Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I wonder why the guy in the vid wasn't put in handcuffs or held in some way

Good question, but tasteless joking begs me to ask "What, is two rounds of 7.62 NATO out of a G3 not enough restraint?"

Whether it was "just" or not...Weeeeelll...... I am not Pakistani. I do not live in Pakistan. I don't know anyone FROM Pakistan. I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night. I do not know how their culture views this sort of wall to wall counselling on steroids.

Myself, I can't exactly dig up sympathy for a guy who think's its A-OK to run around robbing people at gunpoint and then got shot by the people with REAL guns. "Oi it's just a fake!" ...Yea, tell that to the guy who is getting robbed, because I'm going to assume we are talking about a fake more akin to an airsoft gun rather than a bright yellow tinted transparent cap gun. Do I find the circumstances of the shooting distasteful? Sure! In the view of my Texan Redneck outlook, when you have forced a man to surrender, you then show him just a little bit more mercy than they have on the video....

That said, and while I cannot condone the shooters behavior, who I think is out of control, (Where he SHOULD have been handcuffed..) I shall now offer you a "Are you stupid?" test: There is an armed man who has already, by almost poking the muzzle of his rifle through your skull, has let you know that your existence has offended him in a very deep and basic way. Do you take two steps forward and attempt to lay hand on his weapon? (Hint: Your mother's repeated warnings of "Keep your hands to yourself" go here.) Oh, he tried to grab it. Here is your "F" and a round to the femoral artery. Sucks to be him, but keep in mind that there is no cop or soldier in his right mind who will NOT use your sternum as a place to practice double taps if you reach for his weapon.

In the UK if you tick off one of those airport officers carrying around their little MP5s and then make a grab for it, your treatment is likely to be similar.
In the USA if you reach for a policemans firearm at any point you are pretty much going to "Deadly force may be imminent" level, pray you don't actually make contact.

You simply doesn't know if he IS meekly surrendering and trying to drift the guns aim away slightly, or if he is about to reverse his grip, grab on with the other hand, and plant a foot in your gut for leverage before trying to pull and take someone down with him. Some real good actors out there, particularly when lives are at stake.

Bromsy wrote:Looks like the dude touches the cop to me.

At which point? I see one guard grab him, at this point the camera is obscured by another guard, Shah is pushed back, and the guard then steps forward and shoots him.

And to fit assault

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

Firstly, there would have to be a threat, Shah would have to have said "I'm going to kill you/punch you or something to that effect."

Your idea of "apparent, present ability to cause the harm" is also far too loose. To say "he could have been carrying a weapon" is a very weak excuse in this case, there needs to be evidence that he can carry out a threat (or appeared to be able to carry out that threat), not a suspicion. If that were the case every moment of police brutality, no matter how extreme, could be justified by claiming that the victim may have had a concealed weapon on their person.

mattyrm wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Technically the guard he touched is a victim of assault and battery, right? So now who's blaming the victim? Shaaaame.

Don't know if touching an object that someone else is holding counts as battery where you're from. Down here it doesn't.

And the situation also doesn't fit the required elements for assualt. I understand you were trying to be clever, but you failed.

Well as I said earlier, I agree with emp, and Im a man who is more than happy to shoot people.

That soldier was clearly at fault, whats he scared of?

Where we differ is that I think he should be cut some slack, I mean, he was nervous Ill bet, green.. itchy trigger finger. I don't think its as bad as premeditatedly killing someone in a book shop or something.

Actually I agree with you on this as well. I don't think the guard should be hanged for murder or anything, but I'd think he's at least looking at a charge of manslaughter. And if this is only one of the many instances, I'd say the sacking of the people in charge was more than warranted.

At which point? I see one guard grab him, at this point the camera is obscured by another guard, Shah is pushed back, and the guard then steps forward and shoots him.

He grabbed his gun repeatedly, that's enough.

Firstly, there would have to be a threat, Shah would have to have said "I'm going to kill you/punch you or something to that effect."

So you are only allowed to shoot people that say "I'm going to kill you/punch you or something to that effect". That's pretty rare.

Your idea of "apparent, present ability to cause the harm" is also far too loose. To say "he could have been carrying a weapon" is a very weak excuse in this case, there needs to be evidence that he can carry out a threat (or appeared to be able to carry out that threat), not a suspicion. If that were the case every moment of police brutality, no matter how extreme, could be justified by claiming that the victim may have had a concealed weapon on their person.

No not at all. Most unwarranted police brutality happens when police are beating a compliant suspect, or a suspect that is already in a controlled position. Once a suspect makes an aggressive move ie grabbing a weapon, its game on! Once a suspect does not comply and makes moves to enter the officers personal space, the officer is to back up and maintain separation if possible. They are always to assume everyone has a weapon and has intent if they are non compliant.

Andrew1975 wrote:

At which point? I see one guard grab him, at this point the camera is obscured by another guard, Shah is pushed back, and the guard then steps forward and shoots him.

He grabbed his gun repeatedly, that's enough.

That's not battery. Even a basic understanding of the law would make that clear.

Firstly, there would have to be a threat, Shah would have to have said "I'm going to kill you/punch you or something to that effect."

So you are only allowed to shoot people that say "I'm going to kill you/punch you or something to that effect". That's pretty rare.

No, there are plenty of times that you can shoot someone without them saying that.

Like in a war. Or if they pulled a gun or knife on you. Or if you're in a horror movie and you think the other guy might be infected. None of which applies to Shah.

Your idea of "apparent, present ability to cause the harm" is also far too loose. To say "he could have been carrying a weapon" is a very weak excuse in this case, there needs to be evidence that he can carry out a threat (or appeared to be able to carry out that threat), not a suspicion. If that were the case every moment of police brutality, no matter how extreme, could be justified by claiming that the victim may have had a concealed weapon on their person.

No not at all. Most unwarranted police brutality happens when police are beating a compliant suspect, or a suspect that is already in a controlled position. Once a suspect makes an aggressive move ie grabbing a weapon, its game on! Once a suspect does not comply and makes moves to enter the officers personal space, the officer is to back up and maintain separation if possible. They are always to assume everyone has a weapon and has intent if they are non compliant.

Bull. Do you realise how mucked up that line of thinking is? I don't believe the police in the US operate according to that assumption.

I don't believe the police in the US operate according to that assumption.

My experience has been at least in part, yes they do. They obviously don't go around shooting at people, but you will be questioned or searched about the presence of weapons when you interact with them in an official capacity....and they are not investigating because they think you have carebears in your pockets.

The times I have been legally armed and interacted with police were amusing. I inform them that I am so armed, where it was, etc. and the officer would visibly relax.

SOFDC wrote:

I don't believe the police in the US operate according to that assumption.

My experience has been at least in part, yes they do. They obviously don't go around shooting at people, but you will be questioned or searched about the presence of weapons when you interact with them in an official capacity....and they are not investigating because they think you have carebears in your pockets.

The times I have been legally armed and interacted with police were amusing. I inform them that I am so armed, where it was, etc. and the officer would visibly relax.

Searching for weapons is one thing. Automatically assuming that anyone who doesn't immediately comply with police directions is armed and has intent is another.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

SOFDC wrote:

I don't believe the police in the US operate according to that assumption.

My experience has been at least in part, yes they do. They obviously don't go around shooting at people, but you will be questioned or searched about the presence of weapons when you interact with them in an official capacity....and they are not investigating because they think you have carebears in your pockets.

The times I have been legally armed and interacted with police were amusing. I inform them that I am so armed, where it was, etc. and the officer would visibly relax.

Searching for weapons is one thing. Automatically assuming that anyone who doesn't immediately comply with police directions is armed and has intent is another.

You really do live in your own world don't you. If someone is not complying there is a reason, usually this is because they are looking for a way out, desperate people do desperate things so they either stay away from you and comply or they go down.

That's not battery. Even a basic understanding of the law would make that clear.

So cops are supposed to wait until they are battered before they react? You do realize that cops are people right? They aren't vat grown put on this planet to be abused by people. I'm sure in your world they are only needed to help old ladies across the street. Here they are actually around to protect us from dirtbags.

No, there are plenty of times that you can shoot someone without them saying that.

Like in a war. Or if they pulled a gun or knife on you. Or if you're in a horror movie and you think the other guy might be infected.

Or when they come at you and try to grab your gun! Infected? Put the video games down for a minute.

Bull. Do you realise how mucked up that line of thinking is? I don't believe the police in the US operate according to that assumption.

Yeah, look it up! They have to, see real people who live in the real world know that you don't wait until someone attacks you to put up your defenses. It's usually too late by then. Especially when you are dealing with a known criminal that was armed and probably hasn't been searched.

I don't think the guard should be hanged for murder or anything, but I'd think he's at least looking at a charge of manslaughter.

So this guy is now supposed to spend a good chunk of his life in jail, because some scumbag rushed him? Talk about Victim? This cop is might have a wife and kids, he goes to work every day providing for the security of the people and he has to spend the rest of his life in jail because of this scum that puts guns in peoples faces? I'm glad you live in your own world, because I don't want to live in yours.

This is crazy, because in general I don't like cops, I've been abused by cops. But I have also had them secure my property and be very helpful. Their job is f'd up, and I think repeated exposure to dirtbags takes its toll on them. I've seen them be abuse for no reason at all. This was not the case here. This was a failure to control a suspect, that led to a justified kill. The few times I've seen a cop pull his sidearm, I went way out of my way to make sure they knew I was not a threat.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You really do live in your own world don't you. If someone is not complying there is a reason, usually this is because they are looking for a way out, desperate people do desperate things so they either stay away from you and comply or they go down.

Your fantasy land sounds like a wonderful place. Everything must be so simple there.

That's not battery. Even a basic understanding of the law would make that clear.

So cops are supposed to wait until they are battered before they react? You do realize that cops are people right? They aren't vat grown put on this planet to be abused by people. I'm sure in your world they are only needed to help old ladies across the street. Here they are actually around to protect us from dirtbags.

Again, you try to put words in my mouth. I never said that police should wait to be battered before taking action. The moment you realised that your position was incorrect you tried to pretend that I was arguing somthing else. Typical.

No, there are plenty of times that you can shoot someone without them saying that.

Like in a war. Or if they pulled a gun or knife on you. Or if you're in a horror movie and you think the other guy might be infected.

Or when they come at you and try to grab your gun! Infected? Put the video games down for a minute.

Sorry, d00d. How about you adress my argument instead of getting caught up on little things, like a joke.

Bull. Do you realise how mucked up that line of thinking is? I don't believe the police in the US operate according to that assumption.

Yeah, look it up! They have to, see real people who live in the real world know that you don't wait until someone attacks you to put up your defenses. It's usually too late by then. Especially when you are dealing with a known criminal that was armed and probably hasn't been searched.

He'd already been apprehended. They'd siezed the fake gun off of him.

But you wouldn't care if he had already been searched, would you? To you, everthing is just so black and white.

I don't think the guard should be hanged for murder or anything, but I'd think he's at least looking at a charge of manslaughter.

So this guy is now supposed to spend a good chunk of his life in jail, because some scumbag rushed him? Talk about Victim? This cop is might have a wife and kids, he goes to work every day providing for the security of the people and he has to spend the rest of his life in jail because of this scum that puts guns in peoples faces? I'm glad you live in your own world, because I don't want to live in yours.

I'm off in my own world for thinking that Shah didn't pose a threat to half-a-dozen armed guards, didn't appear to pose a threat, and definitely didn't pose a threat at the moment he was shot?

I'm off in my own world for thinking that that the guard acted with gross incompetence and that the killing was unjustifed?

I'm off in my own world for thinking that the man should be held accountable for illegally killing another? Yeah. All that is just downright delusional. Thanks Dr.Andrew, can I get off this red couch now?

This is crazy, because in general I don't like cops, I've been abused by cops. But I have also had them secure my property and be very helpful. Their job is f'd up, and I think repeated exposure to dirtbags takes its toll on them. I've seen them be abuse for no reason at all. This was not the case here. This was a failure to control a suspect, that led to a justified kill. The few times I've seen a cop pull his sidearm, I went way out of my way to make sure they knew I was not a threat.

Cool, did you to share anymore of your experiences with the reasonable, diligent and competent Pakistani security? Oh wait. That's right, if this had happened in a Western country, with a cop caught on tape shoving his gun in an unarmed suspect's face then shooting them, it would be completely acceptable. /sarcasm

Your fantasy land sounds like a wonderful place. Everything must be so simple there.

What fantasy world, I live in the real world, you know the one where there are consequences for your actions.

Again, you try to put words in my mouth. I never said that police should wait to be battered before taking action.

Really, so what is your point mentioning that it wasn't battery? You are saying Saah did nothing and that the officer is solely to blame, so much so that he deserves to go to jail for lifr. Saah came at the officer and grabbed his weapon. So again I ask you when is it ok to shoot? You have never given a satisfactory answer for that except of course if there are zombies!

How about you adress my argument instead of getting caught up on little things

I've addressed your argument and shown you that if officers followed your advice there would be a lot more dead officers.

He'd already been apprehended. They'd siezed the fake gun off of him.

But you wouldn't care if he had already been searched, would you? To you, everthing is just so black and white.

Yep they grabbed the fake gun, I didn't see them pat him down though. I don't think its too far of a stretch to believe that they didn't thoroughly search him as procedurally these guys are pretty awful. Your also right, that I wouldn't have cared. If I was the cop that he came after, I have a choice to make, a criminal or me, that's an easy choice. He had been told to get down, instead he approaches me and grabs my gun. Sorry

I'm off in my own world for thinking that Shah didn't pose a threat to half-a-dozen armed guards, didn't appear to pose a threat, and definitely didn't pose a threat at the moment he was shot?

You have no idea what Shah's intentions were, are you a mind reader? Based on past history though he's capable of armed robbery so I'm not putting anything past him.

I'm off in my own world for thinking that that the guard acted with gross incompetence and that the killing was unjustifed?

Yes, as I and others have pointed out

I'm off in my own world for thinking that the man should be held accountable for illegally killing another?

Yes because that is not what happened.

Thanks Dr.Andrew, can I get off this red couch now?

Sure, you can leave, please do.

Cool, did you to share anymore of your experiences with the reasonable, diligent and competent Pakistani security?

Nope, probably even more reason to comply though, especially if there is a camera.

That's right, if this had happened in a Western country, with a cop caught on tape shoving his gun in an unarmed suspect's face then shooting them, it would be completely acceptable

Yeah, cause cops don't shoot people that come at them and grab their guns in the US. Are you kidding? That gun doesn't ever touch Shah's face, the guard points it at him and Shah instantly grabs it. Now I may have done the same thing there, I really doubt it though because I would be gak scared. What I wouldn't have done is then follow the guard once he backs up and then try to grab his gun again.

Sorry, d00d. How about you adress my argument instead of getting caught up on little things, like a joke.

Nice duck. I've addressed your argument, you just don't like it, because you don't like to think that anyone is accountable for their actions. I get it, you are an antaganizer that doesn't like to see people brought to task. You love to call people racist and nazi for the pure shock factor, especially when you have no other recourse. You think these weasel tactics should be legal, but in real life nothing gets you chinned faster than a little cuteness. That's how it works

Lets put it plain, you are saying that it is ok for a known violent criminal to approach a cop and grab his gun! You are setting a very dangerous precedent.

I agree with andrew myself, even if he isn't conducting himself particularly well.

Either way, leave it there guys as neither of you will ever see the other persons point of view.

I don't think this is going anywhere now really.