50 dead BART passengers

OMG AMP lol and wow :1orglaugh

You are defending the guy just for the sake of defending him.
You really dident know that yes infact there is a law that says that you cant run from the police.

You honestly would defent a dead bankrobber holding a kid hostage as they could just have placed 4 accurate shots to arms/legs thereby not killing him.

You just hate cops and thats that :winkwink:

Anyways pointless discussion, i will now go see my boat and hopefully catch a salmon

The guy was probably mentally ill and afraid of the police, trying to take on a bunch of cops with a knife or two is insane. He would likely be alive now if he had laid down or laid the knives down and followed instructions. Regardless of what kind of weapon the guy had, you can never take on the cops and come out ahead.

In my city, it is illegal to carry a knife longer than 4 inches, but you can open carry any legal firearm. Our open carry law recently changed.

The police department is freaking out because people are open carrying shotguns and rifles around to test the law.

The Police Chief and City Attorney are trying to get the law changed because they say that as long as people are carrying guns, the police can't do their job of protecting the public. They are now spending more time just observing people who are showing up at mall parking lots with hunting rifles etc.

One effect of the law change has been a drop in robberies at convenience/liquor stores. I think the thugs are more afraid of being shot by a customer or onlooker than they were a few months ago.

Everyone in this thread has been reported to the cyber police. (Backtracing imminent.)

No, it isn't legal.

its quite a few here.

As someone who has been stabbed, you have no clue what you are saying Kristin. A knife close range is more deadly than a gun, as you have multiple angles to kill with, while a gun has one, barrel pointed at you.

My first LE course back in the day had my instructor with a knife 20 feet away, and me with a holstered but cleared firearm. I was instructed to pull and fire before I got stabbed. Three tries, and I died three times.

In a gun fight, you cannot pick and choose what to shoot at, the adrenal dump causes loss of fine motor skills, that's one of the reasons why any firearm training consists of hitting center mass. Pick the largest target, and aim to stop the nervous system. More advanced training like the Mozambique would give the press a field day, but are way more practical in a life and death situation.

Not sure why some people take the side of authority as a knee jerk reaction. Maybe because it makes you feel as though you are on the "winning" side. But that type of thinking is what will get us all oppressed someday.

I have no idea what happened in this case and maybe the shooting was justified. But you have to protect the rights of the people you hate, or society hates. Because by the time the police start violating the rights of regular people, it's too late to stop it. That's why you protect the rights of drug dealers, flag burners, and others you may not like. Because by the time the police start violating your rights, it's too late to stop them.

That's why the police need to be held the to the HIGHEST level of accountability and never be given the benefit of the doubt in any situation. If the police are truly honest and just, then they will have no problem being held to such a high standard. When they start to complain, you have to wonder why.

My mischievous sense of humour wants to troll the fuck out of you but i'm off to watch TV now :tongue:

Which brings me to my next point, that there are far better examples to make your argument over, involving police brutality, excessive use of force, etc, than this one. In this case all the guy had to do was simply submit to being detained. If he was indeed "doing nothing wrong" they'd have had no choice but to let him go. Instead he ran, then resisted. Do that and you get what you get, you take your chances, end of story.



Jeez man. Next time you drive across the border just speed on past the Customs officers, maybe give them the finger as you do so... because why should you have to submit to 'questions', right? You're just going about your business, right? Why should you have to have your time wasted and your privacy invaded just because you're entering another country or re-entering the US? It's your right to not have to answer questions. Don't worry, they won't shoot you either. :D

If you think cops of any flavor don't have the authority to ask you a few questions you're being pretty naive.



Running away is a form of resisting arrest.




Not true, I consider all sides. I'm just telling you the way it is, that's all.

*I* don't assume anything, like I've been saying I just know how it is, that's all. If all he did was miss jury duty why not just put your hands up and cooperate? Then when they're questioning you you tell them your deal. Better than pulling knives and getting shot to pieces, no?



No, actually it's a perfect analogy. Both the cop thing and my example deal with people flying in the face of a certainty. In one, certain death by hitting the ground and going splatt. In the other, by having umpteen bullets go through you and you going splatt. Both scenarios are avoidable, the only constants are the cops and gravity.

You don't see it because you don't want to.



Maybe those things will be looked at and investigated. One thing we can agree on is that if the cops did anything at all wrong in this incident they should be taken to task for it.

But that still doesn't change the fact that the guy was an idiot for pulling knives on armed cops.

This guy wasn't a bank robber or a kid-hostage-holder. Just a guy. But because the cops shot him, he must have been evil.

An American who doesn't carry a gun? That just is un-patriotic. What are you, a Communist? :winkwink:

Isn't that what Oscar Grant did?

Or shoot him in the back.

Yep. All for doing..... what again? What was his crime?





Was he entering the country? Was he doing anything that required interaction with authorities in any way?

Then I am naive. I don't believe the police either have/or should have the right to simply stop anyone they choose for no reason and start questioning them.



Well then I learned something today so it's not a total loss. Running away, having done nothing else, just running away.... is a crime. Good to know for future reference.

Or maybe he knew that missing jury duty automatically issues a bench warrant and didn't feel like going to jail today to straighten it out. There are many reasons for not sticking around to talk to the fuzz.

1. He pulled his knives after he was tased. It's not like he was walking around threatening the police with it, they chased him down and tased him, twice.... good for him for pulling a knife on those fuckers. Too bad he wasn't able to take a few out with him.

2. Better? Well that's kind of subjective. It didn't work out better for Oscar Grant. Same police, same BART station. Why should anyone think they will live through an encounter with those cops?




Bad analogy because you are choosing to jump out of that plane. This guy didn't choose to go looking for those cops.

I don't see it because it's not the same thing.




Agreed.

Like I suggested before, maybe he was taking them out to put them down. Maybe he was killed for no reason at all. And maybe the cops should be legally required to shoot video of every encounter they have from now on so that these questions don't come up. We will never know what really happened to this guy.

Was he walking around with the knife in his hands? Because the police say he "pulled" his knives after they tried tasing him. It can't be both ways.

And no, someone walking around with a knife does not even register with me as unusual in any way. Lots of people carry knives. Lots of people carry guns and other shit too.

They always have a reason.



No, but he did choose to run, and then pull weapons. Thus the analogy stands. Both scenarios have a choice, both have a given, and both have an inevitable end result, both of which can be avoided.



You make it sound as though it's specifically these cops in this particular part of that city who perform their duties this way. Not true. Why just a few years ago here in Winnipeg a couple of young guys were doing a B & E. The cops arrived on scene, the young guys ran. A cop caught up to one suspect, the kid pulled out a screwdriver and came at the cop. He was told several times to put it down, he didn't. The cop shot the 18 yr old guy dead. There was a huge blowup about it and public debate over it. After investigation the cop was cleared.

Funny too is, back then people said "why didn't the cop taser him? He'd be alive now", yet nowadays after several taser-related deaths people now want to ban cops from using them.

I'm not defending the cops, far from it. Some of you seem to think so but you're dead wrong. All I'm saying is they WILL use force when any kind of suspect resists. Bitching about it isn't going to stop that from happening, not in Oakland, not in Canada, not anywhere. In light of that I'll stick with my opinion that it's probably better to give yourself up and deal with the assholes in court rather than being a hero and pulling a weapon thinking your piddly little pigsticker has a hope in hell against a group of cops armed with guns and tasers.

right or wrong, just don't fucking do it. Hopefully none of us find ourselves in that situation.

It's simple really:

Don't charge at police with a knife in each hand and you won't get shot.

This man wanted to do harm to some one, either the cops or himself. He got what he wanted.

Is it hard to shoot somebody in the legs? In my opinon the police should show extreme restraint in using deadly force. The police must newer be allowed to forget that they exist to protect and serve the public, not to dominate it.

I'm confused by the twice tasing to no affect:
- Did the cops miss twice trying to tase him?
- Or did they connect and the tasers just had no affect on the guy?

It's close to impossible. You might get lucky here and there, but as a standard practice, it's a total wash.

LOL... You are funny. This is a perverse form of entertainment for you I think. Maybe try a hobby like making model ships in bottles or basket weaving. Because no one would believe the shit you type.

I support the police killing all of this man's offspring in a form of postpartum abortion. You know, killing the stupid gene that this man was obviously carrying. No sense taking chances that more bad apples were in that barrel. (see, I can take it to the other extreme and sound just as nutty as you).

A surprise type attack, yes...depending on the holster type, this could be hard to stop even for a trained person.

However it doesn't sound like they strolled up on this guy. It sounded like they knew he had a weapon the entire time and after they already hit him with tasers. Normally in this type of situation the officers would already have the weapons out, and probably at the ready before engaging him again. I can only assume they gave him verbal warnings, but with multiple officers shooting him, it's more than plausible.

It's very possible to stop an aggressive target with your weapon already at the ready or even close to it. He may not live, but you really only need one shot and it can be put in a spot that might not kill them, with very little effort.

Bullshit, I could hit somebody in the legs that was moving towards me without any problems. Just because it is easier to shoot somebody in the chest doesn't mean that is the right way to go.

LOL. Okay Rambo.

Stand in front of a mirror and look at how much of your body that are legs. How bad a shooter would you have to be to miss them from less than 10 meters? I'm no rambo, but I can hit a coke can from 10 meters in less than 2 sec from pulling my gun, it is not that hard.

I have no doubt that you can nail the Coke can. If we were talking about an absolutely stationary object, I would agree with you. But we are talking about a man running full speed at you. It's a little different.

I think what Sly is trying to tell you is that not only is it standard practice among most police forces but it's simply not as reliable a shot to aim for the legs. The legs on an attacking perp are moving, they're narrower than the torso, if your shot does happen to miss there's a larger chance of it ricocheting off the pavement/ground etc and hitting an innocent bystander.

Sorry, cops will always aim for the body, dead center, in the heat of an extreme situation where someone with a weapon is attacking.

You saying it's easy and you could do it, well... why aren't you a cop?

The only thing 'easy' about your argument is people who've never been in such a situation second-guessing what trained professionals do. I suggest you go to your local cop shop and try getting as many of them together in one room as you can and then tell them they should be shooting for the legs.

Come back and let everyone know what their reaction was.

A trained person will be able to do it easily, a hot head and cowboy will go for the chest or head as a reflex. I have relatives that are cops and I am pretty sure they would go for the legs in that situation, maybe placing the second shot in the shoulder.

Stray bullets are always an issue, richochet of the pavement is less likely to kill than a bullet that missed the chest or penetrated.

Cops should be able to keep a cool head in extreme situations, they are trained for it.

I don't want to be a cop.

You don't know what situations I have been in. And like I said I'm pretty sure the realatives and friends I have that are cops would go for the legs.

Maybe they just train different here in Sweden.

There are obviously situations where they must go for a kill but I think these cops didn't know the meaning of restraint based on what the media is reporting.

Girls are funny.

Sorry, LEO's are trained 3 rounds center mass here!
If you don't shoot center mass you stand a good chance of missing, we all know most street cops can't shoot very good, BUT that is also not the point.

What if it didn"t stop him, he did knife a police officer in the neck, the office dies, go tell that police officer's family you are sorry, you wanted to just Wound this person.

Come on Guys, this is Apples and Oranges of the ruling a couple weeks ago.

Yes AMP, if the knife was over 3" someone posted it IS illegal.
There was a reason the cops were Called, they did not just happen upon this guy!

The multiple firing, showed that the cops all made the SAME decision based on the traing they had. You have a brief second to make a life or death decision, not pull straws on who is going to shoot him.

To me it's about using a bit more force than what was needed... one cop and 3 rounds could have done it, they didn't need multiple cops, let alone multiple rounds.

Hitting a target with your weapon already on target - depending on distance of course, is like making sure your urine hits the urinal when you take a piss. Gota be pretty far away to miss a urinal, or drunk.

Now if they have some odd ball 3 shot center mass rule, that's sad. They should be protecting the people, if he isn't putting people into danger and yet is willing to put himself into danger, his head is wired on wrong - not everyone deserves to die, cops are trained to notice this - clearly these cops need more training.

You better be 100% sure of that. Not 'pretty sure'. Go ask them directly, then talk. In the past I've been friends with or otherwise been aquainted with no less than about 20 cops. I'm a bit more than 'pretty sure' that what I'm saying is right.

Doubtful. Not impossible mind you, but doubtful. It's about stopping power, as any cop will tell you. When someone's coming at you with a weapon, ANY weapon and won't put it down, they are trained not to fuck around but to put the person down with as few shots as required.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I wonder what the police statement would have said about the last shooting had it not been taped?

The situation that led up to the shooting I can't comment on, I wasn't there. Only that once weapons are drawn, against a knife wielding suspect rushing at them, you don't shoot for the legs, you don't shoot for the arm, you shoot to stop the attack.

One bullet 99 times out of 100 will not stop a knife wielding assailant unless you hit head shot that penetrates the skull, or hit spine which shuts down the body. Out of all people Doc, with your service record, you would know the facts. Don't know why you are keeping on this 1 bullet will do the trick mindset.

If you haven't been keeping up with the Military, they are all complaining about the 9mm not stopping Taliban and have to use multiple rounds to put them down, and that the .45 is making a comback.

The standard firearm for the Police? 9mm.

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=21120

Based on what you're posting here it's pretty obvious to me you've

A) never been a cop

B) Never been in a similar situation, holding a gun on an armed perp who is threatening your life

C) not had enough life experience to know what you're talking about.


No offense, but you seem a tad naive to me. I thought it was common knowledge that cops don't go around trying to snipe armed perps in the shoulder or legs in hopes of saving the poor criminal's life, but rather they take the most reliable core shot... as per they're TRAINING.

Newsflash genius, this case didn't happen in Sweden, it happened in N America. But I'd still love to see some unequivocal proof posted that cops in Sweden are "trained differently" than cops over here. Are criminals over there trained differently? I doubt that too.

There are some good cops, but the truth is most start out as punk ass wannabe cowboys. That's why whenever you watch a video with multiple cops involved, they are all practically falling over themselves to get into the action, often to the detriment of the actual situation.

Just watch any chase on TV, when the suspect finally stops, every single cop draws their weapon, even ones behind other cops. It's a joke.

Unfortunately this happens with shootings as well. There are countless cases of suspects being shot over and over again by a bunch of cops when it is totally unnecessary.

For those that applaud the cops, what if that was a family member of yours who had a drug problem or a mental problem that got shot, would you be so quick to defend the cops then or only when it's a random nobody? I doubt it, I bet you would be on GFY talking about how you are going to sue those maniac cops for shooting an innocent man.

I'm not sure I buy the adrenaline defense or any of that. In a real shoot-out, yes you are not able to pick clean shots unless you are very highly trained and experienced in combat. But this was one guy with a knife and several cops all with their guns drawn. I doubt any of those cops felt truly in danger. Imagine if you and ten friends all had your guns pointed at one guy with a knife, would you be so scared you couldn't think properly?

I'm confused. Police got a call about an armed man, confronted him, and he attacked the police? Sorry Charlie, you come after the pigs with a knife and there is a good chance you'll get shot. End of story.

Quoted, because if I don't I fear no one will pay attention to the truth and common sense you posted.

I sem to keep reading things where someone was tased more than once - either they can't penetrate clothing very well or the police must be going out with partially charged batteries.

A) like I said I don't want to be a cop
B) I have never held a gun on an armed perp who is threatening my life since we are not allowed to carry guns in self defence. I have however disarmed people holding knives against me.
C) Well, I'm only 35 years old so my life experience is obviously limited to that lifespan.

In my naive world view you are not a criminal until you are convicted by a court of law. I also am naive enough to believe that you are just supposed to use the amount of force necessary in proportion to the threat you face. Obviously it is hard to decide what is proportional in each situation, so they will most likely get away with at most a reprimand.

I am well aware of where this incident took place. If you read what I have written again you will see that I was expressing an opinion about what is right and what is wrong.

As for Sweden we here is a rough translation of the relevant part of the law that regulates how the police may use their firearms:
-----------
7 § Before the police officer uses a firearm , he shall particularly consider the risk
to external damage . Gunfire in the area , where many
people living or staying , should be avoided as long as possible.

Before the shots are fired , the police officer shall give a clear warning,
unless such a warning would be ineffective. If firearms must be used,
the police officer , when circumstances do not prevent it, should first fire a
warning shot .

When shooting against a person the goal should be to only temporarily incapacitate him.
------------------

http://riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.as...11&bet=1969:84
Automatic translation will not work since it is old very formal Swedish.

such a bad one

Depending on the situation, depends on the weapon you're issued. Standing on a base or like small town cops, 9mm always does the trick. However I had a .45 at times and always had a shot gun, which I would take over a .45 in almost all situations.

Before the Military Police in the Marines, I was a Police Officer.

Both times I was trained, 1 shot, 1 kill. I was also taught we don't have spare ammo to go around just to unload on people, and I was taught to never discharge a weapon more than needed because it 'more than often' miss and hit someone else. And being that we're in war time, I can guarantee you police stations around the nation have ammo restrictions - so them shooting him more than once, it's rather bizarre - seeming that I know we're low on ammo.

Btw, I have never put more than 1 round into a person... ever. If you have a knife and you're 20 feet from me, I will hit you 100% of the time, any place I want. If you're a deer or a boar, on the move, I will hit you. If you're a bird, taking off, I can hit you with a bow.

Tell me people can't hit a human from 20 feet, coming at you, with aim already on them... crazy talk, pure stupid really. Fuck, it's impossible to miss.

If you actually hunt bird with a bow, what kind of arrow do you use? I have tried a couple out but not really gotten comfortable with any of them.

Sir, you are a fine specimen of man meat. I would like to mate.

Yeah, I re-read how I posted and it didn't really portrait what I was thinking in my head.

The entertaining part was only referring to Sly and Amp going at it. I don't really pretend to know shit about guns.

My point was more that if they took him down with a shot to the shoulder let's say, it's much harder (in my mind) to use the knife that it would be to shoot a gun at them because it limits their range of motion more. But again, this is in my cop show watching mind.

I don't disagree that knives are deadly at all.

That's part of the problem with this country: no fear of retaliation. If we all exercised our right to bear arms there would be less crime. Joe Criminal isn't going to jack you for your Lexus if he thinks you might pull out a 9mm and fill him with hollow points. Most criminals are cowards who won't commit crimes if it means risking personal injury.

When does the Gap start stocking the bullet proof line? Just in case I ever get the courage to leave the house I mean.

Then you are talking pure anecdotal evidence. One shot, one kill only applies to Snipers, and every defensive and tactical firearm course I've taken, the myth of one shot, one stop is abused and laughed at. You keep firing till you are safe, especially with 9mm. Empirical data fully supports this training in this manner.

The FBI uses one scenario where a Perp is shot twice center mass, fires back and kills the police officer. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...3/ai_n7577583/

There is a plethora of evidence of police officers unloading their clips and only hitting once. I remember my first firearms instructor telling me he got into a fire fight inside of an elevator, less than 5 feet from each other and they both missed before he could disarm the other guy.

Basing how a firefight would unfold without knowing the variables, behind your monitor, that's crazy. And frankly I'm surprised that you would post what you did considering you've been in combat and know if anything can go wrong, it will.

That is a completely different situation though. Tight, cramped quarters with no cover and nowhere to run, full adrenaline rush and a do-or-die situation. I can easily see both missing in a panic. Not the same at all as a whole platoon of cops standing with weapons drawn and aiming outside in the wide open.

Adrenal dump is the same if you are in an elevator, or out in the wide open of Montana. That doesn't change anything. Someone lunging at you with a knife is also a do or die situation. And really the example was made to show that in an space of less than five feet, you can miss, and you must shoot to win.

Let's not exaggerate Amp, there were five police officers, and at this time, no data reported on how many discharged their weapons or how many rounds were fired.