Missouri Riots
Discussion
Pesty said:
We don't even know if that happened yet. It seems most of the accusations came from his pall who had just been with him when he string arm robbed the store and assaulted the owner.
I was referring to the second one, not the alleged cigar thief:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx-3TKp90vg
Yes thanks.
I have no problem with that one.
There is a clip police in the states use for training where a man with a knife stabs 5 officers who are all shooting at him.
He is facing one who lowers his gun, the knife man attacks. Gets him bad then the others. Think one policeman died.
Tasers don't always work. If you don't want to get shot do as the police say. IMO he was the victim Of his own actions. The police in that case have a right to defend themselves not wait until stabbed. A man with a knife can clear that distance easily.
Edit just watched your clip with the hand ringing commentator. Let's see him stand there with a taser or shoot once.
Bullets are not magic on / off buttons. It is not Hollywood. Unless they hit the central nervous system you are not guaranteed to stop anybody fast. People are still dangerous with multiple hits and indeed when fatally hit can still take minutes to die and still be a threat. The media should be doing more to educate rather than stir up the masses.
If you have to use lethal force you shoot until the threat is ended.
I have no problem with that one.
There is a clip police in the states use for training where a man with a knife stabs 5 officers who are all shooting at him.
He is facing one who lowers his gun, the knife man attacks. Gets him bad then the others. Think one policeman died.
Tasers don't always work. If you don't want to get shot do as the police say. IMO he was the victim Of his own actions. The police in that case have a right to defend themselves not wait until stabbed. A man with a knife can clear that distance easily.
Edit just watched your clip with the hand ringing commentator. Let's see him stand there with a taser or shoot once.
Bullets are not magic on / off buttons. It is not Hollywood. Unless they hit the central nervous system you are not guaranteed to stop anybody fast. People are still dangerous with multiple hits and indeed when fatally hit can still take minutes to die and still be a threat. The media should be doing more to educate rather than stir up the masses.
If you have to use lethal force you shoot until the threat is ended.
Edited by Pesty on Sunday 24th August 01:03
carinaman said:
I was referring to the second one, not the alleged cigar thief:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx-3TKp90vg
For something American that was actually quite informative.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx-3TKp90vg
You have to agree with the presenter.
Pesty said:
Tasers don't always work. If you don't want to get shot do as the police say. IMO he was the victim Of his own actions. The police in that case have a right to defend themselves not wait until stabbed. A man with a knife can clear that distance easily.
Indeed. The Tueller drill is the one about a knife-man 21 feet away, albeit with handguns not drawn.A Taser isn't appropriate for a lethal threat as it can easily fail. The officers aren't expected to take chances like that.
Pesty said:
Edit just watched your clip with the hand ringing commentator. Let's see him stand there with a taser or shoot once.
Yep, easy for people to be critical when the greatest risk they face is carpal tunnel from typing. I'm surprised we're not hearing "they could have shot him in the leg".
jdw100 said:
You have to agree with the presenter.
If you live in an equally naive world, then yes. A face full of Pepper Spray wasn't an option? It didn't look windy?
What about a Taser and Pepper Spray combo? A BOGOF?
What's mostly likely to enflame several nights of rioting?
A death sentence for behaving irrationally and being a bit mouthy seems slightly excessive.
What about a Taser and Pepper Spray combo? A BOGOF?
What's mostly likely to enflame several nights of rioting?
A death sentence for behaving irrationally and being a bit mouthy seems slightly excessive.
Edited by carinaman on Sunday 24th August 11:36
irocfan said:
I wonder what that person thinks the site will achieve?carinaman said:
A face full of Pepper Spray wasn't an option? It didn't look windy?
No, it's not suitable for a lethal threat as the failure rate is too high and it doesn't stop people moving towards you. carinaman said:
What about a Taser and Pepper Spray combo? A BOGOF?
Neither are suitable for lethal threats. The failure / ineffective rate is too high. Not as high as your apparent failure rate to understand this point, it seems. It could make a fireball combo, incidentally.
carinaman said:
What's mostly likely to enflame several nights of rioting?
That has no relevance in a spontaneous incident of this time frame. Are the officers expected to assume an unreasonable amount of risk because of this consideration? No. carinaman said:
A death sentence for behaving irrationally and being a bit mouthy seems slightly excessive.
You've conveniently omitted the knife and him moving towards them to skew the scenario. Both are fundamental to the justification to shoot, combined with shouting "shoot me" after they've drawn handguns and given verbal commands. La Liga said:
f you live in an equally naive world, then yes.
Easy to say if it's not a family member.My ex had a couple of psychotic episodes linked to her bi-polar disorder. That doesn't mean she was violent (that's not the definition) but was delusional - believing, for example, that she was going to get sacked from work.
Let's say she had picked up a knife and the Police had shot her.. I doubt me, family, friends would have shrugged our shoulders and said 'oh well, never mind'. We would have asked - quite rightly- why other means weren't used.
I believe in the UK this guy would never have been shot - certainly not 12 times. He would have been tasered, sprayed and corralled - as happened to a guy waving a butchers knife around outside Buckingham Palace last year. He was, as in this case, obviously mentally Ill and so appropriate action was taken.
The two officers in this video shot him dead within 15 seconds of arrival. They could have removed the threat to themselves simply by getting back in the car. He had a knife, not a gun.
I can understand that this may be their training but I feel, morally, the wrong outcome occurred. That's my opinion and of course you have yours but it's easy to shrug these things off and I bet if it was your Dad or sister you wouldn't be shaking the officer's hands and congratulating them on a job well done.
jdw100 said:
The two officers in this video shot him dead within 15 seconds of arrival. They could have removed the threat to themselves simply by getting back in the car. He had a knife, not a gun.
And if he had then gone on to stab a nearby member of the public, shopkeeper or other innocent person, I'm sure there would be howls of outrage about 'cowardly cops'.One thing there is never a shortage of in Policing, is Monday morning hindsight experts, all willing to spend hours dissecting and giving 'expert' opinion on something that Officers had a fraction of a second to decide.
jdw100 said:
Easy to say if it's not a family member.
Yes, because you'd be in an irrational and emotional state of mind if you had a significant emotional investment in the person who was shot. This would not put you in a place to make an objective, balanced position. jdw100 said:
We would have asked - quite rightly- why other means weren't used.
No-one is saying "oh well, never mind" or being flippant about it. Force needs to be justified. It's also not a problem asking why other means weren't used, but it'll likely be that other means in the circumstances weren't suitable responses to a lethal threat. It's not a good or desired outcome, but it's the subject who was responsible for it, not the officers. Approaching armed officer with a knife, ignoring their verbal commands and shouting "shoot me" was always likely to lead to one outcome. jdw100 said:
I believe in the UK this guy would never have been shot - certainly not 12 times. He would have been tasered, sprayed and corralled - as happened to a guy waving a butchers knife around outside Buckingham Palace last year. He was, as in this case, obviously mentally Ill and so appropriate action was taken.
Probably not as the probability of unarmed officers attending this would have been high, so the officers have no choice but to assume the risk. The American approach, culture and legal expectations are different. To be fair most officers are around the world have side arms so would likely have training to treat knifes and suspects approaching with knifes as lethal threats. Mental health or not. Risk is risk. The guy at Buckingham Palace was different set of circumstances. It's much easier to respond to a static threat as oppose to one closing you down within a few seconds of you arriving. Time = planning, more resources and more complex threat management.
jdw100 said:
The two officers in this video shot him dead within 15 seconds of arrival. They could have removed the threat to themselves simply by getting back in the car. He had a knife, not a gun.
On the flip-side, he was closing them down with a knife within 15 seconds. Even less after he actually produced the knife. You're expecting an overly-complex response in such a short amount of time. Especially given the natural human responses of sensory exclusios, gross motor skills taking over, defaulting to training etc. Hindsight responses are easy. Dealing with a threat at the time isn't. Qwert1e said:
La Liga said:
It probably wasn't a good idea to shout "shoot me, shoot me" to armed officers whilst walking towards them with a knife.
I realise police don't usually "shoot to wound" but it would have been a good idea to shoot the bloke in the legs in this particular situation.Shooting limbs is often thought of but it's not very realistic. Handguns are very hard to aim with, especially with moving targets in live situations. It's likely you'll miss then you have a round that may ricochet off a hard surface in a public place. So then you're in a situation where the threat isn't dealt with and someone innocent may end up shot.
This personal example will demonstrate margin of error around different targets. Here's me shooting during the last zombie apocalypse. The target was static at 20 feet. There was obviously no threat / stress and I was able to take my time during each shot. I was aiming for the head each time. One shot missed and two hit areas where the round would carry on travelling through. Placing the same margin of error (the green circle) around the centre of mass (where officers will aim for) would result in all shots hitting (and most likely remaining) within the target.
There are limited circumstances in which the police can aim for limbs / weapons, but these are with accurate, long-barrelled weapons and in a 'slow(ish)-time' scenario like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VPAXty_nYc
Qwert1e said:
I realise police don't usually "shoot to wound" but it would have been a good idea to shoot the bloke in the legs in this particular situation.
No-one should be shooting to wound. Even private citizens who choose to arm themselves for self defence (in the US obviously) should always shoot to kill. The premise of using deadly force in self defence falls apart if you admit (or it is suspected) you were aiming for legs or arms in order to wound or incapacitate your attacker.To do so would suggest that you did not genuinely feel your life was in danger therefore would not have been justified in using deadly force. You need to convince the police, the prosecutors and ultimately (but hopefully it doesn't get that far) the jury that you thought you were going to die and you were doing all you could to survive.
Mention, or even give them reason to think, that you were aiming for a leg or arms and it starts to look like you had time to think about shot placement and take aim...time that you could have used to run the other way.
Not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.
La Liga said:
carinaman said:
What about a Taser and Pepper Spray combo? A BOGOF?
Neither are suitable for lethal threats. The failure / ineffective rate is too high. Not as high as your apparent failure rate to understand this point, it seems. It could make a fireball combo, incidentally.
The people I've been with that were sprayed, had their eyes closed and asked if they could rub them. They were advised not to.
I thought most that had been Pepper Sprayed would have problems moving forward as they couldn't see. Surely if someone can't see comes towards you waving a knife you just get out of their way?
Shooting the bloke dead doesn't seem proportionate.
Belt and braces. Try one of the non-lethal tools in the box first and then IF they don't work fill him full of lead?
Shooting that much when he'd been nearer and walked away seems a bit skewed. So the guy is further away and less of a threat and then they shoot him?
I thought there was a stair case of escalation? Just shooting him dead like that seems like the police just getting into the elevator to the top floor.
I've been on the receiving end of threats from the police. I didn't shoot them.
carinaman said:
Try one of the non-lethal tools in the box first and then IF they don't work fill him full of lead?
If you don't have the time or distance / space in which to do so then you can't. If they had tried a less lethal option and it failed then the assailant could have been within striking distance before he had chance to re-arm. The risk is too great of a failure. A baton gun (or beanbag) was probably the only realistic less-lethal option and there was no way that was getting set-up and deployed in a spontaneous incident, if they were even carrying one.
carinaman said:
I thought most that had been Pepper Sprayed would have problems moving forward as they couldn't see. Surely if someone can't see comes towards you waving a knife you just get out of their way?
If it hits, and if it works. carinaman said:
I thought there was a stair case of escalation? Just shooting him dead like that seems like the police just getting into the elevator to the top floor.
You escalate when possible. They went from officer presence, verbal commands, drawing firearms with verbal commands to lethal force. If it's not possible to take further steps, it's not possible. La Liga said:
carinaman said:
I thought most that had been Pepper Sprayed would have problems moving forward as they couldn't see. Surely if someone can't see comes towards you waving a knife you just get out of their way?
If it hits, and if it works. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff