![]() |
:eek:.... :facepalm:
I'm not sure what I was expecting to see in the video, but that wasn't it! I must have missed what he did to set them off, but I don't see any way to defend that amount of force. Assuming there was a threatening move to an officer to the left I missed, 1 shot could have put him down and two could have taken him out. Not using the dog?.. no voltage?.. no crowd control chemical?.. Maybe the budget cuts in the county jail kitchen have them implementing a whole new game plan.:shrug: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Aren't the police trained to just unload their clip when they open fire?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The guy had a deadly weapon in his hand and moved towards officers. What possible money are they going to receive? At most a couple of cops will get suspended for a couple weeks for excessive force. |
Quote:
I didn't see the guy make any significant move towards anyone. a single shot the the leg would of be enough, if not a single shot to the kneecap. The fact that they ALL shot in unison should be enough to prove intent and get them fired. complete bullshit |
Quote:
|
Same old murdering cop enabling idiots.
|
Meh, I was more bummed about the dog. BTW, is, or should I say was he a midget or was he on his knees that entire time?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And the cops never, ever shoot for the legs. That's silly. It's called lethal force for a reason. The only point of contention really is the number of rounds fired. I would have to defer to the cops on that one. |
Quote:
|
Deadly force is deadly force. If someone decides to use it, there is no "amount" of deadly force that is justified. It's either justified or it isn't. One shot or a hundred are the same.
My question is just, why didn't they tase him instead. Tasers are for this situation, where it's too dangerous to subdue some violent nut job without using deadly force. |
Quote:
I know because i have been shot. have you? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.