For those of you questioning where the officers shot the kid you should probably read up on how they train officers to shoot once they've made the decision to do so... You might be surprised lol... If you ever put yourself in a position, in the US at least, where a cop decides to actually shoot at you don't expect them to ever turn into the lone ranger and shoot the weapon out of your hand before he ropes you and drags you down to the station...
Don't be stupid. That would mean that everything I've seen on TV isn't how life really works!
Expecting to shoot and injure someone is dumb - I can't think of any other word. It takes for granted the terrible power you're trying to control and makes it "less scary." But besides that, and more importantly, the margin of error is tiny, and that is totally covered by chance.
That's not to say that all gunshot wounds are fatal, but enough """minor""" wounds are, that it is absolutely not something to mess around with, ever.
That being said, and not necessarily related to this story, that doesn't mean that if someone (anyone) shoots someone, that they are justified in simply unloading their weapon into them. For example, Person A shoots at Person B, B returns fire, hits Person A and incapacitates them, Person B needs to stop shooting.
For those of you questioning where the officers shot the kid you should probably read up on how they train officers to shoot once they've made the decision to do so... You might be surprised lol... If you ever put yourself in a position, in the US at least, where a cop decides to actually shoot at you don't expect them to ever turn into the lone ranger and shoot the weapon out of your hand before he ropes you and drags you down to the station...
What did Mel Gibson say in that shitty 1776 movie? Aim small, miss small? Unless you're an exhibition shooter, you always aim for center of mass, even Snipers are trained to.
If you shoot in the arms and legs, they still have some HP left and you are forced to switch to your gun to finish them with one bullet.
And since bullets don't go through walls, it's a bit annoying. Might as well aim for the center of mass and get a sure kill.
For those of you questioning where the officers shot the kid you should probably read up on how they train officers to shoot once they've made the decision to do so... You might be surprised lol... If you ever put yourself in a position, in the US at least, where a cop decides to actually shoot at you don't expect them to ever turn into the lone ranger and shoot the weapon out of your hand before he ropes you and drags you down to the station...
What did Mel Gibson say in that shitty 1776 movie? Aim small, miss small? Unless you're an exhibition shooter, you always aim for center of mass, even Snipers are trained to.
If you shoot in the arms and legs, they still have some HP left and you are forced to switch to your gun to finish them with one bullet.
And since bullets don't go through walls, it's a bit annoying. Might as well aim for the center of mass and get a sure kill.
not if you stack dDex to max crit dmg, then they dead in 1 shot anywhere.
Shooting him 9 times was probably unnecessary if he only had a knife, but come on.. he deserved to get shot. Yes, most people who are dumb enough to brandish a knife at someone probably don't intend to use it. But how do you know the subject isn't high on crack or something and will come at you?
I would have tazed his *** immediately and then shot him if he didn't show a reasonable reaction to getting tazed (most people are done, period). If he had another weapon on him, or was threatening an innocent/third party (can't see from the video), then they were fine in shooting him.
By the way, YOU NEVER shoot to wound. The whole point in a gun is to shoot to kill. If someone doesn't deserve to get shot in the chest, he doesn't deserve to get shot at all. Likewise if you can't handle the situation without discharging your firearm, there's no other option than to use it for what it was designed. Get a clue, people.
guns, knifes, rocket launchers~ all the same imo~ they're all deadly weapons and the cops had to eliminate the threat asap before someone gets hurt. Same thing happened here couple of weeks ago~ Violent husband grabbed a knife and threaten his wife and the cops~ He was capped like 5 times as a result~~ i even heard the shots lol. TBO it's stupid to threaten cops with weapons. Any death that occurs is completely the fault of the dumb *** who tried to fight the law with a weapon.
guns, knifes, rocket launchers~ all the same imo~ they're all deadly weapons and the cops had to eliminate the threat asap before someone gets hurt. Same thing happened here couple of weeks ago~ Violent husband grabbed a knife and threaten his wife and the cops~ He was capped like 5 times as a result~~ i even heard the shots lol. TBO it's stupid to threaten cops with weapons. Any death that occurs is completely the fault of the dumb *** who tried to fight the law with a weapon.
Not even.
Knives don't project the wielder's power any further than their personal space, and makes them an entirely different class of threat than a gun. Similarly, an explosive weapon is an entirely different class of threat than a gun, which is generally localized and precise, as opposed the indiscriminate danger posed by an explosive even in the most trained technicians hands.
There's still no excuse for threatening an officer of the law, but I still have yet to see a solid argument or justification on behalf of the police, and I give the benefit of the doubt to the cops always. In this case, I still see no reasonable cause.
It does not take a HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** to know the most common of all rules when confronted by the police in real society in a public situation.. Never pull out any type of weapon.. In fact never even put your hands in your pockets. If you have a knife or a weapon concealed and you don't have a pocket full of drugs or anything to hide when the cops are talking to you like a real person just say whats in your pockets and never reach for them. They will ask you to remove them or do it themselves if the situation needs be. Ree Ree's deserve to be shot 9 times then tasered. Respect the authoritah!
Being John Q. Public that pays taxes and feels responsible for what those taxes pay for DOES NOT give you the right to judge, it gives you the right to question. I don't judge you based on your race creed religion or sexual preference. You are mistaking the difference between the two. Was procedure followed? Was ample warning given before lethal force was applied? The answer to those questions will dictate the legal outcome of this shooting.
From the video alone those questions cannot be answered. I do question the use of the taser AFTER shots were fired. However watch a few ballistics videos especially of pistol rounds vs. rifle rounds. A pistol, while it does not lack lethality, lacks stopping power. A person shot with a pistol in a non vital area, heart or brain, CAN keep coming. This is why police in most areas are told to keep firing until the threat is neutralized. Stop watching the movies and thinking everyone flies back 15 feet when shot with a pistol, it just isn't reality.
I'm amazed that so many people think this was justified. The only argument for that is that he was armed and not obeying police commands - of course, that's not a good decision. But stupid enough to cost his life? "Training, etc etc" - can be repeated all day long, and if that's how police are trained in Canada, fine - then the blame shifts off of those individuals and onto someone/thing else. But it doesn't excuse anything.
I just can't reconcile the relatively low level of danger in that situation with the amount of force used to end it. How can someone honestly answer yes to the question, "did this person have to die?"
It will be disappointing if it comes out that the "threat" of this guy throwing the knife at them is their justification - but that's just about the only threat there. But that's super flimsy - even underhanded, there's not a good line between him and any of the police, and unless they thought he was some kind of TV ninja, he's not going to flick his wrist and the knife would magically fly 100mph directly into a cop. (And while all of this has the benefit of hindsight and no danger, it's also the exact kind of thing they're supposed to be able to recognize.)
And while I think it's pretty hard to justify what happened, it's completely *** simple to arrive at a (hypothetical) solution that doesn't result in a shooting. There are any number of tools that are available to end this. If the Toronto Police don't have access to outlandish like flashbangs, tear gas, bean bags, or rock salt loaded shotgun shells, then again, the blame shifts - but doesn't disappear.
From the video alone those questions cannot be answered. I do question the use of the taser AFTER shots were fired. However watch a few ballistics videos especially of pistol rounds vs. rifle rounds. A pistol, while it does not lack lethality, lacks stopping power. A person shot with a pistol in a non vital area, heart or brain, CAN keep coming. This is why police in most areas are told to keep firing until the threat is neutralized. Stop watching the movies and thinking everyone flies back 15 feet when shot with a pistol, it just isn't reality.
A lot of cops out here opt for the M1911 when they're able to for that reason you're talking about. A 9mm will not stop a meth addled lunatic on a kill-crazy rampage short of a difficult killshot, but the .45's of the 1911 will.
My issue isn't that they shot him, it's that they KEPT shooting him. There are three separate sets of shots. The first put him on the ground, the second and third were complete unnecessary. It was literally a case of
BANG BANG BANG
Wait ... look
BANG BANG BANG BANG
Wait ... look at him some more
BANG BANG
Ok now check on him
It gives the viewer the impression that they were ensuring he was dead before letting anyone near him. That's dirty no matter how you spin it.
Watch some ballistics testing, even a .45, unless it hits a vital area, will not STOP a determined attacker. It doesn't knock them back or put them on the ground crying uncle no matter what caliber you use. If you score a shoulder hit without hitting the joint someone can still use the arm. It's gonna hurt like hell but you can still use it, the same goes for any joint. Yes they can bleed out before first responders arrive. That is the difference between lethality and stopping power. No I'm not advocating everyone carry an AR or AK just trying to point out people's misconceptions.
My issue is that people are judging and convicting these cops when they don't have all the information. You do not know what was happening. You do not know if he was drugged out of his mind. You do not know shite about it other than this video that we cannot hear much of anything other than shots fired and a taser. Don't get me wrong folks, I'm all for throwing the book at em if they were not justified but get all the information first....
Stuff like this is why I wonder why the hell people ever choose to become a cop. You're constantly vilified and second guessed by all these know-it-alls who think just cause they seen tv shows or movies depicting such scenarios they can make better judgement calls on said scenarios from the comfort of their own living room (most of the time knowing next to nothing about the situation or even resources available to the cops in question). Dealing with scum on a potentially daily basis and enduring the psychological and emotional strain that the job can put on them and their family all the while dealing with people chomping at the bit for any chance to catch them at a slip up so they can scoop up the "next big story." Let's just say we are lucky there are people with a higher sense of justice than people like me who are actually willing to take on such a job cause I sure as hell wouldn't deal with all that ****. Thankless job if I ever seen one.
Stuff like this is why I wonder why the hell people ever choose to become a cop. You're constantly vilified and second guessed by all these know-it-alls who think just cause they seen tv shows or movies depicting such scenarios they can make better judgement calls on said scenarios from the comfort of their own living room (most of the time knowing next to nothing about the situation or even resources available to the cops in question). Dealing with scum on a potentially daily basis and enduring the psychological and emotional strain that the job can put on them and their family all the while dealing with people chomping at the bit for any chance to catch them at a slip up so they can scoop up the "next big story."
This is not in any way, shape or form limited to the police profession.
Let's just say we are lucky there are people with a higher sense of justice than people like me who are actually willing to take on such a job cause I sure as hell wouldn't deal with all that ****. Thankless job if I ever seen one.
The concept that officers have a higher sense of justice, or have a different ethical/moral compass than others is a faulty assumption.
You do have police that join out of a desire to protect; you also have those that join out of a desire to dominate. Unfortunately, the latter tend to get more recognition.
Stuff like this is why I wonder why the hell people ever choose to become a cop. You're constantly vilified and second guessed by all these know-it-alls who think just cause they seen tv shows or movies depicting such scenarios they can make better judgement calls on said scenarios from the comfort of their own living room (most of the time knowing next to nothing about the situation or even resources available to the cops in question). Dealing with scum on a potentially daily basis and enduring the psychological and emotional strain that the job can put on them and their family all the while dealing with people chomping at the bit for any chance to catch them at a slip up so they can scoop up the "next big story."
This is not in any way, shape or form limited to the police profession.
Let's just say we are lucky there are people with a higher sense of justice than people like me who are actually willing to take on such a job cause I sure as hell wouldn't deal with all that ****. Thankless job if I ever seen one.
The concept that officers have a higher sense of justice, or have a different ethical/moral compass than others is a faulty assumption.
You do have police that join out of a desire to protect; you also have those that join out of a desire to dominate. Unfortunately, the latter tend to need a badge and a gun because they couldn't compete with the rest of society in anything.
