Terrorist confused man knives down 3 people during a terror attack incident in the Netherlands

*Some pictures/videos may be considered disturbing for some people.*

 

Okay, so in The Netherlands we are somewhat "proud" that we didn't have any recent islam-related terror attack like Germany, Belgium and France had. All of them are somewhat neighbouring countries and have had to deal with major terror attacks. On the 5th of May we figured out why we have never had a terror attack -> MSM and police are rushing to call this an 'incident' instead of a terror attack, by a 'confused' person. Confused is now THE word-to-go to cover up terrorism.

 

Let me walk you guys through the case:

On the fifth of May a person started stabbing people randomly on a square in The Hague. There is currently no footage of that going down, but eyewithnesses say that he was specifically aiming to slit peoples throats. He was also heard saying "allahu akbar". The police response time was very quick (as you can expect in a big city). Within 3 minutes the first police officers arrived on scene. (Note how 1 officer "borrowed" a civillian bicycle, welcome to the Netherlands :D) See this video for what happened when the police arrived:

https://twitter.com/omroepwest/status/992787627148443653

 

Notice how the guy keeps saying "allahu akbar" after he got shot in the leg. Other angle can be watched here: https://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7423653/37e9ff5e/schietincident_den_haag.html

So the police arrived and starting shooting at his legs once he started walking towards the police officers. He still won't let go of the knive so the police decide to shoot some additional warning shots, which seem to have no effect on the suspect. The final arrest can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0UDLRsw794

 

 

So there are two notes that I want to make: First, the MSM and the police are so eager to defend islamic-based terrorism. They are spinning the whole story. This very clear picture of the suspect says a lot of what culture the suspect comes from: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DccGaWdX0AAbi8P.jpg. Trust me, nobody in The Netherlands wears a hat when it's 25 degrees celsius. Furthermore, the days after, additional information started to leak out. The guy appears to be a refugee from Syria. I think we can thank EU politicians for being so blind to the dangers that accepting everyone with no proper plan other than "Poor people, be welcome! Here, take this house that dutch people are for approximately 7 years on a waiting list for, take 10.000 euro's and we'll make sure you get all the benefits that hard-working dutch people get". 

 

The other important note that I want to make is: AMERICANS, WATCH, LEARN! This guy got shot in the leg, something that is basically impossible when I have to believe you guys on this forum. The suspect was walking/running towards the police and it didn't turn in a massive shoot-out where 30 bullets are needed in order to kill a suspect (refferal to the Wendy's video that I lately saw on this forum). So is it possible to shoot someone in the leg when he comes at you with a knive? Apparently yeah, and he didn't even die from bullet fragmentations in his artery! And then they use a taser to finish this and arrest the suspect alive. This is how police work should be done.

 

 

Edited May 7, 20187 yr by Antia

1 hour ago, Antia said:

On the 5th of May we figured out why we have never had a terror attack -> MSM and police are rushing to call this an 'incident' instead of a terror attack, by a 'confused' person

 

To be fair, the same guy did throw pretty much all his belongings out of his window while yelling random crap a few months ago, before finally calming down enough for cops to enter his home and take him down to a mental clinic. It's probably safe to say he's got some serious mental issues, which probably led to this as well.

We never said that it wasn't possible, it is not a good model to go with.  American cop's have shot people and stopped them without killing them.  Everyone gets mad every time a cop kills someone in a situation where the officer "FEARED" for his/her life or the life's of other's.  

 

  This will NOT alway's work, it is NOT a good idea or philosophy to base your life and training on.  If you can shoot someone in the leg to subdue them without risking the life's of other people then you may but then you come into the contex of "Did you fear for your life?" 

 

 Obviously this officer did NOT fear for his/her life, or this may of turned out differently with either the suspect dead/wounded or the officer dead/wounded.

 

 Police in the U.S. do not kill people all the time.  If you would look amd do research, then you would see that most of the encounters that U.S. police have result in the suspect not being killed.

 

  Our philosophy is that when you are to shoot someone then you should be shooting because you are fearing for your life or the life of another .

 

And I would like to say...

 

Why did he shoot him?

 

Why didn't he taze him?

 

Why didn't he mase him?

 

Why didn't he fight him habd to hand like a man?

 

Why didn't he show him love and affection?

 

He should of fought him with hugs(Loretta Lynch's advice)

Edited May 7, 20187 yr by ToeBius

9 hours ago, Antia said:

The other important note that I want to make is: AMERICANS, WATCH, LEARN! This guy got shot in the leg, something that is basically impossible when I have to believe you guys on this forum. The suspect was walking/running towards the police and it didn't turn in a massive shoot-out where 30 bullets are needed in order to kill a suspect (refferal to the Wendy's video that I lately saw on this forum). So is it possible to shoot someone in the leg when he comes at you with a knive? Apparently yeah, and he didn't even die from bullet fragmentations in his artery! And then they use a taser to finish this and arrest the suspect alive. This is how police work should be done.

 

 

I don't think any of us Americans said it was impossible, just incredibly impractical in most situations. And kind of counterproductive imo. Seems retarded to shoot someone in the legs to preserve their life...when again...you're shooting them to do it. Other tools could've arguably have be applied first, if the cops didn't put themselves in the shittiest position possible. Also the Wendy's video isn't a good referral for something like this. They thought the dude had a gun, and they thought he fired it too, so that's why you get a much crazier reaction.

 

But this shooting..."Oh hey, there's the terror suspect. Lemme hop on this bike and then get within 3-5 yards of him with no cover. What a surprise, he's coming after me. Looks like I need to shoot since I put myself in this shitty position. Now instead of aiming for center mass on a moving target, you know that tactic that's taught pretty much everywhere that trains people in firearms...Lemme just unload at his legs and basically put him in an equally as deadly situation, just with shitty shot placement. Oh look, the shot to legs admittedly did not completely stop him yet, now we still need to tase the dude." Police work should not be done like that lol. And guns should not be applied in a "quasi less-lethal" way. A well equipped department in the US probably could've done this without shooting the guy at all. I say well equipped, because not many departments carry beanbag shotguns or impact launchers in patrol cars.

 

So we'll watch, but I don't think we need to learn from you guys lol

Edited May 7, 20187 yr by Black Jesus
Spellingz

I had the privilege to work in Netherlands and I must say, I never felt safer. Their police is very well trained and funded, especially the KMar. What's more I've personally seen their BGTV(apprehension) tactics and they don't shy from firing warning shots in the air in public, which was quite a surprise for me! If i remember correctly they even have special anti-terrorist teams roaming the big cities 24/7. All that being said they still are the perfect place for terrorist attacks, just like Belgium and Germany...

21 hours ago, Antia said:

So is it possible to shoot someone in the leg when he comes at you with a knive? Apparently yeah, and he didn't even die from bullet fragmentations in his artery! And then they use a taser to finish this and arrest the suspect alive. This is how police work should be done.

 

Absolutely true and agree with you totally on this. Yes, it should indeed be the way when someone is attacking with a knife. Well done and kudos to the Dutch police.

21 hours ago, SuperStumpje said:

 

To be fair, the same guy did throw pretty much all his belongings out of his window while yelling random crap a few months ago, before finally calming down enough for cops to enter his home and take him down to a mental clinic. It's probably safe to say he's got some serious mental issues, which probably led to this as well.

Having mental issues doesn't mean there is no chance it was a terrorist attack. Also mentally ill people are perfectly capable of making terrorist attacks. Really depends on which of the many mental illnesses you got. Furthermore, he got released. They wouldn't release someone that is so mentally ill he'd be able to attempt to kill people like that. Lastly, his neighbours are saying that after his stay in the mental clinic, he had such a beard, but not before he went in there. Sounds like he radicalized there.

 

18 hours ago, ToeBius said:

We never said that it wasn't possible, it is not a good model to go with.  American cop's have shot people and stopped them without killing them.  Everyone gets mad every time a cop kills someone in a situation where the officer "FEARED" for his/her life or the life's of other's.  

 

  This will NOT alway's work, it is NOT a good idea or philosophy to base your life and training on.  If you can shoot someone in the leg to subdue them without risking the life's of other people then you may but then you come into the contex of "Did you fear for your life?" 

 

 Obviously this officer did NOT fear for his/her life, or this may of turned out differently with either the suspect dead/wounded or the officer dead/wounded.

 

 Police in the U.S. do not kill people all the time.  If you would look amd do research, then you would see that most of the encounters that U.S. police have result in the suspect not being killed.

 

  Our philosophy is that when you are to shoot someone then you should be shooting because you are fearing for your life or the life of another .

 

And I would like to say...

 

Why did he shoot him?

 

Why didn't he taze him?

 

Why didn't he mase him?

 

Why didn't he fight him habd to hand like a man?

 

Why didn't he show him love and affection?

 

He should of fought him with hugs(Loretta Lynch's advice)

Okay, let me nuance my piece a bit. First and foremost, I support American Police as much as I support Dutch police. Of course not every encounter leads to a shooting and the majority of cases work out like they should. It's the excesses though. Excesses in which some people on this forum still tend to defend the police. Back the blue is great, but not unconditionally. I joined this forum quite recently and as soon as I said anything about legs or taser, I'd be knocked over by posts with all kinds of vids and links explaining why you don't do those things. I figured this case was very good to show that the alternative to how US police do it, works out as well. 

 

16 hours ago, Black Jesus said:

I don't think any of us Americans said it was impossible, just incredibly impractical in most situations. And kind of counterproductive imo. Seems retarded to shoot someone in the legs to preserve their life...when again...you're shooting them to do it. Other tools could've arguably have be applied first, if the cops didn't put themselves in the shittiest position possible. Also the Wendy's video isn't a good referral for something like this. They thought the dude had a gun, and they thought he fired it too, so that's why you get a much crazier reaction.

 

But this shooting..."Oh hey, there's the terror suspect. Lemme hop on this bike and then get within 3-5 yards of him with no cover. What a surprise, he's coming after me. Looks like I need to shoot since I put myself in this shitty position. Now instead of aiming for center mass on a moving target, you know that tactic that's taught pretty much everywhere that trains people in firearms...Lemme just unload at his legs and basically put him in an equally as deadly situation, just with shitty shot placement. Oh look, the shot to legs admittedly did not completely stop him yet, now we still need to tase the dude." Police work should not be done like that lol. And guns should not be applied in a "quasi less-lethal" way. A well equipped department in the US probably could've done this without shooting the guy at all. I say well equipped, because not many departments carry beanbag shotguns or impact launchers in patrol cars.

 

So we'll watch, but I don't think we need to learn from you guys lol

True, every situation is different and every situation requires a different approach. The approach in the videos is not the best for other situations, true.

 

However, your view of this is totally cranked. Apparently you think that everything the officers did was a bad thing, whereas the result is great. Of course, beanbags would have been an option, but standard 112-call police don't carry those and having to wait until one arrives isn't possible as it's an active threat. It looks like you'd have chosen to kill the guy, most likely with 30 bullet holes in his body if this were not a well equiped department (of which there are 1000s in the US). Tasers are not rolled out in The Netherlands yet, except for special teams like our S.W.A.T. (the guy in the shorties with the taser). We currently have a pilot running with regular officers carrying a taser, but that's not in The Hague.

 

This is how you subdue someone that is actively stabbing people. You tell him to put his hands up, when he denies, you shoot him in the leg and/or warning shot. As LAST MEASURE you shoot to kill. I really wonder how the US police would have dealt in this situation. 

 

Also, firing 30 rounds at wendy's cannot be defended. It was a continuous stream of bullets flying by without a single moment of evaluation of wth they're even aiming at. Cost the life of an innocent person. You can't defend that way of working.

14 hours ago, Sinnisa said:

I had the privilege to work in Netherlands and I must say, I never felt safer. Their police is very well trained and funded, especially the KMar. What's more I've personally seen their BGTV(apprehension) tactics and they don't shy from firing warning shots in the air in public, which was quite a surprise for me! If i remember correctly they even have special anti-terrorist teams roaming the big cities 24/7. All that being said they still are the perfect place for terrorist attacks, just like Belgium and Germany...

Of course. You're talking prevention now. 100% security doesn't exist and most of prevention works behind the scenes by intelligence agencies etc. For now the Netherlands is a very safe country and it surprises me that Belgium had their attack in Brussels, France had multiple major attacks in Paris, Germany had attacks in Berlin and the Netherlands has stayed clean of that. 

1 minute ago, Antia said:

Having mental issues doesn't mean there is no chance it was a terrorist attack. Also mentally ill people are perfectly capable of making terrorist attacks. Really depends on which of the many mental illnesses you got. Furthermore, he got released. They wouldn't release someone that is so mentally ill he'd be able to attempt to kill people like that. Lastly, his neighbours are saying that after his stay in the mental clinic, he had such a beard, but not before he went in there. Sounds like he radicalized there.

 

 

Not saying it wasn't terrorism, just saying the official statement of the guy being a nutjob isn't a lie. From what I've read, they're still investigating if it was terrorism or not. And I'm sure they would have kept him locked up in a mental clinic if they could, but I don't think there's a way to force people except by a judge, who would only get involved if the person committed a crime, which he hadn't before this thing.

13 minutes ago, SuperStumpje said:

 

Not saying it wasn't terrorism, just saying the official statement of the guy being a nutjob isn't a lie. From what I've read, they're still investigating if it was terrorism or not. And I'm sure they would have kept him locked up in a mental clinic if they could, but I don't think there's a way to force people except by a judge, who would only get involved if the person committed a crime, which he hadn't before this thing.

They were very quick to confirm it wasn't terrorism though. And afterwards they figure maybe it's necessary to investigate that. And the entire media coverage was very very slim for such an incident. In that sense omroep west has done us a great favour, but NOS hardly reported on it right after it happened. Then the days after they figured maybe something else was going on. 

4 minutes ago, Antia said:

They were very quick to confirm it wasn't terrorism though. And afterwards they figure maybe it's necessary to investigate that. And the entire media coverage was very very slim for such an incident. In that sense omroep west has done us a great favour, but NOS hardly reported on it right after it happened. Then the days after they figured maybe something else was going on. 

Fair enough. I'm sure there's a reason the major networks didn't pick up on it that much, but I doubt we'll ever find out why. At least it has so far meant people don't worry about it too much and just continue with their lives, which I think is a good thing.

26 minutes ago, Antia said:

 Apparently you think that everything the officers did was a bad thing, whereas the result is great

 If they decided to hug the guy and he just surrendered, then that is also is a "great result". Doesn't mean it was a good idea. If you guys don't have less lethal tools, then don't use firearms as the less lethal tools. And if you don't see an issue with the massive hazard that cop on the bike created for himself, then idk man lol

 

44 minutes ago, Antia said:

you shoot him in the leg and/or warning shot. As LAST MEASURE you shoot to kill.

You've already decided to shoot to kill by aiming for his legs, because it's a firearm. I don't under understand this logic. It's SO counterproductive. "Lemme shoot you in a potentially fatal place, to avoid fatally shooting you.."

 

And if you really analyzed the Wendy's video, you would've seen that they did evaluate what they were shooting at. It's the whole reason why they kept shooting. The dude was up and running the whole time, and didn't stop until he collapsed at the outside. If we could see that from our crappy angle, then the cops definitely saw it. The sound guy was in a kill zone. A tiny ass corridor that the target just happen to run through. Just like if some bystander was behind this stabber while the cop decided to shoot at his legs, it's a kill zone.

5 minutes ago, Black Jesus said:

 If they decided to hug the guy and he just surrendered, then that is also is a "great result". Doesn't mean it was a good idea. If you guys don't have less lethal tools, then don't use firearms as the less lethal tools. And if you don't see an issue with the massive hazard that cop on the bike created for himself, then idk man lol

 

You've already decided to shoot to kill by aiming for his legs, because it's a firearm. I don't under understand this logic. It's SO counterproductive. "Lemme shoot you in a potentially fatal place, to avoid fatally shooting you.."

 

And if you really analyzed the Wendy's video, you would've seen that they did evaluate what they were shooting at. It's the whole reason why they kept shooting. The dude was up and running the whole time, and didn't stop until he collapsed at the outside. If we could see that from our crappy angle, then the cops definitely saw it. The sound guy was in a kill zone. A tiny ass corridor that the target just happen to run through. Just like if some bystander was behind this stabber while the cop decided to shoot at his legs, it's a kill zone.

The less lethal tools we have here are pepperspray and baton. Pepperspray would have been an option as well. The biking cop took a risk, but I wouldn't say massive hazard. He knew what he did and he did his job well. 

 

It's not true that you decide to shoot to kill when shooting for the legs. I don't have the numbers at this moment, but I am pretty sure that less people that got shot in the leg died than survived. Shooting someone in the leg is not choosing to kill, it's choosing to disable with a potentional of killing, which is a lot better than killing.

 

In regards to Wendy's case, just wondering: If this exact case was happening again, is there anything that the police should have done differently to deal with this situation in your opinion? Or was this a feasible outcome?

1 hour ago, Antia said:

 

 

It's not true that you decide to shoot to kill when shooting for the legs. I don't have the numbers at this moment, but I am pretty sure that less people that got shot in the leg died than survived. Shooting someone in the leg is not choosing to kill, it's choosing to disable with a potentional of killing, which is a lot better than killing.

 

Well, damage to the femoral artery will usually lead to a really quick death (at least out here the ambulance would arrive just in time to declare DOA)...

 

1 hour ago, Black Jesus said:

You've already decided to shoot to kill by aiming for his legs, because it's a firearm.

 

So if he's struck and not dead, I'd have to finish him off? Out here the law does not even authorise "to shoot to kill", it's always to counter the threat - which may be less dangerous or more dangerous to the suspect.

 

Even a baton or a taser may be lethal if applied incorrectly (or if the person is unlucky), or even a face punch. But you wouldn't instantly break the guy's neck to stop him, right?

6 hours ago, Hastings said:

So if he's struck and not dead, I'd have to finish him off? Out here the law does not even authorise "to shoot to kill", it's always to counter the threat - which may be less dangerous or more dangerous to the suspect.

 

Even a baton or a taser may be lethal if applied incorrectly (or if the person is unlucky), or even a face punch. But you wouldn't instantly break the guy's neck to stop him, right?

I just assumed by shoot to kill we were referring to traditional lethal force, since I doubt the Dutch would be allowed to just execute a suspect if a warning shot doesn't stop him.

Edited May 8, 20187 yr by Black Jesus

5 hours ago, Hastings said:

Well, damage to the femoral artery will usually lead to a really quick death (at least out here the ambulance would arrive just in time to declare DOA)...

Of course. I mean, you're using a firearm on someone. There's a chance you're gonna kill the guy, but when the alternative is center mass and you're not in immediate danger, the legs would definitely have my preferral. Netherlands is a small country so the ambulance will arrive quickly here, except for some rural area's. But there's a maximum time of arrival and dispatch is continuously moving ambulances in the regions to make sure that that deadline can be reached. 

10 minutes ago, Antia said:

Of course. I mean, you're using a firearm on someone. There's a chance you're gonna kill the guy, but when the alternative is center mass and you're not in immediate danger, the legs would definitely have my preferral. 

1

I don't entirely agree with that philosophy. If an officer has discharged his weapon at someone, there are no second chances. The individual now needs to be neutralized, because they actually pushed law enforcement to fire their weapon and they're a threat to public or officer safety (if the shooting is justified). There is no leg shot or arm shot, it's a fatal shot, and I don't understand why you'd have sympathy for an individual like that.

2 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I don't entirely agree with that philosophy. If an officer has discharged his weapon at someone, there are no second chances. The individual now needs to be neutralized, because they actually pushed law enforcement to fire their weapon and they're a threat to public or officer safety (if the shooting is justified). There is no leg shot or arm shot, it's a fatal shot, and I don't understand why you'd have sympathy for an individual like that.

That's a very dangerous road that you're going in now. Eventhough that individual did a horrible thing, it's not upto us or upto the police officers to judge over his life like that. Lethal force should only be applied when necessary and not because the guy is a piece of shit. Driving someone off the road because he cut you off isn't a good thing either. I'd really not go there, in terms of sympathy. I advocate for attempting to save as many lifes as (safely) possible.

 

Furthermore I notice the mentality amongst Americans that once a firearm is being used, it should be to kill. That certainly explains why most of the shootouts I see turn out in a massive bulletparty. I don't think that's the best thing. The way TheDivineHustle puts it, he says that once a suspect is shot down and is still alive, he should not be given aid or executed "The individual now needs to be neutralized". That's a massive undermining of the court system.

10 hours ago, Antia said:

Okay, let me nuance my piece a bit. First and foremost, I support American Police as much as I support Dutch police. Of course not every encounter leads to a shooting and the majority of cases work out like they should. It's the excesses though. Excesses in which some people on this forum still tend to defend the police. Back the blue is great, but not unconditionally. I joined this forum quite recently and as soon as I said anything about legs or taser, I'd be knocked over by posts with all kinds of vids and links explaining why you don't do those things. I figured this case was very good to show that the alternative to how US police do it, works out as well. 

  There are excess accounts that have happened and I am against them but there are many accounts that are justified. 

I would not say that this is a good example at all of how to shoot someone.  They shot him or at him 10 time's.  Why did they shoot him 10 time's?  And if they did not hit him 10 time's, where did the other rounds go.  And then they tazed him, why didn't they just do that in the first place?  There was obviously not much of a threat to the officer's or civilians since they decided to shoot him or at him 10 time's then taze him.

  We shoot to kill because it is the best way to stop someone not subdue them, there are other tool's that you use to subdue someone. 

 

We aim for center mass because you are more likely to hit a bigger target and stop it than a smaller target and it not stop them.  When shooting at big targets you are more likely to hit the target.  When you shoot someone it is usually because that is the only option that you have and to go to non leathal could mean your life, and you should not play with your life like that.  

 

  Personally I do not think that what this officer did was smart or a good example in any way.  I believe that he put himself way too close to the target, then they shot 10 time's, then they tazed him, and then arrested him.  That is the most backyards policing that I have ever seen.  

  

12 minutes ago, Antia said:

That's a very dangerous road that you're going in now. Eventhough that individual did a horrible thing, it's not upto us or upto the police officers to judge over his life like that. Lethal force should only be applied when necessary and not because the guy is a piece of shit. Driving someone off the road because he cut you off isn't a good thing either. I'd really not go there, in terms of sympathy. I advocate for attempting to save as many lifes as (safely) possible.

 

Furthermore I notice the mentality amongst Americans that once a firearm is being used, it should be to kill. That certainly explains why most of the shootouts I see turn out in a massive bulletparty. I don't think that's the best thing. The way TheDivineHustle puts it, he says that once a suspect is shot down and is still alive, he should not be given aid or executed "The individual now needs to be neutralized". That's a massive undermining of the court system.

Under the circumstance that individual is putting other peoples safety and lives at risk, I'd say yes; it is entirely up to law enforcement to determine whether or not the individual needs to be neutralized. The well-being of the suspect is on law enforcement agenda, but the well-being of innocent people and other officers takes priority. If it comes down to the life of an officer or innocent person versus the suspect, the suspect loses all day every day. When officers are firing their weapons, that's the implication (under most circumstances) that lethal force is indeed necessary because they've already started shooting. I advocate for harmony and tranquility for those of us that can act like we have some sense and decency. Anyone else, well, Darwinism can and should take its toll.

 

If someone were to cut me off, I'd respond. I wouldn't necessarily run them off the road, but I'd ensure they never do it to me again.

 

I don't recall ever saying that when someone is shot down, they should be executed or neglected of aid. My point is that when shots are fired, the intention isn't to subdue the individual. The intent is for them to be neutralized. If they happen to live through it, then apply aid as necessary after any other innocent people have been administered aid prior.

 

I'd like you to come witness how well our court systems work first-hand. Better yet, speak to some of the individuals that have gone through it.

 

9 hours ago, ToeBius said:

  There are excess accounts that have happened and I am against them but there are many accounts that are justified. 

I would not say that this is a good example at all of how to shoot someone.  They shot him or at him 10 time's.  Why did they shoot him 10 time's?  And if they did not hit him 10 time's, where did the other rounds go.  And then they tazed him, why didn't they just do that in the first place?  There was obviously not much of a threat to the officer's or civilians since they decided to shoot him or at him 10 time's then taze him.

  We shoot to kill because it is the best way to stop someone not subdue them, there are other tool's that you use to subdue someone. 

  

To clarify, out here warning shots/legs/arms shot are mainly used to stop a person armed with melee weapons, those who are drugged/drunk and actively (and violently) resisting, or when attacking in groups. An active shooter would probably be shot in the center of mass or in the head if possible (there are exceptions, however, a month ago an active shooter was struck 8 times all other the body and made it, that's Makarov pistols for you) 

 

Perhaps one of the reasons Russian police does that is that they don't have that much non-lethal gear Europe and the USA has. So, our country is probably not the best example (I'm pretty sure many our cops would love a beanbag shotgun or a Tazer). 

 

Guess @Antia's case is different as I imagine their police force is much better equipped (capitalism, ho!)