If someone is coming at me or anyone else with a knife, I'm taking them down. The object isn't to match their level of force, the object is to either subdue or neutralize the threat to my safety and public safety. I'm not going to take a risk that I don't have to take, especially if you're a bad guy with a knife. You've already stated that you don't care as a result of your aggressive actions, therefore, I couldn't case less either. 

 

I'm not too sure what the protocol is for law enforcement, though.

Edited March 1, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

Yep, the 21-foot rule is pretty well known. Like the video said, you likely won't have time to pull out your sidearm and neutralize the threat at any closer than 20-21 feet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Yes. No question.

It depends. Which is why we have the justice system.

Well, seriously, in the pussy whipped country i live, you'll get in huge trouble if you kill someone on duty!

No matter if he was armed or not.

There're endless stories of police officers who killed an aggressor in self defense.

And what's the result?

He, or she gets ripped of from our left driven media.

Maybe he or she will lose their job for a justifiable killing.

And we nearly don't have such trigger happy cops like in the US!

4 hours ago, Riley24 said:

It depends. Which is why we have the justice system.

A system that punishes a man with weed for 19 years but gives a child molester less than 10 years with probation; and probably an early release for "good behavior".

Absolutely.

53 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

A system that punishes a man with weed for 19 years but gives a child molester less than 10 years with probation; and probably an early release for "good behavior".

Wait...you don't think I disagree, right?

On 3/1/2017 at 6:34 PM, TheDivineHustle said:

I'm not too sure what the protocol is for law enforcement, though.

I can't speak for all law enforcement (no clue whatsoever for outside of the U.S.) but around these parts, the use of force continuum is the law of the land for how law enforcement is to justify their actions and respond to a threat. Generally speaking, law enforcement is able to respond to the threat with the next level of force necessary to address the threat.  By way of example, if somebody is being physically combative or resisting verbal orders, the officer may at their discretion use a non-lethal method such, baton, or TASER device. If  Baton can also be used as lethal though, as there are color-coded strike zones that dictate the fashion in which the weapon is being used (i.e. a hit to the head or neck are RED zones and are considered the use of deadly force). 

 

Here's a good, brief reference article from the NIJ:

 

https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/continuum.aspx

If that happened to me, then of course if I was armed I'd blow him away to preserve my life. This is one thing many people don't understand about cops- in violent situations self preservation kicks in to survive no matter what resulting in unfounded 'brutalitah!' accusations. Besides which, anyone attacking a cop with a knife is probably a lowlife who won't be missed anyway.

I think that the news from London today answers that question pretty conclusively.

I agree

Edited March 25, 20179 yr by Captain A.Brandon

2 hours ago, Captain A.Brandon said:

I believe it is vary justifiable. Now if I were to put my self in a position of a cop that used his issued weapon to not only protect himself but from others that are around him, I would discharge only one in to the chest for a takedown, it doesn't have to be 3 or 6 times, one clean shot to the chest to take him down. I will say in my opinion, if a officer discharges his weapon more then what is required to take a subject down, then I believe there should be reasons to question what was going through his mind. Furthermore, you got to also see what his reasons were to discharge his weapon as well as what he was going through on a emotional level.

 

I'm sorry, but have you had any real firearm or defensive shooting training or experience?

 

Because that reads like someone that hasn't, to be completely blunt about it.

On 3/23/2017 at 2:19 PM, Captain A.Brandon said:

I believe it is vary justifiable. Now if I were to put my self in a position of a cop that used his issued weapon to not only protect himself but from others that are around him, I would discharge only one in to the chest for a takedown, it doesn't have to be 3 or 6 times, one clean shot to the chest to take him down. I will say in my opinion, if a officer discharges his weapon more then what is required to take a subject down, then I believe there should be reasons to question what was going through his mind. Furthermore, you got to also see what his reasons were to discharge his weapon as well as what he was going through on a emotional level.

 

Firing a weapon at a moving target may be challenging, especially if the suspect is charging at the officer with adrenaline.

A great example of how fast a suspect can cover a large distance in seconds Imagine if the officer was closer...

 

 

Sorry for the ASP lesson lol (It was the only video I could find of this quickly)

To anyone that might want to question why cops fire a seemingly excessive amount of shots, this is why:

https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

 

Some important notes in this:

-Suspect was hit in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney a total of 14 times with .45 ACP hollow point ammunition.

-Autopsy showed the suspect was on no mind altering substances and operating off of pure adrenaline during this.

-Shootout lasted 56 seconds.

On 3/27/2017 at 7:58 PM, c13 said:

To anyone that might want to question why cops fire a seemingly excessive amount of shots, this is why:

https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

 

Some important notes in this:

-Suspect was hit in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney a total of 14 times with .45 ACP hollow point ammunition.

-Autopsy showed the suspect was on no mind altering substances and operating off of pure adrenaline during this.

-Shootout lasted 56 seconds.

I don't think anyone legitimately has a problem with a cop shooting a suspect in a shootout 14 times. Its when they *think* they *might* see a gun and then mow down an innocent that its an issue. In that situation, if the cop had shot once (or better yet, not at all), he might have realized the person was unarmed.

Edited March 30, 20179 yr by Riley24

21 hours ago, Riley24 said:

I don't think anyone legitimately has a problem with a cop shooting a suspect in a shootout 14 times. Its when they *think* they *might* see a gun and then mow down an innocent that its an issue. In that situation, if the cop had shot once (or better yet, not at all), he might have realized the person was unarmed.

 

I don't know, friend. In my opinion, I'd say that it really depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation.

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I don't know, friend. In my opinion, I'd say that it really depends on the circumstances surrounding the situation.

Of course