Proper Police technique to take down a bad guy (he dindu nuthin' tho)

Splendid Meat Sticks said:
I mean, on one hand, it certainly seems like they shot the fuck out of the dude when he was on the ground, and that should be looked into.
On the other, they were 100% in the right to shoot him at first.
Click to expand...

When the cops shoot a guy, they do it with the intention of killing him. "Warning shots" and "shoot to wound" are fantasies made up by people who don't understand the point of using a gun in the first place.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Maiden-TieJuan, RomanesEuntDomus, Functional Animal and 8 others
Replicant Sasquatch said:
When the cops shoot a guy, they do it with the intention of killing him. "Warning shots" and "shoot to wound" are fantasies made up by people who don't understand the point of using a gun in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's a huge thing people don't realize about police training. You are taught if you are going to use your gun against a person you are using it to KILL the threat, not pacify it. You shoot in vital spots and take out the attacker. It's supposed to be a last resort move or if you are in imminent danger. Obviously it's not going to turn out 100% of the time the person had to be shot to death, but from the officer's stand point they will 100% be found acting within the scope of their training if they can prove they felt threatened to shoot even if it kills the person.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: LiveFromNS and Replicant Sasquatch
LiveFromNS said:
Nicely done officers. Watch to the end, its only 70 seconds. :) But worth it.
Click to expand...
You can't blame police when they're already overhyped, to begin with, and then some idiot pulls out a gun. This was never going to end well.
 
Replicant Sasquatch said:
When the cops shoot a guy, they do it with the intention of killing him. "Warning shots" and "shoot to wound" are fantasies made up by people who don't understand the point of using a gun in the first place.
Click to expand...
This.
The moment you point a gun at a couple of cops, you're dead meat, pure and simple.
And since Cops shoot to neutralize a threat to themselves and the pedestrians, there is no reason to stop shooting until the guy is 100% and unmistakenly taken out - so it's no real difference if he got shot 4 times or 4 dozen times.
Sure, it looks cruel and brutal to see some guy lying on the pavement being hit again and again, but the truth is: he threw away his life the moment he got out of the car and decided to go down in a blaze. There is absolutely noone else to blame. If you do what he did, you can't expect the police to just knock you on your ass and get paramedics to take care of you.

Granted, I would prefer if less people got shot by police, but situations like the one above leave police no choice but to use deadly force and that certainly can't be the cop's fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coldgrip
Replicant Sasquatch said:
When the cops shoot a guy, they do it with the intention of killing him. "Warning shots" and "shoot to wound" are fantasies made up by people who don't understand the point of using a gun in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don't think I'd accept that explanation unqualified from the local cops.

For example, if they shot the guy and he dropped his gun or something, and they just went and executed him anyway, that wouldn't be acceptable.

Actually, in general, I don't think I'd accept any explanation where the ultimate argument boils down to "... it's policy". If there are immediate facts that lead to a more reasonable conclusion, even if they disagree with policy or how the police are trained, that conclusion takes priority.
 
Marvin said:
I don't think I'd accept that explanation unqualified from the local cops.

For example, if they shot the guy and he dropped his gun or something, and they just went and executed him anyway, that wouldn't be acceptable.

Actually, in general, I don't think I'd accept any explanation where the ultimate argument boils down to "... it's policy". If there are immediate facts that lead to a more reasonable conclusion, even if they disagree with policy or how the police are trained, that conclusion takes priority.
Click to expand...

Well, in case of the person clearly not being a threat or clearly stop being a threat, I agree to a hundred percent, but those situations, unfortunately, are seldom that clear.
If the guy still moves and holds on to his gun, he is still capable of causing harm to others.

That being said, "I felt like my life was at stake, so I had to shoot" should not be sufficient to get a cop off the hook. Bodycams and dashcams help in such cases by providing a context that is a lot less dependent on "he said she said".
Even if the cop in question genuinely felt threatened, a video might reveal that it was unwarranted and that said cop just might not be suitable for this line of work.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back