Vancouver police shoot man dead

[ThighMan]

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=88cbd31d-0589-4d66-aba2-185683d4f988&k=16747

Officers seize Channel M videotape of the aftermath at Knight and 41st
Kelly Sinoski, The Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, December 10, 2007
VANCOUVER - A man was fatally shot Monday by Vancouver police after he allegedly pulled a handgun on an officer investigating a report of a suspected drunk driver. Vancouver police Const. Tim Fanning said police were called to the Shell service station at Knight Street and 41st Avenue just before 4 p.m.

"Shots were exchanged," he said. "I can't say who fired first because I don't know that."

I was on Knight driving by this intersection just as it was happening. Not sure if it was before or after the shots were fired. Glad I didn't stick around!

 

[schizo_man]

well at least he wasn't tasered

 

[CJ Tylers]

I drove by there as they were taping it up and towing the unmarked cop car away (don't know why, maybe a flat?)

I figured someone was killed...saw the media truck there too.

 

[nube]

well at least he wasn't tasered

I wonder why he wasn't? Which cops get to carry tazers and which don't...It seems to me that they should be switched...

BTW, my feeling on tazers is that they should not be allowed...

 

[ThighMan]

well at least he wasn't tasered

I wonder why he wasn't? Which cops get to carry tazers and which don't...It seems to me that they should be switched...

BTW, my feeling on tazers is that they should not be allowed...

Yeh. Good thing he wasn't tasered. If he was he might be dead! Oh wait, he is dead. Hmm ... yes a gun is definately less deadly than a taser.

 

[CJ Tylers]

Uh no... if it is true that the man was waving a gun around, and refused to drop it when told to, then shooting to kill was appropriate to limit the possibility of bystanders being injured. The problem with tasering is that every muscle in your body contracts, squeezing a trigger on a gun, and your aim would be at an odd level (probably)... which would again put a civilian in the firing line.

Guns you don't mess around with. That much I won't begrudge them. Besides, the fewer gun toting gangsters we have in this city, the better.

 

[bustyluster]

he pulled a gun and used it he deserved what he got.

 

[j.bassi]

he pulled a gun and used it he deserved what he got.

I agree, im glad no innocent bystanders got hurt.

 

[Pantherdash]

Uh no... if it is true that the man was waving a gun around, and refused to drop it when told to, then shooting to kill was appropriate to limit the possibility of bystanders being injured. The problem with tasering is that every muscle in your body contracts, squeezing a trigger on a gun, and your aim would be at an odd level (probably)... which would again put a civilian in the firing line.

Guns you don't mess around with. That much I won't begrudge them. Besides, the fewer gun toting gansters we have in this city, the better.

That's right CJ, and good on ya!

You wouldn't show up to a gun fight with a knife would you? If the oponent fired first or if he refused to put the gun down after fair warning from the Constable, he should be shot.

Panther

 

[H.Miller]

Granted, but how about in the shoulder or the leg? These guys are trained to aim aren't they? Isn't there a distinction they make between shoot to kill and shoot to stop? If the guy was drunk surely it was the liquor bolstering the gun wielding courage and these guys should spot that kind of thing, IMHO.

 

[IQof10]

Granted, but how about in the shoulder or the leg? These guys are trained to aim aren't they? Isn't there a distinction they make between shoot to kill and shoot to stop? If the guy was drunk surely it was the liquor bolstering the gun wielding courage and these guys should spot that kind of thing, IMHO.

Right Tell you what, I'll shoot at you and your try to hit me in the arm or leg. But I don't want to be hit in the arm or leg so I'll be aiming at your head.

 

[H.Miller]

Right Tell you what, I'll shoot at you and your try to hit me in the arm or leg. But I don't want to be hit in the arm or leg so I'll be aiming at your head.

It might be tough to even hit the car you are hiding behind never mind your head--considering I am drunk. You have the bullet proof vest as well as the training. Give me a break. The shoulder attached to the arm holding the gun is as big as a head.

 

[jim]

It might be tough to even hit the car you are hiding behind never mind your head--considering I am drunk. You have the bullet proof vest as well as the training. Give me a break. The shoulder attached to the arm holding the gun is as big as a head.

You are watching too many TV shows and movies. The police forces are not manned by snippers. If an office has to pull out a gun and shoot he will shoot for the biggest mass, the chest. As many have said, point a gun at a police officer pretty much guarantees you to be shot.

To top is off he was drunk behind the wheel. How would you feel if instead of being in the gas station he ran his car onto the sidewalk and obliterated your loved ones waiting for a crosswalk light to change?

 

[GoodKat]

Granted, but how about in the shoulder or the leg? These guys are trained to aim aren't they?

They're trained to use deadly force when necessary.

guy + gun = deadly force

 

[hunglo]

They're trained to use deadly force when necessary.

guy + gun = deadly force

I think the cops should have more power to off some of these creeps that are out on the streets

 

[PuntMeister]

They're trained to use deadly force when necessary.

guy + gun = deadly force

...they were also trained to avoid the necessity to use deadly force. There was a time not long ago where using deadly force as a peace officer fundamentally meant you failed in your ability to quell a situation peacefully. This is Canada. The standard is high for a reason. A reason that is worth protecting in this jacked-up confused world.

 

[Krustee]

Besides, the fewer gun toting gansters we have in this city, the better.

Good point CJ, we don't need anymore cuz we got legally appointed ones already.

 

[j.bassi]

They said the officer had to pull back while he was being shot at so i dont think he really had the time to aim for his arm, shoulder or leg.

 

[d_Duck55]

Granted, but how about in the shoulder or the leg?

If they shoot they shoot to kill. That "shoot the gun out of the hand is BS". And if he was some dipshit gangsta then GREAT! Saves a lot of court time.

 

[GoodKat]

...they were also trained to avoid the necessity to use deadly force.

If deadly force is necessary why would cops avoid it? So bystanders or one of them can be shot?

necessity



Main Entry: ne·ces·si·ty
Pronunciation: \ni-ˈse-sə-tē, -ˈses-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ne·ces·si·ties
Etymology: Middle English necessite, from Anglo-French necessité, from Latin necessitat-, necessitas, from necesse
Date: 14th century
1: the quality or state of being necessary
2 a: pressure of circumstance b: physical or moral compulsion c: impossibility of a contrary order or condition
3: the quality or state of being in need; especially : poverty
4 a: something that is necessary : requirement b: an urgent need or desire
— of necessity : in such a way that it cannot be otherwise; also : as a necessary consequence <further changes will occur of necessity>

http://m-w.com/dictionary/necessity

Most of your post is contradictory.

There was a time not long ago where using deadly force as a peace officer fundamentally meant you failed in your ability to quell a situation peacefully.

Yeah, no shit. If a cop kills somebody who's shooting at them then they failed to stop the situation peacefully. What's your point? Is that a bad thing?