johns624 wrote:

It's not going to help his case that other officers were telling him to "slow down".

Looking at his optic, I'm wondering what the magnification is? It looks like an early 2000 Trijicon. A Use of Force expert might have something to say about that, along with the extra rounds, his bias for action, lack of need for immediacy, lack of backdrop knowledge, etc.

ETA: More grist for the mill, but there is reporting that the police officer brushed past carrying the long arm was carrying a less than lethal.

Also, while I don't believe there is a requirement to identify as a police officer, this police officer didn't before engaging. That might be a hard one to explain away, as well.

What do you mean, I only asked him a question?
As this is an international forum, and if he meant something else by his comment regarding the police officers skin color, maybe he should make his point a bit clearer for us poor non-native speakers?

FlapOperator wrote:

M564038 wrote:

What? Are you uncomfortable with black people working as police officers?

If that's what you got from that statement, I'd respectfully suggest that you refrain from posting in your non-native language.

M564038 wrote:

What do you mean, I only asked him a question?
As this is an international forum, and if he meant something else by his comment regarding the police officers skin color, maybe he should make his point a bit clearer for us poor non-native speakers?

Sorry, but your non-apology for your insult is not terribly convincing. Again, I'd respectfully suggest if you don't feel comfortable posting in English, the accepted language of the board, you might be well advised to choose your words with more care.

M564038 wrote:

What do you mean, I only asked him a question?
As this is an international forum, and if he meant something else by his comment regarding the police officers skin color, maybe he should make his point a bit clearer for us poor non-native speakers?

FlapOperator wrote:

M564038 wrote:

What? Are you uncomfortable with black people working as police officers?

If that's what you got from that statement, I'd respectfully suggest that you refrain from posting in your non-native language.

I'll explain it for you, from the beginning. Another poster went on a rant about police always shooting "unarmed dark skinned people", implying that white police shoot minorities for no reason. I replied, asking him if he knew that the cop who shot was black, himself. Not to mention that the suspect wasn't "unarmed". Maybe not armed with a firearm, but a serious weapon, nonetheless. Flap Operator chimed in that the color of the officer was an inconvenient truth, since it didn't fit the person who I responded to's regular narrative.

meecrob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

meecrob wrote:

My point is that as a society, Americans evidently want guns. Well you have them and now you are complaining about them. "Oh, our police have such a difficult time because there are so many guns!!" Again, no shit! You guys asked for the guns, you got 'em! I'm not at all saying cops should forfeit their right to self defense. But their primary duty is to serve and protect the citizens of the district in which they operate. I never want to see a cop injured or killed on the job, but unless your head is up your ass, that's part of the deal that they signed up for (similar to military personnel).

Lets break this scenario down: There was someone on the loose armed with a deadly weapon, correct? So the threat is that a civilian could be injured or killed. And in order to take out the individual with the weapon, the cops fatally injured an innocent bystander. It is arguable that potentially the police made the situation worse by intervening with guns, as they inflicted on an innocent victim exactly what they were trying to prevent the assailant from doing.

Where are all the good guys with guns? Because clearly these officers do not fit the bill.

Sure. I'd agree that the officer in this case made a mistake and he should face the consequences that come with that. In this case, an innocent bystander was killed. The problem is that we can't reasonably expect perfection from anyone, let alone our public safety officers. When you place someone in a position in which they have a second or two to potentially decide between life and death, mistakes will be made. That's human nature.

In this case, I think we both agree that the officer was wrong for opening fire in the manner that he did. He had ample backup and there were less lethal options available. Now, let's cloud the situation a little bit and imagine that this officer was responding alone. He's facing a lunatic who is trying to kill people with a bike lock. Suppose the officer confronts the suspect, hesitates, and the suspect lands a blow to the officer's head, incapacitating him. Now the nutjob who was previously armed with a bike lock has access to a gun.

Getting closer to reality, let's imagine that this guy wasn't armed with a bike lock but was instead armed with a gun. After all, the officers were responding to a report of a potential active shooter in the store. The officer at point sees the suspect and a bloodied victim on the ground....if the man really is an active shooter, does hesitating get the officer or his partner killed? It is easy to criticize when he have the benefit of hindsight and of additional information that was not available to them at the time.

I'm sorry, but this issue needs to be looked at from a broader view. You are saying that once in that situation, there are limited options. I'm saying they shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. Again, in order to subdue an individual armed with a weapon, they killed an innocent bystander. This is like if an ambulance was taking a hit-and-run victim to the hospital, but the road was blocked, so they jumped the sidewalk and hit a bystander. There comes a point where you simply are not helping. I'm sure all the sane gun aficionados on this forum would agree that you have to be a special kind of stupid to open fire in a mall of all places...or more accurately, the police department's training is in dire need of refurbishment, if this was all to protocol.

I think the point that a lot of people keep overlooking is the fact that the police were dispatched to what was reported to them as a possible active shooting event. In an active shooting the police don't get to choose where the engagement takes place....they are supposed to run to the threat and take it out as soon as possible.

Why would that be uncomfortable?
Has anyone ever claimed that 100% of all uneccesary police shootings in the US are done by white supremacist cops? Is incompetence reserved for racists?
The incompetence, the wild west gun use and the systemic racism are all symptoms of a very ill law enforcement systems, but it doesn’t mean everyone involved and every incident ticks all the boxes every time. It is quite unbelieveable that I need to explain this to presumptively grown up people, to be honest.

johns624 wrote:

M564038 wrote:

What do you mean, I only asked him a question?
As this is an international forum, and if he meant something else by his comment regarding the police officers skin color, maybe he should make his point a bit clearer for us poor non-native speakers?

FlapOperator wrote:

If that's what you got from that statement, I'd respectfully suggest that you refrain from posting in your non-native language.

I'll explain it for you, from the beginning. Another poster went on a rant about police always shooting "unarmed dark skinned people", implying that white police shoot minorities for no reason. I replied, asking him if he knew that the cop who shot was black, himself. Not to mention that the suspect wasn't "unarmed". Maybe not armed with a firearm, but a serious weapon, nonetheless. Flap Operator chimed in that the color of the officer was an inconvenient truth, since it didn't fit the person who I responded to's regular narrative.

FGITD wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

So do the police stand around and let bike lock play Home Run Derby on people's skulls? In the US, the bias will be for action in the vast majority of cases.

There is probably going to be some police intervention at this point in a case like this, and that intervention is likely going to be armed. I'm personally all for the police to be highly trained and tactically effectively, but there are only so many training hours in a day and frankly limited appetite among the city budgeteers for ammunition, specialist trainers and the like. So, some cops (overwhelmingly gun aficionados in my experience, and unsurprisingly so) are going to be better at this than others.

But in this case I even question the need for it to be an immediate armed response. He’s swinging a bike lock that looks to be about a foot long at most, in a confined space and he’s already backing himself into a clever. Surround him (there was no shortage of officers on scene) and take him down with a baton or a taser. Or even just by pointing the rifle at him and giving him orders.

(Personally I think tasers are a bit overstated and misunderstood, particularly the “less than lethal” vs non lethal aspect, plus so many departments don’t actually have them)

The officer who fired gives off a bad feeling from the start. He wanted to be in front with his rifle, acting like he’s gonna Rambo his way through Target. Ever if they needed a firearm…why are they reaching for an ar15 style rifle? Why not the service pistol that they all have?

I’m all for the police doing their job to ensure their own safety and that of others, but it’s a tough one to defend when the criminal caused a few injuries, and the police caused 2 deaths.

Two things. First, due to the nature of policing in the United States, the police are always going to be armed. Unarmed police officers aren't really a thing here. There are more guns than people in the United States and statistically every person that the police encounter has a high likelihood of being armed.

Two, with regard to this particular event, officers were told that there was an active shooter event happening at the store. I agree that the Officer who fired the shots seems to have been a little too "gung ho" from the body camera footage, but it is entirely likely that he thought he was going to be taking out an active shooter and saving lives, not accidentally shooting a young girl who was hiding in a changing room with her mother.

M564038 wrote:

Why would that be uncomfortable?
Has anyone ever claimed that 100% of all uneccesary police shootings in the US are done by white supremacist cops? Is incompetence reserved for racists?
The incompetence, the wild west gun use and the systemic racism are all symptoms of a very ill law enforcement systems, but it doesn’t mean everyone involved and every incident ticks all the boxes every time. It is quite unbelieveable that I need to explain this to presumptively grown up people, to be honest.

The person who I was responding to says the same thing every thread, whether the facts agree with his narrative, or not. He does seem to think that it's all white cop violence. I don't know why you brought up racism, since that seems to have nothing to do with this incident.

How many countries still have unarmed cops? I've seen armed cops in the CBD of Sydney. I've see many (not all) in London and other parts of the UK. I've seen armed police in Denmark, Italy, France and other EU countries. All police that I've seen in Canada are armed.

johns624 wrote:

How many countries still have unarmed cops? I've seen armed cops in the CBD of Sydney. I've see many (not all) in London and other parts of the UK. I've seen armed police in Denmark, Italy, France and other EU countries. All police that I've seen in Canada are armed.

Indeed, and it's not like the OPP, RCMP or Sûreté haven't had their own issues.

TriJets wrote:

In this case, I think we both agree that the officer was wrong for opening fire in the manner that he did. He had ample backup and there were less lethal options available.

For me, that is the only real point for discussion in this thread, lest it become just another "US attitude to firearms" discussion which always leads down the same path (and will never be resolved on this or any other forum).

LCDFlight wrote:

Your question is basically, should police be armed or not. IMO, if police were not armed, most of my friends, family and myself would be kidnapped and murdered quickly, possibly by people age 14-18.

I don't have a question at all. I'll say again:
"I'm sure all the sane gun aficionados on this forum would agree that you have to be a special kind of stupid to open fire in a mall of all places...or more accurately, the police department's training is in dire need of refurbishment, if this was all to protocol."

I'm saying that just because you have a gun, does not mean you are required to use it. Pretty much the entire goddamn world understands this except the gun morons in the United States and a few ass-backwards nations nobody really listens to for advice on how to run a civilized and peaceful society. Having said that, there are a lot of you gun owners who are responsible and I'm not including you in this group I am targeting, but I bet you already agree with me that you should not be allowed to own a gun ever if the thought of using one in a crowded mall to subdue a fleeing assailant sounds like a good idea.

Its not that difficult! Use a gun when someone is attacking with lethal force (and this is the part you gun morons miss) ONLY if you have exhausted all other means of protection or escape. You are NOT attacking, you are removing a threat, and you have a ton of ways to do it that aren't a gun. I've never been trained properly on how to use on from a reputable and licensed firearms course and my dumb ass can figure this out!

ETA: The argument that the police thought they were responding to an active shooter holds no water if they fucking shoot all the civilians before the shooter got a chance to. I mean that's one way to prevent an individual from committing murder, but surely you would concede that whatever tactics are used by the force taking the active shooter down, they cannot involve civilian casualties!!

I don't know why you are defending a murderer. I'm not trying to take guns away from police forces at all. I'm not even saying they should not have been used. Upthread the answer was already revealed (sorry, I forget who you are). They said just point the weapon at the assailant to show you mean business. I'd say that was an adequate use of a firearm in this case. To show the assailant that you are prepared to destroy them (and only them) if they do not co-operate may have been justified. But even then, I am iffy on using guns to threaten people even if you are police...That would be a case-by-case basis. Yet you defend the position of charging in after this guy with an AR and the attitude of "gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette."

I will never understand your position

johns624 wrote:

I've see many (not all) in London and other parts of the UK.

Define "many".

Less than 5% of England & Wales police are armed. Obviously, they will be concentrated in the major cities. I would imagine the number in Scotland to be similar, but the number in NI will probably be higher given the history there.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... march-2021

There were 6,543 armed officers as at March 2021, a 1% decrease (-41) compared with the previous year. A similar decrease (-37) was also seen in the previous year. The total number of armed officers includes those operationally deployable as of March 31st 2021.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... march-2021

135,301 full-time equivalent (FTE) officers were in post as at 31 March 2021 in the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales.

Elkadad313 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Maybe. On the other hand, if the police weren't so trigger happy, two dead people would still be alive.

But a third party, the woman being dragged, faced probable brain damage and possible death. I wish you would have the experience of being a cop for a while. Then, you could show us how to do policing in perfect fashion, without any allowance for human error.

When the five or six armed police officers got to him he was 10m away from his victim. He presented no realistic threat at that point. I heard no warning called out, it appears he was literally shot on sight. Something is very wrong if five or six grown ass police can't take down a suspect armed with bike lock without killing innocent bystanders with their zeal to shoot.

NIKV69 wrote:

To armchair QB cops because a poor girl was hit by a stray bullet is ridiculous[...]to infer it's better to hang back and try other methods to contain a person who has a deadly weapon is just place lunacy.

Do you have any idea what the term "de-escalation" means?

TriJets wrote:

Or maybe criminals should just stop murdering police officers?

Do you have any idea what the term "criminal" means?

FlapOperator wrote:

Its highly unlikely that the police officer in question intervened wishing harm on the innocent girl. Reporting is that his round was a ricochet.

Further, in much of California, citizens have a very difficult (or basically impossible) means to legally carry firearms, and thus there are very few concealed carry holders.

I cannot believe you do not hold this to be unacceptable! Someone shot and killed someone. The law states that when you end someones life, whether intentionally or unintentionally, you are punished accordingly. I don't give a flying fuck if the officer "wished" harm upon the victim. His incompetent actions directly lead to her death.

Also, do try to keep up, as that last bit went way over your head. These situations end when you use your brain, not lead served at high velocity.

FlapOperator wrote:

I'm personally all for the police to be highly trained and tactically effectively, but there are only so many training hours in a day and frankly limited appetite among the city budgeteers for ammunition, specialist trainers and the like.

What exactly are you saying here? Innocent human lives are the price to pay because an inefficient and ineffective training program is being utilized? The proof that I am correct is that this officer passed a course to become a police officer and thought drywall would stop a rifle round. Spare me any retort along the lines of "you don't know what you would do in that situation" or "heat of the moment" because its all bullshit. A gun training course is supposed to make it so you don't do stupid shit like "not consider what is downrange of the target."

scbriml wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I've see many (not all) in London and other parts of the UK.

Define "many".

Less than 5% of England & Wales police are armed. Obviously, they will be concentrated in the major cities. I would imagine the number in Scotland to be similar, but the number in NI will probably be higher given the history there.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... march-2021

There were 6,543 armed officers as at March 2021, a 1% decrease (-41) compared with the previous year. A similar decrease (-37) was also seen in the previous year. The total number of armed officers includes those operationally deployable as of March 31st 2021.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... march-2021

135,301 full-time equivalent (FTE) officers were in post as at 31 March 2021 in the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales.

Airports, near the embassies in London, etc. Not only armed with pistols, but with SMGs, too. Cops in the US don't even walk around with them on a daily basis.

NIKV69 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Coddle the bad guy? Have you ever been to jail? It’s horrific and shocking that such appalling conditions exist in America. Criminals are not coddled in this country, period.

No I don’t want to go to jail hence I don’t commit crimes. More and more no bail legislation is going to lead to more crime. It is a shame.

Bail is one of the factors for keeping minorities in the criminal justice system. Arrests for things like possession of small amounts of drugs and theft of food and diapers and speeding and expired registration. Links were already posted above.

Keeping people in jail and executing them does not stop murder, either. I am not saying we should scrap the jail system. Maybe we should reroute some of that money to health care and addiction services and mental health counseling? Some of those locked up are there for addiction and mental health issues and would be better served by those processes.

johns624 wrote:

How many countries still have unarmed cops? I've seen armed cops in the CBD of Sydney. I've see many (not all) in London and other parts of the UK. I've seen armed police in Denmark, Italy, France and other EU countries. All police that I've seen in Canada are armed.

Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland and the UK, off the top of my head.

Every so often when the country is on alert the Norwegian police carry, most don't like doing this. All NZ police incident cars have an armory in the boot, AR15 and Glocks. If the situation gets serious the Armed Offenders Squad is called, if the shit really hits the fan next out the door are the Special Tactics Group and finally if its beyond the polices ability the SAS Counter Terrorist squadron gets the nod.

johns624 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I've see many (not all) in London and other parts of the UK.

Define "many".

Less than 5% of England & Wales police are armed. Obviously, they will be concentrated in the major cities. I would imagine the number in Scotland to be similar, but the number in NI will probably be higher given the history there.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... march-2021

There were 6,543 armed officers as at March 2021, a 1% decrease (-41) compared with the previous year. A similar decrease (-37) was also seen in the previous year. The total number of armed officers includes those operationally deployable as of March 31st 2021.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... march-2021

135,301 full-time equivalent (FTE) officers were in post as at 31 March 2021 in the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales.

Airports, near the embassies in London, etc. Not only armed with pistols, but with SMGs, too. Cops in the US don't even walk around with them on a daily basis.

But that's only a very small percentage of London Police. Police in Norwegian and New Zealand airports also carry firearms. In NZ the diplomatic protection squad are armed.

johns624 wrote:

How many countries still have unarmed cops? I've seen armed cops in the CBD of Sydney. I've see many (not all) in London and other parts of the UK. I've seen armed police in Denmark, Italy, France and other EU countries. All police that I've seen in Canada are armed.

To add some context to the figures quoted above;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorise ... ms_officer

We've seen the footage, cop with AR-15 pushes through and discharges rounds with no visual ID of target, he couldn't wait to be there it seems, if a soldier did that that in a conflict zone, fire blindly with no confirmed ID and killed an innocent, they could well face a court marshall, possibly at least in the UK and most NATO forces, a manslaughter charge in a civil court.
For what, to take out the huge threat of a bloke with a lump of metal of a type that does not shoot, with a range limited by the swing of his arm.
Right up there with the multiple bullets in the back, (something US cops seem keen on in numerous incidents), most recently with a guy on a panzer, oh wait, I mean mobility scooter, hardly Mad Max is it? 'Gang that couldn't shoot straight?' More like the gang who shit themselves and shoot blindly. 'Brave', I think not.

If a British AFO did that he would be facing manslaughter, possibly murder.
When they have had to discharge their weapons, mostly in recent times to slot terrorists on a stabbing spree, they still have to be stood down, investigated, will appear as a witness at the inquest, most times they are cleared, though it can take a time in many cases, then if they still wish to, retain their AFO certificate.

Thread went off topic and will be locked.