Crazy naked dude chews a man's face off

[elvor0]

Well no, he didn't kill anyone, mainly because he was killed himself before he managed to do so, what if he had killed the man before he had been shot? The crazy, bullet shrugging naked man was eating someones face, I'm pretty sure that's intent to kill right there. Granted the copper may have been able to pistol whip him into submission, but in that scenario I would imagine he panicked, having just seen what he did, shot the crazy man coming at him, who then proceded to keep coming, leading him to panic further and unload four more bullets. I don't necessarily condone his actions, there were other possible outcomes, but I'm not going to berate him for it either; he saved a life and he has to live with what happened.

No doubt the naked zombie man would have gone on to kill but consider something...

A police officer arrives at the scene, broad daylight, people screaming, a naked man is eating another man's face. The two are obviously in close proximity.

The police officer is shocked and draws his weapon and commands the guy to back away. The command is ignored so the officer shoots.

He shoots at the attacker who is inches from the victim. The zombie man shrugs off the wound, the police officer fires again, a further 3 times in quick succession at a target which is a mere foot away from the victim.

Do you really think that opening fire in a panic when the chances of hitting an innocent are sky high was a good tactical decision?

I don't, I call that a bad decision. A desperate decision that was extremely lucky not to have ended with the victim also being shot and killed. Any police officer worth his salt knows that when he draws his weapon he should be prepared to shoot to kill. At the forefront of his mind should be the safety of the public. I just don't find it a reasonable risk when non-lethal methods were available to him.

I've got nothing against the police, they do fine work. But If I were to accept armed police officers patrolling my streets, I'd like to know damned well they won't fire their weapons when I am standing one foot away from the target, how about you?

That is a very good point, and for the most part I agree with you, it's just that on paper isn't quite the same as real life and we don't have the officers statement on what he felt, so the only way I can rationalize it is how I might've reacted in that scenario, but then I'm not a copper, nor was I there, so y'know...

 

[Daveman]

YAY!

 

[Raven's Nest]

It's not much of a choice for me. I'd rather take the even odds of surviving the officer opening fire, than the almost certainty of dying from getting my face eaten off.

I'm trying to demonstrate that being shot at by a panicked, adrenaline pumped police officer (who could have been fresh out of the academy) does not present even odds of survival.

All that's happened here is that the police officer was extremely lucky not to have shot the victim at all. If he had, the headlines would have been very different and the police force put under serious scrutiny about their policy concerning the use of lethal force.

I can appreciate that your feelings around this will be different because you are used to the idea of regular police officers carrying firearms. But in my country they do not, and I don't feel any less safe for it. Our firearms laws put police officers under extreme scrutiny when it comes to discharging even non-lethal weapons.

Take a recent incident where a man named Raoul Moat [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt] committed serial murders and evaded police for six days before a stand off between him and the police at a farmhouse. He was a former soldier and armed to the teeth.

The police were criticised for using tasers (they were being trialed at this time), on the suspect who was holding a shotgun to his head and subsequently blew his head off after being tased. It was not known who had fired first. The courts ruled that Moat had indeed shot himself first.

This was a man, armed and proven extremely dangerous and our police force still have to hold themselves accountable every time they opt for the use of lethal force.

If our criminals knew that in a tight spot the chances of them being shot dead by a police officer go up do you think that would encourage him to remain calm during a confrontation? Chances are they will get desperate and that leads to innocents being either killed or injured.

I appreciate that this guy in Miami was disturbed and committing an awful attack, but the question of how US police officers use lethal force when the chance of killing an innocent is high is something that needs to be answered. The innocent deserve that much don't you think?

 

[Daverson]

I'm in England, so being overseas I'm rather safe, for now.
Though I will buy the Zombie Survival Guide soon.

Also, the top comment on the video suggests they keep the victim under watch in case he turns.
YES, PRECAUTIONS.

I'll bet a lot more people from the Florida area have arrived in the UK recently, given the Olympics and whatnot.

How long do you think the incubation period is? Long enough to catch an important flight? Given the attacker's reported physical injuries, it's unlikely he was "patient zero".

 

[Raven's Nest]

And I'm saying that the odds are still better to not get killed by the cop, than to not get killed by the insane person biting my face off.

What is more lethal, human teeth or a stray bullet?

Yes, which wouldn't have changed the fact that not shooting would have ended the same way, i.e. a dead victim with no face.

No, a non-lethal method could also have stopped the attack.

I'm sorry to hear that you're so incredibly distrusting of your police that they have to be afraid to use any measure of force under any circumstances.

It's not about a lack of trust all, quite the opposite. Our (UK) armed response teams are among the best trained shooters in a civilian police force. They can and do use lethal force but they also hold themselves extremely accountable. We don't have regular joe policeman with a few hours of range practice roaming our streets and drawing weapons on unarmed attackers, zombified or not.

Did it really matter? If they hadn't tased him, he would have killed himself. They did, and he killed himself anyway. I don't feel any sympathy for the serial killer under these circumstances.

Yes it really did matter. Our judicial system prefers to take criminals alive and hold them accountable for their crimes. If the gunman commits suicide, no justice has been served and it is against the law for police officers to allow a suicide to take place. The only exception is when there is an immediate threat to life and even then, caution is exercised.

And so will the officer in this case. Do you honestly think the police simply go "yup, justified" and everything continues as normal? Because you'd be wrong. He shot and killed a man in the line of duty. He will temporarily be removed and placed on desk duty, if not outright a paid leave of absence while a thorough investigation will determine whether it was a justified shooting or not. And even if or when he is cleared of the act, they'll still make him to go a police counselor for a psychiatric review before allowing him to return to his duties.

"Based on the information provided, our Miami police officer is a hero and saved a life," Javier Ortiz, spokesman for Miami police?s Fraternal Order of Police, told the Herald.

This doesn't sound like the response of a police department wholly concerned with the discharge of firearms around innocents.

If your criminals knew that your police would hesitate before using even non-lethal force against them, that they'd be more likely to believe that they could continue with their crime and escape justice? Chances are they'd run and try to avoid the limited range of the police tasers. "Stop, or I'll shoot" is a pretty good way of getting someone to stop, especially if you're backing it up with a lethal weapon.

Yet our levels of violent or fatal street crimes are considerably smaller than that of the US. Do we simply have nicer criminals? Not likely. Having a criminal run away is better than a prolonged hostage situation because the longer they stand there thinking there is no way out then the more chance they will end up hurting someone. It's that simple.

As I said before, if you don't shoot, they're going to die. If you do shoot, they might not die. It's really as simple as that. I feel safer putting my safety in the hands of trained law enforcement, rather than the probably drugged-beyond-all-reasonable-capacity-for-reason man who took 'bite me' as an invitation.

Again, it's not a sure bet that a non-lethal take down wouldn't have stopped the crime. If these methods are preferable and successful in my country and that we don't have people living in constant fear then what does that say about the need for all officers to carry firearms? You might feel safer because you don't know any different, well that and you allow anyone to carry firearms. If we arm our police officers then regular criminals will start carrying firearms themselves and a huge majority of UK citizens are against relaxing any of our firearm laws.

 

[Loud Hawk]

Only on The Escapist would everyone die, because it would be morally "wrong" to shoot the zombie. TBH I think PC has gone too far, when people are blaming and officer for shooting a guy that was "eating" another man's face.

"I told him get off," Mr Vega told WSVN Fox 7 . "The guy just kept eating the other guy away like ripping his skin."

He said he alerted a police officer, who warned the attacker several times to back away from the victim.

"The guy just stood his head up like that with a piece of flesh in his mouth and growled," Mr Vega said.

 

[Iron Criterion]

...You're joking right? If a naked man was chewing on someone's face and didn't seem the least bit fazed by the first shot, I'd put him down too.

Who are you to decide whether he should die or not?

You've got to be trolling. For the sake of humanity I hope you are.

The dude was either on Angel Dust or psychotic, so he wasn't going to listen to reason and Angel Dust makes you resistant to pain and very hard to stop. So would you rather the police have tried to wrestle the ravenous man down, with the real risk of serious injury? No, they warned him and he attacked - after eating another human's face. Sure he didn't necessarily deserve to die but the police officers don't deserve to have to put their safety at risk trying to non-lethally stop lunatics like this.

Edit: I seriously doubt anyone in the officer's position would be considering a non-lethal take-down, despite what all the "OMG, he didn't deserve to die" liberals in this thread are saying.

 

[TheRealJLars]

You guys have never been to Miami Beach. lol
Ridiculous shit like this happens all the time in South Florida. Well, not exactly like this, but basically like this.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Why did the police have to shoot the crazy guy? Sure, he tried to attack the police, but surely there are other ways to stop him than to kill him...

You've got to be joking...

 

[Dfskelleton]

Well, as much Zombie-themed media is going around right now, I think most people would probably go all gung-ho and end up completely eliminating the threat. In fact, people would probably be dissapointed once they run out of zombies to kill.

OT: Crazy story. However, looking about this thread, I simply cannot fathom why anyone would try to defend a man who was literally devouring the face of another man, unless of course you're trolling. Police officers are trained to shoot only when innocents are in grave danger. If having your face eaten isn't considered "grave danger", then you'd better get a dictionary and look up the definition of "grave".
Oh, and "shoot him in the legs"? Not only is that equally likely to kill him, but I think you heavily underestimate how difficult it would be to perfectly place a bullet in something that's in constant gyrating motion, or doing so without risk of civillian casualties.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

So the stereotypical European do not want policemen shooting crazy people? Well I'm ok with that. And I must say, I am not against policemen wearing and using their guns, I'm just saying that he could have stopped him in a different way, like shooting him in the legs. But given the circumstance, I guess he freaked out. I would've.

A crazy person who has apparantly killed another person and is actively consuming them in broad daylight? A crazy person who does not respond to requests to stop the god damn insanity?

What, then, is the proper response to a person who has shown a willingness and capacity for murder and a disregard for cooperation bearing in mind that said crazy person was initially injurued by gunfire and didn't stop what they were doing?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

This doesn't sound like the response of a police department wholly concerned with the discharge of firearms around innocents.

If you are going to use a weapon in a city, there are always bystanders. Thus one of the fundamental rules of handling a firearm: be sure of your target and what is beyond it. Such rules are not of an organization - the person holding the weapon is the singular authority sin such a situation. He fired a weapon. He hit his target. He did not cause injury with a stray nor with penetration.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

While I didn't really care to listen to the news video(watched it to see if actual footage came up and it didn't) the article I read mentioned that he told the guy to back away from the other guy and when he didn't stop eating him he shot him. Considering he's biting off the other guy's face I think shooting him at that point is justified, the other guy's life is in danger. Though not sure which would be more accurate the article or the video.

My problem is that the police shot an unarmed man. If this were to happen in a place where regular police officers don't carry guns, the police officer would have found another method of taking him down without killing him. But as far as I know this police officer didn't even try.

There is potential for crazy zombie style attacks anywhere. American police are far too trigger happy for my liking. As I said, I'm glad I don't live there.

Unarmed is not the same thing as helpless. An unarmed person can still deliver lethal injury. We are, after all, rather fragile.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Uh, no. I'm pretty sure bullets in your legs will persuade you to stop running/moving.

The human body is not Hollywood-resilient. Getting shot in the leg is still likely to kill you, for instance of an artery is hit. You shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all. That's how it works.

I think the better way to put it is quite simply to point to the laws of gun safety. A firearm is a lethal instrument. If one is going to shoot something it should only be done with the implicit assumption that it will destroy the target.

More to the point, hitting a target center of mass is simpler than in the leg and more predictable. Even at point blank range, were I to discharge my Sig into a person's torso, the current load of ammunition is not likely to penetrate the target. By contrast, the bonded hollow points currently loaded in my gun could relatively easily punch through a lower leg even if the resulting penetration was by little more than bullet fragments.

I mean, it seems fairly obvious to me. You don't aim at the Torso because that is a particularly effective place to poke holes if you intend to kill someone: you do it because it is both the slowest moving part of the human body and because your rounds have the least chance of exiting the target.