The reopening of the shooting death of Paul Boyd

[Sonny]

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.

Then how about the right shoulder? Any time a bullet is in play, it's going to do damage to who was shot, but some areas have to have better odds.

Surely a head is a smaller target with death a certain outcome.

But at point blank range, you can shoot and hit anything... especially one trained in arms as part of a career.

In any case, seems there was no need to shoot at all in this situation.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

That's because you are an animal lover.

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 such

the word is also used in police car, police handgun, ect...

And that's because you are a specieist.

No one is saying the dog should be treated as a person.

But just like dogs aren't people, neither are they tools.

They send in bomb experts (or whatever they're called lol) first so they can destroy it or disharm it before others can go in. Does that mean they're just tools or less valued team members?

 

[Tugela]

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.

It may be not be a war zone, but in that sort of situation there is no telling how someone will react, they are human after all. Even if someone does the right procedue 99 times out of a hundred, there is allways that 1 time when they don't. It is called being human.

Boyd was armed with a chain from what I understand, not only that he was acting crazy and out of control. Crazy and armed. What would you do?

 

[mercyshooter]

once again, perspective, a dog isn't a person and shouldn't be treated as such

the word is also used in police car, police handgun, ect...

they are all the properties of the police force which is under the taxpayers money. therefore, if you attack the dog or fight against whatever the reason the dog is doing, you can be legally and rightfully killed by any of the police officiers. it's simple and moral logic! get it over with, overdone!

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Originally Posted by mercyshooter

Wilde, you need to think of it in non-competitive culture, instead of competitive culture.

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.

bijou, this post officially makes it onto the candidate list for perb post of the year! well spoken, ma'am, lol

 

[mercyshooter]

bijou, this post officially makes it onto the candidate list for perb post of the year! well spoken, ma'am, lol

Think about the consequences of the action of the police officier who shot him to death. now you should understand my comment to wilde.
p.s.: you gotta think really really hard with different perspectives. referring to bijou's comment.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

It may be not be a war zone, but in that sort of situation there is no telling how someone will react, they are human after all. Even if someone does the right procedue 99 times out of a hundred, there is allways that 1 time when they don't. It is called being human.

Boyd was armed with a chain from what I understand, not only that he was acting crazy and out of control. Crazy and armed. What would you do?

They are humans trained to handle situations in which non trained humans would be expected to react in an unpredictable way. The training is precisely to ensure they enable them to react predictably. They are human because they make mistakes. But they need to admit to such mistakes, apologize and accept the consequences. Saying they're human doesn't make it less of a mistake that resulted in death of someone who was mentally ill.

You say he was acting crazy and armed. Even if we ignore the strong evidence (video) that he was on the ground and no longer a threat and that the other officer clearly believed this by not shooting again when the last shot was fired by his partner - even if we ignore that, the "crazy" behavior left little doubts that the man was mentally ill. The police have to take this into account as well and there are very clear ways to diffuse the situation from the outset. Presumably they have trained for this type of scenario -possibly not enough - I don't know how much VPD are trained in this regard, though considering the number of people with mental health issues in the city, one would think they would emphasize on this type of training but who knows.

Unfortunately, the officers in dealing with a mentally ill person in crisis essentially handled it in such a way that almost guaranteed escalation. It's not very hard to imagine when almost every aspect of the routine handling of individuals in situations such as this, is likely to trigger escalation in a person who is mentally ill and in crisis.

Is it easy? No. Is it a matter of quick thinking in assessing whether the individual is mentally ill and adjusting how to handle the situation to avoid escalation? Yes. Is it unfair to expect the police to recognize this and handle the confrontation differently. Absolutely not. Is it the victim's "own fault" because he didn't take his meds or because of his mental illness, as was suggested in this thread? Uuuh. What century are you living in? No, it is not the man's "own fault" for getting killed.

And most important of all, whether the officer's "mistake" is fully his own despite extensive training, or whether the VPD bares responsibility for failing to adequately train or prepare its officers to handle these situations and attempt to diffuse the situation and be informed about what behaviors are instead more likely to escalate, or for whatever other reason that might explain how the situation deteriorated and ended with a mentally ill man... it is impossible to determine and address the problem appropriately and avoid future incidents if the officers cover up and lie about it. It doesn't help any one and "a mistake" doesn't justify lying, nor does it absolve the officer for his actions at the scence and afterwards.

There is not justification for your defense of an officer who has not even given truthful, honest statements about his actions or responsibility in the death of a sick person. That's what it boils down to IMO.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

animated drawing stereotypes aside, there is one sure way of a limited number of individuals controlling a wild person, and that is throwing a net over them and drawing the corners of the net together. i'm sure you have all heard of 'the men in white coats with the net'

ever see movies of gladiators carrying nets? many did

as a gag once me and some friends threw a net over a very large and very drunk friend and had ansolutely no problem with controlling him, and not one of us got tagged with the VERY vicious strikes he was attempting to throw at us

but i'll bet not one police squad car has a net as standard equipment

with all the loonies being turned out on the street, you would think every car would have one or two

 

[myselftheother]

Then how about the right shoulder? Any time a bullet is in play, it's going to do damage to who was shot, but some areas have to have better odds.

Surely a head is a smaller target with death a certain outcome.

But at point blank range, you can shoot and hit anything... especially one trained in arms as part of a career.

In any case, seems there was no need to shoot at all in this situation.

Agreed with the last sentence. No need for the final shot.

 

[godel]

animated drawing stereotypes aside, there is one sure way of a limited number of individuals controlling a wild person, and that is throwing a net over them and drawing the corners of the net together. i'm sure you have all heard of 'the men in white coats with the net'

ever see movies of gladiators carrying nets? many did

as a gag once me and some friends threw a net over a very large and very drunk friend and had ansolutely no problem with controlling him, and not one of us got tagged with the VERY vicious strikes he was attempting to throw at us

but i'll bet not one police squad car has a net as standard equipment

with all the loonies being turned out on the street, you would think every car would have one or two

What a joke.

But I am very glad you and your friends are safe and sound and were able to control your VERY DRUNK friend who was throwing VERY VICIOUS strikes at all of you.

Perhaps you could pitch this scenario to Hollywood.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

What a joke.

But I am very glad you and your friends are safe and sound and were able to control your VERY DRUNK friend who was throwing VERY VICIOUS strikes at all of you.

Perhaps you could pitch this scenario to Hollywood.

after a comment like that coming from you, now i know i'm right - thank you pardner, but watch out for the men with nets, lol