BF2S Forums Young Irish Man Shot And Killed By US Cop

HurricaИe wrote:

-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

You'd prefer less so it takes longer for him to die?

I thought cops weren't supposed to shoot to kill

Seriously, unless the guy poses a very imminent threat (e.g. hopped up on PCP and holding a gun or knife or something), is it really necessary to shoot him SEVEN times? Not just once in the leg to incapacitate? The guy was drunk; I've never been drunk but from what I hear/see you aren't exactly coordinated.

It's like that guy who got killed by those cops in NYC who shot him like 50 times (including reloading).

Or i seem to remember another shooting in new york where the cops killed a man holding a grenade... except the grenade was really a pear and he had taken bites out of it.

-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:

I thought cops weren't supposed to shoot to kill

We don't.  We shoot to stop.  When the threat is down and unable to present any significant danger, then we stop shooting.

The last thing I'm going to do is assume that, because someone's taken a round to the thigh, he's just going to lay down and give up.  Why?  Because that's when they'll surprise you and get the upper hand, forcing you to beg for mercy as your last resort  -- and if violence wasn't your last resort, then you failed to resort to enough of it.

usmarine2 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

I wonder why I have never been shot at by the cops?  or anyone I know?  wait, I know the answer.  nvm

you're white

usmarine2 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

you're white

So are most irish I have met.  Point?

you're not a ginger leprechaun, and therefore not visibly an immigrant

<sub>just kidding Irish people, don't car bomb me




okay still just kidding, the Irish are a fine people and the ones we have around here are all very smart</sub>

Stingray24 wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Still, seven shots?

You'd prefer less so it takes longer for him to die?

wtf?

I see you're a fully paid up member of the humane society :rolleeyes:

Why did he need to die in the first place?

usmarine2 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Why did he need to die in the first place?

natural selection.

god has a plan.

it was the will of allah.

blah blah blah.

12 years of catholic school has taught you well.

Stingray24 wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Still, seven shots?

You'd prefer less so it takes longer for him to die?

Of course. That way when he is taken to hospital he still has a god damn chance at surviving.

Guilty or not, of whatever crime, it shouldn't be the police who hand out death sentences unless they are in extreme danger or civilians are.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

But shot 7 times is clearly excessive force.

Which just goes to show you don't know anything about use of force.  If you're shooting at someone, it's because you percieve them as a significant threat.  You don't stop shooting until the threat is no longer a threat.

He was unarmed. That is enough for me to assume that getting shot 7 times is clearly excessive force.

In what scenario do you imagine this guy would need to be shot 7 times?

If he rushed the cop? Reached into his pocket? Swung a bat at them?

Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-07-04 15:59:12)

As a former full time Deputy Sheriff and now as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff, I make this only comment.


Do Any of you have any Idea how fast 7 shots is with a semi-automatic Pistol? 

Clap your hands 7 times, with your hands about a beer bottle apart. 


All Law Enforcement officers are trained to disable the threat, that is policatly correct bullshit for kill somebody, in other words you don't stop untill that mother fucker quits twitching.

Somebody on here said something to the effect that a tazer would work nicely.  Yes they would, I agree as a Deputy of 4 years experience they are very nice, I've used mine plently of times on unruly suspects that warrented a genuine ass beating.  However the flipside to tasers are when you hit somebody high out of their mind with their heart in tachycardia (when your heart rate is WAAAYY above normal) that nice little shot of voltage stops the heart and in some cases makes it practically explode.  That reason has scared away many in the leadership area from deploying their use on the streets, as well as certain fuckups that abuse the privelage.

Last edited by S3v3N (2008-07-04 18:25:43)

-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Still, seven shots?

You'd prefer less so it takes longer for him to die?

I thought cops weren't supposed to shoot to kill

No other way to shoot.  Shooting to try to wound someone, or just incapacate them is for movies and games.  You shoot to end the threat.  Unfortunately, the methods most effective in ending the threat tend to involve hitting organs that are critical to survival.

Also, seven shots is no big deal. You shoot until the target is no longer a threat.  If the officer was justified in shooting at all, nothing wrong with 7 rounds.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

In what scenario do you imagine this guy would need to be shot 7 times?

If he rushed the cop? Reached into his pocket? Swung a bat at them?

All of these are justifiable.  And he needs to be shot however many times it takes to bring him down, be it once, seven times, or fifty.

"Open fire" and "reload."  No "overkill."

If he was killed with one bullet would this have been an article?

jsnipy wrote:

If he was killed with one bullet would this have been an article?

Cops dont carry .357's anymore.

FEOS wrote:

Where did the article in the OP say he was unarmed? Has it been updated since it was posted originally?

No one is sure whether he was armed or not. Police have refused to confirm or deny if he was armed.