Why outage over this police shooting?

PKM

Gold Member
Oct 11, 2017
810
846
370
So..

Man gets angry with people at Burger King, come back with a gun..
2 witnesses call police.

Police have a report of a man with a gun threatening people at BK.

Police arrive and hes perched between 2 cars, one with its door open and told 30 or so times to drop the weapon.

He grabs it, backwards, and gets shot...and dies.



School walkouts, protest planned etc..

Why?

If I go anywhere angry, brandishing a gun..I'm playing stupid games, winning stupid prizes..

Can some PLEASE explain to me WHY this fools actions dont warrant being shot?
 

ViceUniverse

Member
Mar 12, 2019
184
70
150
Whose mad? All you did was post Video.

This looks complicated because it seems like he was trying to put the gun down slowly. What a situation to be in, that's almost always going to end deadly.
 
Last edited:

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,546
3,672
365
You just said yourself that he was gripping the gun backwards. He was a danger to nobody but himself. They didn't need to murder him. People are tired of watching police kill people and get away with it. Thats why people are upset. Its not rocket science. But you knew that already when you posted the thread.
 
Last edited:

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,073
757
240
You just said yourself that he was gripping the gun backwards. He was a danger to nobody but himself. They didn't need to murder him. People are tired of watching police kill people and get away with it. Thats why people are upset. Its not rocket science. But you knew that already when you posted the thread.
It’s not murder. He put himself in that situation, and didn’t listen to commands to put the gun down. Case closed.
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,546
3,672
365
It’s not murder. He put himself in that situation, and didn’t listen to commands to put the gun down. Case closed.
He wasn't even holding the gun in a manner to be able to shoot it. He was no danger to the officers and you can clearly see that on the video, but they killed him anyway. Just another example of police using deadly force when they didn't have to caught on video. Thats why people are upset. Just the same old shit on a different day. You can disagree if you want, but thats why they are mad.
 
Last edited:

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,563
1,440
360
Norway
You just said yourself that he was gripping the gun backwards. He was a danger to nobody but himself. They didn't need to murder him. People are tired of watching police kill people and get away with it. Thats why people are upset. Its not rocket science. But you knew that already when you posted the thread.
The problem is that people are generally falling into one camp or the other. "Police are wrong!" or "Police are right!". They're falling into quick beliefs that get propagated by people who promote either of these things. As soon as incident happens, people will usually mobilize in either camp. The conclusion is already laid and fear is propagated often "POLICE ARE KILLING US" and the media often plays a role in which cases they want to put into focus. I think a lot of the side of "Police are wrong!" also suffers by not making it about limiting police, about rights and about problems when it comes to accountability with the police, but instead turning it into a completely racial angle. It also makes them look anti-Police very often, which isn't a good position to have in the general mainstream. A lot of them also behave as armchair analysts, thinking that their interpretation of a video is absolutely correct and also pretending that the police could've done some Batman-shit to solve the situation and considering the police and their safety expendable. They'll also just as easily lambast the police for stand back and securing their own safety.

That said, you also have some ridiculous people thinking that the police are always right in their handling. Thinking that anything that a person lawfully does to resist the police is "making trouble". One'll often then also claim the police acted rightly, even if there's various breach of protocol. There's also too easily dismissing a possible racial motive as well, as it deserves to be investigated at least, if there's grounds for it. These often overly glorify police as well, not considering that the police, like other professions with their unions, have an interest in protecting themselves, often at expense of what would be a more critical consideration of the officer's actions. Good training to minimize the amount of deaths during arrest would be something that they should think as a good use of money, instead of washing hands off the police most of the time.

All in all, it's something that should be approached with trying to find out what you agree about when it comes to a situation, making sure what facts one can both accept, leaving room for different interpretations or different view in regards to how interaction between police officers and civilians should happen, while giving leeway in the room where you can't expect reasonable behavior overall and there being judgements that must be understood in the context of the situation.
 
Last edited:

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
578
1,305
230
You just said yourself that he was gripping the gun backwards. He was a danger to nobody but himself. They didn't need to murder him. People are tired of watching police kill people and get away with it. Thats why people are upset. Its not rocket science. But you knew that already when you posted the thread.
The answer is right here OP. Some people just can't help themselves.

A guy threatening people at Burger King with a gun "was a danger to nobody but himself".
I guess he would only become a danger to others once he started shooting. Which would kind of be a bit too late.

Could you imagine if the New Zealand cops had managed to get one step ahead of that gunman a few weeks ago and killed him before he fired a single shot. You think @Nobody_Important would call that "murder"?

I mean, maybe that guy would have never fired a shot. Maybe he would.
I know for sure that is some asshole comes into my place of work, or a place where I am enjoying a quick lunch with my family, waving a gun around then I would for sure want the cops to take care of that shit.

I sure as fuck wouldn't be sitting there thinking "yeah the gun could have gone off and one of us could have died but the cops didn't need to murder him".

Now, I don't like what the cops did here.
It fucking sucks that the situation ended with someone shot dead but, in America, what the hell are police supposed to do?

I think I can say "police should never kill citizens under any circumstances" but understand that sometimes you have crazy shit like this going on where my "policy" could see innocent people killed because the cops have been hamstrung.

If you disarmed America's police forces tomorrow the levels of violence that would erupt would have people begging for the police to be rearmed within a week.

The outrage is simply because some people just can't help themselves and refuse to face harsh realities.
Going to a fast food place in the states with a gun and threatening people is basically a suicidal act.
 
Last edited:

Noboru Wataya

Bored at work, horned up to the gills
Jul 8, 2016
1,011
1,037
465
28
Northern Ireland, UK
This pussy pulled a gun in a civilian area with kids around him. What a piece of shit. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Cops could have given him better instructions and tried to handle the dumb cunt better, but now we don’t have to worry about him killing anyone. Job done, move on and learn about guns in public.
 

Helios

Gold Member
Jun 13, 2018
1,574
2,380
425
You just said yourself that he was gripping the gun backwards. He was a danger to nobody but himself. They didn't need to murder him. People are tired of watching police kill people and get away with it. Thats why people are upset. Its not rocket science. But you knew that already when you posted the thread.
Does it make it impossible for him to rotate the gun and fire before any police officer has time to react? Put yourself in the shoes of the officer behind him. How would you safely apprehend this man with no risk to other people?
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,546
3,672
365
The answer is right here OP. Some people just can't help themselves.

A guy threatening people at Burger King with a gun "was a danger to nobody but himself".
I guess he would only become a danger to others once he started shooting. Which would kind of be a bit too late.
Don't twist my words. I am saying he was not a danger while he holding the gun backwards. Not when he showed up at the scene with it. He was obviously dangerous to others initially. But when he was shot he was not even holding the gun in a way to be able to harm anyone. Thats what I was trying to say and you know that. So spare me the pointless accusations and theatrics please. Its a waste of both our times and makes you look foolish because I was very clear in my meaning and yet you still tried to twist my meaning anyway as if nobody would notice.

Does it make it impossible for him to rotate the gun and fire before any police officer has time to react? Put yourself in the shoes of the officer behind him. How would you safely apprehend this man with no risk to other people?
Continue to give him an opportunity to put down the gun. If he made a move to hold it properly then I would have Tazed him. Officers are supposed to look for ways to deescalate a situation. Not look for excuses to shoot someone. He was holding the gun backwards and he didn't even have his finger on the trigger. If they had tazed him and the gun somehow went off it would have it him and nobody else anyway.

But instead they killed him. The penalty for stupidity should never be death. And if that doesn't bother you then thats on you, but it bothers plenty of other people. Which is why people are upset.
 
Last edited:

Saruhashi

Member
Oct 2, 2018
578
1,305
230
Don't twist my words. I am saying he was not a danger while he holding the gun backwards. Not when he showed up at the scene with it. He was obviously dangerous to others initially. But when he was shot he was not even holding the gun in a way to be able to harm anyone. Thats what I was trying to say and you know that. So spare me the pointless accusations and theatrics please. Its a waste of both our times and makes you look foolish because I was very clear in my meaning and yet you still tried to twist my meaning anyway as if nobody would notice.

Continue to give him an opportunity to put down the gun. If he made a move to hold it properly then I would have Tazed him. Officers are supposed to look for ways to deescalate a situation. Not look for excuses to shoot someone. He was holding the gun backwards and he didn't even have his finger on the trigger. If they had tazed him and the gun somehow went off it would have it him and nobody else anyway.

But instead they killed him. The penalty for stupidity should never be death. And if that doesn't bother you then thats on you, but it bothers plenty of other people. Which is why people are upset.
I honestly can't stand how you play down the guys actions as "stupidity" while also playing up the cops actions as "murder",

Yeah, it bothers me that cops can kill civilians on the streets. That's not right.

It bothers me more that I could be sitting having lunch and some cunt comes in brandishing a gun and I'm supposed to be like "that guy is a bit stupid I sure hope the cops don't murder him".

The dude basically recklessly and needlessly threw his life away. I don't see how the situation could have ended any differently.
Worse, than that I kind of feel like, yeah, you need to kill someone like that before they end up killing someone else.

In another timeline the headline is "10 dead in mass shooting at Burger King".
As disgusting as it is I think I prefer the way things turned out here.
A dangerous person essentially got themselves killed and everyone else was able to get on with their lives.

It's still a tragedy but it's not an outrage. This guy got himself killed. The blame begins and ends with him.
 

Noboru Wataya

Bored at work, horned up to the gills
Jul 8, 2016
1,011
1,037
465
28
Northern Ireland, UK
If he made a move to hold it properly then I would have Tazed him. Officers are supposed to look for ways to deescalate a situation. Not look for excuses to shoot someone.
Are you a trained police officer or just a schlub like the rest of us watching a video from the safety of your internet device? If it’s the former, then I would like to hear more about what you would have done.

Officers are trained to respond and react to threats to themselves, their colleagues and the public. This stupid prick shouldn’t and doesn’t register on their empathy meter.

I was under the impression that police are trained to aim at the chest (largest surface area), not to kill. Limb shots are risky as they don’t prevent the suspect returning fire. And the use of a taser is not used in the face of an imminent threat like this,
 
Last edited:

diablos991

Can’t stump the diablos
Jun 15, 2013
8,443
570
525
He escalated the situation by completely ignoring officers and being non verbal.

He should have not touched the firearm and immediately dropped it and raised his hands in the air.

Brandishing a firearm is no joke and these police needed to save the lives of civilians and themselves. When a armed person is acting weird and obviously disobeying commands and then grabs the firearm he was told to drop.... well we all know the consequences.

Craziest thing to me here was that lady standing on the other side of the car door while firearms were pointed right at her. Seems pretty casual for risking her life like that.

WTF @ people saying to use a tazer. This criminal uses lethal force to threaten civilians and had lethal force in his hands while ignoring police commands. This isn’t a time to use a tazer unless you don’t want to go back home to your family. Takers don’t work as well as you think they do and many things can go wrong at that range.
 
Last edited:

bigedole

Member
Mar 10, 2015
1,381
1,563
340
Austin, TX
Please don't get so hot-headed that you resort to this level of conversation...
You can tell when someone doesn't really understand how guns work or how deadly they can be when they offer arguments like NI's.

Yeah man, if he turns the gun around you just taze him duh. So simple, cops clearly need better training.

Fucking idiot.
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,546
3,672
365
You can tell when someone doesn't really understand how guns work or how deadly they can be when they offer arguments like NI's.

Yeah man, if he turns the gun around you just taze him duh. So simple, cops clearly need better training.

Fucking idiot.
Except thats not what I said. But go ahead and keep lobbing childish insults at me. I am sure that will help me take you seriously and want to engage you in a discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

bigedole

Member
Mar 10, 2015
1,381
1,563
340
Austin, TX
Except thats not what I said. But go ahead and keep lobbing childish insults at me. I am sure that will help me take you seriously.
It's exactly what you said, and I don't want you to take me seriously because I don't take you seriously. You're a joke whose only value on this website is serving as a foil for others to bang their heads against and remind us how awful it can get if we let people who think like you dominate the discussion again.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: matt404au

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,546
3,672
365
It's exactly what you said, and I don't want you to take me seriously because I don't take you seriously. You're a joke whose only value on this website is serving as a foil for others to bang their heads against and remind us how awful it can get if we let people who think like you dominate the discussion again.
What I said

If he made a move to hold it properly then I would have Tazed him.
What you said that I said

Yeah man, if he turns the gun around you just taze him duh.

Making a move to hold the gun properly is not the same as actually holding the gun properly and threatening you with it. If he actually held it properly and refused to put it down then yeah by all means protect yourself and others. But he didn't do that. Hence the problem people have with the situation.


So no thats not what I said. Try paying closer attention next time.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

Noboru Wataya

Bored at work, horned up to the gills
Jul 8, 2016
1,011
1,037
465
28
Northern Ireland, UK
Making a move to hold the gun properly is not the same as actually holding the gun properly and threatening you with it.
Turning the gun around is not the same as actually holding the gun properly and threatening you with it.

So turning the gun and making a move to hold it properly are differentiated how, when you are 15 feet from a clearly disobedient thug?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,546
3,672
365
Turning the gun around is not the same as actually holding the gun properly and threatening you with it.

So turning the gun and making a move to hold it properly are differentiated how, when you are 15 feet from a clearly disobedient thug?
Thug? Really? Its clear where this thread is coming from now. Its just not worth it to keep going in circles. You all were wondering where the outrage was coming from and I told you. If you choose to disagree thats fine. I was just answering the question. Thats all I can do.
 
Last edited:

Noboru Wataya

Bored at work, horned up to the gills
Jul 8, 2016
1,011
1,037
465
28
Northern Ireland, UK
Thug? Really? Its clear where this thread is coming from now. Its just not worth it to keep going in circles. You all were wondering where the outrage was coming from and I told you. If you choose to disagree thats fine. I was just answering the question. Thats all I can do.
Priceless. Triggered by calling a thug a thug. Fucking clown world indeed. Any excuse to duck and run right?
 
Last edited:

Helios

Gold Member
Jun 13, 2018
1,574
2,380
425
Continue to give him an opportunity to put down the gun. If he made a move to hold it properly
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation but from what I see they kept giving him opportunities and once the guy pulled his gun out they shot him. I don't think the officers had the time to react and see if the gun is being held properly at the time. And I don't think they should've waited either. Because if the gun was held properly both of those officers could be dead.
then I would have Tazed him
From what I understand in this type of situation they are instructed to use guns because tasers can be unreliable.
The penalty for stupidity should never be death.
I see where you're coming from but his stupidity is putting other people at risk.
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,546
3,672
365
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation but from what I see they kept giving him opportunities and once the guy pulled his gun out they shot him. I don't think the officers had the time to react and see if the gun is being held properly at the time. And I don't think they should've waited either. Because if the gun was held properly both of those officers could be dead.
They told him to put the gun down. How can he do that without holding the gun at some point? He even says "You told me to.." And thats not even mentioning that if the officers are able to tell he has a gun then that to me also says then can see him holding it yes? And when a gun is held backwards its a pretty obvious thing to see in my opinion. So even then its not justified in my opinion.


And like I said already if you disagree and think the officers are justified then thats fine. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but not everyone agrees which is why there is so much outrage.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au and Yoshi

Barsinister

Gold Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,083
803
995
USA
And you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but not everyone sees it that way obviously. Hence the outrage.
I couldn't put my finger on it until right now. When I make a decision that my wife disagrees with, her reasoning is always that not everybody would agree with me. Like, if I say, "We are going to have Burger King for dinner tonight", her response will be, "Not everybody wants Burger King."

It gets hard to argue with that type of logic. I love my wife, so I live with it.
 

Noboru Wataya

Bored at work, horned up to the gills
Jul 8, 2016
1,011
1,037
465
28
Northern Ireland, UK
They told him to put the gun down. How can he do that without holding the gun at some point? He even says "You told me to.." And thats not even mentioning that if the officers are able to tell he has a gun then that to me also says then can see him holding it yes? And when a gun is held backwards its a pretty obvious thing to see in my opinion. So even then its not justified in my opinion.


And like I said already if you disagree and think the officers are justified then thats fine. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but not everyone agrees which is why there is so much outrage.
Only the op asked why there was outrage, no one else.

Once he was told to drop the gun he was as good as dead. He couldn’t have dropped it without being fired upon, where if you go back to my first post, I said maybe it could have been handled differently. I dunno.

I do know that I have zero sympathy for the scumbag. A violent criminal at a family diner with a loaded weapon? Shoot that piece of shit on sight and be glad no one else got hurt. No outrage required in my opinion.

And like you said already if you disagree and think the officers are not justified then thats fine. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but not everyone agrees which is why there is so much outrage.
 
Last edited:

spandexmonkey

Member
Dec 17, 2009
1,603
186
690
Memphis, TN
Looks like a suicide.
He could have not brought a gun to an argument. He could've not threatened everyone. He could've immediately surrendered when police arrived. Squatting with a weapon in your pocket behind a car door is not a good stance to be in when police show up knowing you just threatened everyone with a gun. He bears the responsibility for his actions and very very poor choices.

Cops are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. It can go bad for them in an instant:

 

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,547
1,646
455
Canada
Dumb fucker didn't obey verbal commands to drop the weapon. They only shot when he was readjusting the gun. Were the "murderous cops" supposed to wait until they or an innocent bystander got shot before taking this guy down like in the video above? No, you kill the guy with the gun before he kills someone else, he was only asked 30x to drop the weapon, he didn't listen and then started fumbling with the gun rather than drop it. Anyone who protests this is as dumb as the fucker who got got. Even if he had a concealed carry permit when a police officer asks you 30x to drop the weapon you do it on the first request, you respond calmly verbally and comply slowly in plain view.
 

Helios

Gold Member
Jun 13, 2018
1,574
2,380
425
They told him to put the gun down. How can he do that without holding the gun at some point? He even says "You told me to.."
I see. I didn't realize his intent may have been to put the gun on the ground. I still don't think this was a situation of officers looking at an excuse to shoot someone, like you said before. There are a lot of factors that go into a situation like this and it's hard to judge what someone is thinking or seeing in the heat of the moment.
And like I said already if you disagree and think the officers are justified then thats fine. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but not everyone agrees which is why there is so much outrage.
That's fair. I never argued against that.
 
This is a bad shoot. Telling him to reach for his weapon, "Put it on the ground", and then shooting when he does it is a major fail on the cops part. If the weapon isn't in his hand they should not ask him to reach for it. Was it murder no, it's bad policy, training, or failure of the office who shot. The person who was shot was ultimately responsible for putting himself in a situation where a cop had to make a judgement call on whether or not to use deadly force.

Hopefully the dept learns from this mistake and trains their officers to prevent this in the future.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
13,198
1,819
1,340
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
From the video it looks like he picked up the gun to put it on the ground like demanded of him. He moves slowly while doing so and the police officers were in close range, so the could have fired non-lethal shots instead of lethal ones. I cannot see how he grips the gun, but it does not look like he would have been in a good position to use it. Of course it was stupid of him to run around with the gun and threaten people. In fact, I always state, no private person should wield a gun, ever. But lethal actions are excessive by what I see on the cam footage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,563
1,440
360
Norway
He moves slowly while doing so and the police officers were in close range, so the could have fired non-lethal shots instead of lethal ones.
From my understanding, non-lethal shooting is in general very risky, even at close range. Mostly because you might still miss in such a stressful situation and you want to thus focus on center mass to ensure that once you fire, that the target goes down. If you fire in the thigh, he'll still be able to retaliate.
I wonder if one of the officers taking a taser could help, while the other one kept his gun on him. The most important is for the police to have good means of evaluating a situation like this in the aftermath and even if there's no guilt, consider what actions or improvements might be done to help solve such situations without firing at the suspect.
 
Last edited:

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
1,561
1,240
310
Wait the guy wasnt even holding the gun and they told him to "drop it"? That doesnt make any sense. What was he supposed to do?
 

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,154
3,011
485
From the video it looks like he picked up the gun to put it on the ground like demanded of him. He moves slowly while doing so and the police officers were in close range, so the could have fired non-lethal shots instead of lethal ones. I cannot see how he grips the gun, but it does not look like he would have been in a good position to use it. Of course it was stupid of him to run around with the gun and threaten people. In fact, I always state, no private person should wield a gun, ever. But lethal actions are excessive by what I see on the cam footage.
There is no such thing and there should never be.

1) police should never rely on trick shots like in movies. You aim for center mass because that gives you the best chance of hitting your target and reduces the chance for ricochet that might harm others.

2) a wounded man can still get off a shot in the ensuing commotion.

3) cops should not fire unless other options are off the table. At that point, shoot to to kill [really, shoot for center mass] is the only option.

This is SOP. Even in the UK, where they have some fancy term like 'shoot to disable' instead of 'shoot to kill', they are still shooting for center mass and following the same directions, just 'politely worded'.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
13,198
1,819
1,340
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
There is no such thing and there should never be.

1) police should never rely on trick shots like in movies. You aim for center mass because that gives you the best chance of hitting your target and reduces the chance for ricochet that might harm others.

2) a wounded man can still get off a shot in the ensuing commotion.

3) cops should not fire unless other options are off the table. At that point, shoot to to kill is the only option.

This is SOP. Even in the UK, where they have some fancy term like 'shoot to disable' instead of 'shoot to kill', they are still shooting for center mass and following the same directions, just 'politely worded'.
Admittedly I am (completely) unexperienced with weapons, but considering the close range and the fact that the person shot moved very, very slowly, a shot that is potentially non-lethal does not seem to be a trick shot to me. At least in Germany, it is a focus of police training to shoot in non-lethal ways when possible.
 

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
810
863
250
You just said yourself that he was gripping the gun backwards. He was a danger to nobody but himself. They didn't need to murder him. People are tired of watching police kill people and get away with it. Thats why people are upset. Its not rocket science. But you knew that already when you posted the thread.
This is a new one. "He was holding the gun backwards". To a Liberal internet defender, that sounds like good logic, right? To everyone else, that is completely stupid. These scenarios are split-second. Quit talking out of your ass.

We've seen this time and time again. The man was given many chances

1.) Don't go to BK and threaten people with a gun. This one is stupid easy to do.
2.) When police arrive and tell you 20+ times to drop your weapon, drop your weapon
3.) At least say something to the police

If the cop was shot, we'd never hear about it.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: matt404au

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,154
3,011
485

There are several videos like this on youtube... [search for something like 'reporter police training'] in which both reporters and community anti-gun activists go through police training simulations dealing. It's pretty eye opening as you see how people react... even knowing the situation is fake.

Definitely worth a watch.
 
Jun 26, 2018
1,060
761
235
42
Milwaukee, WI
At least in Germany, it is a focus of police training to shoot in non-lethal ways when possible.
I find that hard to believe. You don't shoot to injure. That's just not how it works. Also, a warning shot in this instance would have been even more dangerous. The guy should have put the gun down IMMEDIATELY.
 

diablos991

Can’t stump the diablos
Jun 15, 2013
8,443
570
525
Admittedly I am (completely) unexperienced with weapons, but considering the close range and the fact that the person shot moved very, very slowly, a shot that is potentially non-lethal does not seem to be a trick shot to me. At least in Germany, it is a focus of police training to shoot in non-lethal ways when possible.
There is no non-lethal shots with a firearm unless you have less than lethal rounds loaded.

If an officer discharged their firearm they need to be shooting to kill. You don’t discharge a firearm with any intent other than to kill. There is 0 debate on this. Survival is a fringe benefit of being on the other side of a firearm. They aren’t made to maim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torrent of Pork

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
13,198
1,819
1,340
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I find that hard to believe. You don't shoot to injure. That's just not how it works. Also, a warning shot in this instance would have been even more dangerous. The guy should have put the gun down IMMEDIATELY.
I am absolutely certain about it. Not only because I have a friend who is a police officer and told me that, also because it is readily found on the internet:
E.g.:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Aber was tun Sie, wenn Fremdgefährdung besteht und akut Gefahr in Verzug ist?


Tschirner: Dann würden wir auf die Extremitäten schießen, Arme oder Beine. Das ist natürlich situationsabhängig. Wenn der Angreifer bewaffnet ist, würden wir versuchen, ihn durch die Schüsse zu entwaffnen. Der berühmte Knieschuss aus dem Western ist dabei natürlich Legende. Wer jemals unter Stress geschossen hat, weiß, dass selbst der beste Schütze in dieser Situation nicht immer präzise zielen kann.
SPON: But what do you do if others are endangered or there is an immediate threat?

Tschirner: Then we would shoot the extremities, arms or legs. That's of course depoendant on the situation. If the attacker is armed, we will try to disarm him via shots. The popular knee shot from westerns is of course a myth though. Whoever has shot a gun under stress knows that even the best gunner could not aim that precisely in such a situation.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,154
3,011
485
Admittedly I am (completely) unexperienced with weapons, but considering the close range and the fact that the person shot moved very, very slowly, a shot that is potentially non-lethal does not seem to be a trick shot to me. At least in Germany, it is a focus of police training to shoot in non-lethal ways when possible.
I did some quick research on Germany. They have very low police shootings to begin with, and while I did find a reference to this, it also said non-lethal was only used in rare situations where no life is in danger [at which point, why are they shooting?]. I honestly couldn't find much on it. I did find a German cop talking about how he's never even seen a gun on the streets.

But A man holding a gun is a direct threat. You are holding a gun on center mass in case they suddenly move. Even the time it would take to line up a shot would be dangerous, and can you imagine if you either miss or the person gets off multiple shots after?

The following video happened like a month ago. Someone dies, but it's off camera so not gory. But it does show how quickly police need to react.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Noboru Wataya

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,154
3,011
485
Admittedly I am (completely) unexperienced with weapons, but considering the close range and the fact that the person shot moved very, very slowly, a shot that is potentially non-lethal does not seem to be a trick shot to me. At least in Germany, it is a focus of police training to shoot in non-lethal ways when possible.

A second response to this...

Some quotes from a AMA on reddit where a German cop talks about this.


When I go on patrol, sure I worry about being confronted with a gun. But it's a theoretical fear. I have never even seen a live gun on the streets, even though I work in a city with one of the highest crime rates in this country.
Another reason for that is the difference in prison sentences. If I was a drug dealer in the US and I had 20 pounds of coke in my trunk when a cop stops me for a broken taillight, I'd seriously calculate my chances of killing him and getting away. There is simply no reason for me to do that in Germany. The prison sentences are laughable here. It's just not worth it. If they arrest me with the coke here, I do two, maybe three years.
If I kill a cop, I get 15 years minimum. It's just not worth it. And while I, just as many other officers in Germany, get frustrated with the lax prison sentences, I do realize that they are a big part of what makes my job so safe compared to the US. Almost all of the people that do get shot by the Police in Germany are mentally unstable, hardly any of them are real criminals.
Bolding mine

In Germany, if I was searching for someone who I was told had a gun and I'd find someone matching the description and he started reaching in his waistband, I wouldn't shoot him. I'd wait until I actually saw the gun. Simply because the chance that he actually has a real gun is so, so low. If I was an officer in the US and I had grown up there, that guy'd be dead as soon as he reached.
Bolding mine

He does talk about a case where someone shots to wound:
And I'm not entirely sure why (it probably has to do with WWII, as does almost anything in the modern German society), but police officers here will do most anything to avoid shooting someone. A few years ago on new years eve, there was a guy trying to commit suicide by cop in my city. He pulled a gun on an officer and yelled that he'd kill her. What did she do? She withdrew behind a car, tried to convince him to put the gun down, fired a warning shot and only when he actually aimed the gun at her did she shoot. One shot, in the leg. And they arrested him alive.
That is crazy dangerous. Her unwillingness to kill puts everyone around her in danger. I suppose it makes sense, because as he says no criminals have guns because sentencing is so light. So they don't need to have cops willing to kill. That is not America.

Almost all of their shootings are people who are mentally Ill, which helps explain why they may have more opportunity to shoot for extremities because I'm going to bet in many of these situations the person is only putting themselves in danger, not everyone around them.

I'm not saying America is a wildly dangerous place, because for the most part, it isn't. But cops certainly exist in a different headspace than this guy, and as he himself admits he'd be shooting to kill in the US too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PKM

bigedole

Member
Mar 10, 2015
1,381
1,563
340
Austin, TX

There are several videos like this on youtube... [search for something like 'reporter police training'] in which both reporters and community anti-gun activists go through police training simulations dealing. It's pretty eye opening as you see how people react... even knowing the situation is fake.

Definitely worth a watch.
The conclusion at the end is the only reasonable take. I've done Use of Force training several times and it's why it's so infuriating when someone says "Well, I'd wait to see what grip he had on the gun after he fumbles with it for 3 seconds before doing anything." No bitch, you'd be another dead cop or have innocent civilian casualties due to your incompetence. The dude chose to bring a gun and wave it around threateningly in a public space, he stacked the odds against his survival.