Have you never read a mercyhunter post??? He would have used his extensive martial arts training, like the highly trained officers of the utopia known as mainland China.
The reopening of the shooting death of Paul Boyd
- Thread starter wilde
- Start date
You know, it allways bothers me when people get all wound up about incidents like this. It doesn't matter how much training someone recieves, when they are placed in a situation like this and blood is in the air, rational thought and behaviour goes out the window and they act on instinct. That might be training or it might be something more primal. It is a sort of temporary insanity where you percieve the world and events differently from what they really are, and the rules go out the window. Anyone who has been in combat in a war zone will probably know this. I think it is likely that this officer percieved the events to unfold very differently from an outside observer.
At the end of the day the fault lies with the person who escalated the incident and that appears to be quite clearly Boyd. Once you do that with a person who has a gun, all bets are off and you literally take your life into your own hands.
At the end of the day the fault lies with the person who escalated the incident and that appears to be quite clearly Boyd. Once you do that with a person who has a gun, all bets are off and you literally take your life into your own hands.
Do you think you're fooling anyone? Your post even included a thumbs up smiley.
you got that right. :thumb: if your opponent is unarmed for whatever reason(s), then you shouldn't be as a police officier. You only use it when you are almost dead.
remember, as a police officier, there are rules; as a "suspect", there are none. so "suspects" can still sue you for unrightful use of weapon!
Can't agree with you more Tug. Quite unfortunately, he decided not to take his meds, no one else. Now, possibly, that was a result of many factors affecting his thinking, but what can you do?
Life's problems aren't all necessarily solvable, no matter what we see on TV everyday - the fact is sometimes life just sucks. I think it behooves those of us fortunate enough to be relatively
healthy to not take the easy way out and blame those who put their lives on the line every day trying to ensure that life sucks as little as possible.
Life's problems aren't all necessarily solvable, no matter what we see on TV everyday - the fact is sometimes life just sucks. I think it behooves those of us fortunate enough to be relatively
healthy to not take the easy way out and blame those who put their lives on the line every day trying to ensure that life sucks as little as possible.
Not if the 'suspect' is already dead!
He already assaulted another police officer with what could be used as a deadly weapon. At that point he should be eliminated with deadly force. He had been shot several times and still continued to be combative. The cops have no idea if this guy is in some kind of drug-induced state that could make him almost invincible, thereby making it difficult and dangerous to take him down with a Karate chop. Also getting that close to such an unpredictable suspect could put you or other officers, or even more serious, innocent by-standers in danger if he suddenly decides to unholster the officer's gun and use it.
This was clearly a case of suicide-by-cop. Happens all the time. The Canadian Government needs to step up and deal with the serious deficiencies in services to the metally ill because these types of situations are all too commonplace now and the cops are the ones left to deal with these people when they go off their meds.
Mercyshooter, you watch WAY too much state-run Chinese TV. Either that or you're a 12 year-old kid.
Panther
The TV makes me think why Canadian cops are always that shitty. I mean there are lots of things you can learn from watching TV.
Chinese TV has a team that does many research in order to make everything real. So yeah, Canadian cops should have learnt from that.
Also, some American TV shows like CSI, etc, also reflect on these things.
I'm just saying, you know.
This doesn't sound like it could be actual police procedure to me. And his position on the ground at the time of the fatal shot indicates he wasn't a real threat to anyone.
If that's the case, then the person who reacts like that clearly shouldn't be a cop.
It wasn't a war zone, it was a public street in a city in Canada, if the cop can't percieve the difference, once again, he/she should find another occupation. Why didn't his partner keep shooting?
That statement is moronic, to say the least.
So if people don't instantly bow down to the authority of the cops, they should be free to shoot first and ask questions later? Even if they don't have a weapon?
Unless, a person has a weapon, not a stapler, but an actual weapon, knife, gun, bat, something that can actually used to do damage, the cops have no business tasering or shooting anyone.
We have cops in Edm who have tasered Jaywalkers, sleeping people to wake them up, a drunk teenager half asleep in the backseat of a car.
We had a cop who unloaded his glock on a guy who was rolling around on the ground with a police dog, yes stabbing the dog, which whether anyone likes it or not is a tool, not a human being, not a "cop".
He was no threat to any person, just a dog, another useful weapon the police have. Yet the cop shot him, well tried to, his missed almost as many times as he hit him.
The point is, reasonable, rational, people don't think that way and if you do, you shouldn't be a cop.
You only shoot someone who is a threat, someone who's already been shot and is unarmed and crawling on his hands and knees isn't a threat anymore.
You may want to watch the footage a couple more times. Yes he did go out of sight but concentrate on the direction the cop was pointing his gun at, down. At no point did the cop changed the angle of his aim, he did not increase his back up speed abruptly (he would if Paul Boyd was charging at him). I understand the cops have a tough job to do but this killing is very much of the preventable variety. There is no doubt in my mind that the cops on scene concocted part of the story to cover up one of their own, again...
Wilde, you need to think of it in non-competitive culture, instead of competitive culture.
Personal attacks are not how we roll on this site, just an exchange of different points of view. Perhaps you would
be more comfortable in the 'Rants and Raves " section of Craigslist.
I agree with all of your post except for this part. Police dogs aren't considered a tool, they're considered team members.. (as they should be)
If anyone is able to translate, the comment above - that would be awesome. Unfortunately I don't understand/speak gibberish but I'm curious to know what the comment is about.
Thanks.
There's no personal attacks here. It's just critical thinking takes place here. Put yourself as the victim. I bet you are gonna haunt that cop now in hell!
That's right! The police dog is also a police officier in the perspective. There's the word "police" in front of the word "dog".I agree with all of your post except for this part. Police dogs aren't considered a tool, they're considered team members.. (as they should be)
That's because you are an animal lover.I agree with all of your post except for this part. Police dogs aren't considered a tool, they're considered team members.. (as they should be)
The dog is sent in first so a human doesn't have to go in. That in itself implies that the dog isn't an equal to a cop. The cops use the dogs like a tool, bottom line. Actions speak louder than words.
once again, perspective, a dog isn't a person and shouldn't be treated as suchThat's right! The police dog is also a police officier in the perspective. There's the word "police" in front of the word "dog".
the word is also used in police car, police handgun, ect...
There was no reason for someone to die.
One person chose to kill another. Was it fear in the heart of the shooter? Or hate?
Does anyone really believe that Boyd presented a risk to the police officer's life?
If Boyd was on his feet, then shoot him in the leg. At that range, a miss is pretty unlikely.
If Boyd is on his hands and knees and unarmed, then what possible justification is there for fatally shooting him?
Just how does someone come to shoot another person in the head?
One person chose to kill another. Was it fear in the heart of the shooter? Or hate?
Does anyone really believe that Boyd presented a risk to the police officer's life?
If Boyd was on his feet, then shoot him in the leg. At that range, a miss is pretty unlikely.
If Boyd is on his hands and knees and unarmed, then what possible justification is there for fatally shooting him?
Just how does someone come to shoot another person in the head?
Not condoning what they did...but even if you shoot someone in the leg, thigh especially, they can still bleed to death quite quickly if you hit the femoral artery, within minutes....and, the leg is a much harder target to hit as it's moving more than a torso, so if he fired at the leg and missed, where is that bullet then going? All the same, a tragedy.
