The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - When Non-lethal can become lethal for the user.

Pond, James Pond · January 28, 2012, 10:31 AM

Firstly, I must say I'm not impressed by the video-filmers laughing at a fatal shooting... Some people need to get some perspective: after all that ws someone's son...

Secondly, I am a bit confused by why shooting was deemed necessary.

They were in a wide open car park, there were no other civilians around the guy at that time.
There were, what looked to be 3 or 4 officers with more on the way, judging by the sirens more on the way.
He had an effective range of 4-5 feet.
The officer shot because his partner was too close when he needn't have been.
They had a dog: aren't dogs trained to disarm an assailant with weapon in hand?
Surely tazer training teaches them about thick clothing impairing the stunner?

Why did they get so close?
Why not wait for more guys, or get shields?
Why not shoot him in the leg, first, instead of 8-9 shots?
Why did they get close close when they had fire arms and could afford to act with letahl force from 20 feet, if needed?

There may be parts I have over looked, but for me these questions make it seem like some guy got killed when he needn't have been.
Yes, he was acting like a nutter, but he only had a blunt force instrument, in an area where the officers had almost unlimited mobility, and he was walking, not running around swing at people

January 28, 2012, 10:31 AM	#12
Pond, James Pond Senior Member Join Date: July 12, 2011 Location: Top of the Baltic stack Posts: 6,079	Firstly, I must say I'm not impressed by the video-filmers laughing at a fatal shooting... Some people need to get some perspective: after all that ws someone's son... Secondly, I am a bit confused by why shooting was deemed necessary. They were in a wide open car park, there were no other civilians around the guy at that time. There were, what looked to be 3 or 4 officers with more on the way, judging by the sirens more on the way. He had an effective range of 4-5 feet. The officer shot because his partner was too close when he needn't have been. They had a dog: aren't dogs trained to disarm an assailant with weapon in hand? Surely tazer training teaches them about thick clothing impairing the stunner? Why did they get so close? Why not wait for more guys, or get shields? Why not shoot him in the leg, first, instead of 8-9 shots? Why did they get close close when they had fire arms and could afford to act with letahl force from 20 feet, if needed? There may be parts I have over looked, but for me these questions make it seem like some guy got killed when he needn't have been. Yes, he was acting like a nutter, but he only had a blunt force instrument, in an area where the officers had almost unlimited mobility, and he was walking, not running around swing at people __________________ When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.