6 hours ago, CharlieH said:

there would have been enough to restrain him.

If he had a knife, no one would be restraining him without serious risk of death.

 

6 hours ago, CharlieH said:

They could have just as easily shot the legs and dropped him.

 

That's something you see in the movies.  It isn't an option in real life.

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

If he had a knife, no one would be restraining him without serious risk of death.

 

 

That's something you see in the movies.  It isn't an option in real life.

"If" and of course "in your opinion".

1 minute ago, CharlieH said:

"If"

 

Yes, but it seems fairly likely.  If you're operating under the assumption that he was unarmed, I think that's a faulty assumption.  I don't believe for a second that guns would have been drawn if he was unarmed.

 

1 minute ago, CharlieH said:

"in your opinion".

 

Nope.  Those are facts.

 

If someone is coming at you, shoot to wound isn't going to work (fact).  You shoot to stop the threat (fact, if you don't want to get stabbed).  The chance of restraining someone holding a knife without getting seriously injured is also very low (fact).

Suicide by Cop... was his achieved goal

6 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

"in your opinion"

 

Not really, outside Hollywood law enforcement will continue to train to hit centre mass to stop the threat to themselves and the public (for the pedantic, yes there are highly trained specialist officers but not who we're talking about here). 

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Yes, but it seems fairly likely.  If you're operating under the assumption that he was unarmed, I think that's a faulty assumption.  I don't believe for a second that guns would have been drawn if he was unarmed.

 

 

Nope.  Those are facts.

 

If someone is coming at you, shoot to wound isn't going to work (fact).  You shoot to stop the threat (fact, if you don't want to get stabbed).  The chance of restraining someone holding a knife without getting seriously injured is also very low (fact).

But your "fact" is based on assumption he was armed when shot, we dont know that.

 

Yes I agree that Enforcement will shoot to stop an armed person, but we dont know that what the case.

5 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

Not really, outside Hollywood law enforcement will continue to train to hit centre mass to stop the threat to themselves and the public (for the pedantic, yes there are highly trained specialist officers but not who we're talking about here). 

Of an armed person yes, but we have no knowledge that he was armed at the time of the shooting.

Its speculation, not facts in evidence.

RIP to the poor lady.

What a mother had to suffer due to her off-spring.

Sad... very sad.

6 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Of an armed person yes, but we have no knowledge that he was armed at the time of the shooting.

 

Armed or not isn't the question per se; if a law enforcement officer uses deadly force then they aim for centre mass. I'm not debating or questioning whether deadly force was justified (as you rightly state we don't have the facts to have an informed opinion on that), just the Hollywood version of shooting someone in the leg.

27 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

Armed or not isn't the question per se; if a law enforcement officer uses deadly force then they aim for centre mass. I'm not debating or questioning whether deadly force was justified (as you rightly state we don't have the facts to have an informed opinion on that), just the Hollywood version of shooting someone in the leg.

I assume you are basing your comment on US enforcement behaviour/techniques and dont know what is actually applicable in Thailand.

By way of example in other countries, (as I dont know whats taught here either) but for the purposes of discussion you can see approaches vary and who knows what is "preferred" in Thailand, again speculation at this point.

 

In Finland and Norway, officers must get permission from a superior officer before shooting to wound.

"Officers in Spain should first fire a warning shot, then aim for non-vital body parts, before resorting to lethal force.

In Sweden, if the police shoot at a person, they should endeavor to “temporarily incapacitate the person. The shots should be primarily directed at the legs”. The same goes in the Netherlands.

And in Denmark “force must be used as considerately as possible under the circumstances and so as to minimise any bodily harm”.

 

 

21 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

I assume you are basing your comment on US enforcement behaviour/techniques and dont know what is actually applicable in Thailand.

 

Fair to assume, but partially incorrect (I'm not American). They do follow similar training but heaven help us if we all end up with some of the trigger happy types they have.

 

Thanks for the links, seems to be changes afoot in the EU; certainly they didn't have those guidelines when I lived there for a while 30 odd years ago nor do I see Thailand being so ... enlightened. 

Troll comment removed.

RIP the mother.

16 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Irrelevant.  If he would not have done it without the drugs, it is a reasonable observation to make.

Well than it was his Choice Take the drugs or not take the drugs .

That was the point that I was making .

Nothing at all to do with  "Irrelevant" Statement