Cops

g-man

g-man

Active member


So basically some dude got murdered by the cops last night. Apparently it was 3 cops on one guy and all the guy had that got murdered was a chain with a lock on the end of it and he swung it at 2 of the cops, so they pumped 9 bullets into him and killed him in the middle of Granville Street. sounds kind of like the Ian Bush case to me. check the story here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/08/14/police-shooting.html

I guess we're moving towards public executions now... great.
 
he knocked one of the cops unconscious with the chain. and from what i read, he was still alive until the last bullet fired. still seems pretty excessive. dont they use pepper spray or tasers anymore?
 
guess not. Cops are mostly just power hungry, happy-to-wield-a-gun greedy assholes.

I know a guy who became a cop so he could shoot a person.

 
my moms friend is a cop and she told me about how they ar trained (before this happend) and when their lives are threatend they are supposed to shoot 1 bullet in the head and 2 in the heart so if there were 3 cops 9 bullets is reasonable
 
the man hit an officer in the face with a chain and lock. what on earth did he expect to happen? if i was in the officers shoes i would have shot the dude too.
 
It was 3 on one. If it was one on one, I guess MAYBE the officer could argue that he was defending himself. But it was 3 one one. Are our police officers a bunch of fucking pussies or something? The guy didn't even have a gun-- and according to the witnesses he had dropped his 'weapon' and was unarmed when he was shot and killed! Are these the only 3 officers on the force-- couldn't they have called some back-up instead of using LETHAL force?! Please don't try and defend these murderers. The police ARE too liberal with their guns. Use rubber bullets, use mace, use tasers, use more than 3 pussy cops-- if thats what it takes to save some guys life, than do it. We moved away from capital punishment for a reason-- and at least the criminals who were victims of capital punishment had a trial before they were killed. For all we know this guy could have just broken up with his girlfriend or something and was just raging. I'm not against retribution; I'm sure the guy deserved to go to prison for assaulting the officers, but being shot down 3 on one in the middle of the street without a gun, or even a weapon in hand is some 3rd world shit.
 
That's attempt to maim/harm/disfigure, NOT KILL.

He deserved to go to jail, for a VERY long time where he would play little spoon to some 300Ib gay cellmate. Not get killed.

Are you saying that if someone was to hit you in the face your automatic reaction would be to shoot them? There's something VERY wrong with that.
 
i would think beating someone with a lock and chain would be an attempt to kill. it could very easily kill them.

haha. and no i didnt mean that if someone hit me in the face my automatic reaction would be to shoot them. i just meant that if i was on the scene to break up a fight where a man was being beaten, then i got hit with a chain and lock or my partner, theres a good chance i would have reacted the same way. good chance, not absolute. i know a few police officers, and they are good people, i like to think most police officers are, and that the situation warrented the shooting. really we werent there, we dont know. i do think that no officer would like to deal with all the press and shit that goes along with just shooting someone because he was power hungry.
 
just because there were 3 cops doesnt mean they could safely take the guy down with out shooting. sure they could have but at the risk of another cop getting maimed as they rush him. And I would rather see a piece of shit get shot then (i cant believe i am saying this) a good cop getting seriously injured.

I don't understand why they didnt shoot to injured however. we basically know nothing about the situation to judge it. 9 bullets is a fuck load though, but would it be any better if they killed him with one?
 


I'm going to go ahead and speculate that the "victim" was on Crystal meth, or some other fucked up street drug like PCP, or drano... which might have been why he' didn't stop resisting arrest.

For the cops to sit there and put round after round into after is pretty hard to imagine.

Excessive force? That will be for an inquire board to decide.

Bullets go through flesh, how nobody else (innocent bystander) was injured from a ricochet or stray bullet is a blessing in disguise.

But I haven't heard or read the story, it's all too easy to speculate on things when you don't know the what was going on, or what it was like to live in that moment. It must have been insane.
 
isn't that their job? to serve and protect?

aren't cops supposed to serve the public without prejudice?

what about amadou diallo? shot 41 times while reaching for his wallet to identify himself

what about ian bush? murdered after drinking at a hockey game in BC

where is a authoritative third party grievances investigator?

cops are in a line of work where their lives will be endangared. thats part of the job they accepted when they signed up. but the arbitrary decision making of police in north america evidences systematic disrespect for the lives and rights of citizens. furthermore, there are only falsehoods of accountability and internal punishment with criminal police officers being subject vaporous double standard. their internal judiciary has conflicted interests and is more concerned with protecting the dignity of the police force than with finding justice for the public.

if you think cops respect the system, consider how they drive.
 
they don't shoot to injure cause it's really hard to do. do you have any idea how hard it is to hit someone in, say, the leg, when they're running at you and your adrenaline's pumping? they shoot for the chest cause it's the biggest target, and therefore easiest to hit. apparantly on average cops only hit their target 20 percent of the time when in a real life situation that calls for use of their weapons.
 
Um... fuck that. Believe me, I'm the first person to call out the police for abusing their authority, and I believe that lawsuits against the PD are necessary to keep them moderate. But if someone comes at me with a weapon that could kill or permanently injure me, I'm going run, or failing that, to do my absolute best to kill him. I'm not a police officer; they don't really have that "running" option. You don't shoot to injure, because there are degrees of injury and it's hard to know in the split second you have to make these decisions what amount of injury will incapacitate a person to the point where they won't be a threat anymore. If an officer is going to discharge his weapon at an armed and dangerous person, he's shooting to kill every time: one head, two center mass. And no, they don't "enjoy" firing their weapons... imagine the shittiest, most nerve-wracking situation you've ever been and it can't even compare to what those guys are feeling the second before they pull the trigger. It's an extremely difficult position to be in and it's so, so easy for people who have never been there and who can't possibly understand to judge them in hindsight. He should have actually died sooner; even had he never even actually swung that weapon and hit that cop, only refused to drop it, they would be right to shoot him. You simply do not take the chance.
 
first off, lawsuits are an ineffective tool given the expense to the families and given the close relationships between the judiciary and enforcement departments. furthermore, lawsuits effectively are only an additional tax on the public and result in a loss of policing services that are necessary in order to pay for their fuck ups. if the lawsuits are successful, the officers need to be personally accountable in a financial and criminal sense or else there is a flawed incentive system.

and to "do my absolute best to kill him" proves the systematic disregard for lives of the public. officers need to be trained to shoot to preserve life. shoot his hip and he is immobilized. is it necessary to always shoot two to the chest and one to the head? the system is clearly flawed.

police - a fusion of two words, poli meaning numerous and lice meaning infestious vermin
 
if the officer was knocked out, how do we know that he still wasn't unconscious on the ground with the chain weilding lunatic was still waving his weapon wildly at the other officers. if the other officers saw one guy flattened on the ground maybe they thought he was dead so they would just be like. KILL THE MOTHER FUCKER!!!

that being said i didn't read much of the thread or article so i could be wrong about the situation. i also dont agree with how the cops abuse authority.
 
you obviously didn't read what i said did you? i'd like to see you try to shoot someone in the hip as they're running towards you swinging a chain. good luck.
 
I completely disagree with you.

As it has been pointed out it is very hard to shoot somone in the leg or hip while they are running at you and garuntee that they will be imoblized enough to save your own or one of your buddies life. That said it is very easy for you to sit at your computer and critisize the system but if some guy on any number of street drugs had just beat down your friend with a chain and he was coming for you next i bet you would shoot him as meny times as it takes for him to stop moving.

Dont judge these cops until youve been there
 
I'm in law school and I work as a bouncer actually... so... question mark?

PS Hucksplat in my opinion, once you start swinging a deadly weapon at a police officer, you cease to be a member of the general public those officers are protecting, and fall more into the category of "people the police are protecting the general public from." And no, you can't reliably shoot a guy in the hip when he's coming at you, are you kidding me? They're actual human beings, not Jack Bauer. If the officer aimed for the hip and hit it it'd be dumb luck; nine out of ten times that shot will miss or hit him somewhere else. Center mass is the best chance to end the threat and that's the priority in a shooting situation.
 
whatever, he was swinging a chain at the cops. does this strike you as a particularly good idea? didn't think so. (if it does, go try it).
 
I think it was a terrible idea. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you shouldn't even LOOK at a cop the wrong way, let along swing a chain at them. Who knows what will get you a bullet in the head these days.
 
I've seen a lot of excessive force as of late.. yes, sometimes it IS necessary when their own lives are at risk. But I've seen cops shitkick people in the village, when it REALLY wasnt necessary. My brother and his friends got beaten pretty badly by cops in Vic following a concert, just because they were mouthing off to them. 5 on 1, reeeeeal nice guys. Yes, they were drunk in public mouthing off cops but did it really mean that they had to get cuffed and kicked in the face/head? No.
 
the argument here isn't about whether criminals are good or bad. They are undeniably bad. It's about how the police should deal with them. A country with a police force that uses fear as a means of control (i.e. very liberal gun wielding, public beatings and shootings, etc. etc) over respect, risks having citizens question their authority. Within the last 3 years we have had many incidents made public where the police have drawn their weapons, fired them, and killed something-- whether it be an animal (I.e. bears) or human-- in a manner that is not only questionable, but frightening. And yes, police officers make mistakes too-- especially in the heat of the moment. But these mistakes aren't trivial; like being late for work. When your 'mistake' involves someone or something dieing, and these 'mistakes' repeatedly happen, your society has the potential to turn from citizens saying "oh there's a police officer, maybe he/she can help" to, "Oh my God, there's a cop, don't look his way". Let's think in preventative terms here, not in curative terms. Forwards, not backwards.
 
That's all well and good if you think they made a mistake. In this case I don't think they did. You sort of have to use force as a means of control, at least when it comes to the segment of the population who spend their leisure time swinging weighted chains at people. I somehow don't think that he would have backed down if only they'd used "respect". The crap mentioned 2 posts up about arresting kids for mouthing off, that's what people need to be up in arms about. This was legit. In my estimation, abuse of force on the part of the police in this area (and probably elsewhere, actually) is limited to "small" incidents like that, which really aren't small in principle. That's what you guys should be getting angry about, not some idiot with a potentially lethal weapon being deprived of what we'll generously refer to as a life.
 
Awesome, next time someone mouths off or insults me I'm going to kick their face in, with all my buddies instead of walking away from a non-physically threatening situation.
 
It's very difficult to have a conversation if you don't bother taking the time to actually read other people's comments. I'm assuming you didn't because your reply made no sense in response to mine. I believe I just said that the situation you described was a good example of the sort of abuse of police authority that does go on and needs to be addressed. Let me just check that again... why yes, yes I did.
 
I thought the cops had more accuracy and other means, like a taser to take the dude down. I would have figured them to shoot him in the legs or arms, but i guess if he was running that's a bit of a harder task.          That being said there are lots of over zelous power contorlling freak cops, which I hate, but you also have to consider that they do have one of the harder jobs in the world. Everyone hates them most fo the time, and when something goes wrong and they wreen't there to protect you they get shit.  Its sucks that this guy died, but every year I hear of more and more violence at night clubs and on on the streets, maybe if the cops make thier presense known like this, people will stop bring knives and guns and fucking around liek jack asses at the clubs where you should just be merry, happy and drunk. Non of thie aggrro BS. 
 
I think someone was tasered to death last year in BC, I remember reading about it somewhere, but definitely too lazy to google it. Yes, they have a hard job and deal with a LOT of crap. My uncle was an RCMP up in the NWT, some of the things he dealt with was just obscene. But taking the quick and easy route out of disarming someone by shooting them in the TORSO TO DEATH WHEN YOU OUTNUMBER YOUR ATTACKER is just shameful. There are other ways to go about it, that may have potentially gotten you a little bruised or maimed, but hey, NOBODY DIES. Everyone deserves a chance to make amends. Even if cops got a little bruised taking him down I'm sure blue cross would get them in ASAP for care, they get to jump the public sector waiting list. Also, they'd get paid injury leave for DOING THEIR JOB.

I just see this as being as taking the easy way out. Granted, I've never been faced with someone swinging a chain, but the cops outnumbered the guy what? 3-1? 5-1? That should have been more than sufficient.

Next time try to shoot for extremities, and if you give me that BS about "its a moving target!" what the hell do you think they're trained for? Army, SWAT, hunters and even fucking teenage boys playing paint ball are capable of aiming and shooting a moving target NOT in the head or upper torso.
 
What happened if the guy had been arrested but 1 2 or 3 police officers were killed...And to quote you earlier I have been in the hospital we a severe head injury, and as little a knee to the face or a punch to head can and has killed people, let alone a swinging chain/lock. It's a terrible thing, and even more unfortunate that the guy had other issues that were stated by the fmaily. This whole argument is an impossible discussion. Everyone has their own opinion, whether you like it or not. Talk about something else.
 
see now, this is where you're (completely) wrong. they're very good shots when they're on the range i'm sure, but you have to understand the pressure they're under. this isn't the movies, people in the army shoot for the center of mass if the target is moving, same with SWAT, and everything else you can name. i've been paintballing before, and if you shoot someone in the extremities it certainly isn't on purpose, cause you shoot for the center of mass if you plan on hitting anything. sorry to burst your bubble, but that's the way it is.
 
I'm aware they're under pressure. I'm sure none of us could even comprehend what that feels like. Yes, I've played paintball too. I've also shot walther p38s, shotguns, and a long range remmy rifle. Ooooh and then there's the bows and whatnot. Yes, I grew up in a shitty fishing/logging town with brothers, how redneck. I know all about focus, trajectory calculating and breathing. Its tough as fuck to do if you/something is moving but that doesn't mean its not possible. Thats what you know... all that training is for.

Then again the marksman training that municipal police must get in comparison to a trained SWAT member is yet to be determined. When I lived in CR the house next to me was going to be torn down and the SWAT guys used it to train hostage scenarios for a week. I'd assume they train regularly whereas my uncle (rcmp) said he only received basic training before he was dispatched.

Its not the movies, but properly trained marksman can normally shoot to kill, or shoot to disable. A shot to an extremity that hits a major artery, say the femoral artery in the thigh/groin will still cause you to bleed out and die in 10 minutes, but in all liklihood they'd be injured and survive. Hell even a shot to the lower abdomen and not upper torso would give a decent survival rate.

Point is, you don't know if they were in range, or what ideal range was... aaaaanyways. This whole thing is a tragedy. Death always is. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds..

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=dc0cc636-242a-4899-90ae-dfc084171c7a

"Menzies claimed he then saw one officer fire three or four shots, which caused the man to fall, followed by a brief pause and then more shots fired once the man was on the ground."

Great, shoot him while he's down.

And this isn't an isolated incident either. This is the 3rd recent case that someone has died possibly due to excessive force.

"It follows a number of incidents in the province, including one early this year when Victoria police shot and killed John Seguin, 37, after a high-speed chase. Another was the controversial shooting death of 22-year-old Ian Bush in a Houston RCMP interview room in 2005."

Oh and, no police officers were killed, but seeing as one of their own was knocked unconscious I had see why they would have reacted with emotion as opposed to objectivity. Then again knowing our justice system the now deceased probably would have gotten 14 months in jail and a slap on the wrist for assaulting an officer. Non the less he didnt deserve to die.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070817.wbcshoot17/BNStory/National/home

"Last Monday at about 9:30 p.m., Vancouver police responded to a call of a fight in which two men were allegedly assaulting a third person.

Police Chief Chu said that after officers arrived at the scene they were attacked by one man who was swinging a chain. One officer was hit in the head, knocking him unconscious, before police opened fire."

Yeah its long as fuck, but since it appears that non of you actually read what happened I thought I'd post exerts.
 
Well this unfortunate incident sadly demonstrates the need for adopting a new policy in regards to how police officers use deadly force. The person slain was not a meth head or crack addict as many have judiciously presumed but was a man with bipolar disorder and whom was in the wrong place at the wrong time. While I agree that there are circumstances where the police will have a need to use deadly force to protect their own lives, it should be a measure of last resort. The rash of LETHAL police encounters demands whether police are being trained sufficiently in non-lethal take-down procedures. The recent police slayings under questionable circumstances leads me to believe that there are internal procedural flaws that have lead to unnecessary deaths.
 
Maybe.. because in like 92' or something the NDP government closed down a bunch of mental hospitals and kicked all the patients out onto the streets. Like mental patients are going to take their meds on their own, or find their own housing. So its not COMPLETELY their fault..
 
i wasnt saying its their fault or not. really thats just a matter of survival of the fittest, and somewhat inhumane and besides the point.

what i was saying is, would you not defend yourself to the fullest because its not someones fault that they are trying to kill you?

and i jsut found out my buddy watched the whole thing go down. crazy
 
witnesses said they shot him while he was fleeing and had his hands in the air. If that's true there is no discussion that the pigs were in the wrong.
 
im goin to school for criminal justice to bee a cop.. and that is right... when someone comes at you with a weapon. its one to the head and two to the chest... u take them down at any extent... even if they die... cant risk ur own life for something stupid ya kno
 
this case shows the need for restraint in the use of lethal force. this lesson which was learned at a painfully high cost, you have disdainfully ignored. your failure to gain insight from this case (and others, re: amadou diallo) is quite a disappointment.

now that the details of this case have become relatively established, i would like to take this opportunity to scold all those who had written off poor Paul Boyd as a meth head who deserved to be shot. shame on you all.
 
I don't care if he's a meth head. Being a meth head doesn't entail that you deserve to be killed. Swinging a chain with a weight on the end of it at an officer and hitting him in the head entails that you deserve to be killed. Welcome to the real world dude, these people are paid to protect the peace, not take locks to the face. And the principle holds that if you dumb down a requirement for the use of lethal force, you create a blurry area of "when to shoot where", creating that seed of hesitation that will get people killed. I stick by what I said: a cop needs to know when he should shoot, and when he shoots, there's no doubt as to the goal of that action: removing the threat as surely as possible.
 
citizens are 'innocent until proven guilty' is one of the central tenements of the criminal justice system (the burden of proof). for offences of assault, the canadian justice system has well defined sentencing mandates. furthermore, the canadian system does NOT sanction capital punishment.

by teaching young officers to shoot to kill, you are simultaneously violating the crown's burden of proof, circumventing the person's right to a fair trial, are imposing a sentence that the justice system has deemed as extreme and excessive, and are relying on arbitrators who may be insufficiently prepared to make such decisions.

but wait, "Paul Boyd attacked them with a chain and presented a danger to their safety and thus needed to be shot" as many of you have stated. at the time Paul Boyd was shot, he was fleeing and did not present a threat to the safety of any officers. the officer who shot him was a rookie and likely overreacted in the heat of the moment.

'the when to shoot where' and 'the seed of hesitation that will get people killed.' this is a dichotomy between the lives of the public and the lives of the police force. in this situation, the errors MUST be made in favour of the public and sadly at the expense of the police force. benjamin franklin is quoted that "it is better that guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer." police accept that their lives will be endangered on the job and in these life-or-death situations with the police themselves acting as the arbitrators, police must err on the side of caution and resist pulling the trigger unless absolutely necessary to the preservation of ALL lives, public and police.

"a cop needs to know when he should shoot, and when he shoots, there's no doubt as to the goal of that action." my point is that cops are frequently wrong as to "when" that action is required.

consider the case of amadou diallo: stopped walking by police officers in new york through their racial profiling scheme, he was shot 41 times to his death. officers claimed they believed he was reaching into his pocket for a weapon, however, amadou has no weapon and was reaching into his pocket to grab his wallet to identify himself. with officers acting as judicial arbitrators in life-or-death situations such as these, the police MUST err on the side of caution so that innocents such as diallo and boyd are not unnecessarily slayed.

i do not doubt that police will be confronted with situations where they are forced to shoot to kill to protect the public and themselves, but i DO doubt that it was needed to shoot paul boyd and I DO think that we must not blindingly trust the judgements of the police in all situations and I DO think police officers need better training in takedowns through non-lethal methods.

Paul Boyd may have been guilty of assault, however, that does not deserve the punishment of summary execution. 'swinging a chain with the weight at the end of it' does NOT deserve death. the canadian justice system has determined it deserves a jail sentence. JD, i thought you were in law school and would know that.
 
not true

if a person is attacking a police officer they should be shot regardless of whether they are on drugs, mentally handicapped or has nothing wrong with them to protect the lives of the people that are trying to protect others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top