BREAKING NEWS: Kentucky cop shoots, kills man who attacked him with flag pole

[Agnostic007]

honestly, there really isn't much of a difference at all. Firearms police in the UK shoot to kill. they are taught to aim at the centre of mass, and they have the right to self defense. if they have an honestly held belief that their life was in danger, then they shoot. and they don't shoot for limbs or any of that shit because they'll miss and probably shoot some ginger kid in the face.
if you've given a verbal warning and they haven't stopped, then you do what you are trained to do and shoot the c**t. Of course you could look at it from the point of view that yes maybe he could of stripped off down to his tap out vest and choked the drunk guy out...but it's not very realistic or professional. they guy could have a knife, or aids....or both! When some nutcase is coming at you with a giant pole and he's clearly mental, you're not reasoning with him, better off just to shoot him.

This kind of logic is not welcome here..

[MANGOOS]

Seems that a part of USA society doesnt understand that you can't attack cops.

[Waller]

honestly, there really isn't much of a difference at all. Firearms police in the UK shoot to kill. they are taught to aim at the centre of mass, and they have the right to self defense. if they have an honestly held belief that their life was in danger, then they shoot. and they don't shoot for limbs or any of that shit because they'll miss and probably shoot some ginger kid in the face.
if you've given a verbal warning and they haven't stopped, then you do what you are trained to do and shoot the c**t. Of course you could look at it from the point of view that yes maybe he could of stripped off down to his tap out vest and choked the drunk guy out...but it's not very realistic or professional. they guy could have a knife, or aids....or both! When some nutcase is coming at you with a giant pole and he's clearly mental, you're not reasoning with him, better off just to shoot him.

The difference is firearms police are a minority over here. And are a specialist response when called. If you're dealing with them it's because they have been called for to deal with you (unless you're in an airport or something).

Attack a copper over here and you'll likely get nicked and hurt. But not shot.

[Overload]

We could "He shoulda" all day.. he picked the right choice given the time he had to make a decision and react. Taser would have been a poor choice. If one probe doesn't connect you're holding a plastic toy gun. Pepper spray might have worked, might not have.. people high on substances don't always react. Nah, appropriate choice given the circumstances.

I've seen guys high on drugs have zero reaction to pepper spray.  My cop buddy said he's seen guys take multiple tazers and peppers sprays without giving up.

He shoulda gave him an indian sunburn until he cried "uncle".

As far as i'm concerned, he did society a favor.

[Waller]

yeah for sure, that is a difference. over here most likely he would have got tazered at best, then given a cup of tea and a cheque for 50,000 pounds, but that's a whole different argument on whether or not more officers should be armed, as well as a big difference on the levels of violence and gun crime on our streets compared to there's etc. But the inherent right of an armed officer, as well as the course of action they take is the same.

Serious? I'm gonna go slap me a copper 

[Bosch]

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/

Ok, now I know that there is no non-lethal methods of apprehending wasted hobo armed with a flagpole.

Jokes aside, good read, point taken.

[I ETA PI]

We need 240 here. Can't wait to here is input. 240 has the keen ability to judge the exact distance between officer and citizen and whether or not the cop was justified in using deadly force.  240 will make all things clear.

 

[bigkid]

I hate cops, but if one tells me to do something, I do it.  These brews never learn.

[Redux]

That brew was on the cop very quickly. He really didn't even have time to holster his gun and go for a tazer or pepper spray if he had wanted to. 
He did the same thing almost anyone in his situation would have done. Anyone that wanted to keep from getting pounded on the head with a pole by a drugged up criminal that is.

[Overload]

That brew was on the cop very quickly. He really didn't even have time to holster his gun and go for a tazer or pepper spray if he had wanted to. 

Most people don't get it.  Anyone who has been in a real "fight or flight" physical situation knows this shit happens so quickly that the cops mainly rely on reflexes/training.  They don't get to pause and think about everything.

It happens in seconds.  How many of us can make a life or death choice in a few seconds of mayhem?

[Bear232]

The guy had it coming.

[Straw Man]

The guy had it coming.

x2

[Disgusted]

 I would think anyone will have the right to do the same thing when faced with the same exact situation

[chaos]

240 still absent....

[Walter Sobchak]

Is that a real Nag or one of those Spokane ghost Nags?

[240 is Back]

Had it coming. Looked like the cop
Actually waited too long to shoot.

this.  Personally, I attempt to flee a bit more, but I understand the cop has that duty to stand ground and stop the threat to society.   And that pole could do some damage.  So yes, looks to be a perfectly legal shoot.  Suicide by pole.

[SF1900]

From a new article:

What is up for debate — among police and the public in Kentucky — is whether the officer’s split-second decision to respond by firing two bullets into the 35-year-old was justified.

But a man who says he was a witness at the scene disagrees.

“He was drunk,”  Kenneth Williams, a witness, told ABC affiliate WHAS. “The officer could have maced him. He could have used his stun gun. He didn’t have to shoot that man. He wasn’t no threat.”

[The Ugly]

From a new article:

What is up for debate — among police and the public in Kentucky — is whether the officer’s split-second decision to respond by firing two bullets into the 35-year-old was justified.

But a man who says he was a witness at the scene disagrees.

“He was drunk,”  Kenneth Williams, a witness, told ABC affiliate WHAS. “The officer could have maced him. He could have used his stun gun. He didn’t have to shoot that man. He wasn’t no threat.”

Drunk dude attacked the cop with a weapon, though. "Witnesses" don't always make good analysts.

[SF1900]

Drunk dude attacked the cop with a weapon, though. "Witnesses" don't always make good analysts.

I would have shot him in both kneecaps, then put him in a leg lock, then arrested him.

[Schnauzer]

Deng Manyoun

[Dave D]

Deng Manyoun

Martyr.

Died waving the flagpole of the country he loved.

[tommywishbone]

Deng Manyoun

[Rami]

A guy that rushes in trying to kill you, you don't shoot at lower body, you shoot to stop him.

If you shoot lower body you give him the chance to pull a knife or a gun or something else you don't know about.

Once you shoot, it should be the most high percentage shot you can get, which is upper body, and that also stops most people from doing anything.

One more death penalty. Lynch law of peace.

Honestly, things gotta out of control a bit. If you shoot, at least shoot at lower body.

[Bosch]

A guy that rushes in trying to kill you, you don't shoot at lower body, you shoot to stop him.

If you shoot lower body you give him the chance to pull a knife or a gun or something else you don't know about.

Once you shoot, it should be the most high percentage shot you can get, which is upper body, and that also stops most people from doing anything.

Yeah, yeah, I got it. There is absolutely no way to stop drunken hobo with a flagpole, except killing him.
Every second is a lethal risk. Keep off the mind he can't walk straight, he is legal threat to the cop, society and country.

[jon cole]

As a french cop, if i do that in France, i'll go to jail.