One has to question then why this type of person would even join the military then. Dont some military go off to war and on missions where combat is carried out or likely to be carried out which means killing others or seriously injuring them?
Unfortunately the police is not the military though some police forces are trained to be a military equivalent. Nobody not in the military expects to go to work one day and be faced with killing or seriously injuring someone.
You can train and train and train but nothing guarantees this wont happen again.
Been there, done that, don't really want to do it again.

I was in the British Army. I witnessed it on numerous occasions.

I am not talking about refusing to fire, I am talking about refusing to aim while firing. Leasing off rounds is one thing, leasing them off with an intent to kill is something very different.

Some are complete drop outs and see the commercial of "Frank skiing and parachuting" and think they will give it a go. Do you remember the trumpet player in TV programme "The Paras"?

As you are likely aware, there are conscientious objectors in the RAF. It is perfectly permissible.

Just stirring things up.

Chuckle

Benefit of hindsight eh.

I just find it slightly odd that people are advocating police carry guns and tazers and presumably other equipment and should then run through a checklist at the side of the street, preferably in a committee so you don't get Rambo making a decision himself, to determine the response to a situation.

Very easy to criticize the police. I find it easier to criticize the guy waving a knife about.

I think most people have a problem with the way it was done - there were about 6 police officers outside the bus any one of which could have attempted to talk the guy down. It doesn't appear from the video this was done (although it may have been, earlier).

Was it really necessary - when the man was no danger to the public - to shoot him 9 times and then tazar him to make sure he was incapacitated?

A case of 'overkill' in my opinion.

9 shots were fired, but as far as I know, there's no confirmation as to how many times the guy was hit. I would be amazed if he was hit more than 2 or 3 times.

As you've already mentioned, you don't know what attempts were made to talk to the guy, or for how long he'd ignored demands to put the weapon down.

Was it overkill? Maybe, but until the full circumstances are known, how can one possibly comment?

Why stop at 2 or 3? One hit is going to be enough to neutralize him so, once you've gone beyond reasonable force, why not blaze away? Hell, when you've run out of bullets, stick a Tazer in him!

I'm fortunate enough, as I suspect are most on here, never to have been in that situation. It's very easy to sit behind the comfort of a computer screen telling someone what they should or should not have done.

It is unlikely the police rolled up and started shooting. It is more likely that they gave the bloke numerous opportunities to put his weapon down and come out of the bus with his hands up.
The only person to blame for the incident is the knife wielding criminal, regardless of OTT (or not) the police officers were in dealing with the situation.


On a separate point..

I don't know the answer to this question, so perhaps someone else can shed some light, but are police officers trained, when firing their weapon, to shoot to "neutralise" the suspect, or shoot to kill?

It's a matter of proportion. If the police stop someone for speeding, shoot him, tazer him and run him over on the way to the morgue, then we might feel that they've acted excessively. They're only supposed to be shooting people who are an immediate threat to them; someone with multiple bullets in them is not an immediate threat so there's no need to keep shooting and then to deploy a stun gun.

Incidentally, we don't even know he was a criminal. He's suspected of threatening behaviour and indecent exposure but not convicted.

The irony.
Yet, you're quick to jump on the behaviour of the policemen who responded to the incident without knowing anything about what happened, aside from some grainy youtube footage taken from some distance away.

I think it improbable that firing nine shoots at someone and then zapping them is reasonable force. Where's the irony?

So, do you believe it would have been acceptable to shoot him once?

Why is one shot going to be enough? Maybe you graze him in the arm and he's far from "neutralized". Safer bet to wait for the facts to become known.