It's UA/Hilliard, when was the last time they dealt with a violent criminal? If they did overreact, I wouldn't be surprised, but on the other hand: better safe than sorry.

Mr. Britain said he heard repeated commands by the officer for the man to drop the knife, then heard three
gunshots.

I would have to think the cop would have his weapon drawn that entire time he was "repeatedly" commanding him to drop the knife, no? Not a pull and fire situation. Also, if he was in a separate yard at that time, it sounds like there may not have even been any of the other neighbors near him when it happened. Still not seeing the justification to kill him.

I guess I just don't agree with shoot to kill bullshit.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Yeah, anyone wielding a knife out in a public place should be shot on spot. The only exceptions would be those working at a butcher shop.

dwccrew;765972 wrote:Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

/thread

I think if cops started shooting more, less people would disobey the law.

iclfan2;765755 wrote:Is this for real? If you shoot you shoot to kill. Center of mass.

Easy to identify liberals and non-weapon trained individuals.

To pull your weapon is to defend yourself and to protect others from a threatening situation… center mass …

CCW. Sig P220 .45 Federal Premium HYDRA-SHOK 230GR

Belly35;766061 wrote:Easy to identify liberals and non-weapon trained individuals.

To pull your weapon is to defend yourself and to protect others from a threatening situation… center mass …

CCW. Sig P220 .45 Federal Premium HYDRA-SHOK 230GR

Hey now. Don't lump us all together.

Hb31187, where did you have your police training? I think I'll go with sej on this one. It's easy to say what you'd do in a life and death situation until you're actually there.

I Wear Pants;765898 wrote:Probably no need to kill the guy but this isn't one of those cases where I'm super outraged as the dude was harming himself and threatening others.

However, the idea that you only shoot to kill is ridiculous. There are situations, like this one, where shooting a dude in the leg or something and then observing the situation some more would be absolutely reasonable and wouldn't place any extra risk on anyone.

You dont shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat. Shooting center mass is the only way to stop the threat. Shooting someone in the leg, not only is hard to do, but probably wont be effective and doesnt disarm the attacker. What happens when you hit the femoral artery and the guy bleeds out in minutes? What about when you miss and the attacker buries the knife in you or someone else? Lawyers would have a field day if cops were shooting to wound. Every time there was a shooting, they would be suing the cops because they didnt shoot to wound first or something.

I Wear Pants;765898 wrote:Probably no need to kill the guy but this isn't one of those cases where I'm super outraged as the dude was harming himself and threatening others.

However, the idea that you only shoot to kill is ridiculous. There are situations, like this one, where shooting a dude in the leg or something and then observing the situation some more would be absolutely reasonable and wouldn't place any extra risk on anyone.

IWP Someday I will have to buy you dinner at John’s Bar, it would be interesting to meet you face to face, it would have to be a public place because of the exchange of conversation could get out of control.

In the past 1 /1/2 years I have been training to shoot completely in the USPSA.
I was an expert in the military on all small arms, after 38 years of not picking up a weapon or owning a weapon I have worked at being as proficient as possible. I believe my skill is better than most weapon carriers … I would not even trust my skill to stop an individual moving with a leg or arm shot. Must encounter with gun fire happen only 20 feet apart and look at video a see how at 20 feet the ratio of misses per shots fired. Center Mass or Kiss Your Ass

The obvious obligatory gif:

I Wear Pants;765898 wrote:However, the idea that you only shoot to kill is ridiculous. There are situations, like this one, where shooting a dude in the leg or something and then observing the situation some more would be absolutely reasonable and wouldn't place any extra risk on anyone.

Agreed. Shooting to torture and see how much pain you can inflict on a person in a set amount of time is a great way to teach people who owe you money that trying to weasel out on your debts is a bad fucking idea.

I used to be pretty comfortable with the country's gun laws, but the fact that Belly is apparently allowed to own one makes me reconsider my entire position.

power i;766098 wrote:Hb31187, where did you have your police training? I think I'll go with sej on this one. It's easy to say what you'd do in a life and death situation until you're actually there.

If you would pay attention i said i had no training and that i guess i was wrong. Thanks for chiming in late though

Hb31187;766611 wrote:If you would pay attention i said i had no training and that i guess i was wrong. Thanks for chiming in late though

You're very welcome, but I still didn't see where you said that.

Update on WBNS web site, the guy was a 25 year old OSU student who was bi-polar. His parents said they were very sorry for the policeman who was forced to shoot him, but that the outcome was pretty much what their son wanted to happen. Sad situation for all involved.

2kool4skool;765932 wrote:It's UA/Hilliard, when was the last time they dealt with a violent criminal? If they did overreact, I wouldn't be surprised, but on the other hand: better safe than sorry.

Hilliard had an escaped convict/hostage situation a couple of years ago.

power i;766658 wrote:You're very welcome, but I still didn't see where you said that.

Update on WBNS web site, the guy was a 25 year old OSU student who was bi-polar. His parents said they were very sorry for the policeman who was forced to shoot him, but that the outcome was pretty much what their son wanted to happen. Sad situation for all involved.

post #22