ajzepp

The fact that I'm not a police officer doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about things. On the other hand, just because someone IS a police officer doesn't mean they always make the correct decisions when presented with a given set of circumstances. If you think it's "foolish" that I am inquring whether there could be better ways of doing something w/out killing someone, then I dare say that perhaps you are a bit numb to things. People should always talk about whether things could have been handled better, particularly when a life is at stake. If these officers followed protocol, then great. But as of right now, it's really hard for me to believe that. Are you going to answer my question, by the way?

True, I actually thought that was pretty entertaining. Still not a fan of Hartnett, but overall I enjoyed the film.

As I posted earlier in the thread, if it's the same taser he yanked off himself (I'm assuming none of the other officers were so helpless that they allowed this guy to just come up and grab a taser off their belt), then having it was useless to him. It can only be fired once, and then another cartridge would have to be loaded. The only thing he could have done was hold it against an officer's person directly, in which case it would still not have incapacitated him in the same way it would if the probes and wires had been in effect. Having a taser that had already been fired is basically the equivalent of him being unarmed. It still comes back to the same question: Why can't three trained police officers take down an unarmed man w/out killing him?

Yeah, I know what you mean. I guess I would expect that the cops in this case would have at least tried to beat the guy down or something before shooting him. Or if you need to shoot him, hit him in the shoulder or the leg. This is just really hard for me to fathom that taking his life was the best option, that's all.

Wouldn't that be the case in just about any situation, though? How would they know I didn't have a weapon under my hip when they stop me for a ticket?

First of all, with all due respect to your military training and service, we're not talking about war, and we're not talking about trying to take out an enemy combatant. We're talking about a guy rummaging through a garage, unarmed, and probably - as others have suggested - loaded out of his mind. The only non-lethal force they mentioned in the article was tasering, and I highly doubt that the next step after tasering is lethal force. If it is, particularly with three officers present, there's something wrong with that. Let me just ask you flat out: With your military training, which I'm assuming has to be somewhat similar to what the police receive, are you saying that you and two other officers could not subdue an unarmed man without killing him?

Nobody expects them to do that...I don't want their lives in jeopardy either, cause I'm very thankful that these guys and gals put their lives on the line as it is. At the same time, however, I'm quite certain that protocol is not to "shoot to kill" every single time there is a situation where there's a possibility that a cop could be injured. And when you have THREE professionally trained cops against ONE unarmed man, it should not end in death, IMO. If it were one cop who, for whatever reason, couldn't get away from the assailant, I'd totally understand it. But I guarantee you if I had one of those thick, telescopic metal batons that police carry with them, I'd have this guy on the ground myself, I don't care how big he was. If I had two other people to help me, there's not even a question.

Yeah, and Dan and I would be doing this

Chances are you'd get your ass kicked if you did that in the scenario I posed above! lol

I guess when I think about it, if it was you, me, and Lana trying to subdue some big oaf, it wouldn't be that hard. He can only really focus on one of us at a time so, let's say he's going after Lana...it's hard for me to believe that the minute you and I discerned his focus, that we couldn't very easily knock his ass to the ground and incapacitate him. It's just hard for me to believe that THREE professionally trained cops can't take down one guy who is, for all intents and purposes, unarmed. I'd love to get a look at these guys, cause it was probably those big bellied ones you see always out eating at the diners and donut shops.

That's similar to how I feel about 99% of every "horror" flick I see. The only stuff I've seen recently that I thought was well done even a little was some of the Rob Zombie stuff. I feel like he's at least trying, whereas most of the rest of the crap they put out just relies on cheap thrills and things popping out at you.

I just looked it up. The taser cartridge is a "one and done", so the assailant would have had to somehow get another cartridge AND know how to load it in order to fire it at the cops. He could have held it against the cop's skin, but apparently this does not result in loss of motor function, only pain. I fail to see how the cops would even allow this guy to get close enough to them in order to be of any danger. Hell, there were THREE of them, and the guy was unarmed. I'm usually very pro-police, but if I were family to this guy, I'd sue for sure.

So the "toughest guy in the military" who's been hit by grenades and shook it off goes down faster than Jenna Jameson, yet some schmuck rummaging through a garage takes it like a champ? Something isn't right with this picture. Also, can a taser be re-fired immediately? Don't the probes and wires need to be reloaded somehow before you can fire it off again?

If the cops had been trying to subdue him with pepper spray instead of a taser, and it was pepper spray that the freaky guy grabbed from the cops and started spraying at them, would you still feel as if they were justified in killing him? The minute the guy goes for a gun, I'm totally on board with it. Otherwise the guy was pretty much unarmed, and I think it was excessive to take his life. Guess that's why I'm not a cop!

I'm gonna steal it when you're sleeping. I know that's not feasible at all, but that won't stop me.

I don't necessarily disagree with that at all...I guess in this particular instance it seems like there should have been an alternative other than killing the guy.

How bout a club to the back of the head? What about pepper spray?

Dang, dude...you are cold-blooded!

Even the bees are like, "damn, that B word STANKS!"

maybe I'm just ignorant of the training cops receive, but I thought they were trained specifically to disable an assailant without killing them. Is that not accurate? Don't get me wrong, if I ever caught someone in my house, I'd kill the bastard without thinking twice. But if he was in my garage picking out garden tools and lawn ornaments, I just don't think I'd feel the same way.

Why? Were they afraid if they shot him in the knees that he'd take out the bullets, put them in his mouth, and shoot them back at the cops?

Was it really necessary to KILL the guy?

Whenever that or the Norwood SB come on, I try and convince myself to just go out in the garage and tighten my nuts in the vice for an hour, since that would be far less painful, but I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. I watch, too.