It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rocker2013
Regardless of what you think, he was alone, there was no one else at risk by this point, there is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION for killing him, none at all, and you are completely wrong in your opinions.
Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by minkmouse
I think one or two shots to the legs would have sufficed.
What Law Enforcement Academy did you graduate from that taught legs shots on a person and what was your range score?
Originally posted by defcon5
He was under 21 feet, so the fact that the officers had their weapons drawn already will not matter here. The rule also states that the distance is to include enough time for an officer to get off TWO rounds before the person can come into physical contact with the him.
Originally posted by defcon5
They will justify this under the “21 foot rule”, I assume Canada has similar rules as the US police.
The “21 foot rule” is how many feet a suspect can cross in the amount of time it would take an officer to recognize a threat from a suspect wielding an edged weapon, draw his weapon, and fire before the suspect can cross the distance to the officer.
Originally posted by Stealthwatch
reply to post by smurfy
If that copper is so devistated he should do society a favour and go blow his brains out
There is always an investigation, the same way there is always a major investigation after a police involved traffic accident. It is done to look for any negligence on the officers part, but also to collect evidence in the event of a possible civil lawsuit brought against the department. In other words I wouldn't read any admission of “guilt” into them conducting an investigation.
Originally posted by smurfy
Second sentence, is INVESTIGATION and if rightly done, is much more than an officer's after effects. Thanks a bunch.
Originally posted by smurfy
It also mentions that the streetcar is equipped with CCTV, as well as the youngster having some problems.
Originally posted by jacobe001
Who was it that was closing the distance?
The cops moving closer to the entrance or the man that had nowhere to go?
Originally posted by iwilliam
If you can't pull the trigger on someone advancing on you in under 21 feet, when you already have your weapon in your hands and aimed, you have no business carrying a firearm.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by Ghostcooler
Broken down and simplified for all those the are stuck looking to hard or are not looking close enough.
Man with a gun kills Teenager with a knife.
Man with gun was obviously scared and in fear of his (own) well being,considering there were no hostages and Teenager with knife obviously was no threat to anyone but himself,and the Man with the gun that did the shooting.
Should a police officer be so scared of a teenager with a knife as to shoot him 9 times,i think not and this officer in question ether wasn't trained properly in the psychological aspect of situations of this nature allowing himself to be used for as some in this thread think [suicide by cop]=(most likely) or he just plain saw an opportunity to settle an old grudge,but i am sticking with ,he was of improper mental capacity to be behind the barrel of a weapon!
Any and all other conclusions have some other personal feelings or emotional response to such and effect that it has twisted your logical reasoning capabilities!!!
No actually...
1) Man with knife hijacks public transportation. (terrorism)
2) Man with knife confronts police. (aggravated assault on law enforcement officers)
3) Man with knife repeatedly refuses to put the knife down. (aggravated resistance)
4) Man with knife breaks 21 foot rule for police to use lethal force.
Anything else is speculation based on emotion rather then the law.
Originally posted by defcon5
There is always an investigation, the same way there is always a major investigation after a police involved traffic accident. It is done to look for any negligence on the officers part, but also to collect evidence in the event of a possible civil lawsuit brought against the department. In other words I wouldn't read any admission of “guilt” into them conducting an investigation.
Originally posted by smurfy
Second sentence, is INVESTIGATION and if rightly done, is much more than an officer's after effects. Thanks a bunch.
Originally posted by sonnny1
Originally posted by Carreau
My point was the ignorant posts of "shoot him in the leg" made by members who are not/never were LEO's, watch too many movies, have a predetermined hatred of police to begin with and will take the opposing side regardless of facts.
"Drop the knife!" and "If you take one step in this direction, you’re finished,"
Sounds like a movie line, hey?
The EXACT words the officer used.
Originally posted by goou111
I don't really believe in god or heaven, but those cops are definitely going to hell..
Originally posted by Runciter33
And for anyone defending the officers here, refer to the links posted on the last page or so that already has the Toronto police calling this more less for what it is along with a suspension. Not even the authorities agree with you.
Originally posted by defcon5
If the person is hopped up on drugs, 21 feet even with your weapon drawn may not be enough.
Its also designed to give the officer a chance to fire multiple shots in case one is not enough to knock them down.
Tactical strategies refer to the use of nonlethal and lethal force.There are five possible ways that a hostage or barricade incident can be resolved (a) negotiated surrender, (b) SWAT team tactical assault and apprehension of perpetrator, (c) perpetrator killed, (d) perpetrator suicide, and (e) perpetrator escape . Generally nearly 75% of these evens are resolved through negotiated surrender, and fewer than 10% result in loss of life of the perpetrator through lethal force or suicide.Only 3% of the hostage incidents in one study resulted in death to a hostage at the hands of the perpetrator. While precise statistics are not available since there is no centralized database,Butler (unpublished dissertation) indicated that there were a total of approximately 625 hostage and 2742 barricade incidents handled by the 684 law enforcement agencies that responded to his survey during 1989±1990.
Originally posted by defcon5
It can be.
You can turn a traffic citation into getting yourself shot through your own actions, if you act up enough.
You know, it always amuses me that its the “cops fault”, how about the personal responsibility of the person causing the situation for their actions resulting in them getting shot?edit on 7/29/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by jaws1975
He was contained in the streetcar, no one else was in the streetcar, there was no way for him to escape. Why not wait for swat to extricate him?
Why not just wait until old age, or starvation?
That is not the polices job, their job is to get the situation under control and effect an arrest.
They tried, he resisted.
Under the “Use of Force Matrix” and the “21 foot rule” the police will be found to be justified.
Originally posted by jaws1975
If he was lunging for the police when he was shot, his forward momentum would have had him fall out of the streetcar, or at least onto the steps.
He was told to stop, and he didn't. He doesn't have to be “lunging for the police”. When the police give you a “lawful order” its not an option, like “maybe I'll comply when I calm down and sober up”, its an ORDER and it means NOW...