http://www.filecabi.net/video/gunsfhwot.html

That seems a bit excessive...they shot him the second he got out of the car and the gun he had flew out of his hand...then they kept shooting him.

oh well

If they would have shot him when he started the chase, it would have eliminated the hazard to everyone else.

wasted...

Quote from: makenzie71 on June 01, 2006, 11:32:16 PM
That seems a bit excessive...they shot him the second he got out of the car and the gun he had flew out of his hand...then they kept shooting him.

oh well

he was obviously trying to get something out of his pocket

nothing excessive about that...good for the cops.

what did he expect to happen when he pulled out a gun surrounded by cops

Yeah umm dont steal cars,dont run from the police, and dont try to pull a gun on the police and you might just live to see another day.

If this had happened in England there would be uproar. Funny that. Police here won't shoot you until you've shot them - they will negotiate for you to drop the weapon before they open fire - even then they dont shoot to cause a fatality if they can help it. This is probably totally a culture thing for me but that seems excessive. One good shot in the shoulder and warning - that guy wouldn't have tried to shoot back. Plus if he did the cops were all behind the doors of their vehicles and could have returned futher shots if he retaliated.

I'm pretty damned liberal, not to mention a gun owner, but I'd have a hard time calling that excessive.  Carrying a gun for self defense is one thing.  But one you're involved in a police chace and you pull out a gun, that gun is for one thing: shooting at a policeman, or possibly taking a hostage.  The runner should know exactly what will happen if he threatens a policeman with a gun in any way.  As for shooting to wound as opossed to shooting to kill... shooting to kill is, basically, a lot easier.  It would be nearly impossible to hit a person in the arms or legs, or even shoulder while they're at a run like that.  It's likely he would have survived to shoot back and likely wound several people had the police only shot to disable.  Hitting a person sized target center mass, however, is much easier.

In conclusion, I really don't see that the police have much choice in the matter, and I don't have much sympathy for the runner. 

No but it was clear that the guy was on the floor after the 2nd shot - i would never shoot a guy when hes down like that - i mean ok i could justify the 3rd shot but while he was lying on the floor facing away they shot him once more. In my eyes thats excessive. However as i said before it will be a total culture thing.

I see your point on the second shot, and I agree, once he's down, they should stop shooting.  However, I'm guessing that it happened so fast that no one really realized they were shooting him after he'd been hit.  There are several cops all just trying to take the guy down before he hurt anyone.  Between the adrenaline and the fast pace, it's probably pretty hard to tell what exactly is going on.

Watching the video again, it looks like he gets out of the car, is shot once at about 0:20, rolls over, begins digging through his pocket, and was shot again at about 0:24, and possibly once more at about 0:25.  It looks like the first two shots were necessary, and the third was porbably shot before the second shot had really "registered."

This isn't to day that there shouldn't be an inquiry.  I believe there's an inquiry after every police shooting, and I think that's absolutely proper.  But it doesn't look like there's any real cause for outrage.

Of course, like you say, it's probably a very cultural thing.

Yea, if i was in america i prolly wouldn't see it as that bad. He was probably critically injured after 2nd shot anyway (direct to she chest) i would also probably be a gun owner myself. And i am here in the UK but only allowed on private land.

Definatly a cultural thing. There was a huge media frenzy and hype about a shooting in a London tube station right after the bombings we had in the underground system. Undercover armed officers were on duty for extra security and they saw a guy jump the ticket barrier (regular thing in the tubes for people without tickets) They warned him to stop and gave chase. He was jumped on running onto the train by 4 or 5 officers. In that same instant one officer fired multiple shots 3 or 4 at almost point blank range into the back of his head while everyone was jumping to secure his arms and legs. Obviously this was huge - it was justified by the police by saying it was what they had been trained to do to prevent the guy from possibly triggering a bomb on his person etc. . . however you can imagine how it went down with the people here. Unarmed man, semi pinned down with multiple point blank range shots to the head (not just one - several) People were not happy.

Police need more tranquilizing dart guns for such instances

People in (parts of) America were fairly outraged over the London shooting (including myself).  The big difference there, in my mind, was the London guy had no visible weapon (theoretical bombs notwithstanding), wheras the LA guy had a gun in his hand, and, as you pointed out, the man in London was nearly subdued and was still outright killed by the police.

<==== I like guns~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!