"Cannibal" victim was shot by cop !!

[mistermack]

You have to dig, they don't want to admit it, but the cop who "saved" the homeless man from the cannibal also shot the victim.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/do ... al-victim/

If a COP can't shoot an attacker without hitting the victim, what hope is there for these concealed weapon carriers to miss the innocent?
The cop was only feet away when he fired.

Even now, they want to hush it up, just saying that "an object" caused an entry and exit wound, and broke two ribs, and was "possibly" a bullet from the officer's gun. In other words, they made no effort whatsoever to confirm it.

This cop comes across as incredibly cowardly. He didn't dare to tackle the guy, or even to use his stick, or mace, he just stood off and shot at two men struggling.

In Britain, the same incident would have ended with the loony still alive, and the victim not shot.

Ain't US policemen just wonderful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... ruxMl2e--0

[Audley Strange]

Yeah the police don't "accidently" kill people in the U.K. Jean Charles De Menezes or Ian Thomlinson ring any bells? Just for starters? No? Yeah our big hero cops.

You do say some stunningly stupid fucking things sometimes.

[Tero]

Guns always produce stupidity in the not so brave. Or the total cowards.

Zimmerman.

I rest my case.

[mistermack]

Yeah the police don't "accidently" kill people in the U.K. Jean Charles De Menezes or Ian Thomlinson ring any bells? Just for starters? No? Yeah our big hero cops.

You do say some stunningly stupid fucking things sometimes.

Well, if I do, you can cerainly match me.

De Menenzes was the subject of a terrorist alert, and was killed by specialist armed police.
Ian Thomlinson died as a result of a push.

What the fuck have either of them got to do with this case? This was a patrol car, called to a violent incident.
A british patrol car officer wouldn't have been armed.

And if the attacker died as a result of a push, then considering he was biting someone's face, I don't think anybody could complain.

[Wumbologist]

You have to dig, they don't want to admit it, but the cop who "saved" the homeless man from the cannibal also shot the victim.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/do ... al-victim/

If a COP can't shoot an attacker without hitting the victim, what hope is there for these concealed weapon carriers to miss the innocent?
The cop was only feet away when he fired.

Even now, they want to hush it up, just saying that "an object" caused an entry and exit wound, and broke two ribs, and was "possibly" a bullet from the officer's gun. In other words, they made no effort whatsoever to confirm it.

Could have been a through-and-through that passed through the attacker. Or not, I don't really see a reason to fault the officer for this. You try the same situation and let's see how well you resolve it.

This cop comes across as incredibly cowardly. He didn't dare to tackle the guy, or even to use his stick, or mace, he just stood off and shot at two men struggling.

Yeah, some dude is EATING ANOTHER MAN'S FACE OFF in BROAD DAYLIGHT, let's get up close on that one despite having the means to do something about it from a safe distance. I think you're confused on the difference between cowardice and stupidity.

In Britain, the same incident would have ended with the loony still alive, and the victim not shot.

An easy assertion to make since this didn't happen in Britain to show what would happen one way or another. While we're at it, in Britain, the same incident would have ended with free ice cream and lollipops for all the good boys and girls and everyone gets a puppy of their choosing. Because it's Britain, obviously, prove me wrong.


Every time you post you prove my assertion that you are the yin to Seth's yan.

[Wumbologist]

And on the topic of accuracy in CCW holders vs cops, there was a recent story out of Texas where a CCW holder saved a police officer's life with a 150+ yard shot from a pistol:

[mistermack]

Could have been a through-and-through that passed through the attacker. Or not, I don't really see a reason to fault the officer for this. You try the same situation and let's see how well you resolve it.

Amazing, Sherlock. Who would have thought that a bullet could pass through two naked people? Obviously, you can't expect a cop to know that. All they get is comprehensive firearms training.
But, do you know what, I think I WOULD have guessed that, even with no firearms training. I must be some kind of genius.

So I do actually believe that I WOULD have made sure I didn't shoot through the two of them.
And a british cop wouldn't even have the option, because he wouldn't have been armed with a gun.
THAT is the point, if you missed it.

Yeah, some dude is EATING ANOTHER MAN'S FACE OFF in BROAD DAYLIGHT, let's get up close on that one despite having the means to do something about it from a safe distance. I think you're confused on the difference between cowardice and stupidity.

Safe for who? Are you really saying you would do the same?
Save the victim by shooting through both of them?

I think that was both cowardice AND stupidity rolled into one.

[Wumbologist]

Amazing, Sherlock. Who would have thought that a bullet could pass through two naked people? Obviously, you can't expect a cop to know that. All they get is comprehensive firearms training.
But, do you know what, I think I WOULD have guessed that, even with no firearms training. I must be some kind of genius.

Monday morning quarterbacking. You were not there, and it's nice that you have your precious opinions on what you would have done if you were, but I doubt you would have done anything, at all. Maybe sat in a corner and cried. Possibly urinated. Don't kid yourself with anything else.

So I do actually believe that I WOULD have made sure I didn't shoot through the two of them.
And a british cop wouldn't even have the option, because he wouldn't have been armed with a gun.
THAT is the point, if you missed it.

Headline: BRITISH MAN EATS FACE OFF NAKED VICTIM, PROCEEDS TO EAT FACE OFF BOBBY WHO WAS CLEARLY DUMB ENOUGH TO UNDERESTIMATE THE STRENGTH OF A DRUG-ADDLED LUNATIC ALREADY EATING THE FACE OFF A MAN

Sounds like a great idea. Of course, he could also sit back and allow the face-eating to continue until backup arrived.

Safe for who? Are you really saying you would do the same?
Save the victim by shooting through both of them?

I think that was both cowardice AND stupidity rolled into one.

Would I take a shot at the attacker, with the risk of hitting the victim? Considering the risks to the victim if the attack continued, and the risk to myself if I tried to engage in hand-to-hand combat with a man off his gourd enough to eat the face off a living victim, yes, I think taking the shot is the most logical course of action, though not without its own inherent risks. That's not a matter of cowardice, it's a matter of common sense. Getting in there and becoming victim #2 out of some misguided sense of heroics and an underestimation of the strength of a dude who is already eating flesh off a living victim doesn't help anyone.

[Wumbologist]

You're right mistermack. British police wouldn't have taken a shot unless it was an unarmed man sitting in his car.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/0 ... ng-partner

Now please, spare me the heaping load of horse shit about how your beautiful island nation is some fucking utopia where the police are absolute paragons of virtue, and over here in gritty 'Murrika they make sure to shoot all the victims just as much as the criminals. It's fucking stupid and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[mistermack]

It may come as a surprise to you, but British cops deal with violent loonies every day.
They don't spend all day helping old ladies across the road. And they do it without guns.

I'm not surprised that you can't imagine that, but it's absolutely true.
I have two in my family, and one retired. None of them have EVER fired a bullet on duty.

I'm not surprised that you can't picture dealing with that situation without a gun, because that's the mindless gun-nut attitude. But it happens every day over here.

Face biting is not unheard of, I know someone who bit a man's nose off in a fight.

There is extreme violence here, handled by cops without guns, every day.
A British cop would have radioed for emergency help, and laid in with stick and mace.

If the US cop had used his stick, he still had his gun, if the attacker had come after him, he could have still shot him.

I still say it's cowardice in theh extreme. I AM a coward, but I know I would not have done what he did. That's up a few levels from my level of cowardice.

[mistermack]

You're right mistermack. British police wouldn't have taken a shot unless it was an unarmed man sitting in his car.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/0 ... ng-partner

Now please, spare me the heaping load of horse shit about how your beautiful island nation is some fucking utopia where the police are absolute paragons of virtue, and over here in gritty 'Murrika they make sure to shoot all the victims just as much as the criminals. It's fucking stupid and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It's a bit desperate to mine the internet for British shootings. And in your desperation, you actually defeat your own argument.
My point isn't that British cops are clever, and american ones are stupid. The point is that they are all dumb, and when you give them guns, they do dumb things.

My point about the cannibal is that the cop shot first and thought later, because thats what idiots do, when they have a gun.
The British example just proves more of the same.

And I reiterate that a British cop COULDN'T have shot the victim, in the cannibal incident, because he wouldn't have HAD a gun in the first place.

Of course, if he had a gun, he would probably do the same. They are all pretty dumb.
The POINT is about guns, not British/USA cops.

They are getting far too quick with guns over here too. Nothing like the US, but far worse than it used to be.

[Wumbologist]

It may come as a surprise to you, but British cops deal with violent loonies every day.
They don't spend all day helping old ladies across the road. And they do it without guns.

Except when they do it with guns, which happens more often than you'll admit, and sometimes happens to involve a completely unarmed target.

I'm not surprised that you can't imagine that, but it's absolutely true.
I have two in my family, and one retired. None of them have EVER fired a bullet on duty.

I know several police officers including a few who are family friends. Only one of them has ever fired a bullet on duty, an impressive pistol shot at range that took down an an armed home invader and likely saved the lives of the residents.

Face biting is not unheard of, I know someone who bit a man's nose off in a fight.

That's a little bit different from chewing off a man's face for some length of time. Don't be an idiot.

There is extreme violence here, handled by cops without without guns, every day.
A British cop would have radioed for emergency help, and laid in with stick and mace.

A British cop would have been an idiot, then.

I've never taken law enforcement training, but during my EMT training one of the first things they drilled into our heads was not to do stupid shit in an attempt to be a hero. It's not because they don't want us to risk our lives if we feel it is appropriate, it's because we're potentially becoming another victim that other responders now have to deal with. It's an unnecessary complication to a situation that's already bad, which is why we're specifically trained to wait for law-enforcement in violent crime scenes, fire department in unstable accident scenes, etc. An officer going hand to hand with an attacker crazed enough to eat off a man's face is a foolhardy and unnecessary risk and could just as easily create a second victim as it could do any good. No US law enforcement officer, properly trained and in his right mind, would do it, and any British officer who would take that approach is a fool.

If the US cop had used his stick, he still had his gun, if the attacker had come after him, he could have still shot him.

He still had his gun. What happens if the attacker manages to yank it off his belt and shoot him with it? Again, you've created another potential victim where they didn't need to be.

I still say it's cowardice in theh extreme. I AM a coward, but I know I would not have done what he did. That's up a few levels from my level of cowardice.

You wouldn't have done anything, so don't criticize someone who did and saved a victim's life. Your posts are a consistent abortion of logic and reason, and if anything I'm beginning to think you're worse than Seth. Probably why even most of the anti-gun posters in the gun threads have distanced themselves from the dreck you spew forth in there.

[Wumbologist]

You're right mistermack. British police wouldn't have taken a shot unless it was an unarmed man sitting in his car.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/0 ... ng-partner

Now please, spare me the heaping load of horse shit about how your beautiful island nation is some fucking utopia where the police are absolute paragons of virtue, and over here in gritty 'Murrika they make sure to shoot all the victims just as much as the criminals. It's fucking stupid and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It's a bit desperate to mine the internet for British shootings. And in your desperation, you actually defeat your own argument.
My point isn't that British cops are clever, and american ones are stupid. The point is that they are all dumb, and when you give them guns, they do dumb things.

My point about the cannibal is that the cop shot first and thought later, because thats what idiots do, when they have a gun.
The British example just proves more of the same.

And I reiterate that a British cop COULDN'T have shot the victim, in the cannibal incident, because he wouldn't have HAD a gun in the first place.

Of course, if he had a gun, he would probably do the same. They are all pretty dumb.
The POINT is about guns, not British/USA cops.

They are getting far too quick with guns over here too. Nothing like the US, but far worse than it used to be.

I would love to see the results of every single firearm being removed from the hands of British police. Not entirely, as I'm sure there would be quite a bit of suffering involved in such a thing happening, but boy, to see how well your idealism would work in the real world would be something.

[mistermack]

Wumbologist, you are full of crap on this.

I made the point about what would happen over here, to make the obvious easier for you to understand. And that is that the US cop had many more options than you are making out.

So you think that a British cop should just use his radio, and wait for armed response, when he sees someone eating someone else's face? You recommend that?

You honestly think that that's what an unarmed British cop WOULD do, in the same situation?

You are the one spouting some amazing crap.

[Wumbologist]

Wumbologist, you are full of crap on this.

I made the point about what would happen over here, to make the obvious easier for you to understand. And that is that the US cop had many more options than you are making out.

So you think that a British cop should just use his radio, and wait for armed response, when he sees someone eating someone else's face? You recommend that?

You honestly think that that's what an unarmed British cop WOULD do, in the same situation?

You are the one spouting some amazing crap.

There's no good answer as to what an unarmed British cop should do in identical circumstances, if he's the first and only officer on scene. I think it's foolish to send an unarmed officer to such a call in the first place, why should I be the one to dictate the actions an officer should take in such a foolhardy endeavor?