I see it as a justified shooting, but that sounded like at least 10 shots. Either they are shitty shots which would mean that they need training, or they literally shot him 10 times. Im more embarrassed for the police having to shoot that many times.
It doesn’t matter how many times they shot. Legally, you shoot to kill if the person or persons you’re shooting warrant hitting the dirt. So, if that is one shot or 12 shots it doesn’t matter if the shoot is justified based on the conditions.
you misunderstand. I think its sad that they needed that many shots.. Reread my second comment. Slowly. If they needed that many shots to shoot him, they need to be trained, because they sound about as bad as imperial storm troopers.. they can't hit the broad side of the barn.
I don’t think it’s a matter of training. Have you seen soldiers in combat? They don’t just shot once at the enemy and then stop firing once the round makes contact with him. They shoot quite a bit to ensure he/she is dead and can’t possibly fight back. Also, it legally does not matter if there is one, five, or ten officers at the scene. Each officer can respond using deadly force as if other officers are not present, so each can shoot rounds off at the threat and that is justified.
They didn’t have to shoot him, sure. Then, he could’ve harmed them, killed them, harmed others, or killed others.
yeah not like they couldn't just use a taser and be done with it. Sure would of hurt others while on the ground after been tasered sure.
People can and still have fought after getting tazed.There is NO requirement to use non-lethal if someone is coming at you or another with a deadly force or a great bodily injury threat. If someone is coming at you with these parameters met, deadly force is authorized. In other words, put him/her down.
yeah i am sure headlines would read guy got tased to the ground but somehow still got up and stabbed the two police officers cuffing him. Seems legit.
People have been shot in the head and lived.People have been shot multiple times and still continued to move, act, and fight. You can just look all this stuff up.Again, if someone is coming at you with a knife, there is no obligation for you to use non-lethal. Honestly, it’s up to you, but I think it’s rather selfish and irresponsible because the person is intent on severely harming and/or killing you and non-lethal, as the name implies, is non-lethal….. So, you can risk it if you want, but why? You’re not obligated or required to at all because it doesn’t make sense.
To not use it is literally ignoring that they exist for a reason an exact case like this a taser would of worked. You act like tasers are just made for no reason and do nothing are you really dumb to think a taser is not a fully working device they make for such purposes?It's extremally rare for a person to respond after been so and even if so it's also hard to respond to two cops cuffing you after that. And saying extreme cases will not back up a good point at all, so dumb stuff like oh well 1 out 10000 who get shot in the head live it's alright is a dumbass thing to say. Honestly all your questions recently have been propaganding some dumbass bullshit
@Kaneki05 I agree it's not right to take away a person's life like this. This is why black people are so afraid of the cops because they keep using deadly force
Are you a legal expert? Use of force expert? You know exactly how tasers work? You do not, so stop acting like you do.Legally and morally you are wrong in this issue. Everyone nearly agrees the shoot was justified and correct. Again, if someone is a deadly force threat, you are not obligated to use non-lethal.
then they just add more cops who think that is okay because the law say's so rather than the actual simple fact there is much better way's to handle it. And then they wonder were it all went wrong and why it just happens all the time smh
@Cherry234That’s not true. Statistically, it is not. Like @Kaneki05 mentioned, a lot of propaganda out there that keep people misinformed.
@Kaneki05Again, “all the time” is not true.Facts do not agree with either of you, even though there is some merit and truth to your claims, it is not common.
dude you wouldn't know stats if they hit you on the head just like your one on Uk. lmao
And still really don't get that tasers work... sighs
Never said I’m an expert and I don’t claim to be. If I get things wrong then I will admit it. You seem to know more than you think about tasers and don’t want to admit that you don’t know shit.
I come from a country were tasers are legit banned to be used by civilians cause they work and are used by cops. But sure. They don't work and are useless let's just all go Gun ho instead.
No one said they didn’t work, I’m just saying they don’t work ideally the way you think they do.In other words, when they work, they’re great.When they don’t work and you’re in a situation that warrants deadly force…. You could die, other can die, etc. Why don’t you understand that? I think thats the point we are having an issue with.Tasers are great, yes. But, why are you missing my point? It’s like you’re ignoring it.
I think your missing a point that they didn't even try and it would of i could bet my own life on it would of worked in this case easy. I've heard many cases of them working and when they don't and when they don't it's extremely rare and normally when a guy is super drugged up. But even then they have been effective enough to at least know then okay now we should shoot because yes nothing will stop him.And that's usually how it goes down in a extreme case. Tho in most cases guy just pee's himself and falls to floor done.
And it's not about legal right to shoot that matters not. It's about moral right to do an obvious no lethal way of solving the issue. Saying i kill because it was legal is all the same as a terriost just saying i killed cause my people told me i could do so.
Change the “would” to “could.” It “could’ve” worked, possibly sure. What are the possible things that could’ve happened if it didn’t work? Potentially lethal for you or anyone else there. Being in such a heated situation, someone coming at you, brandishing a knife, you don’t think much about anything except ending the threat. Legally speaking, you’re in the clear. Morally speaking, I think you’re right. Tactically speaking, you are definitely right. We can agree to disagree now, I don’t think this is getting anywhere.
Nope it won't get anywhere because we will always have people who just want to pull the trigger because in their head longs if the government tell them to blindly follow and just shoot when you can legally then they will. When if actually trained they would learn that is a lot of other way's to solve issues that are just as effective. And somethings should be left to last resort and restrained. But yes i digress. Because one can never change these minds and it shall forever happen. Injustice be dammed cause humans are not very moral as they claim to be.
You see a life lost and label the situation “bad” I see lives saved and label it “good.”I think that is the big difference between us.You cannot see that sometimes, People need to die, it is what it is. It’s not a training issue.
Nah you just don't see that someone died when no one needed too. Clouded by that exact train of thought and why it will never get better. Just don't complain to me when in the next ten years it's stayed the same and even probably got worse.
He didn’t NEED to carry a knife and brandish it to people and police But he didHe didn’t NEED to carry a knife, brandish it to police, and run up to policebut he didSee where I’m going with this?
I feel like my last comment was pretty sufficient way to end my point. And still applies to what you responded with so i am just gonna leave it at that.
So walking around in a threatening manner towards family members with a butcher knife and refusing commands to drop it for several minutes isn't a reason? Okay, we'll just wait until he sticks the knife into someone's jugular and kills them before shooting him, I'll let the department know
@Rangers No, it's still not a reason to open fire. That's why there are stun guns and tasers. This sort of this makes me very frustrated because when people like school shooters who are walking around with a gun and murdered people, are literally escorted out by police without a scratch, nobody was asking why the police didn't shoot him. It's always with the double standards. They have no problem shooting black people without a second thought but always take a back seat with white people.
It's not a double standard, what they did prior isn't relevant to how they're treated, it's what they're doing when the police arrive that determines how they're dealt with. If they murdered people in a shooting but they give up right away when officers arrive, that's why they weren't shot. If they're at a traffic stop for a moving violation but pull a gun and try to kill the officer when they walk up to their window, that's why that person got shot. Think about what they're doing in the moment the officers arrive because that's what determines how they're taken into custody.
Plus stun guns are for pain compliance, which won't work on someone that unresponsive and will only get the officer stabbed and killed, and tasers are only effective 50% of the time. However, I agree that was an option as one officer can provide lethal cover while the other uses a taser, but they didn't have that planned in the moment, which is why they used deadly force. People are asking why officers didn't shoot xyz whoever you have in mind, we just understand when they explain that they put their hands up and gave up.No officer wants to pull the trigger, making the decision to potentially take a life is very traumatizing and is the hardest decision an officer can ever make. They get put on leave and get absolutely no sleep as they constantly think about how if they didn't do xyz, maybe it would've gone differently. Combine that with the frequently screaming bystanders who don't know what happened but jump to the conclusion that the officer is the bad guy, and you've got a pretty traumatizing experience. Officers pulling the trigger is extremely rare, they just don't show you the cases where they could've or maybe even should've shot but didn't because it doesn't fit the media's narrative that police are out to get you.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Cause it's dumb in pretty much most cases.
Yes we're talking about a person's life here
@Cherry234 Yes, we are. Why is taking it so bad especially when it is justified? Especially, when it is more moral to kill someone than to not? Ex: Someone trying to kill you or your loved ones.If you can’t see the need for lethal force, this convo doesn’t need to be carried out any further. I’ll just let the comments here stand for people to look on.
No idea honestly
Dude really didn’t heed the “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!