Question for Her Majesty's Servants on Bullshido

[slamdunc]

To this I would ask "but why 46 rounds? Why did he have to be turned into mince meat because he had a knife on him?

How many rounds did it actually take to stop the assailant from being an immediate and imminent threat? That is the number of rounds that are appropriate; it could be one well-placed round or it might take forty-six rounds to force bleed-out.

All six cops have standard issue defensive weaponry and hand to hand training

Hand-to-hand, not hand-to-deadly weapon; this is a deadly-force situation.

not ONE of them was capable of fighting the man who was deemed not violent AND had no history of violence.

When was he deemed not violent, and by who? His history of violence may well have started and ended with this incident.

This has happened numerous times, and even Ron Paul has spoken about the police and their abuse of authority. Even though our tax dollars go to protecting these madmen AND training them in so-called "non-lethal force" they still insist on shooting at knife wielders.

It is unlikely that anyone has ever attacked Ron Paul with a knife. If this had happened, Mr. Paul would probably change his tune. Our tax dollars go to train officers to do their jobs. A big part of their job is to protect the public from dangerous people, some armed with knives, clubs, automobiles, firearms, or whatever else makes them a threat to public safety. There are guidelines for using force, and a knife within a certain distance translates to getting shot. We're not in Mayberry any more, and remember: 'Don't bring a knife to a gun fight'.

[Vince Tortelli]

To this I would ask "but why 46 rounds? Why did he have to be turned into mince meat because he had a knife on him?

When the firearms come up, the police are trained to
1. Aim at the center of mass
2. Fire until either the threat is neutralized or the firearm stops going bang when you squeeze the thing that makes the bullets come out.

In this case there were 6 officers firing, that comes to about...8 bullets per officer, more or less one magazine? Basically all six fired until the mentally ill person with a knife went down. As they are trained to do. As they were completely within their rights to do. There is NOTHING that says an officer has to risk his or her own life to try and take your knife away from you when you fail to comply with direct verbal orders.

This has happened numerous times, and even Ron Paul has spoken about the police and their abuse of authority. Even though our tax dollars go to protecting these madmen AND training them in so-called "non-lethal force" they still insist on shooting at knife wielders.

Yes, how dare the police respond to deadly force with deadly force. Ron Paul makes me miss the sane 3rd way candidates like Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot.

[slamdunc]

Ron Paul makes me miss the sane 3rd way candidates like Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot.

Do you find it strange that someone with an obviously liberal mindset has any idea what Ron Paul said. I'm as conservative as conservative is, and Paul isn't on my reading list.

[goodlun]

To this I would ask "but why 46 rounds?

Dead is dead does matter if they shot him once or 1000 times same result the guy is dead does it really matter how many times they shot him?

Why did he have to be turned into mince meat because he had a knife on him?

Because he had a Knife, its a deadly weapon. He did not drop it when he was told to do so. He could have hurt someone with it. Had he hurt someone with it we would all be standing around saying well why the **** didn't the police do something about it.

All six cops have standard issue defensive weaponry

Which of these items would you want to use against a man with a gun?

and hand to hand training,

Yeah sure if you say so, certainly not to the level to deal with someone with a freaking knife

and not ONE of them was capable of fighting the man who was deemed not violent AND had no history of violence.

This is crap the man had a knife it could have gotten violent real quick.

The ONLY reason this man had ever been in 'trouble' with the police was because he is homeless!"

The only reason he has gotten into trouble is we as a society have failed in our duty to do something about the mentally ill.

This has happened numerous times, and even Ron Paul has spoken about the police and their abuse of authority. Even though our tax dollars go to protecting these madmen AND training them in so-called "non-lethal force" they still insist on shooting at knife wielders.

What the **** does Ron Paul have to do with ****? What does "non-lethal force" have to do with someone that has a lethal weapon in their hand?

[Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs]

When the firearms come up, the police are trained to
1. Aim at the center of mass
2. Fire until either the threat is neutralized or the firearm stops going bang when you squeeze the thing that makes the bullets come out.

In this case there were 6 officers firing, that comes to about...8 bullets per officer, more or less one magazine? Basically all six fired until the mentally ill person with a knife went down. As they are trained to do. As they were completely within their rights to do. There is NOTHING that says an officer has to risk his or her own life to try and take your knife away from you when you fail to comply with direct verbal orders.



Yes, how dare the police respond to deadly force with deadly force. Ron Paul makes me miss the sane 3rd way candidates like Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot.

BULLSHIT or well their training methodes are completely wrong.

6 police officers standing there, pointing a firearm at a knifewielding homeless guy does not constitute "deadly force" vs "deadly force", but "firing squad" vs "deadly force".

Here in Belgium our cops carry sidearms and in the above case the attacker would get hit in the knife holding hand OR in the foot, followed by a "Rodney King" type of beating. Afterwich, when he was tenderized, he would be taken to the hospital for treathment.

I can understand if the attacker carried a fireweapon that he would be turned into a Swiss cheese, but not when he is carrying a knife under the above conditions.

[scipio]

Just worth pointing out that the Daily Mail online is a US/UK organisation. There is an office in London but also offices in NY and somewhere in California. Much of the news you find in the Daily Mail on line is geared up to a US audience and the article could well (and probably was) written by a US journalist rather than a Brit.

[judoka_uk]

Original quote definitely isn't true, because everyone in the UK knows the police aren't actually there to fight crime.

The police's job is to catch people doing 72mph on motorways and arrest people who try and stop gypsies setting up camp on their land.

[slamdunc]

BULLSHIT or well their training methodes are completely wrong.

SCOTUS (the guys in the black robes that have final say as to if **** is right or wrong) says they are good.

6 police officers standing there, pointing a firearm at a knifewielding homeless guy does not constitute "deadly force" vs "deadly force", but "firing squad" vs "deadly force".

If it were a firing squad, the wing-nut with the knife would not have been given a choice to live or die. A firing squad executes convicted killers & treasonists, and they do not have any choice (or a knife).

Here in Belgium our cops carry sidearms and in the above case the attacker would get hit in the knife holding hand OR in the foot, followed by a "Rodney King" type of beating. Afterwich, when he was tenderized, he would be taken to the hospital for treathment.

1. The laws are likely a bit different here. 2. The majority of our officers do well to be able to hit center of mass, so shooting the hand or foot isn't an option (it is also outside training and policy). 3. A Rodney King style beat-down would subject the officers to a lot more scrutiny and discipline, than shooting the bad guy did or will.

I can understand if the attacker carried a fireweapon that he would be turned into a Swiss cheese, but not when he is carrying a knife under the above conditions.

A deadly weapon can be a screwdriver, an automobile, or a bazooka. Deadly force is deadly force; I can debate all day on this topic, but that is pointless.

Although I agree with you on most topics, I will agree to disagree here and say that things are different here, not necessarily better, but different.

[Tom .C]

SCOTUS (the guys in the black robes that have final say as to if **** is right or wrong) says they are good.
If it were a firing squad, the wing-nut with the knife would not have been given a choice to live or die. A firing squad executes convicted killers & treasonists, and they do not have any choice (or a knife).
1. The laws are likely a bit different here. 2. The majority of our officers do well to be able to hit center of mass, so shooting the hand or foot isn't an option (it is also outside training and policy). 3. A Rodney King style beat-down would subject the officers to a lot more scrutiny and discipline, than shooting the bad guy did or will.
A deadly weapon can be a screwdriver, an automobile, or a bazooka. Deadly force is deadly force; I can debate all day on this topic, but that is pointless.

Although I agree with you on most topics, I will agree to disagree here and say that things are different here, not necessarily better, but different.

So Belgium trains their officers to just shoot deserving perps just a little bit?

[bob63]

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Ment...ail/story.html
recent and relevant. On a tablet so pasting text is a pain.