That's right. No safety. Most semi auto pistols used by police are not equipped with an external safety. He pulls out his gun at about the 2 minute mark. From what I see, there is no external safety. The reason for this is simple. To disengage a safety before shooting requires fine motor skills. Under stress, fine motor skills are one of the first things to be affected. Thats why most semi auto pistols the police use do not require the use of an external safety. Most in the GTA carry the Glock model 22, .40 cal. No external safety. The gun these guys are carrying appears to be a beretta or variant. No external safety on them either.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Excessive force or not?
- Thread starter Jubee
- Start date
That's right. No safety. Most semi auto pistols used by police are not equipped with an external safety. He pulls out his gun at about the 2 minute mark. From what I see, there is no external safety. The reason for this is simple. To disengage a safety before shooting requires fine motor skills. Under stress, fine motor skills are one of the first things to be affected. Thats why most semi auto pistols the police use do not require the use of an external safety. Most in the GTA carry the Glock model 22, .40 cal. No external safety. The gun these guys are carrying appears to be a beretta or variant. No external safety on them either.
he did not comply , but doesn't deserve to get shot. cops should be trained with baton
Lmfao
You guys are nuts
Cops were called because he HAD A RIFLE
They aint playing in that kind of situation
It's lay down or else
Okay but once he was out of his pick up truck, where was that rifle? In his pocket?
For arguments sake, let's say they could see "something was wrong with him". Are guns in the hands of people who have "something wrong with them" less dangerous than others? If they believe "something was wrong with him", and believe he has a gun, what should they do? Remember, they are out in public. It's not just cops in danger, but anyone within range of that gun. While they are taking cover and calling for help, can't that guy still present a danger to the public, who don't know what is going on? When he is shot while down, he is repeatedly going for his waistband against the warnings of the police. If he gets to the gun they believe he had, and he was acting like he had, shooting from his back is still very viable.
After he fell down, the lead cop could've approached him from the side while still pointing his gun at him, with others also training their weapons on the perp in case he really did pull out a gun. As soon as he pulls it out of his pocket, he'd be riddled with bullets. But if the cop approaches slowly until he's close enough, he might have a chance to restrain him. In this case, the perp might have still died from his initial gunshot wounds, later.
Excessive. They should have been able to see there was something wrong with him....
A guy with a reported gun walking towards the cops with a hand behind his back? Maybe the cops could have waited a half second every time he brought that hand out to see if he had anything in it but I won't second guess here.
The 3rd shot (when he was already down) was more questionable. They probably could have rushed him when he went down but they didn't. At that point it was likely the first time they shot at someone and between adrenalin and shock I'm not too surprised they didn't move. The forth shot was after he reached under his shirt as if to grab a gun and I'd see it as justified.
Okay but once he was out of his pick up truck, where was that rifle? In his pocket?
Even if wrong it is a felony offence and (from most media reports) he was suicidal & pretending to reach for a (fake) handgun
In that case it really is a bye bye kinda moment, better to shoot first and ask questions later
A guy with a reported gun walking towards the cops with a hand behind his back? Maybe the cops could have waited a half second every time he brought that hand out to see if he had anything in it but I won't second guess here.
.
Naw most of the crazy left wings (see many other threads) are all expert marksmen who would wait until they saw gun then calmy shoot him in the hand (non lethal)
Havn't you read all the "you should shoot to inure not kill threads" these nutjobs like to post?
Many would end up bored or frustrated but they certainly wouldn't end up dead. If anybody wants to risk life and limb on the job, there are plenty of low paying construction or factory jobs far more dangerous.
And, just to comment on the post you've commented on, I like the cop's chances if his ASP is drawn and he's within striking distance. Frankly, the instant he's within striking distance the assailant should be dropped, before he even gets a chance to "present" his weapon.
Nobody is arguing that there are many dangerous jobs out there.
You would also be scrutinized for using excessive force if you "dropped" the assailant once you were in striking distance. I can hear it already... Why did you have to break his skull? Why didn't use taze him instead? Didn't you know he had mental problems? Why didn't you reason with him longer?
But you know more than the cops and experts on dealing with split second life and death situations.
I'll say it again, talk is cheap.
After he fell down, the lead cop could've approached him from the side while still pointing his gun at him, with others also training their weapons on the perp in case he really did pull out a gun. As soon as he pulls it out of his pocket, he'd be riddled with bullets. But if the cop approaches slowly until he's close enough, he might have a chance to restrain him. In this case, the perp might have still died from his initial gunshot wounds, later.
What is the rush to approach him? If he fails to comply and reach in his waistband, why put a cop's life in danger? Action is faster than reaction. One shot from the bad guy and the cop is dead. Why risk approaching while he is still going into his waist area?
Nobody is arguing that there are many dangerous jobs out there.
You would also be scrutinized for using excessive force if you "dropped" the assailant once you were in striking distance. I can hear it already... Why did you have to break his skull? Why didn't use taze him instead? Didn't you know he had mental problems? Why didn't you reason with him longer?
But you know more than the cops and experts on dealing with split second life and death situations.
I'll say it again, talk is cheap.
I wouldn't recommend the skull as a target, but you sure can drop someone with a baton if you know how to use it and target centre mass of a limb, for instance. Dealing with split second life and death situations is the job, so if you aren't cut out for it you shouldn't be doing it.
Even if wrong it is a felony offence and (from most media reports) he was suicidal & pretending to reach for a (fake) handgun
In that case it really is a bye bye kinda moment, better to shoot first and ask questions later
You mean a felony offense gives the cop the right to carry out an execution?
Non compliance is no justification to shoot someone. Especially after the suspect is lying on the ground, obviously having been shot.
That's where NA law enforcement is heading. Not that different from police state practise.
Those cops were wired to the dispatcher's warning that he had a rifle, so they were wired to use lethal force.
And BTW, where could he have hidden his rifle? Not like he was wearing a thench coat?
NA law enforcement have become militarized. That being the case, they should be paid like infantry soldiers, and not the six figure salaries they give professionals for using their brainpower.
That's right. No safety. Most semi auto pistols used by police are not equipped with an external safety. He pulls out his gun at about the 2 minute mark. From what I see, there is no external safety. The reason for this is simple. To disengage a safety before shooting requires fine motor skills. Under stress, fine motor skills are one of the first things to be affected. Thats why most semi auto pistols the police use do not require the use of an external safety. Most in the GTA carry the Glock model 22, .40 cal. No external safety. The gun these guys are carrying appears to be a beretta or variant. No external safety on them either.
The Fresno Police Department's standard issue firearm is the Beretta Storm Px4 Type F (.40 S&W), which is a single/double action pistol with a manual decocker and safety. From the still photo of the officer's POV, you can see what appears to be the ambidextrous slide-mounted safety lever, and slide release on the left side of the pistol frame. At the 1:04 mark of the video, it does appear that the officer is disengaging the safety with his right thumb.
There are still quite a few PD's in North America and around the world that use semi-auto pistols with external manual safeties, such as the Beretta 92FS (LAPD & the US Army), Smith & Wesson Model 5906 (RCMP & NYPD), and the Heckler & Koch USP9 (Metro-Dade PD). That being said, the popularity of pistols like the Glock (and it's newer cousins from S&W, Walther, SIG, etc.) have made pistols without external safeties a favorable option with many departments.
...
Non compliance is no justification to shoot someone. Especially after the suspect is lying on the ground, obviously having been shot.
...
The guy repeatedly reaching into his waistband as if he had a gun, even after first being shot is justification for the police. Not ideal but within the bounds of their duty and training.
The guy repeatedly reaching into his waistband as if he had a gun, even after first being shot is justification for the police. Not ideal but within the bounds of their duty and training.
Yeah, that's the problem..... training.
Has to do with militarization of police forces. Those assholes think they're still in Iraq. A lot of police forces recruit army veterans, and those who run police forces have adopted military style rules of engagement because they were in the armed forces themselves.
After the suspect is shot and lying on the ground, you would have to be hysterical to decide to shoot him again just because he's reaching for his waistband. If you suspect that he really has a gun down there and is reaching for it, even though having been shot, why not change position and get out of his immediate field of fire? The other matter is that if he did have a gun down there, as I'm already pointing my gun towards him with my finger on the trigger, I could shoot him way before he could draw aim and fire.
Anyway, this guy didn't have a gun. You are not justified shooting someone unless you see a weapon, and I don't care if he's doing pirouettes or head stands.
The guy repeatedly reaching into his waistband as if he had a gun, even after first being shot is justification for the police. Not ideal but within the bounds of their duty and training.
Though, after being shot in the stomach, could he have been reaching for the bullet hole in his gut?
Yeah, that's the problem..... training.
Has to do with militarization of police forces. Those assholes think they're still in Iraq. A lot of police forces recruit army veterans, and those who run police forces have adopted military style rules of engagement because they were in the armed forces themselves.
After the suspect is shot and lying on the ground, you would have to be hysterical to decide to shoot him again just because he's reaching for his waistband. If you suspect that he really has a gun down there and is reaching for it, even though having been shot, why not change position and get out of his immediate field of fire? The other matter is that if he did have a gun down there, as I'm already pointing my gun towards him with my finger on the trigger, I could shoot him way before he could draw aim and fire.
Anyway, this guy didn't have a gun. You are not justified shooting someone unless you see a weapon, and I don't care if he's doing pirouettes or head stands.
Sure, the cops take cover. What about the rest of the public who is nearby? If armed, he is a threat to everyone, not just the cops.
The Fresno Police Department's standard issue firearm is the Beretta Storm Px4 Type F (.40 S&W), which is a single/double action pistol with a manual decocker and safety. From the still photo of the officer's POV, you can see what appears to be the ambidextrous slide-mounted safety lever, and slide release on the left side of the pistol frame. At the 1:04 mark of the video, it does appear that the officer is disengaging the safety with his right thumb.
There are still quite a few PD's in North America and around the world that use semi-auto pistols with external manual safeties, such as the Beretta 92FS (LAPD & the US Army), Smith & Wesson Model 5906 (RCMP & NYPD), and the Heckler & Koch USP9 (Metro-Dade PD). That being said, the popularity of pistols like the Glock (and it's newer cousins from S&W, Walther, SIG, etc.) have made pistols without external safeties a favorable option with many departments.
Well there ya have it !!
I wouldn't recommend the skull as a target, but you sure can drop someone with a baton if you know how to use it and target centre mass of a limb, for instance. Dealing with split second life and death situations is the job, so if you aren't cut out for it you shouldn't be doing it.
Unless of course the person is under the influence of intoxicants, or in a motivated or psychotic state. In that case, such people have been known to shrug off multiple gunshots and keep going. For those people, pain compliance isn't a good option. It also requires the cop to be withing 20" to hit him. Thats close.
I wouldn't recommend the skull as a target, but you sure can drop someone with a baton if you know how to use it and target centre mass of a limb, for instance. Dealing with split second life and death situations is the job, so if you aren't cut out for it you shouldn't be doing it.
Do I really have to dig up the countless videos showing people getting beaten or tazed by multiple cops and it seemingly having no effect?
Your idea of taking a grown man down by targeting centre mass of a limb always works... in theory only.
Sure, the cops take cover. What about the rest of the public who is nearby? If armed, he is a threat to everyone, not just the cops.
I'm not saying to take cover. I'm saying position yourself in a position that reduces the potential threat to you while allowing more time to assess the situation: that is to determine if a gun is visible or is being pulled from where it's hidden.
The point is that he didn't have a gun. You don't shoot someone just in case he has a gun. You have to see it first. While pointing your handgun at the suspect with your finger on the trigger, if you can't let go an accurate shot before he has time to pull the gun out, aim it at you and pull the trigger, then I don't think you have the necessary hand eye coordination and motor skills to qualify in the use of handguns.
If we want police to use infantry rules of engagement, then we should pay them like privates in the infantry, and not the 6 figure salaries normally given to professionals who actually use their brains for a living.
In this case, the officers shot the supect, not because he was an immediate threat, but because he didn't comply with their orders to stop moving. The gun became a compliance tool, and not a tool for self defense. Not a justification. The extra shots fired when the suspect was lying wounded on the ground is proof of that.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 381
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 681
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 632
