How to fight crime.

[F i n]

Thats all possible but still - i think many ppl in this topic share the opinion killing someone is actually GOOD.

If you have to kill someone to prevent harm from others that might be even justified - but saying "Good job. You're a hero" or "SHOOT THE CRIMINAL SCUM" is just morbid and not appropriate.

Never forget it's not a good thing - and really NEVER start cheering if someone dies.

I guess thats common sense - even for brasilian streetgangs - which btw. are also humans.

[Bjord]

I give up on this thread.

[Prpavi]

Yeah but he's right. Some people have no utter clue about violent crime and pretend its on the same level as stealing bread to feed your family.

It's very easy for people living in white western countries to go oh my this cop should be arrested but you don't live in his reality. South American gangs are utterly brutal and without remorse. Just ask the people of Honduras or El Salvador what they think of the cop's actions.

So you think those kids and I mean literally kids chose this life and live it with pride? Watched more than a couple of docs on these subject and there is not even one kid that wouldn't want to come to the states and try to make a better life for themselves.

But guess what, guess on which coutrys streets did MS and 18 start and why and guess who deported shitloads of gangbangers to their native coutries of El Salvador and Honduras and they spread the plague. You got it right the red white and blue.

[Butan]

I think a veteran in the use of firearms could give you some information on :

- reaction time
- accuracy of a handgun
- average number of shots to properly incapacitate


And all those information would probably go toward :

- aiming & firing can be very fast/almost impossible to notice & prevent, warning is dangerous (especially if you're alone, without jacket and dealing with multiple targets) and give opportunity to the enemy to react
- you cant aim the legs and arms like in a FPS (except the bestest of gunmen or sniper with a sniper rifle in proper position, you aim center of mass = chest/back), firearms have designed optimal range & accuracy
- a non-lethal shot (missing head/heart/other cool small as hell targets) have only shock/knockback effect on impact (from sound, impact and later, pain) and small rounds have only small impact


I let you conclude 

[AntiBlitz]

I think a veteran in the use of firearms could give you some information on :

- reaction time
- accuracy of a handgun
- average number of shots to properly incapacitate



I let you conclude 

ya hi, thats me.

Did the robber actually shoot? No.

Would a human being have been killed if the cop wouldn't have started shooting? No.

Those robbers were about to take off. So they did obviously not try to just kill anyone. Their main intention was to grab the bike and get the hell out of there - do you know why? Did the cop know why? Me neither.

Maybe they needed money for their families (Brazil aint that rich). Maybe the gun wasn't a real one after all.

So basically the cop had to choose between preventing a bike from being stolen and taking a (young) man's life.

Do you really think his decision was right?

Also, if i'm standing 2 metres away from my target, i dont need 2 body shots to take him out.

What about just shooting his leg, arm?


That was no preventive act - that's the pure cowboy-sherrif-IAMAHEROWITHAGUN attitude.

Cops are there to prevent ppl from being harmed not to murder them.

And if there are two ways to prevent harm (stolen bike, taken life) - is it really that hard to choose the right one?

lol what, calling it like i see it, this post, and all of your opinions on the matter are quite dumb, you are the reason why cops cant do their jobs properly, having people like you constantly knit pick their actions even though you have no idea of what the fuck you are talking about,  Go back to being a pencil pusher.

1)You are just "what if"ing the whole fucking time, this could go 100 different ways, and you sound stupid.

2) wasnt aware they had to shoot first to be shot at, glad i must risk death before death must occur, makes sense.

3) still wasnt aware you had to give someone a warning who is carrying a loaded gun, who I not only just witnessed stuff a gun in someones face, but then point it at me as i get out of my vehicle.

4) you dont need two body shots to take him out, thats your gripe, he shot him twice lol, im confused?  why is this bad?  two?  hell he is lucky he didnt get less than half the magazine.  But i understand you have no idea of what you are talking about, so ill try and clarify.  Shooting someone in the body does not instantly incapacitate them, they dont just get hit one time and fall over and lay on the ground.  They have to bleed out, this takes time, a person can still function for up to 20mins or more while bleeding out, in that time he could have shot the cop, rode the bike to the local burger king, and then went to the hospital.

5)Why does everyone think they should shoot people in the leg?  doesnt make any fucking sense, you have a HUGE vein in your leg called your femoral, if this is struck you almost near always bleed out and die, not to mention you are shattering their femur, or tib/fib, probably making them never walk again, sounds real humane there.  But thats just a side note to that fact that he was carrying and pointing a gun at everyone, and the officer had to quickly take control and stop the threat from harming someone, whether the cop came at the beginning or the end of the crime doesnt matter, he came, and stopped it, with force.

6)  He prevented further harm to the civilian populous by not allowing this person to go rob someone else, he was holding a guun

7)dont try and bullshit us all with the starving family crap, if this was the case, then why didnt dickbag scum of the earth go rob a food store?  he didnt, so get the fuck out.  He was stealing bread loafs, he was stealing bikes.

8)I refuse to give someone time to think about shooting me, he was holding a gun, and im not going to allow him to surprise me with it, when i just did him.  Action is quicker than reaction buddy, and im not risking my ass for him to take mine.

[Prpavi]

Yeeehaw my friend yeehaw...

[Sniger]

A lot of dumb weak bundle of stickss with no knowledge of brasilian street gangs and kids in this thread. The fucking cunt who got shot had quite likely already killed before. If the guy on the bike had hesitated even slightly I have almost no doubt he'd have been shot out of hand. Sure, in a lot of cases, the cops are nothing more than yet another gang, just better funded and equipped, but I still side with them against these fucking hood rats.

The vast majority of poor and disadvantaged people in Brasil struggle daily and work their asses off to achieve a better future for their kids. Poverty is no excuse to become a worthless predatory parasite, no matter how many well-meaning but retardedly naive and sheltered first world ivory tower academics parrot it.

I wonder whether the off-duty officer was just a regular ole' local cop or a PM though (military police, very common in brasilian cities, for very obvious reasons).

fucking word.

i read page after page and wtf havent ppl realized that this is indeed brasil and not US or canada??? then, phew, i reached your post and i could relax again :p


oh and btw, if any of you read the bible, try look up Matthew 26:52: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

[Vodner]

Did the robber actually shoot? No.

Would a human being have been killed if the cop wouldn't have started shooting? No.

Those robbers were about to take off. So they did obviously not try to just kill anyone. Their main intention was to grab the bike and get the hell out of there - do you know why? Did the cop know why? Me neither.

It doesn't much matter if he shot - he pointed his weapon at the officer. As a result, he absolutely needed to die.

Even if he hadn't pointed his weapon at the officer (or, frankly, even if he was unarmed), the shooting would still have been justifiable to prevent the theft of the motorcycle.

[Oberyn]

Hey asshole, how about you stop insulting people over the internet?

Ironic, and no, go fuck yourself. No worries though, let me know if you ever stop by Paris, I'll happily insult you to your (undoubtedly repulsive) face.

[Leshma]

i read page after page and wtf havent ppl realized that this is indeed brasil and not US or canada??? then, phew, i reached your post and i could relax again :p

There's a ton of crime in US a well, they have gangs just as brutal as those guys in Brazil. But I'm fairly sure there are no such gangs where you live.

Problem isn't that Bralizian kiddo got shot and died, that can't be helped anymore and it will happen again. Real issue is there are some people in this thread who believe that this is how police should deal with thieves in nice, developed countries. And they like to call everyone who thinks differently a commie, hippie, bundle of sticks etc. And I have to see that someone called them right winged freaks or chocolate chip cookies (until now).

[Oberyn]

There's a difference between simple thievery and armed robbery. People calling the one who got shot a "thief" are arguing in bad faith or just plain ignorance.
And not a fan of the bible, but I agree with the general sentiment of that quote. As soon as you start playing desperados and threatening innocent people's lives, your life is forfeit. The kid knew that. He doesn't live in a permissive first world country where violent criminals are "rehabilitated" (lol) after serving ridiculously small sentences (Anyone familiar with recidivism stats in most first world countries knows what I'm talking about). He lives in a culture of eye for an eye retribution.

[Oberyn]

It doesn't much matter if he shot - he pointed his weapon at the officer. As a result, he absolutely needed to die.

Even if he hadn't pointed his weapon at the officer (or, frankly, even if he was unarmed), the shooting would still have been justifiable to prevent the theft of the motorcycle.

That's where I disagree. A cop killing someone over a theft is frankly abuse of power from my perspective. In the heat of the moment I could see a civilian licensed to carry shooting an unarmed thief as excuseable, but not a cop, who should know better. He obviously saw it was an armed robbery and intervened appropriately. If the kid hadn't had a weapon it would not have been justified imo.

[zagibu]

The cop should just have shot the gangster's gun out of his hand, like Lucky Luke always does.

[Kafein]

Police rounds gunshot wounds are far from being always lethal with our modern medicine. But I don't get why the cop fired two shots instead of one.

[zagibu]

In military guard service, we learned to always fire two shots, because full metal jacket bullets can pass through a body without doing a lot of harm, and if you hit twice, chances are twice as high that the shot actually did some damage.