SHOTS FIRED! Police fatally shoot Guy with a crowbar outside of Carl's Jr. vol. 10 shots though?!?

[wade187]

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

I think whatever police district that was involved in this shooting should just have Wade187 address other officers....I mean, he survived a crowbar attack (he's still here!!!) and he could discuss proper protocol when dealing w/ someone who is either high or crazy who has a weapon. Clearly he's got all the answers in this situation.

As I said before, IMO, the shooting itself is justified....10 times, not so much.

*I'd love for an ACTUAL police officer to chime in on the wrongs/rights of what went down. We have any cops on NT?

See you are trying to be a smart %!%, but at the same time you are talking out of your %!%. If the shooting is justified, why are the 10 shots not? 10 shots shouldn't have been necesarry, but what makes it unjust? Like many have said in here, cops are trained to shoot to eliminate a threat, so why does it matter how many shots they feel is sufficient? There is a reason criminals are sent to jail and not just killed on the streets by cops. Rarely is a criminal not dangerous, rarely is he not a "threat" and despite the fact that most of you don't know anyone who'd fight a cop, criminals do in fact fight back. Cops are trained to disarm these criminals, since you guys are making it seem like this man was a killing machine, have you ever heard of a cop walking towards a suspect to the point they are damn near face to face when the perp is holding a gun? No. If this was a shoot or be killed situation, sloppy police work turned it into that. The immediate threat was eliminated as soon as the pedestrians got within a good distance, that cop placed himself in that "life or death" situation, and for what? This man was not anywhere close to hurting anyone at that point, despite the fact he was a crazy man with a sledge hammer. Now had this man came towards the cop, by towards I don't mean turn around while said cop is standing behind you. I mean clearly showing his intent was to kill someone that's a different story. Tazering a (crazy, drugged, drunk, whatver)  man and being close enough for his reaction to be to hug you if he wanted is just sloppy. Cause 10 times out of 10 your not getting a hug.

 

[wade187]

Originally Posted by RufioRufioRufio

I havent crucified the cop. it's the action of the one officer that abhors me.

You have to see the points given on both sides. While I understand a cop has to act, he must act with appropriate judgement. The one officer did not act. he reacted

He reacted to protect his partner. That's what no one is seeing, the cop who got sloppy put his partner in a position where all he could do is react. At no point was the initial shooters life in danger, there's a reason for that. Crazy that the one without a k9 next to him was the one bold enough to get that close to a man whos lost his %$+$ holding a sledgehammer. 

 

[wade187]

And these dudes are still here defending the death, I honestly don't get. How can you guys not see sloppiness caused this, had the cop actually been looking he wouldn't have began to back up so late, in a "deadly" situation why on earth would you have your eye off the perp who is directly in front of you? They probably did say the man swung twice on the report, cause one cop being sloppy is not just reason for this. Why can't any of you dudes seem to understand that

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by Wade187

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

I think whatever police district that was involved in this shooting should just have Wade187 address other officers....I mean, he survived a crowbar attack (he's still here!!!) and he could discuss proper protocol when dealing w/ someone who is either high or crazy who has a weapon. Clearly he's got all the answers in this situation.

As I said before, IMO, the shooting itself is justified....10 times, not so much.

*I'd love for an ACTUAL police officer to chime in on the wrongs/rights of what went down. We have any cops on NT?

See you are trying to be a smart %!%, but at the same time you are talking out of your %!%. If the shooting is justified, why are the 10 shots not? 10 shots shouldn't have been necesarry, but what makes it unjust? Like many have said in here, cops are trained to shoot to eliminate a threat, so why does it matter how many shots they feel is sufficient?

 
 
.....so your stance is once the threat is identified ANYTHING after that is justified/ fair game.
 
....1 shot, 5 shots, 10, 47, 100? how about a shotgun to the face at point blank range?
 
...listen to yourself.
 
 


  

 

[wade187]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by Wade187

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

I think whatever police district that was involved in this shooting should just have Wade187 address other officers....I mean, he survived a crowbar attack (he's still here!!!) and he could discuss proper protocol when dealing w/ someone who is either high or crazy who has a weapon. Clearly he's got all the answers in this situation.

As I said before, IMO, the shooting itself is justified....10 times, not so much.

*I'd love for an ACTUAL police officer to chime in on the wrongs/rights of what went down. We have any cops on NT?

See you are trying to be a smart %!%, but at the same time you are talking out of your %!%. If the shooting is justified, why are the 10 shots not? 10 shots shouldn't have been necesarry, but what makes it unjust? Like many have said in here, cops are trained to shoot to eliminate a threat, so why does it matter how many shots they feel is sufficient?

 
 
.....so your stance is once the threat is identified ANYTHING after that is justified/ fair game.
 
....1 shot, 5 shots, 10, 47, 100? how about a shotgun to the face at point blank range?
 
...listen to yourself.
 
 


  

No. I'm saying any criminal is a threat. If you have to shoot your gun, it is to eliminate this criminal, because if not someone or many will die. If this was a situation where shooting was actually necessary, than 10 shots would be justified. Like if this perp had a weapon with a range of more than 2 feet like lets say a gun, and they are sure he is not going out without letting off, 1, 5, 10, 47 is fine. As long as the police are not putting civilians in danger by firing a hundred shots, what happens to the perp at that point doesn't matter. As long as that gun is in his hand and they feel he is dangerous they can shoot him with the shotgun 147 times point blank range, with little back lash. This is clearly a different situation though

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

lol to eliminate the criminal.

last name, hitler? first name heil?

 

[wade187]

Originally Posted by RufioRufioRufio

lol to eliminate the criminal.

last name, hitler? first name heil?

Neutralize threat. So if the criminal is the threat, yes that is correct. Don't see how that is relevant to hitler, unless all those people he murdered were all in possession of a weapon and attempting to murder innocents. Nice try though. 

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

you said a cops job to is to ELIMINATE the criminal not neutralize.

"No. I'm saying any criminal is a threat. If you have to shoot your gun, it is to eliminate this criminal, "

Show me in the video were that dude was attempting to murder.

go ahead i'll wait for it.

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

this thread reminds me of the meme of the down syndrome girl saying i can count to potato

 

[sleaze jar omens]

I read the last page and saw Godwin's Law in effect. Is the rest of the thread lulz or should I just not come back in here?

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by Wade187

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by Wade187

See you are trying to be a smart %!%, but at the same time you are talking out of your %!%. If the shooting is justified, why are the 10 shots not? 10 shots shouldn't have been necesarry, but what makes it unjust? Like many have said in here, cops are trained to shoot to eliminate a threat, so why does it matter how many shots they feel is sufficient?

 
 
.....so your stance is once the threat is identified ANYTHING after that is justified/ fair game.
 
....1 shot, 5 shots, 10, 47, 100? how about a shotgun to the face at point blank range?
 
...listen to yourself.
 
 


  

No. I'm saying any criminal is a threat. If you have to shoot your gun, it is to eliminate this criminal, because if not someone or many will die. If this was a situation where shooting was actually necessary, than 10 shots would be justified. Like if this perp had a weapon with a range of more than 2 feet like lets say a gun, and they are sure he is not going out without letting off, 1, 5, 10, 47 is fine. As long as the police are not putting civilians in danger by firing a hundred shots, what happens to the perp at that point doesn't matter. As long as that gun is in his hand and they feel he is dangerous they can shoot him with the shotgun 147 times point blank range, with little back lash. This is clearly a different situation though

   
Clearly. which makes everything you have to say a moot point.

 

[wade187]

Originally Posted by RufioRufioRufio

you said a cops job to is to ELIMINATE the criminal not neutralize.

"No. I'm saying any criminal is a threat. If you have to shoot your gun, it is to eliminate this criminal, "

Show me in the video were that dude was attempting to murder.

go ahead i'll wait for it.

That was actually in response to those saying that man was about to kill the cop. Went over your head. They are implying the criminal is a threat and neutralizing the threat is the reason cops don't shoot at legs. I'm saying any criminal is a threat, cause anyone is capable of anything. If you HAVE to shoot your gun, it is because of real threat not a hammer is what I'm saying. A gun can go off easily and kill anyone around, while a hammer can only harm that which is roughly 2 feet from it, which means shooting this person was unnecessary, understood? He didn't attempt to kill anyone which is my point, but if they did actually HAVE to shoot him, like in the case of him having a gun any amount of shots is justified because one squeeze of the trigger from him can kill anyone, while a swing of a hammer can only kill the closest idiot. 

 

[wade187]

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by Wade187

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

 
 
.....so your stance is once the threat is identified ANYTHING after that is justified/ fair game.
 
....1 shot, 5 shots, 10, 47, 100? how about a shotgun to the face at point blank range?
 
...listen to yourself.
 
 


  

No. I'm saying any criminal is a threat. If you have to shoot your gun, it is to eliminate this criminal, because if not someone or many will die. If this was a situation where shooting was actually necessary, than 10 shots would be justified. Like if this perp had a weapon with a range of more than 2 feet like lets say a gun, and they are sure he is not going out without letting off, 1, 5, 10, 47 is fine. As long as the police are not putting civilians in danger by firing a hundred shots, what happens to the perp at that point doesn't matter. As long as that gun is in his hand and they feel he is dangerous they can shoot him with the shotgun 147 times point blank range, with little back lash. This is clearly a different situation though

   
Clearly. which makes everything you have to say a moot point.

No it actually clearly shows that NO shots should have went off. If 10 shots are unnecessary, the first could have been avoided. This situation shouldn't have ended in gunfire, glad we agree. 

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

LOL we on the same page then. my bad

 

[sundoobie]

Good analysis.  Bungling moronic cops!

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

What yall think of the video analysis.

Ya'll think super cops still had the rigth to murde... i mean protect the public?

 

[jordanxi45]

^ Props to the dude who did that video.

Dude with the pipe bender wasn't killing anyone with that. Just another example of scared police officers that lack proper training. Pathetic.

F. the Police.

 

[antonlavey]

Well then knowing that cops are incompetent and trigger happy should deter people from doing stupid #$$% like attacking them with crowbars

And it looks like they were reluctant to send the dog but does the dog really deserve to get hit with a crowbar?


Bottom line: The cops could have handled it better but I still place most of the blame on the suspect, he made his own bed

 

[k2theablam]

It's easy to armchair QB a situation like that sitting behind your computer with a pause button to stop the time and analyze EVERY little detail in a vacuum.

It's another thing to be in the moment where everything is happening in real time where split second decision making determines if you or your partner lives or an assailant is shot to death.

Bottom line is this, the guy moved in on a POLICE OFFICER while guns were already drawn in an attempt to strike him down. Cops did their due diligence by using words, non-lethal force and finally, when pushed, lethal force to neutralize a deadly threat. 
It's unfortunate that he died but he was in full control of his fate.

Like I've said before in this thread, the only thing you can argue is the AMOUNT of shots fired, not why they were fired.

 

[mplsdunk]

to hell with letting the dog get hit with a crow bar. 

dog> fiend with a crowbar.

 

[k2theablam]

A lot of you are letting your hatred for the police dictate your opinion on this matter, and it shows in every single one of your posts.

 

[shoefreakbaby]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Good analysis. �Bungling moronic cops!�

Wait wut?
It was a pipe bender.�

His family is going to sue so hard wow.

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

LOL but but but it was a sledgehammer, I saw him wearing a Dx shirt singing it's time to play the game

Dumb F NTers so blind to defend cops sometimes.

LOL at people saying dude was swinging to kill.

If the cops wanted to shoot him. One shoot would have been good.

LOL at "neutralized" nah brah you murdered someone.

 

[Fresh Like Will]

No way the guy was going to be able to wind up and swing that thing (let alone aim) while simultaneously taking the taser dart out of his face. The dog would of been good to go.

That video helps tell what some of us in here were trying to say. The outcome of that situation was the after effect of that one bumbling cops decision making.

Yeah it's stupid to hold a pipe bender in a batting stance at an armed officer, but it's just as, if not more stupid to get within striking distance of the perpetrator. Especially when you have guns. Not to mention dropping your sight and taking your eyes off him while reloading your taser 3 feet away from him.

And to add insult to injury, the 5 extra shots to the back of the guy who was pretty much done.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

A lot of you are letting your hatred for the police dictate your opinion on this matter, and it shows in every single one of your posts.

QFT I dunno where Rufio of all people gets off calling other people dumb

And many people in here need to become cops if they think they can do a better job at it, how's that for a solution?