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.

 Goliath wrote:

By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive,

It seems like that is what happened here, and that is a good thing. Having said that, I (and I suspect others) don't mind he died at all. Long expensive trials and prison sentences work, but can be hard on victims and families of victims as they have to relive the event each time there is an appeal or parole hearing. This guy dying when he did due to his wounds is not a bad thing.

 CptJake wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive,

It seems like that is what happened here, and that is a good thing.

Indeed.

Having said that, I (and I suspect others) don't mind he died at all. Long expensive trials and prison sentences work, but can be hard on victims and families of victims as they have to relive the event each time there is an appeal or parole hearing. This guy dying when he did due to his wounds is not a bad thing.

I can also understand this point of view.

 Goliath wrote:

 stanman wrote:


Obviously you're supposed to spray him with glitter and happy feelings until he decides to put down the sword and surrender to the power of love.


Cops did exactly what they are supposed to, stop more kids from getting stabbed, and the crazy sword swinging guy got exactly what he deserves.

Because of course there is no point that lies in between "Let him go so we don't hurt his feelings" and "Captured and disabled, so we put a bullet between his eyes".

There's absolutely no leeway whatsoever.
In fact, should we even try to capture people alive? Just evacuate the students and burn the school to the ground after sealing the exits; that way you know he's going to die, and it's excruciatingly painful. And that's what justice is all about.

You're being absurd. There is plenty of leeway in how they deal with situations like this, however I have no sympathy for the swordsman attacker meeting his demise as he clearly had no reguard for anyone (himself included). Had he the sense to end his attack and surrender to the police he should have been taken alive, however he did not and chose to attack the police as well.

I believe that people should be treated with the level of respect and civility in which they approach others with. However when somebody intentionally crosses the line to actively harm and murder others they have shown that they have no respect, compassion, or mercy for others then they deserve none for themself. If they are killed to prevent them from murdering others in cold blood then I say good because they didn't show any compassion to their victims. He chose his end by not only killing people but further escalating by attacking police.

Nowhere did I suggest that he should be executed for the sake of it. What I am saying is that I have no sympathy for him dying as the results of a violent undertaking that he himself chose to pursue. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

 Smacks wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Police are trained to aim for 'center mass' here in the USA too - to say otherwise is rather unfair and certainly unnecessary.

I was thinking specifically about the shooting of Ernesto Duenez (who was unarmed). Officer James Moody fired 13 shots at him point blank. In fairness 8 of those did hit centre mass, so I'm not really taking issue with that part. It's the sheer volume of bullets and the 4 shots that him him when he was already on the floor that I was commenting on. There is shooting to kill, and then there's shooting to kill.

Mmm now the politics start. Have you ever shot a firearm? Ever seen one? A PoPo shooting a crappy Glock can empty the mag in about three seconds. With the adrenalin dump of a shootout and the delayed reaction from the physical transference of nervous impulse from brain to finger to "stop firing" three seconds can be nothing.

 stanman wrote:
Nowhere did I suggest that he should be executed for the sake of it. What I am saying is that I have no sympathy for him dying as the results of a violent undertaking that he himself chose to pursue. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Then you need to read the posts you're agreeing with, because that was what Peter Wiggin was suggesting in the comment you replied to. You personally didn't suggest it, you just went "Yeah, that's a pretty good idea" to someone who did suggest it.

The police did what they had to do - stopped the attacker. Two shots were fired, and one hit

That he died was just happenstance.

When you are trained in the use of a firearm you are taught to continue firing center mass until the threat is eliminated. Whether than takes 3 shots or 15, you keep firing until the threat is eliminated. Whether the threat dies or not, you keep firing until the threat is eliminated.

Some folks have an arbitrary round count in their mind that, when exceeded, they think it's "too many" shots fired. Number of shots fired is largely irrelevent. You fire as many times as required to eliminate the threat.

Threats can also persist when on the ground, and if the threat remains, you continue to fire until the threat is eliminated.

Once that threat is eliminated, you cease fire. Whether a death is involved or not, once the threat is eliminated, you cease fire.

If there are wounded that require medical attention, you render it and request assistance.

I'm not passing judgement on any particular case, just trying to give a little insight into firearm training.

I'll quote it again for convenience.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

 Goliath wrote:


Rather than capturing them, and then instead of arresting him to be put on trial the cop just puts a bullet in their head, which I believe is what PW was suggesting.

^ Yep.

This isn't about keep shooting at the threat until it's neutralized, it's about outright executing it.
I'm not saying that Swedish cops did that, they did their job well, I'm just saying that summary execution was what Peter advocated.

 Goliath wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Nowhere did I suggest that he should be executed for the sake of it. What I am saying is that I have no sympathy for him dying as the results of a violent undertaking that he himself chose to pursue. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Then you need to read the posts you're agreeing with, because that was what Peter Wiggin was suggesting in the comment you replied to. You personally didn't suggest it, you just went "Yeah, that's a pretty good idea" to someone who did suggest it.

I don't see any part of my reply that says I agree with that. I replied specifically to the part I quoted, nothing else from earlier. So please show me where you think I agreed or said yeah that's a pretty good idea as I did neither

Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Rather than capturing them, and then instead of arresting him to be put on trial the cop just puts a bullet in their head, which I believe is what PW was suggesting.

^ Yep.

Here you can see PW clarifying that he is in fact advocating the summary execution of a captive.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

So, the action that PW can't think of any alternatives to is the summary execution, as has previously been established and confirmed by him.

stanman wrote:
Obviously you're supposed to spray him with glitter and happy feelings until he decides to put down the sword and surrender to the power of love.

Sarcastic comments to the contrary are generally taken as an agreement with the original statement. You making this comment implies an agreement with, or at the very least approval of, the previous statement (which again, is advocating the summary execution of prisoners).

So no, you didn't outright say "I support summary executions of prisoners", you just made comments that, to any normal person, imply an agreement with statements that were advocating as such.

And you can't really go for the whole "But I didn't know that he was advocating that!"; the guy clarified what he meant in the same comment you quoted.

 Goliath wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.

Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about something on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus endanger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.

Execution refers to taking it alive and then killing it. That's another matter.

And I'm referring to the latter, not the former. The latter is what Wiggin is referring to. I've been on this forum long enough to know about common gun misconceptions and all that gak.

By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive, you don't then just shoot them in the forehead because "they're a terrorist and they deserved it". That's what we have trials for.

Got you, thanks for the clarification!

Why is someone then trying to derail the thread? The situation is pretty clear aka taking it out asap was the right thing to do. Any "bohoo culprits are people too!" "dilemma" can please go into its own respective thread.

 Alex C wrote:
When you are trained in the use of a firearm you are taught to continue firing center mass until the threat is eliminated. Whether than takes 3 shots or 15, you keep firing until the threat is eliminated. Whether the threat dies or not, you keep firing until the threat is eliminated.

Some folks have an arbitrary round count in their mind that, when exceeded, they think it's "too many" shots fired. Number of shots fired is largely irrelevent. You fire as many times as required to eliminate the threat.

Threats can also persist when on the ground, and if the threat remains, you continue to fire until the threat is eliminated.

How do you know whether a threat is eliminated if there isn't time for feedback. In the case of Ernesto Duenez, there doesn't appear to have been any threat in the first place, he was unarmed. but the officer rattles off 12 shots so quickly, he barely had time to fall over.

You can watch the video. The officer actually shouts "drop the knife" before he starts shooting. The guy goes down after about 5 shots, and even on the gakky police video (which is further away) you can see both his hands clutching his chest -- empty. At this point I feel the knife threat has been sufficiently eliminated. There is no way he would be able to get back up off the floor, with 5~7 bullets in him, cover 10 feet and stab the officer before the next shot. There was at least time to assess the situation.

But the officer doesn't pause, he continues firing 7 more times while the guy is on the ground. Then there is a brief pause for half a second. And then he fires one more time for good measure.

BS that guy wasn't executed.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.

Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about something on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus endanger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.

Execution refers to taking it alive and then killing it. That's another matter.

And I'm referring to the latter, not the former. The latter is what Wiggin is referring to. I've been on this forum long enough to know about common gun misconceptions and all that gak.

By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive, you don't then just shoot them in the forehead because "they're a terrorist and they deserved it". That's what we have trials for.

Got you, thanks for the clarification!

Why is someone then trying to derail the thread? The situation is pretty clear aka taking it out asap was the right thing to do. Any "bohoo culprits are people too!" "dilemma" can please go into its own respective thread.

Culprits are people too, and that has every right to be in this thread as well. If someone would want to defend the guy it would belong in this thread as well IMO.

Talking about other police involved shootings is probably off-topic though.

Smacks, please tell us what your magical round discharge allowance number is.

 Smacks wrote:
How do you know whether a threat is eliminated if there isn't time for feedback. In the case of Ernesto Duenez, there doesn't appear to have been any threat in the first place, he was unarmed. but the officer rattles off 12 shots so quickly, he barely had time to fall over.

You can watch the video. The officer actually shouts "drop the knife" before he starts shooting. The guy goes down after about 5 shots, and even on the gakky police video (which is further away) you can see both his hands clutching his chest -- empty. At this point I feel the knife threat has been sufficiently eliminated. There is no way he would be able to get back up off the floor, with 5~7 bullets in him, cover 10 feet and stab the officer before the next shot. There was at least time to assess the situation.

But the officer doesn't pause, he continues firing 7 more times while the guy is on the ground. Then there is a brief pause for half a second. And then he fires one more time for good measure.

BS that guy wasn't executed.

As I said in the part that you didn't quote, I'm not passing judgement on any particular case, just trying to give a little insight into firearm training.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

Paralyse them, so they can no longer move or speak, but still remain fully conscious. Make sure to keep them alive in some completely dark room. Now they are imprisoned within their own minds for the rest of their lives.
That is the most cruel, horrific punishment I can think of anyways. Execution really is not much of a punishment. You can't punish someone who is dead.

I still think it is a pity the attacker died. I think it is important to learn someone's reasons and motives for such horrible things. Maybe the knowledge could even be used to prevent similar things in the future. After that, maybe we could donate them for scientific experiments. Even their kind of monster could benefit mankind that way.

 Alex C wrote:
As I said in the part that you didn't quote, I'm not passing judgement on any particular case, just trying to give a little insight into firearm training.

And to be fair to US cops, they work in quite a different society than ours do. Even small-time crooks often have a gun and while rare police do get killed on the job, often before they pulled their weapon or even noticed there was a threat. They're trained to not take chances if something looks dangerous.

We have few armed criminals and even fewer that would deliberately attack police. Our cops can usually afford to evaluate a situation longer before deciding what to do, and even when there's a clear threat they will restrain themself a bit more. A knifeswinger that's not in a position to immediately attack someone can expect a leg shot for example. Bad luck that the attacker later died, but I'd call two shots quite restrained when confronting a lunatic wielding bloody knives.

 cincydooley wrote:
Smacks, please tell us what your magical round discharge allowance number is.

Oh here we go... So because I say that 8 rounds per second is overkill, suddenly you can waltz in with your usual condescending "magical discharge allowance" straw-man.

Here, I've made it into a flow chart so it is easy for you to understand the difference between the two processes. One is a measured response, the other is trigger happy.

Spetulhu wrote:
And to be fair to US cops, they work in quite a different society than ours do. Even small-time crooks often have a gun.

And who's fault is that?

 Smacks wrote:
And who's fault is that?

King George's, what with his unreasonable Taxation Without Representation nonsense

So two rounds. Got it.

And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.

Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
As I said in the part that you didn't quote, I'm not passing judgement on any particular case, just trying to give a little insight into firearm training.

And to be fair to US cops, they work in quite a different society than ours do. Even small-time crooks often have a gun and while rare police do get killed on the job, often before they pulled their weapon or even noticed there was a threat. They're trained to not take chances if something looks dangerous.

We have few armed criminals and even fewer that would deliberately attack police. Our cops can usually afford to evaluate a situation longer before deciding what to do, and even when there's a clear threat they will restrain themself a bit more. A knifeswinger that's not in a position to immediately attack someone can expect a leg shot for example. Bad luck that the attacker later died, but I'd call two shots quite restrained when confronting a lunatic wielding bloody knives.

There are a couple of videos now floating around where anti police protest leaders are invited by police to try out a few use-of-force scenarios. They go through some scenarios where they confront a suspicious guy who's looking into car windows like he's going to try to break in, or similar. After being "killed" several times and/or shooting into the fake perp multiple times, they pretty much realize, 'hey, maybe this isn't as easy and clear cut as I thought'.

 cincydooley wrote:
So two rounds. Got it.

And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.

I knew you were going to say that, so I started amending the flow chart to appropriately. One shot is enough to stop most people in their tracks, two shots makes certain of it. Reassessing the situation would only take fractions of a second, and is prefectly possible if you're not busy hammering on your pistol like it's a machine gun.

 DarkLink wrote:
There are a couple of videos now floating around where anti police protest leaders are invited by police to try out a few use-of-force scenarios. They go through some scenarios where they confront a suspicious guy who's looking into car windows like he's going to try to break in, or similar. After being "killed" several times and/or shooting into the fake perp multiple times, they pretty much realize, 'hey, maybe this isn't as easy and clear cut as I thought'.

I've seen that. It was fairly stupid. In the first exercise, getting shot is almost impossible to avoid. In the second exercise the presence of the gun causes the situation to escalate, since the cop is forced into a situation where he has to use it or lose it. A buddy and a two nightsticks would have worked much better. And in the third exercise the cop wins without using his gun so meh.

Two makes certain of it? Are you serious? There are multiple recent instances where that simply isn't true.

It also requires that the two rounds you do discharge actually hit center mass. The adrenaline dump in those situations can cause a multitude of issues that make accuracy go down significantly.

Maybe you're just a better shot or can mitigate those effects better than the rest of us, Smacks (I'm assuming you must be.)

Because your presumptions are pretty out there.

Additionally, your "is there a threat" is the assessment. I assume you know this, as it's the correct shape. Your left flow assumes they have time after every two rounds they're allowed to shoot to reassess the situation. Which unto itself is foolish.

 cincydooley wrote:
So two rounds. Got it.

And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.

Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.

Seems like a petty point to pick me up on, but okay. I'll remember not to use the terms interchangeably in future.

Additionally, you wrote they instead of then. Not that I want to nitpick or anything...

 cincydooley wrote:
So two rounds. Got it.

And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.

Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.

He's British. Those would be Enfields.

 cincydooley wrote:
Two makes certain of it? Are you serious? There are multiple recent instances where that simply isn't true.

Hence why it might be appropriate to fire two more shots.

The thread's going exactly where it has gone for at least 2 times already. Smacks throws his word out, gets debunked by people who actually know something about the matter at hand and can back their word up with actual experience. Always the same. Get your free +1s here.

Long story short: depending on the situation, firing 3-5 shots at the very least is perfectly reasonable in order to stop a suspect.

cincydooley wrote:
Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.

It's also missing a "reload" section.

Smacks wrote:One shot is enough to stop most people in their tracks

 Smacks wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So two rounds. Got it.

And they they get to reasses. Hopefully they have time to do so.

Additionally, your flow chart should have "magazine" instead of "clip." Unless, of course, a lot of your police are walking around with M1s.

Seems like a petty point to pick me up on, but okay. I'll remember not to use the terms interchangeably in future.

Additionally, you wrote they instead of then. Not that I want to nitpick or anything...

Nitpick a typo all you want. There are pretty fundamental differences between a typo and using the wrong nomenclature all together.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets try to keep the politics out of it ok?

My bet; 3/4th of the first page, locked by the third.

Well, we are on page three and it's the same stupid gun thread it always becomes.

Can we make this prediction come true?