You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Please state the amount of experience that you have to make a judgment that there is a "time" recommendation for every situation a Police encounters? Please show me the chart that shows a knife brandishing male, you must spend at least 6 mins before opening fire or drawing your sidearm... or where it says, 8 mins must be spent if it is a female. I don't know what video you were watching but I didn't see 20 cops on scene.. nor did I only see ONE cop with his/her sidearm drawn.
To add to this...
The "could've they have waited for a mediator to talk him out of it" or "couldn't they have laid seige to the tram and wait him out" is all moot argument.
When you take a step towards the police officers with a knife... you're forcing their hand.
I'm starting to think it's appropriate that when Police orders you to drop a weapon and you don't, you deserve to get shot... The police don't fuck around. It isn't a negotiation.
__________________ __________________________________________________ Last edited by AzNightmare; Today at 10:09 AM
I'm starting to think it's appropriate that when Police orders you to drop a weapon and you don't, you deserve to get shot... The police don't fuck around. It isn't a negotiation.
So what constitute a "weapon"? In the right hands, even a pen or screw driver could be a "weapon".
I can already foresee this situation happening:
* * *
The police receives a call to a residential unit for domestic violence. They come knocking at the door, and the clueless home owner who is tinkering at his workshop comes out holding a bigger screw driver in his hand. The police freaks out, points their guns at the guy, demanding him to drop the weapon in his hand. The clueless home owner only has a poor command of English, and doesn't understand for the life of him wtf the police officiers are doing pointing guns and screaming at him. To him, he is just holding his stupid screw driver because he was working at his workshop. It doesn't even remotely register to him that this could be a weapon. And then his leg twitched, and a cop fires 9 rounds into him, complete with a 6 second tasering after he dropped down as well.
It turns out the domestic violence case was from the basement unit, not the main floor.
* * *
If you think the above scenario is out of the ordinary, may I remind you of this local incident where some Chinese fellow by the name of Wu or Hu or something got his face bashed up precisely for the same reason as in the above scenario? The details are not completely the same, but I'd hardly think they are far fetched at all, especially in Metro Vancouver where a significant portion of the residents do not speak English as their first language.
So what constitute a "weapon"? In the right hands, even a pen or screw driver could be a "weapon".
I can already foresee this situation happening:
* * *
The police receives a call to a residential unit for domestic violence. They come knocking at the door, and the clueless home owner who is tinkering at his workshop comes out holding a bigger screw driver in his hand. The police freaks out, points their guns at the guy, demanding him to drop the weapon in his hand. The clueless home owner only has a poor command of English, and doesn't understand for the life of him wtf the police officiers are doing pointing guns and screaming at him. To him, he is just holding his stupid screw driver because he was working at his workshop. It doesn't even remotely register to him that this could be a weapon. And then his leg twitched, and a cop fires 9 rounds into him, complete with a 6 second tasering after he dropped down as well.
It turns out the domestic violence case was from the basement unit, not the main floor.
* * *
If you think the above scenario is out of the ordinary, may I remind you of this local incident where some Chinese fellow by the name of Wu or Hu or something got his face bashed up precisely for the same reason as in the above scenario? The details are not completely the same, but I'd hardly think they are far fetched at all, especially in Metro Vancouver where a significant portion of the residents do not speak English as their first language.
And you say the person deserves to get shot, huh?
Yes, anything can become a weapon. What makes it a weapon is the manner in which it is used.
In this case, the kid brandished the knife and began to threaten lives. This made the knife a weapon. He was instructed to drop the knife, did not do so and was shot.
Replace the knife with a hammer, pen, bat, tazer, gun, saw, etc etc etc, if you use it as a weapon, it becomes a weapon, and when told to drop said weapon and fail to do so expect the consequence to be sever when a gun is pointed at you.
About half the comments on the story echo my sentiment that the Toronto police had many options available to them short of putting 9 bullets into that teenager.
Mark
__________________ I'm old now - boring street cars and sweet race cars.
Yes, anything can become a weapon. What makes it a weapon is the manner in which it is used.
In this case, the kid brandished the knife and began to threaten lives. This made the knife a weapon. He was instructed to drop the knife, did not do so and was shot.
Replace the knife with a hammer, pen, bat, tazer, gun, saw, etc etc etc, if you use it as a weapon, it becomes a weapon, and when told to drop said weapon and fail to do so expect the consequence to be sever when a gun is pointed at you.
Now if we go back to the hypothetical scenario that I quoted, what if the clueless home owner guy just kept waving his hands (and the associated screw driver) around in the air as the police yells at him? Or worse yet, maybe he uses the screw driver to point at the police? Anything number of non-threatening actions could have taken place, but by your interpretation, he would deserve to get 9 rounds drilled into him because he did not drop his "weapon"?
Going back to the Toronto incident, the police have clearly failed to de-escalate the situation, and as a direct result, a life was lost. With all the video evidence that the public has access to so far, I remind unconvinced that an immediate threat was present at the time. The gun shots should not have been fired.
forget the law, forget interpretations of words and who deserves what... forget what SHOULD be done.
let's just think about this from a primal logic perspective.
someone has a gun. it is pointed at you.
they should have your 11/10 full on attention.
the gun is pointed at you for some reason, they are telling you to do something... the gun is pointed at you... obviously if you don't comply... THE GUN IS POINTED AT YOU.
NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
THE GUN IS POINTED AT YOU. IF IT IS DISCHARGED... YOU... GET SHOT.
THE. GUN. IS. POINTED. AT. YOU.
how can i simplify it even more?
it doesn't matter if you're right or he's right. it doesnt matter whos right. HES GOT THE GUN. YOU DON'T.
obey, or you will most probably be shot for better or worse.
now you can add on some more "complex" logic... he's a cop... he's a member of an authority group superior to your rank as a civilian... combine that fact with the previous logic...
you're not gonna win. no matter what. either surrender or get shot.
which do you pick?
if someone cop pointed a gun at me and started screaming things at me in some foreign language... i'd drop whatever was in my hands and just lay on the ground with my hands spread out or over my head or whatever. I wouldn't even try to interpret or anything. i'd just stop and drop. that's it. no questions. no nothing.
you have to think about THAT instant. at that moment what is your bargaining power? what is his? he's got a GUN pointed at YOU, the full force of authority and government behind him... you have a knife and you are a no body, and you've been threatening the public. you have no leverage. you have no bargaining power. you are NOTHING. it doesnt matter if you don't deserve to be shot. it doesnt matter if he's not supposed to shoot you. those things DON'T MATTER till AFTER the fact. you are in deep losing position. you cannot win.
so i ask again... which do you pick?
Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 07-31-2013 at 01:21 PM.
No doubt, when a gun is pointed at me, I am going to drop whatever the heck I have in my hands and raise them up high.
But that doesn't make it right. It just means I am doing what will most likely minimize my chance of getting killed.
And we are debating what should have been the right thing to do here.
the right thing to do would have been to drop whatever is in your hand and raise them high. like you said.... cuz sure as hell the cop isn't going to drop his gun and raise his hands up high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBomber
we're not primal humans.
we're morally capable human.
and as morally capable humans, we've certain obligations to our fellow inhabitants of earth.
no we are not. we are animals like everything else. when there are guns and knives. you react mostly on instincts. you have no time to think.
when i used the word "primal" i meant ... simplify the situation.
when you're on a bus with a knife and a cop is pointing a gun at you. you don't have time to debate with him or think or try to convince him he shouldn't shoot you.
all you are is presented with the scenario.
you have a knife. cops surround you with guns. what do you do? it's a simple question.
a gun is pointed at you. end of story. that's all that matters. what happens after... is up to you. sure as hell the cop isn't going to lower his weapon. that's a given.
again... what do you do?
A GUN IS POINTED AT YOU. WHAT DO YOU DO.
if your answer is anything to do with thinking... you're dead. doesn't matter what happens. you're 6 feet under, and he's not. end of story.
all i'm saying is this... if a cop is pointing a gun at me... i'm not gonna consider that we morally capable humans, or that the cop has certain obligations to fellow inhabitants of earth... aka me.
if that's whats running through your head while the cops are holding YOU up... i duno man. you gotta screw your head on properly. youre gonna get shot.
Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 07-31-2013 at 01:59 PM.
Now if we go back to the hypothetical scenario that I quoted, what if the clueless home owner guy just kept waving his hands (and the associated screw driver) around in the air as the police yells at him? Or worse yet, maybe he uses the screw driver to point at the police? Anything number of non-threatening actions could have taken place, but by your interpretation, he would deserve to get 9 rounds drilled into him because he did not drop his "weapon"?
Going back to the Toronto incident, the police have clearly failed to de-escalate the situation, and as a direct result, a life was lost. With all the video evidence that the public has access to so far, I remind unconvinced that an immediate threat was present at the time. The gun shots should not have been fired.
Your hypothetical scenario is just that, hypothetical. We can go around all day saying "what if this, what if that". The truth is, we don't know what is going to happen until it is over. You can predict all you want, but it is pointless because you cannot predict the unpredictable. I think it is pretty universal when a cop has a gun pointed at you and is yelling, anyone, no matter where they are from would likely put their hands in the air and drop whatever it is in their hands, if not, then it'll definitely make things drastically more interesting. It depends on how the cops perceive the person holding this screw driver. If he is casually opening the door with a calm body language, I doubt the police will perceive him as threatening. However, if the person opens the door with the screwdriver clenched, is verbally abusing the police officers, and his body language is perceived to be threatening, that is a totally different story. Yes a "similar" incident happened a few years ago, but there were a lot of differences as well. One main thing being the officers were plain clothed. Even someone who wasn't ESL would probably be skeptical of two men at their door claiming to be cops.
A bit off topic, but in the case of language barriers, that is one of the biggest things that frustrates me. Yes Canada is a multicultural country, but I think the people who want to call canada home should at least learn an intermediate level of English or French. You can't expect the public servants to know every language spoken in by the people who immigrate to Canada.
About half the comments on the story echo my sentiment that the Toronto police had many options available to them short of putting 9 bullets into that teenager.
Mark
I don't know why you people keep comparing one incident to another when it is already obvious and clear (maybe not to you) that no two incidents are the same. There are so many differences between the incidents, I don't even know where to begin, including, the perpetrator in Montreal was confined in his OWN house, not in the public. They had time to get ERT and had a lot of areas to protect themselves in, even though they were being shot at.
So this guy got taken into custody without serious injuries.... now what? With the Canadian Justice System being the way it is, you can bet this guy will be released into the community sooner than you thought... You really think he will have "changed" and become mentally stable? Would you feel comfortable living in the same community as him? I am not condoning killing people, but it makes you think, sometimes it might not be the worst thing if ONE burden to society is no longer present, to ensure the safety of innocent good people.
Your hypothetical scenario is just that, hypothetical.
Try telling this guy what your rationale is:
The hypothetical scenario that I described is hardly different than what happened to this man, except that the police has "fortunately" used physical force instead of firearms to handle the case. Had things happened according to what you say should happen, this man would have been dead as well.
So what constitute a "weapon"? In the right hands, even a pen or screw driver could be a "weapon".
Even if you have a paperclip.. if you dont do what they tell you and if they sense if you have slightest motion to do harm, they will drop you... Its no joke once the cops draws their firearm...
The hypothetical scenario that I described is hardly different than what happened to this man, except that the police has "fortunately" used physical force instead of firearms to handle the case. Had things happened according to what you say should happen, this man would have been dead as well.
If you were a police officer and were attending a call where there was a domestic dispute (one of a few incidents that police attend daily, where the risk of a significant other being brutally beaten or killed is likely), and you conduct a door knock at the address given to you by your dispatcher, and buddy answers the door and isn't being compliant, as a Police officer, you do what you need to do to get inside the house. The cops perception is this guy is obstructing them from their duties in preventing injury or death to another person. It IS UNFORTUNATE there was miscommunication and a language barrier BUT, why don't you TRY to look at the situation through the eyes of the cops, instead of looking at it through the eyes of the media. It isn't like this was a result of a noise complaint. This was a result of responding to a Domestic Assault. If you weren't aware, both the Police and the Province of British Columbia do not take Domestic Violence lightly.
And what do you know about Police and their use of firearms? Are you aware of the Policy an training regarding a Police officer's right to draw their sidearm? Police carry a gun for a reason, and it isn't always used just because a perpetrator has a gun as well. I already stated this in a previous post, but when Police are involved in any type of fight or altercation, they fight to win, not to lose. They will bring a gun to a knife fight.
I guess from your POV, you think Police officer's are only allowed to fire only if the other person has a gun pointed at them, but wait!!! if the Cop pulls the trigger BEFORE the perp, then that's excessive force right? I mean, shit, he didn't even give the other guy a chance to drop his weapon and turn himself in... even when he pointed the gun at the cop, and had his finger on the trigger....
Looking through the eyes of the cops, I think the overwhelming majority of them has already validated that there was no need to shoot. Out of 20-something officers on site, a whole bunch of them have their guns drawn, but only a single police officer opened fire, and this guy fired his sidearm no less than 9 times. Clearly the situation and the pressure overwhelmed him.
Looking through the eyes of the cops, I think the overwhelming majority of them has already validated that there was no need to shoot. Out of 20-something officers on site, a whole bunch of them have their guns drawn, but only a single police officer opened fire, and this guy fired his sidearm no less than 9 times. Clearly the situation and the pressure overwhelmed him.
Things should not have turned out that way.
I agree. No one should have been on a bus with a knife threatening people, then threatening the police. I am glad we agree on one thing.
Of all the people that were on the bus, and stayed around the watch, I wonder how many were honestly relieved the guy was shot when he was.
Looking through the eyes of the cops, I think the overwhelming majority of them has already validated that there was no need to shoot. Out of 20-something officers on site, a whole bunch of them have their guns drawn, but only a single police officer opened fire, and this guy fired his sidearm no less than 9 times. Clearly the situation and the pressure overwhelmed him.
Things should not have turned out that way.
We have another expert. I'm starting to enjoy this.
1) Yes there was no need to shoot; up until the point where Yatim takes a step towards the police with a knife.
It's been mentioned before:
Could they have waited for a mediator? Yes
Could they have gone back to the armory and get rubber bullets? Yes
Could they have opted to just seige and wait him out? Yes
But were the police afforded the chance and time to do so? No. Because Yatim forced their hands.
2) There were 20 cops yes. Considering the narrow corridor that is a bus door; how many officers will have that line of sight? Are you expecting 20? less than 10? less than 5? perhaps just one or two at best? I'd really like to know
3) So it seems like you have a problem with the bullet count. Do you know what the appropriate number is to neutralize a determined and aggressive individual? Is this a fixed number applicable to ALL human beings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBomber
we're not primal humans.
we're morally capable human.
and as morally capable humans, we've certain obligations to our fellow inhabitants of earth.
I agree. In normal everyday situations you're correct. But in extreme, sudden and life threatening situations, Ulic is 100% correct.
Yes, initially the police has a moral obligation to end this incident peacefully and safely for Yatim. But when Yatim takes a step towards the police with a knife, that obligation shifts from Yatif's well-being to that of the officers.
We have another expert. I'm starting to enjoy this.
But were the police afforded the chance and time to do so? No. Because Yatim forced their hands.
Not sure about whether we have any experts on board, but there is certainly no shortage of idiots as the posts have shown.
So the kid took a 1/2 a step forward, and you call that forcing the police's hands? Whatever happened to second warnings?
Had the kid lunged towards the cops, then sure, shoot him full of bullet holes, and nobody could complain about that. But this is 1/2 a step forward, and there is still plenty of space between the cops and the suspect. There was no immediate danger to anyone before the kid took the step, and the situation has hardly changed by taking that 1/2 a step. He is still within the street car. There are still at least another 2 steps before he is right at the door. He would still have been an easy target that gun shots cannot miss even if he had taken 2 extra steps.
In other words, there is still room before the kid is really forcing the police's hands.
watch that fucking knife video on the first or second page
and a second warning? do you not here the officers repeatadly speaking with him
put this thread to rest anyways. this subject has been beaten to death over facts that have already been gone over
this thread has gone circular
__________________
Quote:
[23-07, 02:03] shawn79 i find that at vietnamese place they cut ur hair like they cut grass
[23-07, 02:03] shawn79 do u go to vietnamese places for haircuts
The warnings have continued through out, but for the whole time, the kid was basically still in the same spot. My word choice of "second warning" might not have been the most appropriate, but until the kid gets to the door where he can really start to present himself as a legitimate threat (because by then he would have a lot more available options in how he can attack the nearby officers), he does not deserve to be shot. Until that point is reached, the "second warnings" should have continued.
Even though this fact has already been mentioned multiple times before, it deserves to be repeated -- the police's job is not to execute the suspect.
The warnings have continued through out, but for the whole time, the kid was basically still in the same spot. My word choice of "second warning" might not have been the most appropriate, but until the kid gets to the door where he can really start to present himself as a legitimate threat (because by then he would have a lot more available options in how he can attack the nearby officers), he does not deserve to be shot. Until that point is reached, the "second warnings" should have continued.
Even though this fact has already been mentioned multiple times before, it deserves to be repeated -- the police's job is not to execute the suspect.
their job/intention is not to "execute" the suspect. their job is to stop a threat.
what i stated in the other post about shooting
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4RAWR
police are trained to fire center mass and for the most part shoot to kill. there is no set number of rounds that they are trained to fire into a suspect.
the logic behind this as far as i understand it is that,
A) the police are issued pistols
and
B) pistols are hard to shoot accurately with at distance
thus
C) police are trained to shoot and fire at center mass
because
D) it has the highest likelihood of success (making contact)
however
E) center mass for the most part is/will most likely result in a kill shot
because
F) the majority of the human body's vital organs are located center mass.
the differentiation needs to be made here that they did not murder this man, they did kill him, but this was not murder nor was it an execution.
their job/intention is not to "execute" the suspect. their job is to stop a threat.
Agreed, which means the attention shifts to whether that 1/2 a step forward constitute a legitimate threat. With still at least another 2 steps to go before Yatim reaches the door (where his options to attack the nearby persons increase significantly), I do not agree that the teenager was forcing the police's hand just yet.
Agreed, which means the attention shifts to whether that 1/2 a step forward constitute a legitimate threat. With still at least another 2 steps to go before Yatim reaches the door (where his options to attack the nearby persons increase significantly), I do not agree that the teenager was forcing the police's hand just yet.
you also have to take other factors into consideration though,
-training
-muscle memory
-stress
-adrenaline
-etc
lets also take into consideration the use of force continuum. the use of force continuum is a general guideline upon which most police agencies operate under. officers are trained to work within varying degrees force and the following is an example:
let us take these various levels of force and apply them to the situation.
first level has been established, the officers have made their physical presence known and the suspect is aware.
verbal commands have been issued by the officer to the suspect. yatim was repeatedly told to drop the knife/weapon.
the third level involving empty-hand submission techniques would not be feasible in this situation. the suspect is in a rather small area, the inside of the trolley car. in order for some sort of submission to occur a wider area would be ideally required. also, this would require that an officer step into the trolley car and confront the individual in a close quarter combat situation. an officer advancing on the suspect into the inside of the trolley car may have resulted in the suspect charging the officer in an area where he/she is unable to protect himself. the only feasible option would be to go in with gun drawn but this may also instigate a response from the suspect where even though the officer shoots the suspect, he is still able to stab/slash the officer.
fourth level, intermediate weapons. use of a police baton is not ideal in this situation and i've heard many experiences of officers utilizing police batons with little effect on the suspect. pepper spray and mace require a clear line of sight and a clear shot at the suspect to be effective. a taser, bean bag rounds and rubber bullets would all require a clear line of shot and would require an officer to get into the bus to take the shot.
the fifth and final level, lethal force. this is the best and correct choice given the circumstances. bullets have the capability to penetrate through thin metal and glass in order to make contact with the suspect and stop the threat. the police are issued hollow point rounds which are designed to expand and mushroom inside the target, thus transferring the energy from the bullet to the suspect in the hopes that it will stop him. this method does not require an officer to get into close quarters with the suspect in order for it to be effective, thus preventing an officer from having to risk his/her life. they are able to stand their ground (outside the trolley) and control the situation.
the situation as i understand it so far is.
1) suspect pulled a knife out on a crowded public trolley car and ordered people not to get off
2) suspect approached passengers who were able to escape off the trolley car and call 911.
3) police arrived on scene to contain the situation.
4) suspect was given verbal commands to drop the knife/weapon
5) suspect was given verbal commands to stay where he was and not move
6) repeated commands were given to drop the knife.
7) suspect stepped forward and was in turn shot.
he was issued verbal commands multiple times. he was told to drop the knife and stay where he was. he did not comply with these commands and in turn was shot when the officers felt that THEIR lives were in jeopardy.
if you watch my earlier video regarding the distance that a knife wielding assailant can cover it is possible that he could have made the distance and stabbed an officer. the half step or twitch or whatever you wanna call it forward could have been just before a full on sprint/run/charge.
we don't know everything that occurred thus cannot accurately comment on the situation. i understand that in YOUR opinion, the half step forward or whatever does not constitute a threat but i would bet that if you were confronted by an assailant with a knife, dirty needle or assailant who, for all intents and purposes was about to potentially attack you, you wouldnt hesitate to pull the trigger. would it have made you feel better about his death if he had stabbed someone first? whether they be a passenger or a police officer?
OSIU is doing their investigation and we should all wait for results.
And yes, people who have a problem with this incident are ignorant and naive because they are basing their assumptions on one, or a combination of the following; not knowing the whole story (you CANNOT see the perp clearly. I don't know what secret video footage you are watching but there is no way you can see what the kid is doing), you were not there, you don't know how police are trained to react to certain situations, you believe in too much of the movies you watch, you actually believe the media is unbiased.
Was too busy to add to this last time so I quoted it again.
You know who else doesn't know everything that happened? That didn't have any other video to look at? Who wasn't there?
You.
And yet you are 100% convinced the police did the right thing despite you having NO EVIDENCE to prove your position any better than those of us who have a different opinion.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
