into account "what ifs..." if the police officer is being reasonable and think he's in grave danger, it doesn't matter if in the end something turns out to be a toy gun



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 3833 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
After reading the article, he killed one person so far, now he killed this guy.

The article suggests that in the first incident his girlfriend and neighbor actually got stabbed...even if he was in the right the first time it's a fair question whether or not that traumatic event drove his decisionmaking when he thought his partner was in trouble. If I killed two people I think I'd be looking for a new gig anyway.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 12):
So, based on one incident or it could be ten or even twenty across a nation where there are over 800,000 (give or take) sworn law enforcement officers, protecting over 314,000,000 people, you declare that US police forces are unprofessional?

I wish I was still 16-20 like our friend from Finland and knew everything about everything. Amazing how stupid I have become since.

On the other hand it has been about eight minutes since the last declaration of how much the US sucks compared to the rest of the world, so I guess we were due.

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 10):
Why not use rubber bullets then? I've been on the receiving end of one and i can tell you the pain is unbelievable.


You are officially the first person I've ever heard admit that! It's a good question, I wonder what the implications would be though...getting sued by the person who gets hurt or killed by the rubber bullet, or getting sued by the people you couldn't protect because the perps weren't stopped by the rubber bullet. Sounds like they'd be set up for a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

At least with a real weapon you know what you are getting once the cat is out of the bag. Which makes proper application of the 'use of force continuum' so important.

(edit: I posted this before I saw DeltaMD90's post...agree 100%)

[Edited 2012-09-23 18:36:24]

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5703 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 3826 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 11):
Isn't it SOP to use taser first, if that doesn't work then use lethal force if necessary?

Simply, no.

The level of force authorized is directly related to the danger presented to the officer and bystanders. An officer is limited in escalation only by the actions of the suspect, and is generally authorized to use whatever level of force the suspect presents themselves, taking into account probable outcomes.

There have been cases where unarmed individuals have been shot, and the shooting being justified because of either the viciousness of the beating or the sheer size difference between an attacking suspect and the officer where the officer was in reasonable fear that he would be overpowered and have his weapon taken away from him. It's happened more than once...

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 10):
Why not use rubber bullets then? I've been on the receiving end of one and i can tell you the pain is unbelievable.

Because like it or not, police MUST have the upper hand in potentially deadly situations. You don't use rubber bullets against someone with real bullets, not even in the UK. Also, there are certain drugs out there where the user will literally feel no pain. Remember the guy who ate the homeless guy's face off in Miami? He was shot once, and didn't even flinch. It took 4 more shots to end the attack.

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 6):
Shoot him in the arm holding the 'knife' (pen) or in the leg or something.

That's not how it works. Unlike in the movies, being shot in the arm is not merely a painful "flesh wound". Assuming one could aim good enough to do it, you still run the risk of having the bullet hit an artery, bouncing around, or exiting and reentering somewhere else, possibly into another (innocent) person.

The leg is even worse. Watch Black Hawk Down to see just how nasty that can be.


The third rule of carrying a gun: only point it at something you are willing to destroy. Because that's all it's good for.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 14):
Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 10):
Why not use rubber bullets then? I've been on the receiving end of one and i can tell you the pain is unbelievable.



You are officially the first person I've ever heard admit that!

Never been shot with rubber bullets (bb guns yes) but I've been gassed, pepper sprayed and tased (not breaking the law, in training) and I'll tell you that the taser will get me to do just about anything the officer wanted. I think I'd rather be shot dead than tased again... ouchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

But again, the rubber bullets are mostly in riots. An officer doesn't want his duty weapon being not ready to fire real bullets, and you have tasers and pepper spray which are just as effective and it doesn't disable to duty weapon from shooting real bullets. Plus, rubber bullets are a lot more dangerous. I think officially tasers and pepper spray is considered "non-lethal" and rubber bullets are "less than lethal" aka more dangerous and can still kill but aren't meant to. But it's been a while since I was in college so I'm kinda fuzzy



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5703 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 3816 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 14):
If I killed two people I think I'd be looking for a new gig anyway.

Police departments actually ask those kinds of questions in their interviews to prospective recruits. You'd be surprised at how many people think they want to be cops, but balk during the interview when they find out that must be able to kill someone without hesitation, and show back up to work as soon as 3 days later and possibly kill someone else.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 15):
You don't use rubber bullets against someone with real bullets, not even in the UK.

But in the UK only specially trained officers can use firearms. There are special squads for them.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 3799 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 18):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 15):
You don't use rubber bullets against someone with real bullets, not even in the UK.

But in the UK only specially trained officers can use firearms. There are special squads for them.

I'd be willing to bet that their rules of engagement are similar to our police. Again, can't speak with 100% certainty, but I'm pretty sure



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 3781 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
I'd be willing to bet that their rules of engagement are similar to our police. Again, can't speak with 100% certainty, but I'm pretty sure

Maybe so, but normal officers in the UK don't have access to guns. They have to go through years of training and certification to be able to join the firearms response squad. I'm not going to say i know for sure but i'm pretty sure every US officer carries a gun, and most have inadequate training. Hell, you can get a gun license at 18 and pick one up from the local store!


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 3774 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 20):
Maybe so, but normal officers in the UK don't have access to guns. They have to go through years of training and certification to be able to join the firearms response squad. I'm not going to say i know for sure but i'm pretty sure every US officer carries a gun, and most have inadequate training. Hell, you can get a gun license at 18 and pick one up from the local store!

Oh I gotcha. Well without going way off topic, disarming a large portion of our cops would be disastrous. I was mainly talking about rules of engagement which are probably pretty similar. If we sent US cops to the UK I don't think much would change even if these police were still armed. Theoretically, if you have unarmed suspects in the UK causing trouble, the armed police (assuming they followed the rules) would act like your cops and not use weapons.

Point being, I don't think there is much of a difference between US and UK cops, it just so happens many UK cops aren't armed. Disarm the US cops or arm the UK cops and I think they'd act very similarly (given similar circumstances.)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 20):
normal officers in the UK don't have access to guns.

Can you elaborate on as to why? This seems like this is only asking for trouble. I cannot imagine how many defensiveness cops in the UK has died in the line of duty because he/she could not have the tools to do his/her job. It's astounds me on this issue.

With that said, I wouldn't want to be a cop in the UK solely on this issue alone. I want to be able to defend myself at moments notice, instead of waiting for the "Gun Squad".   

Just a personal opinion.....not to mock the fine folks in the UK.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):

Point being, I don't think there is much of a difference between US and UK cops, it just so happens many UK cops aren't armed. Disarm the US cops or arm the UK cops and I think they'd act very similarly (given similar circumstances.)

Agreed. To be fair, if i was a policeman i'd feel much better about going to work if i knew i had a pistol in my pocket! And that isn't a euphemism  


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1320 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 1):
It indeed always amazes me how unprofessional US police forces are when compared to Europe and most of the other world.

While it often seems so, I think the reality is that criminals in the US have a habit of being better armed than their counter-parts in Europe, presenting a greater danger to the police who have to adapt their actions/procedures appropriately. But yes, it often seems like there are plenty of cases where US police officers over react. Examples from the top of my head include the 'don't tase me bro' incident and a few years back when a police officer tasered an 86-yearold.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ar-old-bed-ridden-grandmother.html

Quoting KiwiRob (Thread starter):
I can't understand how a pen could be mistaken for a knife and how two fit and able police officers couldn't detain a person in the victims physical condition.

It would have to be a pretty big pen or very small knife.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
I think the range is something like within 21 feet a guy can charge you with a knife before an average officer can draw and fire.

Surely the officer would already have his weapon drawn in a case like this where they feel threatened?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
Point being, I don't think there is much of a difference between US and UK cops, it just so happens many UK cops aren't armed.

I think the big difference is not about the cops, but those who they have to deal with. In addition to what I mentioned above about a larger portion of the population being armed, you Americans unfortunately seem to get more than your fair share of nutjob criminals. Thus the need for the police to carry firearms is greater in the US.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Can you elaborate on as to why?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-trust-armed-police?newsfeed=true
There are other reasons also.



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2391 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3769 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Can you elaborate on as to why? This seems like this is only asking for trouble. I cannot imagine how many defensiveness cops in the UK has died in the line of duty because he/she could not have the tools to do his/her job. It's astounds me on this issue.

"Police deaths in New York and London during the twentieth century"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586786/

"During the 20th century, 585 police officers in New York and 160 police officers in London died while participating in law enforcement activities. New York had markedly greater intentional police mortality rates compared to London throughout most of the 20th century, but these differences decreased significantly by the end of the century. Intentional gunshot wounds comprised 290 police deaths in New York, but only 14 police deaths in London. In New York, gun shot wounds (both intentional and unintentional) accounted for more occupational police deaths (51.6%) than did all other injury mechanisms combined. In London, motor vehicle collision was the most common cause (47.5%) of occupational police death."


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21795 posts, RR: 55
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
This seems like this is only asking for trouble. I cannot imagine how many defensiveness cops in the UK has died in the line of duty because he/she could not have the tools to do his/her job. It's astounds me on this issue.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, since 2000, 22 police officers have been killed in crime-related situations (i.e. not something like being hit by a car while directing traffic), which amounts to about 2 per year. I'll put those numbers up against the US any day, even on a per capita basis.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3759 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 4):
Yes, it is easy to mistake a pen for a knife when someone is waving their "hand" wildly about in a thrusting motion.

A pen and a knife look completely different.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
That's not what you do with a gun. When you shoot, you shoot center mass.

Except this officer shot him in the head.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
I think the range is something like within 21 feet a guy can charge you with a knife before an average officer can draw and fire.

Now can you imagine a one armed man in a wheel chair waiving a knife and charging at you, can't happen at all, he's only got one arm, he can't hold the knife and wheel at the same time.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9657 posts, RR: 31
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 12):
To illustrate: 2 NYPD officers recently shot 9 bystanders while engaging a shooter. Do you think they would have had any luck "aiming to disarm." Why would you think a police officer in Houston is any better trained then a pair in NYC?

..and what about the "luck" of the bystanders? Police simply cannot use fire arms in situations where by-standers can get hurt.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
Guns are absolutely for killing/incapacitating...

there are countries where that is seen completely different. Any police officer in most European countries will face an investigation by the state attornes's office of he/she kills a person.

OK, when police officers have more or less carte blanche in such situations they don't care what happens with thre assailant and that's the difference. In most other western countries the life of a person is valued and there is no difference made between an officer or someone wielding a knife, a pistol or just a pen.

Police officers are exactly that, not judges who hand down an instant execution death penalty.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineAF1624 From France, joined Jul 2006, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3726 times:

Really ?!

I'm amazed how this can even create a debate.

The Police officer was pretty clearly trigger happy.

A one armed, one legged man on a wheelchair, even if he had a knife, cannot charge. It's as simple as that. It's kind of horrible for me to say but it reminds me of the black knight's scene in Monty Python. What's the guy gonna do? Bite the cop's bullet-proof vest off?!

I mean he would have to lay down the alleged knife, wheel forward, grab the knife again, all in less than a second because otherwise the police officer can just... move away. Just, step back.

No, instead he has to shoot the guy. Give me a break. This should spawn no debate at all.

Now from that situation to saying ALL the cops in the US have a problem with guns, it's an enormous, unfair, unjustifiable leap. But in THIS situation, yeah, the cop was clearly in the wrong.



Cheers
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 20):
Maybe so, but normal officers in the UK don't have access to guns. They have to go through years of training and certification to be able to join the firearms response squad. I'm not going to say i know for sure but i'm pretty sure every US officer carries a gun, and most have inadequate training. Hell, you can get a gun license at 18 and pick one up from the local store!

Oh I gotcha. Well without going way off topic, disarming a large portion of our cops would be disastrous. I was mainly talking about rules of engagement which are probably pretty similar. If we sent US cops to the UK I don't think much would change even if these police were still armed. Theoretically, if you have unarmed suspects in the UK causing trouble, the armed police (assuming they followed the rules) would act like your cops and not use weapons.

Point being, I don't think there is much of a difference between US and UK cops, it just so happens many UK cops aren't armed. Disarm the US cops or arm the UK cops and I think they'd act very similarly (given similar circumstances.)

Just a few days ago two unarmed female cops in Manchester, UK, have been lured into an ambush by a fake burglary call and have been killeds by pistol shots (the criminal first shot them without warning and then threw a grenade at the wo wounded women)l. If they would have been armed, they would at least have stood a chance. Without a firearm they were sitting ducks.
Rather than face an armed police unit, the culprit (a known gang member and criminal) gave himself up a few hours later at a police station (knowing that everything happening there would be recorded on CCTV)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/se...n-police-officer-killed-manchester

Jan


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3682 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 30):
Just a few days ago two unarmed female cops in Manchester, UK, have been lured into an ambush by a fake burglary call and have been killeds by pistol shots (the criminal first shot them without warning and then threw a grenade at the wo wounded women)l. If they would have been armed, they would at least have stood a chance. Without a firearm they were sitting ducks.
Rather than face an armed police unit, the culprit (a known gang member and criminal) gave himself up a few hours later at a police station (knowing that everything happening there would be recorded on CCTV)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/se...ester

I'm not quite sure what the point of your post is. As you correctly noted, the UK cops were ambushed. The suspect had the element of surprise to his advantage. They could have gone in there armed with M16s - it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

It would also appear the UK police chiefs disagree with you. They've reitereated their stance against routine arming of police officers.


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3676 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 30):
Just a few days ago two unarmed female cops in Manchester, UK, have been lured into an ambush by a fake burglary call and have been killeds by pistol shots (the criminal first shot them without warning and then threw a grenade at the wo wounded women)l. If they would have been armed, they would at least have stood a chance. Without a firearm they were sitting ducks.

They would have been sitting ducks with a gun, too. It was a carefully prepared ambush.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Can you elaborate on as to why? This seems like this is only asking for trouble. I cannot imagine how many defensiveness cops in the UK has died in the line of duty because he/she could not have the tools to do his/her job. It's astounds me on this issue.

I know that in the entire history of the NZ police force which is unarmed (baring the Armed Offenders Squads and the Special Tactics Group) only 29 officers have been killed in the line of duty; in this incident I would feel pretty confident a Kiwi cop would have been able to handle the situation far better then these two cowards. I also think this would be the perfect situation to use a police dog, dogs are very good at disarming people with knives. BTW 23 police dogs have died in the line of duty in NZ.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 30):
If they would have been armed, they would at least have stood a chance. Without a firearm they were sitting ducks.

It was an ambush, they had no hope, hell even fully armed and protected soldiers die in ambushes, whatever makes you think having a couple of pistols would have given them any protection at all?


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6825 posts, RR: 12
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3654 times:

The UK is not Europe. Cops in France are armed, as are gendarmes (military police for the countryside), custom officers, some local police (that are not real cops), and even some rent a cop. Still, they very rarely draw their weapons, let alone shoot them.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3642 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 28):

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
Guns are absolutely for killing/incapacitating...

there are countries where that is seen completely different. Any police officer in most European countries will face an investigation by the state attornes's office of he/she kills a person.

OK, when police officers have more or less carte blanche in such situations they don't care what happens with thre assailant and that's the difference. In most other western countries the life of a person is valued and there is no difference made between an officer or someone wielding a knife, a pistol or just a pen.

Police officers are exactly that, not judges who hand down an instant execution death penalty.

Your post does nothing to refute what DeltaMD90 said. We were talking about whether rubber bullets were a reasonable alternative and it seems you used it as a launch pad for some sort of anti-police rant.

Fact is that guns ARE for killing/incapacitating. That is what they are designed to do, and all that they can do...which is why their use needs to be governed by sound policy, justified by the circumstances, and issued wisely. Whether or not deadly force was justified in this case doesn't change what a gun is or what it does.

You're also making some pretty big generalizations about police accountability in the US. Again, we're talking about a workforce of nearly a million people...if they were all cowboys handing out instant death penalties without recourse like you suggest we'd be out of people over here by now.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 33):
in this incident I would feel pretty confident a Kiwi cop would have been able to handle the situation far better then these two cowards. I also think this would be the perfect situation to use a police dog, dogs are very good at disarming people with knives.

Rob, I generally agree with your posts but I think you've departed from the airway here. You're on the other side of the planet and there hasn't even been an investigation yet. Likewise, we don't exactly have police dogs standing at parade rest outside of every location that an officer is called to respond...by the time this situation got out of hand it was far too late to call a K-9 unit. Which may very well be the officers' fault but again, that is what the investigation is for.

I agree that this situation looks terrible and probably should never have gotten as far as it did, but I'm not calling another guy - doing a difficult job - a coward until I know a hell of a lot more. And maybe not even then because I know what it is like to be under pressure and it is so damned easy to pull up a keyboard and be the smart/tough/courageous one.

********************
I think many of you guys need to back off on the constant criticism of the state of life in the US...whether its guns, medical care, our political process etc. it's getting old. Every country has problems...maybe we have more than our share. The difference seems to be in the amount of time and energy that you put into reading about and discussing ours and the level of enjoyment you seem to get out of it. I understand why you'd be interested in our international affairs, but the level of interest in our internal matters approaches voyeurism. Go outside and enjoy some fresh air...I'm sure yours is better than what we have here!

[Edited 2012-09-24 03:35:36]

User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3610 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 35):
by the time this situation got out of hand it was far too late to call a K-9 unit.

See that's a difference between policing in NZ and policing in the US, a dog car would probably have responded to an incident like this at the same time as the patrol car. When police are unarmed like ours dogs are used a lot more often, although I wonder if this will change now that police are carrying pepper spray and tasers.

Also wondering why the cop who was cornered didn't pull his baton and give the one armed man a good thump, or don't US police use them anymore?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 31):
I'm not quite sure what the point of your post is. As you correctly noted, the UK cops were ambushed. The suspect had the element of surprise to his advantage. They could have gone in there armed with M16s - it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

It would also appear the UK police chiefs disagree with you. They've reitereated their stance against routine arming of police officers.

From what I´ve read one of the police women managed to draw her Taser, but bringing a taser to a gunfight won´t give you much chance at survival. The guy knew that for a burlary he would only see unarmed police officers. Had he called e.g. for "hearing gunfire in my neighbourhood" an armed unit would have arrived and HIS chances for survival would have been much lower.
I would like to disagree. It seems that, after the shootings, British police and police union leadership still upholds the idea of unarmed police, but that those on the frontline advocate to give all police officers at least firearms training and to give them the choice of carrying a firearm while on duty. It doesn´t mean that every bobby will in future look and act like Robocop, but a discretely holstered 9mm pistol would be enough of a deterent for most armed criminals.
See http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affai...mp-bobby-shot-dead-hattersley.html for an intense discussion involving several working British police officers.
I have three persons in my closer family who are police officers: My brother´s girlfriend is a motorway police officer in Saxony, Germany, and my girlfriend´s brother and his wife are police officers in the Philippines. None of them could imagine to go on duty without being armed for selfdefence.

Additionally Britain has a massive problem with gun crime, mainly perpetrated by criminal, mafia-like gangs using illegally purchased guns (and from time to time military style weapons like grenades). From what I understand this
fact is carefully spun down by the politicians to show that British gun policy has worked.
Good, we have that development as well, where e.g. pimps used a pitbull dog as a status symbol in the 1980s, today it has to be at least a pistol, if not an AK-47.

Jan


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9657 posts, RR: 31
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 35):
You're also making some pretty big generalizations about police accountability in the US.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 28):
there are countries where that is seen completely different. Any police officer in most European countries will face an investigation by the state attornes's office of he/she kills a person.

I tried to keep my post as neutral and polite as possible. I rather did not generalize, that's why I opened the post like that, see my quote above.

Police in Germany and most other countries in Europe are trained to de-escalate a situation. A case like this, or the one recently at Tomes Square NY, could not happen here with the same result. The comparison with "carte blanmche" may be harsh, but then - why do more police officers and more alleged criminals get killed in the US than in Europe? Here, suing a fire-arm is a last resort and really allowed only in self defense.

If a SWAT team is involved, the regular cop is out of the business anyway and the leader of the SWAT team must cleraly auhorize the shoot to kill and it better be on tape.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 36):
Also wondering why the cop who was cornered didn't pull his baton and give the one armed man a good thump, or don't US police use them anymore?

Unlike the whacko, the officed presumably had use of both his arms and legs. A good old punch in the face or two would have settled the issue.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 33):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 30):
If they would have been armed, they would at least have stood a chance. Without a firearm they were sitting ducks.

It was an ambush, they had no hope, hell even fully armed and protected soldiers die in ambushes, whatever makes you think having a couple of pistols would have given them any protection at all?

It depends on the situation. The military regularly practice anti-ambush training (get behind the nearest cover, open suppressive fire into the direction the shooting comes from, try to get out of the killing zone, regroup and counterattack) but at least infantry soldiers expect that they might be ambushed in a combat zone. It also depends on the training armed police officers would get and how alert they will be for a possible ambush. I expect that after this murder there won´t be any routine calls in this neighbourhood, but there will always be an armed unit on close standby.

Jan


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3587 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 40):
It depends on the situation.

Come on, it was your regular neighborhood copper answering to a call from someone who had his house broken into and were going to assess the damage. There was absolutely no reason to expect an ambush.

Even if they had sent SAS in full gear they would have been killed, too. He used f*ckin' grenades to finish the wounded ladies off!


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3584 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 40):
It depends on the situation. The military regularly practice anti-ambush training (get behind the nearest cover, open suppressive fire into the direction the shooting comes from, try to get out of the killing zone, regroup and counterattack) but at least infantry soldiers expect that they might be ambushed in a combat zone.

Yet even with that training thousands of soldiers have been killed or wounded in Afghanistan in ambushes, so what chance would two female bobby's have who are not trained in counter ambush tactics have, more to the point are police even trained to counter ambushes?


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6825 posts, RR: 12
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3582 times:

Recently two gendarmes were killed here, by a guy with a knife. It was not an ambush, they were called because the guy was noisy and violent. They were both armed, in fact the second one was killed with the gun of the first one. So, the guns really didn't help there.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1320 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3574 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 28):
Any police officer in most European countries will face an investigation by the state attornes's office of he/she kills a person.

As I understand it, here in New Zealand, an investigation is held every-time a firearm is discharged or a Taser is fired. This is beneficial as the police force have the ability to identify potential 'trigger happy' officers early (hopefully before someone gets hurt) and give them extra training if that is deemed to be required.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 33):
I know that in the entire history of the NZ police force which is unarmed (baring the Armed Offenders Squads and the Special Tactics Group) only 29 officers have been killed in the line of duty

29 officers divided by 170 years is a little less than 0.2 deaths per year.

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 29):
A one armed, one legged man on a wheelchair, even if he had a knife, cannot charge. It's as simple as that.

Maybe he could throw it at the officer? Even so, one would have thought that the risk would be pretty low.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 35):
I think many of you guys need to back off on the constant criticism of the state of life in the US

I would argue that:
A) Yes, the US gets a lot of criticism but that is probably due to its size/population/number of airliners.net members as compared to the rest of the world,
and
B) this is an open forum of free speech (as long as it is done in a mature way) where Americans are more than welcome to discuss/question/criticize things that happen in other parts of the world if they so desire.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 41):
He used f*ckin' grenades to finish the wounded ladies off!

I really hope the judge comes down hard on him.



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3534 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 36):

See that's a difference between policing in NZ and policing in the US, a dog car would probably have responded to an incident like this at the same time as the patrol car. When police are unarmed like ours dogs are used a lot more often, although I wonder if this will change now that police are carrying pepper spray and tasers.

Maybe so...but I'll wager you $20 that if a K-9 had responded, the headline would read "Police Unleash Attack Dog on Wheelchair Bound Amputee" and we'd be having this same discussion.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 36):

Also wondering why the cop who was cornered didn't pull his baton and give the one armed man a good thump, or don't US police use them anymore?

A good question, and one that the investigation will probably ask. But again as with the K-9 the headline would probably be about a police officer beating hell out of a wheelchair bound amputee with a baton.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 38):
Police in Germany and most other countries in Europe are trained to de-escalate a situation. A case like this, or the one recently at Tomes Square NY, could not happen here with the same result. The comparison with "carte blanmche" may be harsh, but then - why do more police officers and more alleged criminals get killed in the US than in Europe? Here, suing a fire-arm is a last resort and really allowed only in self defense.

Our police are also trained to de-escalate a situation, and most of the time they do. You have no idea how many potentially violent situations are diffused every day in the US.

Likewise, use of a firearm here is also a "last resort and really allowed only in self defense." You're talking like police can just 'cap' somebody no questions asked here and that is just not true.

As to why there is more killing of police and alleged criminals here, my theory is that for better or worse violence is ingrained in our society. When you look at how the continent was settled and by whom, our history of nearly constant warfare with somebody, history of poor race relations, and our music/movies/television it's not particularly hard to understand.

Of course Europeans have been continually slaughtering each other in epic fashion since the beginning of recorded history...you're just more organized about it. Europe's recent tranquility is a happy anomaly that I hope continues for you. We're taking longer to get there and maybe never will.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 44):
As I understand it, here in New Zealand, an investigation is held every-time a firearm is discharged or a Taser is fired. This is beneficial as the police force have the ability to identify potential 'trigger happy' officers early (hopefully before someone gets hurt) and give them extra training if that is deemed to be required.

Same here in the US. Our police don't just shoot or tase someone, clock out for the day and head home for dinner.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 44):
B) this is an open forum of free speech (as long as it is done in a mature way) where Americans are more than welcome to discuss/question/criticize things that happen in other parts of the world if they so desire.

Certainly, yet I find that I have little or no inclination to criticize other countries' domestic affairs on an internet forum. I have plenty of opinions, but what do I know about being a Frenchman, German, or Kiwi? None of my damned business really.

[Edited 2012-09-24 05:36:34]

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3530 times:

As for the current case, it is impossible for a wheelchairbound person with only one arm to carry out a knife attack. He simply cannot move the wheelchair and stab with a knife. And even then it is very easy to get behind the wheelchair (where the person in it can´t reach) and to move the wheelchair away.

Jan


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 46):
As for the current case, it is impossible for a wheelchairbound person with only one arm to carry out a knife attack. He simply cannot move the wheelchair and stab with a knife. And even then it is very easy to get behind the wheelchair (where the person in it can´t reach) and to move the wheelchair away.

Jan

Likewise, it's impossible to stall and crash an Airbus A330 unless you hold the stick back the whole way down...yet a fully qualified Air France pilot recently did exactly that. Which just means that humans are not perfect and situations are substantially clearer in hindsight.

My guess is that in this case the officers will be found to have handled the situation poorly, and I personally suspect that the previous incident where the shooter's girlfriend and neighbor got stabbed had a lot to do with his decision to shoot.

[Edited 2012-09-24 05:52:21]

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 28):
..and what about the "luck" of the bystanders? Police simply cannot use fire arms in situations where by-standers can get hurt.

I disagree. It depends on the situation. I imagine just about any decent sized police department has an "active shooter" protocol. These protocols describe how to engage an assailant who is actively engaged in shooting people. By definition, the police would be engaging an attacker who is in the midst of victims and soon-to-be victims. Sometimes the police have no choice but to shoot with civilians in he area. It should be avoided, but can't always be avoided.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 33):
It was an ambush, they had no hope, hell even fully armed and protected soldiers die in ambushes, whatever makes you think having a couple of pistols would have given them any protection at all?

But, a sidearm is better than no gun when you're attacked...no?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9657 posts, RR: 31
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

Aha, so there was someone shooting at people and all the people that got hit were hit by police bullets.

Understood. good work.

Did these stupid people who were carelessly standing in the way of the police bullets have to pay their own medical bills?



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3424 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 32):
They would have been sitting ducks with a gun, too. It was a carefully prepared ambush.

That's nothing more than an assumption.

Another assumption: if the police carried guns, the perpetrator would never have set this ambush up in the first place.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3416 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 50):

Another assumption: if the police carried guns, the perpetrator would never have set this ambush up in the first place.

Yes he would've. He is a psychopath. He has murdered before and this would've happened no matter what. If it wasn't these two police officers it would've been someone else. He might've called the Fire brigade and killed two fireman instead.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1438 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 44):
I really hope the judge comes down hard on him.

I would imagine he'll get a whole life tariff, so I highly doubt he'll ever get out.

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 8):
Maybe i'm being naive, as we never have these stories in the UK

Not often, but never is a stretch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Waldorf_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3397 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 50):
Another assumption: if the police carried guns, the perpetrator would never have set this ambush up in the first place.

Yet United States where police do carry guns has probably more shootings than any other country in the world (from countries that aren't having any kind of war or conflict going on).



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3380 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 51):
Yes he would've. He is a psychopath. He has murdered before and this would've happened no matter what. If it wasn't these two police officers it would've been someone else. He might've called the Fire brigade and killed two fireman instead.

So why don´t we just get rid of the police, because the criminals will just do what they want anyway?
I don´t understand this British idea of fairplay in policing anyway.
Sure, it might have worked 100 years ago:
"Stop, you´re nicked!" - "Aw, guv´nor, I´ll come with you!"

We had this attitude as well, when burglars would not arm themselves and police officers did no have to chance a violent confrontation. When a stretch in prison was considered a risk of the job and no hard feelings.
When non-violent master burglars were something like folk heroes ecause they thumped their noses at the "toffs" (like the Sass brothers in Germany, who broke into the vaults of banks during the depression years, and acted like Robin Hood towards the unemployed in their neighbourhood. Though no crime could be tagged to them, they were arrested by the Nazis, sent to a concentration camp and executed).
I think latest the movies from the US (starting in the postwar period) brought the image of the outlaw, who will use violence to reach his target. E.g. in early postwar Berlin there existed a teenage gang armed with military weapons, which they bought on the black market (plenty of guns around just after the war), which committed several murders and robberies. The leader, who was later arrested and excecuted in East Berlin, stated that he tried to set up an organsiation based on the American prohibition era gangs.
Today a pistol or even an AK-47 are status symbols among criminals and readily available. I wouldn´t want to be a police officer in the UK with no chance of defending myself.
Also, laws, as long as they come from a democratically elected government and have been approved by a democratically elected parliament, HAVE to be enforced.
Law enforcement is not a sports game, where everybody should have the same chances. Preferably police should enforce using superiority, be it in numbers or in equipment and training.

Forget about the gentleman criminal.
I´m quite sure that the killer of the two police women either wanted to make himself a name within the gangland as a tough cop killer, or that he wanted to make the neighbourhood a no-go area, where police would not dare to enter, so that gangs like his, would have free reign in carrying out their criminal businesses (e.g. parts of Belfast during the troubles, where Republican and Loyalist paramilitary gangs ruled the neighbourhoods and police and army could only get in moving as in a war zone).

Jan


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7652 posts, RR: 4
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3367 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 45):

Maybe so...but I'll wager you $20 that if a K-9 had responded, the headline would read "Police Unleash Attack Dog on Wheelchair Bound Amputee" and we'd be having this same discussion.

I don't even think it would be worth reporting, and I very much doubt the foreign press would have picked up and run the story.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):

But, a sidearm is better than no gun when you're attacked...no?

So you're walking into a building I come up behind you and shoot you in the back of the head without your knowledge that I was even there, then I throw a grenade at your corpse, I don't see how a gun would have helped you in that situation, you didn't know I was there (it was an ambush after all) I shot you dead, your gun is just a decoration on your belt or in your cold dead hand. Arming those women would still have resulted in two dead policewomen.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Missed a lot when I was gone...

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
That's not what you do with a gun. When you shoot, you shoot center mass.

Except this officer shot him in the head.

That's what they're trained to do. Obviously if shooting center mass is not an option you'll shoot elsewhere. And cops are trained to shoot when there is a high chance of hitting civilians. YES I know this situation is fishier than most. YES I know that cops in NYC just hit 9 bystanders the other day. I'm talking in general

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
I think the range is something like within 21 feet a guy can charge you with a knife before an average officer can draw and fire.

Now can you imagine a one armed man in a wheel chair waiving a knife and charging at you, can't happen at all, he's only got one arm, he can't hold the knife and wheel at the same time.

OK what does what I said have to do with what you said? I was merely saying knives are surprisingly dangerous up close. Not justifying or criticizing this cop, I (nor you you) were there!

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 28):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
Guns are absolutely for killing/incapacitating...

there are countries where that is seen completely different. Any police officer in most European countries will face an investigation by the state attornes's office of he/she kills a person.

Um, so other countries, guns AREN'T seen as killing/incapacitating? What are they seen as?

Contrary to what you see on the news, cops in the US aren't trained to just shoot whenever they feel like it. There is a well laid out escalation of force, by the time guns are used it's gotten real bad. I'm sure you misread what I was saying, otherwise you're implying that police in Germany (or other countries) use guns for lesser purposes. Well, maybe in some 3rd world countries guns are used more freely by the cops, but not Germany...

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 29):
I'm amazed how this can even create a debate.

The Police officer was pretty clearly trigger happy.

Oh you were there? And on the jury? "Innocent before proven guilty." I know it looks bad, but you don't know the details sir

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 30):
then threw a grenade

Wow, we all know guns are accessed more freely in the US, but I'm surprised at the amount of grenades I see elsewhere. There's been a few cases I've heard of involving grenades in Europe. Can't think of any in the US...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3347 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 55):
I don't even think it would be worth reporting, and I very much doubt the foreign press would have picked up and run the story.

Maybe, but I live here and I think it would have run on the evening news, complete with cellphone video of the mauling if there was one. It's just bizarre enough to appeal to the prime time audience.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 51):
Yes he would've. He is a psychopath. He has murdered before and this would've happened no matter what. If it wasn't these two police officers it would've been someone else. He might've called the Fire brigade and killed two fireman instead.

Yet another assumption. He killed unarmed people before. Would he killed unarmed people again? Probably. Would he lure in armed (and trained!) people? That's very dubious. He may be a psychopath, be that doesn't mean he is completely stupid.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 53):
Yet United States where police do carry guns has probably more shootings than any other country in the world (from countries that aren't having any kind of war or conflict going on).

I will be first one to tell you that police brutality is a problem world wide, but to send two UNARMED people after criminal suspects or where criminal activity is suspected is nothing short of irresponsible and reckless.

That's the two extremes in this thread.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3326 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 49):
Aha, so there was someone shooting at people and all the people that got hit were hit by police bullets.

Understood. good work.

Did these stupid people who were carelessly standing in the way of the police bullets have to pay their own medical bills?

I think it's fallacious to cite one example of poor execution or decisionmaking as justification for an irresponsible policy such as "Police simply cannot use fire arms in situations where by-standers can get hurt." That's like citing AF447 as justification for saying "Airliners simply cannot cross the Atlantic when convective activity is present."

It is also unwise to talk in absolutes when dealing with issues competing risks. There are situations where the potential risk of hitting a bystander is acceptable when contrasted with the relative certainty that an active shooter is presently killing people. It is a matter of quickly and correctly assessing the relative risks and taking the most prudent action that will neutralize the threat. The fact that this doesn't seem to have been happened in the New York City incident makes the doctrine no less valid when applied correctly.

By your calculus it would make sense for police to wait outside while a murderer killed as many as he liked inside of a house, school, etc. for fear of hurting innocent bystanders. That does not make sense to me.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3320 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 56):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 30):
then threw a grenade

Wow, we all know guns are accessed more freely in the US, but I'm surprised at the amount of grenades I see elsewhere. There's been a few cases I've heard of involving grenades in Europe. Can't think of any in the US...

From what I´ve heard the grenade came from former Yugoslavia. The guy is also implicated in a gangland murder a few weeks ago, where a similar grenade was used. Plenty of military weapons on the loose in Europe due to the collapse of the Eastern block and the civil wars in the Balkans.

Jan


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3300 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 55):
So you're walking into a building I come up behind you and shoot you in the back of the head without your knowledge that I was even there, then I throw a grenade at your corpse, I don't see how a gun would have helped you in that situation, you didn't know I was there (it was an ambush after all) I shot you dead, your gun is just a decoration on your belt or in your cold dead hand. Arming those women would still have resulted in two dead policewomen.

So, you just send your police into harm's way because there is a possibility that they may get ambushed without being able to get off a shot?

Yes, sometimes having a gun will do a police officer absolutely no good. But, what if the assailant had made a single mistake and exposed himself? Without a sidearm, those 2 would still be dead. With a sidearm...maybe a chance? A sidearm provides options...and I would like my police to have all the options and advantages they want...and deserve.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1658 posts, RR: 2
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3300 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):

When you draw your weapon and fire, it's to the point where you intend to kill or incapacitate the suspect. That's what the gun is for.

Absolutely correct.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 1):
It indeed always amazes me how unprofessional US police forces are when compared to Europe and most of the other world.

Oh please, take that shit somewhere else.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 12):
So, based on one incident or it could be ten or even twenty across a nation where there are over 800,000 (give or take) sworn law enforcement officers, protecting over 314,000,000 people, you declare that US police forces are unprofessional?

Silly Europeans, Trix are for kids.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 15):
That's not how it works. Unlike in the movies, being shot in the arm is not merely a painful "flesh wound". Assuming one could aim good enough to do it, you still run the risk of having the bullet hit an artery, bouncing around, or exiting and reentering somewhere else, possibly into another (innocent) person.

The leg is even worse. Watch Black Hawk Down to see just how nasty that can be.


The third rule of carrying a gun: only point it at something you are willing to destroy. Because that's all it's good for.

Absolutely correct.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21795 posts, RR: 55
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
But, a sidearm is better than no gun when you're attacked...no?

It is not worse. But it's not necessarily better. If you're ambushed and shot, you're ambushed and shot; you probably have no time to get your gun out. So having the gun has gained you nothing in that situation.

Then you look at all the other situations that police might find themselves in, and ask whether having a gun helps or hurts in those situations. Considering the general strategy in the UK of diffusing situations rather than trying to out-escalate (as is the strategy in the US), it would seem that having the police seen as less of a threat would be an advantage.

Anyway, the point is that, whatever our opinions on it may be, having unarmed police words for the UK. And since their police officers aren't being killed left and right, I find it hard to say that they are being hung out to dry.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 50):
Another assumption: if the police carried guns, the perpetrator would never have set this ambush up in the first place.

Given the amount of violence against police in the US, where everyone knows they carry guns, I think we can safely say that assumption doesn't fly.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 65, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3268 times:

One thing I wonder about:
If a situation is not absolutely clear, over here one police officer will watch and secure, while the other one will approach the house (car, person etc.) and do the talking (due to several police officers having been killed in the 1990s by armed criminals in routine situations, the old policy of keeping the gun covered as not to intimidate has gone. Now the securing police officer will have at least his hand on the gun, ready to draw).
Did both of them approach the house at the same time? This would mean extremely bad tactics.

Quoting Mir (Reply 64):
Considering the general strategy in the UK of diffusing situations rather than trying to out-escalate (as is the strategy in the US), it would seem that having the police seen as less of a threat would be an advantage.

There exists a middle ground as well. We don´t need Robocop or Judge Dredd on the beat, but we also don´t need police officers to be used either as cannon fodder or to be bullied by criminals (e.g. when I was living in SNN, there was a traveller camp near the place I was working in. Next to it lived another German ex-pat with his family. That guy just found himself a job after a long spell of unemployment and needed his old car to get there. One day a few young men from this traveller camp stole this car and smashed it up while joyriding. He called the Guards (Irish police, who are, like their British counterparts unarmed). Two guards came, had a look at the situation (the traveller community HAS a reputation of being violent and these young guys, who stole the car HAD a long list of previous convictions. Additionally any police action against travellers will cause an outcry of police harrassing a minority) and disappeared.
The guy and myself had to recover the now scrap car, using my old Suzuki jeep to tow it, which wasn´t without bdangers as well. If German police would have found themselves outnumbered, they would have called for assistance, but they would not have accepted the establishment of lawless no-go area.).

Jan


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 66, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3262 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 64):
Considering the general strategy in the UK of diffusing situations rather than trying to out-escalate (as is the strategy in the US)

You're saying US police don't try and diffuse situations? Many dead US cops would beg to differ, got some youtube videos to prove that to you. You can't lump the police you see screwing up on TV with all cops

Edit: I will add that US cops may be a bit more aggressive than European cops, but that is out of necessity. How many armed criminals do European cops face versus American cops?

[Edited 2012-09-24 11:47:36]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20194 posts, RR: 59
Reply 67, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 4):
How's about we keep the anti-American sentiment off this story, yeah? I could go right now and grab half a dozen similar incidents that have happened in Europe.

Then do so, because I'm not aware of this. It has struck me that American police forces are having a huge problem with professionalism and excessive use of force.

I know Spain had this problem after Franco died and today their Guardia Civil has intensive psychological tests to make sure that their police force will remain professional even under fire and that they don't have issues with narcissism or other contributors to thuggish behavior.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 68, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3211 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 64):
Given the amount of violence against police in the US, where everyone knows they carry guns, I think we can safely say that assumption doesn't fly.

I think we can safely say that the assumption I made flies just fine, given that a weapon is a deterrent and not a complete crime inhibitor.

It doesn't mean the outcome in this case would necessarily have changed. It's impossible to say one way or another.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 62):
Without a sidearm, those 2 would still be dead. With a sidearm...maybe a chance? A sidearm provides options...and I would like my police to have all the options and advantages they want...and deserve.

And in the case in the OP and other cases like it there may be less people dead.

And I have nothing against police being armed.

Quoting Mir (Reply 64):
Then you look at all the other situations that police might find themselves in, and ask whether having a gun helps or hurts in those situations. Considering the general strategy in the UK of diffusing situations rather than trying to out-escalate (as is the strategy in the US), it would seem that having the police seen as less of a threat would be an advantage.

  

Looking at the situation in UK it is hard (impossible) to state that arming police is better.

Quoting Mir (Reply 64):
Given the amount of violence against police in the US, where everyone knows they carry guns, I think we can safely say that assumption doesn't fly.

  


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12785 posts, RR: 46
Reply 70, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3196 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Can you elaborate on as to why? This seems like this is only asking for trouble. I cannot imagine how many defensiveness cops in the UK has died in the line of duty because he/she could not have the tools to do his/her job. It's astounds me on this issue.

Far fewer than you'd expect. The recent shooting of two policewomen has really shocked the country.

The police themselves seem determined not to be armed on a day-to-day basis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

Quote:
But despite the loss of two of his officers, Greater Manchester Chief Constable Sir Peter Fahy was quick to speak in support of the status quo.

"We are passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing. Sadly we know from the experience in America and other countries that having armed officers certainly does not mean, sadly, that police officers do not end up getting shot."

But one thing is clear. When asked, police officers say overwhelmingly that they wish to remain unarmed.
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 30):
If they would have been armed, they would at least have stood a chance.

Unlikely. They were ambushed by an armed man who also used a grenade.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 56):
And cops are trained to shoot when there is a high chance of hitting civilians.

Did you really mean this?  Wow!



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 50):
That's nothing more than an assumption.

No. The facts are well known, they were lured, ambushed and killed in cold blood.

They could have carried a G36 and still wouldn't have made a difference.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5703 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3172 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 20):
I'm not going to say i know for sure but i'm pretty sure every US officer carries a gun, and most have inadequate training.

  

Every single sworn law enforcement officer in the US is required to carry a department-issued or approved gun while on duty.

And since you can't even get that right, how are you supposed to know the training standards of hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers?

Gimme a break.

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 20):
Hell, you can get a gun license at 18 and pick one up from the local store!

No gun license needed in most areas of the US. In most states, it's 21 to buy a handgun.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 27):

A pen and a knife look completely different.


BTW, ever hear of the term "shank"?

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 30):
Just a few days ago two unarmed female cops in Manchester, UK, have been lured into an ambush by a fake burglary call and have been killeds by pistol shots

Which has happened more times than I care to remember just in Phoenix.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 70):
Did you really mean this?

What he meant is, in certain situations (like the recent one in NYC), you HAVE to shoot someone even when there's a high risk of hitting innocent bystanders.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 73, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3140 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 72):
Quoting scbriml (Reply 70):
Did you really mean this?

What he meant is, in certain situations (like the recent one in NYC), you HAVE to shoot someone even when there's a high risk of hitting innocent bystanders.

LOL no I meant they aren't supposed to shoot when they are gonna hit civilians. As far as I'm aware (and I could very well be wrong) there aren't really exceptions... get in a good position and minimize the risk of hitting bystanders even if the suspects are lighting up civilians. Correct me if I'm wrong



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinegreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3085 posts, RR: 20
Reply 74, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

I can speak of this as i am a cop and i carry a gun.

Now this is canada so here is a few call i dealt with were I was first on scene.

Call comes in for a domestic assault. Speaking with the victim in the parking lot someone yells he is out side. I start heading towards the house and he runs back inside. Now his kids are inside as well.

1 guys ends up barricaded in the house. Screams out the window at me. "I am going to shoot you in the fucking head you fucking cunt". Ducks down behind the window sill and comes up in a shooting stance. Guy is lucky in that he is also drunk and stumbles so I can see that he has no gun or I would have shot him.

Truck driver gets mad at this dispatch and says he is going to to his truck to get a gun and come back in and kill him. I am right there literally. I come around the corner and guy is walking from truck carrying a gun. He saw cruiser and dropped it immediately. Again I was ready to shoot even though there was a lot of people around.

Then last year we had a guy shooting up a business early. Now I thought that this business might be open and people in side being killed so I arrive on scene ready to go. As I get on scene guy walks out of building. I draw down and guy squares off with me and drops the gun. There were none in the building but we have no way of knowing that until it is over. I was so focused and scared, and stressed at the thought of getting into a shoot out i did not even notice that other officers had arrived. In that situation under that much stress do you really think that I would be able to shoot the arm or the leg? Contrary to what most think we react pretty much like any other human when faced with a stressful situation. First to go is fine motor skills. You cannot train for that as you cannot shoot real guns at each other.

The only thing that stopped me from shooting in all circumstances was something that I saw and perceived. Another cop could have come on scene and saw it differently and shot and would have been justified.

a guy I work with had a car driven at him when he was in front of a wall. Cop shots at car and it misses the driver it forces the driver to re-think what he was about to do( that can happen in the UK and tasers do not work on cars)

In there instances I did not have a time or place to call for a armed response unit. If I did not have my gun or baddie did not know I was armed he would have killed many in the few minutes waiting.

This officer saw perceived something that led him to his decision to shoot. Unless you were there you cannot say they had to do this or that. Will the officer have to answer for it, more than likely.

One thing in policing there is no absolutes. No one can say this would have happened or would not have happened.

On my last use of force training we did a training about action vs reaction. We had the bad guy sitting at a table with a gun laying on it. the cop had his gun in his hand but at his side. We had to wait for the bad guys action and then to react to it. In every single take the bad guy was able to reach the gun and shoot the copper before they could react.



GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21795 posts, RR: 55
Reply 75, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 68):
I think we can safely say that the assumption I made flies just fine, given that a weapon is a deterrent and not a complete crime inhibitor.

If that were really true, the UK would have more officers being killed than the US. But it doesn't. So more guns does not equal less officers getting killed; in fact, the reverse is true.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinebaldwin471 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 72):

Every single sworn law enforcement officer in the US is required to carry a department-issued or approved gun while on duty.

And since you can't even get that right, how are you supposed to know the training standards of hundreds of thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers?

Gimme a break.

Jeez get over yourself. Looks like someone is getting on their moral high horse because yet another of your police officers has used unnecessary force. It's ridiculous.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 77, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3032 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 75):

If that were really true, the UK would have more officers being killed than the US. But it doesn't. So more guns does not equal less officers getting killed; in fact, the reverse is true.

-Mir

While I´ve seen British and Irish police being more ready (and capable) in physical confrontations (wrestling mixed with rugby style tackles, occasional use of the baton in creative ways) with e.g. unarmed drunks than their continental counterparts, who, if in doubt, rely too much on their weapon to keep distance, I also have seen Irish police avoiding a confrontation with obviously violent and possibly armed (with knives, billhooks, axes etc.) perpetrators to the extend to ignore the crime that had happened (see my post #65).

Jan


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3007 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 75):
If that were really true, the UK would have more officers being killed than the US. But it doesn't. So more guns does not equal less officers getting killed; in fact, the reverse is true.

-Mir

I have no argument with the facts you have listed, but it's not logically valid to conclude that whether the officers are armed or not is the reason for the difference. It could be any number of other variables that are different between the US and UK.

We're divided by a common language and many other things  


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1438 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2964 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 75):
If that were really true, the UK would have more officers being killed than the US. But it doesn't. So more guns does not equal less officers getting killed; in fact, the reverse is true.

To be clear though- that's "more guns" among the general population rather than specifically the police. It's not an argument for disarming the police; if the criminals are likely to be armed, the police must also be.

The police in the US face a different set of circumstances in the UK; in West Oakland near where I live, almost everyone the police encounter will likely be armed. You can't police there without a gun; it just isn't possible.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2950 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
Can you elaborate on as to why? This seems like this is only asking for trouble. I cannot imagine how many defensiveness cops in the UK has died in the line of duty because he/she could not have the tools to do his/her job. It's astounds me on this issue.

With that said, I wouldn't want to be a cop in the UK solely on this issue alone. I want to be able to defend myself at moments notice, instead of waiting for the "Gun Squad".   

Because there are hardly any guns in the UK, and getting a license for one is very difficult. The only people who legally have guns in practice are farmers with rifles/shotguns. Between 30 and 40 people are murdered by being shot in the UK every year, compared to 12,000 in the USA. If officers in the UK carried weapons, more criminals would arm themselves, more "peaceful" crimes would turn violent, and more people would be shot by the Police. We've never armed our force, and I'm thankful for it. 80% of our Police force "strongly disagree" that they should be armed, with 55% saying that they would RESIGN from the force if they were required to be armed.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
But, a sidearm is better than no gun when you're attacked...no?

Not if someone comes up behind you, shoots you and then grenades you. In any case, being shot at in the UK is very rare, even for officers...

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 50):
That's nothing more than an assumption.

Another assumption: if the police carried guns, the perpetrator would never have set this ambush up in the first place.

No, it's not an assumption. And yeah, you're probably right - he may not have set up the ambush if our officers carried firearms. But more are saved by our approach to firearms than are killed.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 54):
I don´t understand this British idea of fairplay in policing anyway.
Sure, it might have worked 100 years ago:
"Stop, you´re nicked!" - "Aw, guv´nor, I´ll come with you!"

Fair play? It's not "fair play", it's just not shooting petty criminals in the head. They still have tasers, truncheons etc, wear knife proof vests and are certainly able to apprehend most criminals. If the perpetrator doesn't have a gun - and 99%+ of them in the UK don't - then being armed is unnecessary.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 59):
I will be first one to tell you that police brutality is a problem world wide, but to send two UNARMED people after criminal suspects or where criminal activity is suspected is nothing short of irresponsible and reckless.

Irresponsible and reckless... If they knew they were going up against an armed criminal, they would have called the special armed police in. This is the way our policing system works, and it does work. We have very few homicides per year from firearms (30 -40) and hardly any PC's are killed. This is a terrible exception.

Unlike other counties, our police force owes its loyalty to the people, not the state... They have never been routinely armed and hopefully never will.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14127 posts, RR: 62
Reply 81, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 80):

Fair play? It's not "fair play", it's just not shooting petty criminals in the head. They still have tasers, truncheons etc, wear knife proof vests and are certainly able to apprehend most criminals. If the perpetrator doesn't have a gun - and 99%+ of them in the UK don't - then being armed is unnecessary.

And sometimes (and more and more often) they come upon armed, dangerous criminals.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 80):

Irresponsible and reckless... If they knew they were going up against an armed criminal, they would have called the special armed police in. This is the way our policing system works, and it does work. We have very few homicides per year from firearms (30 -40) and hardly any PC's are killed. This is a terrible exception.

B#ll#cks. If my aunt had b@lls, she would be my uncle.
The German ministry of the interior estimates about 45 million guns of all types in Germany, with about half of them being illegal.http://www.badische-zeitung.de/deuts...ffen-sind-im-umlauf--12577725.html (in Germany). I doubt that figures in the UK are much different (maybe with the legal ones, as you can´t have handguns).
These two police officers were sent unprepared into a situation, where they had to face a dangerous, armed criminal with intend to kill.
The same approach failed in Germany in the 1990s, when police officers in some states were ordered to cover up their sidearms as not to appear intimidating. Several were shot by armed criminals (gangsters, not politically motivated terrorists) during routine traffic controls. Since then the policy is for the police officers to wear a ballistic vest and to have one officer secure and watch with the hand on the gun until the situation is clear.
If you don´t understand it, the criminal society has changed profundly in western Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly there are lots of military weapons readily available. Additionally you have gangsters from countries with civil wars, where a life doesn´t count much (e.g. I have read that the red light district in Hamburg has largely been taken over by Russian and Albanian gangsters, who were much more willing to use violence than the former German and Turkish ones).
Read the discussion on the link I gave before in post #37.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 80):
Unlike other counties, our police force owes its loyalty to the people, not the state... They have never been routinely armed and hopefully never will.

B#ll#cks again.
As in any other country the police is the enforcement arm of the executive, in the UK it means HM government. They are sworn to obey the monarch, but their orders come from the elected British government.
Their job is to enforce the laws passed by the elected parliament.

Since both the government and the parliament are elected by the majority of the British population, the police is enforcing the will of said majority of the population, armed or not.
Since there are some people who disagree with the laws (and therefore the will of the majority of the people) to a varying degree (from simple disobedience to use of violence), there is some institution required to enforce the laws OF THE PEOPLE.
To make sure that bthis institution doesn´t break laws themselves there exists the judicative.
In a democratic country here IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE PEOPLE.
In this aspect the UK is not different from any other democracy.

Jan


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2907 times:

Jan,

Stop applying the situation in Germany to the situation in the UK. It is not the same. In 2009 there were 3x as many homicides by firearm in Germany per 100,000 inhabitants than there were in the UK. You cannot compare the two. We have far fewer firearms, far fewer illegal firearms, and far fewer homicides by firearm. You are trying to compare apples and oranges here. Yes, the UK has more knife crime, but a PC doesn't need a gun to deal with a knife. Since 2000, 9 PCs have been killed in the line of duty, including the two tragically murdered last week. Between 2000 and 2010, only 6. That's 0.6 per year, and most of those would still be dead even had they been armed.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 81):
I doubt that figures in the UK are much different (maybe with the legal ones, as you can´t have handguns).

There are 1.6m legal guns in the UK, and it is estimated that there are 200,000 to 1m illegal firearms in the UK. The figures are that much different.

"A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years."

No matter what you say, or what other countries think, it works. We do not have high gun crime. We don't need PCs to be regularly armed. If they need armed intervention, it's always an option. PCs are sometimes killed, as they are everywhere, but the current solution is still the best.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 83, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2885 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 75):
If that were really true, the UK would have more officers being killed than the US. But it doesn't. So more guns does not equal less officers getting killed; in fact, the reverse is true.

No, that is not true either. They are totally different situations. It would seem like arming UK officers would result in a lot more shootings by police, naturally, but do you honestly expect disarming most of our police in the US would go over really well? It would be a blood bath.

Apples to oranges

Personally, I admire the fact that the UK is safe enough that the cops there are hardly armed. I think they should have guns readily accessible, even if it wouldn't have prevented the two cops from dying recently (well maybe) but the fact that they carry no weapons and hardly ever need them speaks a lot for the UK.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
do you honestly expect disarming most of our police in the US would go over really well? It would be a blood bath.

It will take an enormous effort but it can be done. Exempt, there is no will at this time.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21795 posts, RR: 55
Reply 85, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 79):
To be clear though- that's "more guns" among the general population rather than specifically the police.

In this case it's both, but I was specifically referring to fewer guns among the police.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
No, that is not true either. They are totally different situations. It would seem like arming UK officers would result in a lot more shootings by police, naturally, but do you honestly expect disarming most of our police in the US would go over really well? It would be a blood bath.

What works for the UK might not work for the US, true. But I take serious issue with those who say that UK police are being hung out to dry because they're not armed. The numbers just don't support that, and there are certain advantages to police not being armed (and there are disadvantages as well, so again that approach might not work everywhere).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 86, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
do you honestly expect disarming most of our police in the US would go over really well? It would be a blood bath.

It will take an enormous effort but it can be done. Exempt, there is no will at this time.

Of course there is no will to disarm our cops! Now if we were to get guns out of the hands of criminals then maybe, just maybe, there'd be talk of it. But sending cops out unarmed in American cities is stupid

Quoting Mir (Reply 85):
What works for the UK might not work for the US, true. But I take serious issue with those who say that UK police are being hung out to dry because they're not armed.

Agreed, you just said the opposite was true, that disarming cops reduced violence. Unless you were talking only about the UK, I thought you meant disarming our cops



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2842 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 86):
Of course there is no will to disarm our cops! Now if we were to get guns out of the hands of criminals then maybe, just maybe, there'd be talk of it. But sending cops out unarmed in American cities is stupid

   Of course the first step would have to be that they are extremely unlikely to face guns. Why it takes an enormous effort. The first being to change the mentality about using guns in this country. But it is all about will.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7966 posts, RR: 51
Reply 88, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2830 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 87):
   Of course the first step would have to be that they are extremely unlikely to face guns. Why it takes an enormous effort. The first being to change the mentality about using guns in this country. But it is all about will.

Alright alright calm down lol. I thought you were implying that our armed police somehow caused more violence... I'm sorry!   

Though even if guns did mostly disappear, would we go the way of the UK or the way of the other European countries with low gun violence yet armed cops? Personally I think it's beneficial to have them armed, to each's own, good for the UK, it works for them and it shows



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5703 posts, RR: 6
Reply 89, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 76):

Jeez get over yourself. Looks like someone is getting on their moral high horse because yet another of your police officers has used unnecessary force. It's ridiculous.

Huh?

You said that "you weren't sure" but "you thought" that "most" cops in the US carried guns.

But you're somehow absolutely certain that most cops in the US are inadequately trained.

I was attacking your logic, not defending the officer on some "moral high horse", not that I'm even sure how defending a possibly wrongful shooting would count as a "moral" argument.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12261 posts, RR: 35
Reply 90, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 28):
there are countries where that is seen completely different. Any police officer in most European countries will face an investigation by the state attornes's office of he/she kills a person.

As is the case here. In my department, even unholstering the gun requires a use of force report to be filled out.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 38):
Here, suing a fire-arm is a last resort and really allowed only in self defense.

As it is here.....

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 45):
Our police are also trained to de-escalate a situation, and most of the time they do. You have no idea how many potentially violent situations are diffused every day in the US.

Likewise, use of a firearm here is also a "last resort and really allowed only in self defense." You're talking like police can just 'cap' somebody no questions asked here and that is just not true.

  



“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3691 posts, RR: 3
Reply 91, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 53):
Yet United States where police do carry guns has probably more shootings than any other country in the world (from countries that aren't having any kind of war or conflict going on).

No, it does not. Not even close.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 58):
He killed unarmed people before. Would he killed unarmed people again?

Except this man was armed. A pen can indeed be a deadly weapon, just as my fists and feet.

I don't think we have heard half the story yet. I can think of at least one scenarios that could require shooting.

Hypothetical: Due to Equal Rights legislation, police departments have been forced to hire women, most of whom are not of size to defend themselves against aggressive male attackers. We know the shooter here was apparently defending his partner who was supposedly trapped in a corner by a person waving a sharp instrument. We don't know the shooters distance but it could have been too far away to render immediate hands on assistance.
I have trained martial arts for many years and with police. The very simple defense against this kind of attack is a very simple front kick. One of the first things you learn in any self defense course. Front kick on a man in a wheel chair lands dead on the face and since he is on wheels, he is not exactly stable. Throw that front kick and the attacker cannot reach, it's that simple.
I believe the shooter had a weak partner, unable to defend him/herself, probably from lack of training or diminutive size. The police these days seem very reluctant to mix it up, instead relying more and more on gizmos such as tasers, pepper spray and then guns.
Just a hypothetical until we get more information.


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 91):
No, it does not. Not even close.

Well yeah actually it seems that there are a lot of countries with drug trade and of course developing countries before USA, but still USA has more shootings / amount of people than probably any rich Western country.



"A rational army would run away"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UK Police Taser And "Beat" A Man - Video posted Mon Jun 15 2009 12:00:18 by BMIFlyer
Newsview - John McCain, Police Funeral, And Twiggy posted Sat Feb 17 2007 20:55:25 by STLGph
Capitol Police Release And Appologise To Sheehan posted Thu Feb 2 2006 21:09:05 by N1120A
Police Shoot 8 In New Orleans - 6 Dead! posted Sun Sep 4 2005 23:35:13 by Photopilot
AR National Guard Order: 'Shoot To Kill' Hoodlums posted Fri Sep 2 2005 21:22:36 by Vanguard737
Shoot To Kill Policy posted Fri Jul 22 2005 20:11:18 by Saintsman
Police Officers And Guns In Your Country. posted Wed Feb 9 2005 09:57:10 by OYRJA
Another Police Chase And Shooting posted Thu Jun 21 2001 16:53:00 by Matt D
Saudi Woman Stands Up To Vice And Virtue Police posted Tue Jun 5 2012 11:51:44 by 777way
Police Kill 3 Possible JI Near CGK, Jakarta posted Tue Mar 9 2010 05:15:28 by Baroque