But why are the cops even on the bus. Wait him out, get a negotiator, use tear gas. Why put yourself at risk in a position to be attacked by a guy weilding a knife forcing you to shoot him.
To me shooting wasnt the issue, getting into the situation where te officer felt the need to shoot was problem
That's the thing that gets me. No one was in danger at that moment. The "stand off" lasted only a few minutes. There is no reason why they couldn't have backed off and waited to see if he calmed down.
It was also pretty sickening to see him drop after the 1st 3 shots, and then to see his body twitch six more times as the officer kept shooting him. I don't see how anyone can defend that.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
It was also pretty sickening to see him drop after the 1st 3 shots, and then to see his body twitch six more times as the officer kept shooting him. I don't see how anyone can defend that.
I agree with this, but for what it's worth it seems to be par for the course for cops to unload an obscene amount of rounds into people when they shoot them.
In another thread I was reading a cop was saying that in his department, when they shoot to neutralize a threat, it's X number of shots because in the heat of the moment, especially in the dark, it's difficult to tell if all of your rounds hit centre mass. No idea if Toronto police have such a policy, but I could post a handful of police shooting videos where the cops (more than one cop shooting sometimes) unload like 30 rounds into people, or in their general direction. Surely not all of these cops are cold blooded killers.
What's wrong with you? Are you so incapable of crafting an argument that you have to resort to complete fabrication? You've not only made up a completely ridiculous "procedure" you've done it as part of an argument that you started by saying that he met the legal standard, one you don't even know.
The 'procedure' I gave there was quite obviously an attempt to irritate you. I think the problem with these kinds of situations is that they really can't develop any kind of all encompassing procedure that covers everything because there's so many fine variables. That must be why the investigations take so long.
As a result, as of now, t's just as nonsensical to say he was justified as it is to say he wasn't justified.
Yeah I don't buy that.You're telling me a quick draw without aiming is better then a shot with plenty of time to line up?
I'm not sure I believe it either...though you do start to wonder what the limits of reaction are when you hear things like that.
The golden rule for distance seems to be 1.5 seconds and 21 feet. Assuming about constant acceleration, that's about 9.33 feet/second per second acceleration.
To shoot a gun, a few things need to be considered to determine how long it takes to shoot a gun against a moving target, assuming you're already aimed: Reacting to seeing someone move, determining what is happening (and whether or not they pose a threat to you), shooting the gun, and the bullet hitting the target. Inside this range though, the last is negligible.
The average human reaction speed (to comprehend anything changing) is about 0.2 to 0.25 seconds. Previous studies into how fast people can recognize movement and identify what is happening as about .4 to.6 seconds. So there's .6 to .85 seconds to determine that someone is moving and what they're doing (such as "running to stab you").
The quickest fast draw in the world is about 10 ms to pull the trigger, so that's increases our range from .61 to .86. In this range, we get a maximum distance travelled of a typical person being about 7 feet. So there is no literal threat to the person.
But then, some considerations have to be made. I'm not sure there's any detail as to where the officer's finger or detail relative to the safety. Maybe an officer can correct me if I'm wrong, but typically, I've always been told both should be in non-firing positions unless you absolutely want to kill something in front of you (that is, safety on, finger off the trigger unless you have full intent of shooting and killing a target). That can easily add time. Trying it out for a few seconds, I easily added on about .16 to .2 seconds trying to get a finger from safe to shooting. So my rough calculation method has about .79 to 1.06 seconds of time to actually shoot the gun. I can imagine fumbling to get the safety off can take similar time (well, at least from my foggy memory of firing a small number of 9mm rounds on a firing range).
So my rough guess is about .95 to 1.26 seconds to react, comprehend, and shoot at a target in front of you. Which sounds about right, if you consider that 2.5 seconds is quoted as how fast a police can get their gun into typical handgun position and shoot. Moving to get your gun out of your pocket would then take about 1 to 1.5 seconds, an understandable value for me.
And with 1 to 1.25 seconds to 1.5 seconds as what most people consider a fair threat, I think we start getting into near indistinguishable range in a tense situation. It's entirely possible, assuming all the above about safety and finger position, that there is reasonable interpretation of threat.
I'm not saying I fully buy this idea for a second or would really stand by my work by any means, but as a thought experiment it's possible that a gun shooter is at a risk at 20 feet when they need to disable the safety and get their finger over the trigger. If the safety is off and the finger is already on the trigger to shoot, then you're entirely safe and there is no threat since all you have to do really is interpret a threat, but doesn't seem like proper conduct (especially since a little shaking in your arms could accidentally shoot a bullet). But if you need to get both set, it starts seeming like something that could be seen as dangerous.
__________________
Last edited by kirant; 07-31-2013 at 02:14 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to kirant For This Useful Post:
If you guys want to address my posts on Beyond, I'd be more than happy to engage in the discussion over here! I lurk here for the hockey threads, but saw my ramblings on Beyond were being posted here... So I've outed myself, haha.
The 'procedure' I gave there was quite obviously an attempt to irritate you. I think the problem with these kinds of situations is that they really can't develop any kind of all encompassing procedure that covers everything because there's so many fine variables. That must be why the investigations take so long.
As a result, as of now, t's just as nonsensical to say he was justified as it is to say he wasn't justified.
Oh good, you're that guy. Make a claim and when called to actually support it you resort to childish garbage and then circle back to still not supporting your claim. Good to know.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
Nobody is right till the investigation is done, so I'm not sure it matters. I don't feel like I've lost. I've posted enough info to support that tasers suck.
Well these images from the security cam video show he was on the ground when the 6 additional shots were fired.
Additionally the officer's name has been revealed, and amazingly for a six-year veteran he was making $106,000 a year as he appeared on Ontario's "Sunshine List" of public sector employees making over $100,000
Even though there were several police officers with their guns drawn the criminal never motioned once to be willing to drop the knife.
It appears from all the various video that 1 officer fired 3 initial shots and then after a pause fired 6 more.
The investigation will be focused on him as why he fired so many additional shots.
None of the other officers did not fire their weapons so the protestors in T.O should chill out and stop painting all the police with the same brush.
When there is imminent danger to an officer and the situation escalates to the point a decision is to discharge the sidearm a 3 round burst is standard procedure.
What will become JMO the tipping point of controversy is the 6 following shots.
What was this guys past criminal record...anyone know?
Besides acting like a nut job waving around a knife on a bus was he known to police. Did they have further reason beyond this incident to be cautious of him?
We often hear family and friends say he was a good guy never hurt nobody then you find out they were not the little angel being portrayed and a criminal.
Nobody is right till the investigation is done, so I'm not sure it matters. I don't feel like I've lost. I've posted enough info to support that tasers suck.
I'm not saying anyone has won or lost, I wasn't even aware this was a contest. I'm simply calling for you to support the conclusion below, which you came to:
Quote:
Based on the only piece of evidence we have, lethal force WAS justified, according to the law, especially if that bit about threatening the woman with the knife is true. At the moment we're waiting for something to say otherwise.
So what is the law that you are basing this upon? Show me how it justifies the actions, and show me how a removed threat has any relevance.
__________________
When you do a signature and don't attribute it to anyone, it's yours. - Vulcan
This 'standoff' lasted about 5 minutes and resulted in a barrage of shots and the death of the suspect. A 20 hour standoff in Montreal, with an armed suspect that had already fired a shot at officers ( suspect had several reg'd weapons, as well), ended with the suspect being gassed, and then when that didn't work, he was shot by 2 rubber bullets, and removed to hospital for treatment.
Interesting.
The Following User Says Thank You to Minnie For This Useful Post:
This 'standoff' lasted about 5 minutes and resulted in a barrage of shots and the death of the suspect. A 20 hour standoff in Montreal, with an armed suspect that had already fired a shot at officers ( suspect had several reg'd weapons, as well), ended with the suspect being gassed, and then when that didn't work, he was shot by 2 rubber bullets, and removed to hospital for treatment.
Interesting.
That's terrible police work. What if he had a bomb, like in the movies?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
This 'standoff' lasted about 5 minutes and resulted in a barrage of shots and the death of the suspect. A 20 hour standoff in Montreal, with an armed suspect that had already fired a shot at officers ( suspect had several reg'd weapons, as well), ended with the suspect being gassed, and then when that didn't work, he was shot by 2 rubber bullets, and removed to hospital for treatment.
Interesting.
I don't think they are comparable situations. The one big factor though in the Montreal thing was that the cops established a cordon. We were also dealing with tactical team members instead of regular cops. Tactical team members are just better trained in this. From my understanding the toronto situation happened too fast to get the tac team guys there.
By no means am I condoning the Toronto situation. I just want to see what the SIU results are even though the subject officer has already called in a lawyer.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
yesterday the toronto sun published the name of the officer (not sure if they got his name, or were reporting that the name was published elsewhere). Not sure if that was the right thing to do given the sensitivity around this situation.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
