A quick word on blocking ads
It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
If someone wanted to point out real and logical assesment of details I've laid out or ones I've missed, I'm totally down to consider them but all I really saw was a bunch of meanieheadfuckfacedickhead shit directed at me with a blind eye turned to the factual & procedural clarifications I was writing about in trying to explain why this happened. The only factual/procedural breakdown coming from the other side of the discussion was from somebody from I think the guard... Which seems pretty far removed from the situation at hand. "Hey, I have a gun, man- and I'll totally fuckin' shoot!" meanwhile the other cop is bashed. Others say shoot him in the leg which is absolutely the worst thing I can think of suggesting in a high stress situation and moving targets once the decision is made to shoot and is more of a joke than something deserving of actual consideration imo.
The video you posted has many good points to be learned from but also has many dissimilarities from the OP. For instance, many officers responded quickly, they had time to ascertain it was only one guy and prepared as a group for a takedown with the proper tools before he got physically confrontational. In the original video, two cops showed up to an armed robbery call with no backup and had little to no time to prepare for an unknown circumstance before they were confronted with the obvious unfortunate situation with an armed and dangerous person who barely blinked- and even got angry and turned to swing at the cop when nonlethal force was applied. Also you have to think about the environment and the criminal. What's scarier, a guy seling magic mushrooms in a Finnish bazaar at noon or an armed robber in an American ghetto at dusk? This all matters too, as all the factors play into the big picture of danger assesment.
Now if they had more time to assess the situation and more backup I'd totally agree with you that this shit is fucked up and completely inexcusable, but the situations are very different when broken down despite their similarities. I totally see where you're going with that and it is indeed a good example of proper response and planning, it's just unfortunate that the cops in the OP did not have any of those things going for them at the time.
I'll agree with this. They made a mistake in getting that close, but it is a tough situation that esclated VERY quickly so it's tough to armchair from the comfort of my office. I mean, they were right next to the door and the guy just walked out right past them, so what do you do? Do you just let him get in his car and drive away and deal with a high speed chase? Do you physically try to move in and stop him after you spray him and it does nothing? All tough calls when shit is happening so fast in a largely unknown situation and nobody's around to help.
I think it all boils down to people with good intentions trying to do the right thing and make tough decisions on the fly under unimaginable stress and fear. Regrets are probably impossible to avoid, but then again robbing a store with a weapon and attacking armed police is completely avoidable, so it's hard for me to place blame on the cops when placed in a situation like that. It sucks but this is always a possibility in situations like this and why most of society would agree it's stupid to do things that have a damn good chance of getting you shot.
I hope nobody finds this insulting or ignorant, it's just my .02. Take it or leave it.
There is less of a general sentiment in Canada that cops are power-hungry assholes who use unethical tactics to bully people than there is among a lot of young people in the States. Generally police decisions are assessed on a case by case basis and that makes for a greater sense of objectivity when those assessments aren't coloured by a general dislike for police that a lot of people have in the USA and that you can pretty plainly see in this thread.
Really, for me, there is a big bright line between "no chance of serious injury or death in this situation" and "some chance of serious injury or death in this situation". That line usually gets crossed when the suspect is carrying a weapon, particularly when he's weilding it in a position where he could use it. At that point you have essentially committed suicide by cop and you've flipped a coin as to whether paramedics will be able to save you. There are no half measures that are acceptable when there is a reasonably forseeable possibility - even if it seems unlikely - that a police officer will be seriously hurt or killed. You do everything you can to make sure that possibility does not materialize. In other words, you shoot the guy multiple times, preferably in the head. Would the dog have been able to deal with him? Probably. Could they have subdued him by continuously pepper spraying him and staying out of range of his weapon? Probably. Would all the cops together have been able to subdue him with their bare hands? Probably.
Probably isn't good enough.
These guys actually used non-lethal means by pepper spraying the dude. Apparently that had the opposite effect as intended, as it basically led to the guy attacking. Unfortunate, but there is no decision-making process of weighing the odds and consequences available. If police are responsible for doing that, it will lead to more dead officers at the end of the day.
