Disturbed Individual With Sword(OT)

[storyguide3]

So, for those here who are from the UK, how would police there respond? Would firearms officers be allowed to shoot the individual, or would some other method be used?

 

[Harlequin_1998]

Some cities here in the states use shotgun-fired bean bags that incapacitate without killing, but as far as I know they are not common throughout the country, and I doubt that the police were willing to sit around and wait for one to arrive.

And as far as why this is being posted here, I see it as a pre-emptive strike. You KNOW that someone out there (you know who you are) is going to try to connect this to RPGers and use it to fuel their "D&D is the devil's bible" campaign.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I agree with those who think the cops did the right thing. When you have a perpetrator, you can't take the time out to analyze his mental state...obviously ANYONE on a killing spree is not all there mentally. The time that would take, may have cost more innocent people their lives. I do feel pity for the scitzophrenic mans family, but why weren't they taking better care of him?

Before you go thinking I'm cruel and not caring about his family, let me share something with you...probably way off topic, but since everyones talking about whether the cops had a right to do what they did...

I once had a boyfriend who was schitzophrenic. He was 99.9% of the time, the nicest human being alive. He was very smart, attractive, sociable etc... (ie. he did not look or behave like a "crazy person"). Well one day, he snapped. I recall waking up to the sounds of him shouting incoherently and nearly pulling my arms out of the sockets. I knew he was having some sort of episode and I was scared so I ran and he followed me and prevented me from running away from him. His father (we were at his parents house) heard the commotion and managed to get him away from me. So then Nick (the guy) turned on his father, throwing whatever he could find at him and running throughout the house. In his rage, Nick's father couldn't control him, and after detroying a good part of the house, he got outside, into his fathers car and sped up the street for about 3 minutes until he crashed into a telephone pole ending up on the neighbors lawn. I belive he hit and killed the neighbors dog.

When the cops came, Nick was taken to a hospital and kept there for a long time. When he finally did get out , he stalked me (seriously) for quite a while, then ended up back in. I have not heard from him since. This was about 9 years ago.

Had they needed to harm/ or kill him to contain him that day if he were about to hurt anyone else, it would have been justified IMO, and I'm talking about someone I was very close to. I feel sad for him and the man in this article, I feel sad for their families, but after seeing firsthand how this sort of person can behave when not under the watchful eye of a doctor/ or if possible medicated (in Nicks case, medication was not enough), I think the cops did the right thing.

I think , to answer the other question why was this even posted here, because it is a rather unusual news story that involves swords and I don't think the original poster meant for anyone to take it as seriously as they have, but rather to read over it and go "weird" and move on. Which is what I did originally, but since everyone was posting their opinions, I figured I'd chip in my two cents...

Wonder how long this thread will last...

 

[Darklone]

In Germany, police usually tries to shoot to wound too.

Problem: How do you stop someone who's been shot and in a rage? There have been cases where a madman gone berserk killed two guys after several shots to the head. Another story about a SWAT member who accidently fired inside of an armoured vehicle... he survived several dozen shots.

I don't envy anyone, armed or not, who's assaulted by someone with a sword at close quarters. Even if the swordbearer is not "proficient" with it, deadly injuries happen so quick

Sad they didn't stop him faster. Sad they had to stop him that way.

 

[Numion]

"Shoot to wound" is a myth propagated by movies, I fear.
2) Most "Wounding" shots are notoriously unreliable. The nature of the shot leaves a lot up to chance. The biggest one, of course, is "Did it actualy do damage?"... Shoot someone in the arm, and you might incapacitate his arm. You could also miss anything vital alltogether. But it also depends on the mental condition of the person being shot. People hyped up on drugs, for example, are quite hard to stop through pain alone. Most of the wounding shots that are fairly reliable are either potentialy very deadly wounds (Shoulder wounds can bleed to death), or permanently maiming shots (kneecaps). And they are still hard to make. And even if you make them, that's not a sure thing against a man with a gun, who could still fire with his other hand, from the ground,which is what officers are trained to use their guns against... Not loonies with swords.

Which one would you choose, kneecap or head, if you were to be shot? Permanent injury is probably better for the guy being shot. I don't see "not permanently injuring" as a "pro" in shooting to kill.

4) The sad state of our justice system has allowed, more than once, a criminal who was shot (But not killed) to sue his shooter, and win.

I don't see elimination of witnesses and victims to unjustified shooting as a "pro" of shooting to kill. Remember that the police isn't the jury or judge, and thus the idea of shooting to kill to prevent lawsuits is preposterous.

If the victim won the case, then the shooting was unjustified. How would it be better if the cop had managed to kill him?

 

[Celtavian]

re

I lived next to a schizphrenic madman for quite some time. I have always joked with my friends about being mad, but true madness is a scary thing to be around.

This guy would scream through the walls at all hours. He built a ladder out of duct tape and pieces of wood and garbage, then climbed up on the roof of our building to wander about. He built a lightning rod outside because he believed the lightning gave him power. He would throw garbage in front of our doors and accuse me and his other neighbors of disconnecting his cable. He also cut down a bunch of trees and built a bonfire in the front parking area. Just an utter madman.

He finally ended up in a mental facility where they medicated him for days. He came back quieter, but I was never comfortable living next door to such a person again. I always slept with a weapon nearby just in case he tried to cause trouble.

Living near true madness is the probably the worst experience I have ever had to deal with. I would not have hesitated to use lethal force if he had tried to assault me at any time. That is why I can understand why the police did what they did. Crazy people are frightening, and I am big guy who hasn't backed down from a physical confrontation in my entire life.

 

[Catulle]

Wonder how long this thread will last...

Let me see:
Emotive topic, check
Polarised opinions, check
All-caps sentences, check...

I hope not for very long. The only thing it's adding to is my ignore list.

Regards,

Barry

 

[Ashe]

If the victim won the case, then the shooting was unjustified. How would it be better if the cop had managed to kill him? [/B]

That's right because all true justified victims win cases. Like the lady that sued and won against McDonald's because they served her hot coffee. Totally justified.

I think you're wrong in that if the victim wins a case then it automatically means it was unjustified. All it really means is that they had better lawyers. Now I am not saying that this was justified or not, I was not there and I can't trust the media to portray this in an accurrate light. But I think it is very naive to think say that if the victim won the case, then the shooting was unjustified.

As far as why this thread is here, when it started it was said that it will probably be found that this guy was into gaming. I think that is the only thing that made it wind up here.

 

[Tsyr]

Which one would you choose, kneecap or head, if you were to be shot? Permanent injury is probably better for the guy being shot. I don't see "not permanently injuring" as a "pro" in shooting to kill.

If I attacked you with a sword, I wouldn't expect you to risk your life by shooting me in the knee and hoping you manage to hit it.

There are two possibilities, here.

1: Go for the central body, possibly with a double tap. Lets say, as a random, out of my arse figure, 95% chance of stopping the person before he can impale me on a sword.

2: Try and go for the kneecap. Again, random figure, 50% chance of stopping him.

Which would you do, if you were being attacked? Myself, I would think to myself first, and not at all of the person attacking me. He chose to attack me, it's his fault.

If the victim won the case, then the shooting was unjustified. How would it be better if the cop had managed to kill him?

*laugh*

Oh yes. Like the time that robber crawled on that ladies roof, fell through a skylight, onto her kitchen counter, and slashed his leg open on a knife.

He sued, and won.

I guess that lady wasn't justified in having a knife on her counter, was she?

 

[LuYangShih]

Why use older examples? Just recently, a woman who was having an argument with her boyfriend threw a drink at him, and then slipped on the floor because of it, breaking her tailbone. She sues the restuarant where this happened, and voila, gets awarded $100,000. The jury system is a joke at this point.