It's his job to make that judgement, and he clearly is very good at it. Whether you think it's a good idea is irrelevant, as is Lyman's opinion.

If you're a policeman, in any country, you shouldn't shoot someone unless it's absolutely necessary. It's a last resort not a first resort. In the US they regularly shoot a suspect if they shout "stop" and the suspect runs away. That is not good policing and of course there has been numerous incidents where innocent people have been shot and killed.

Optimistic as ever

Firstly 'great judgement'. It was a binary choice, to shoot or not to shoot. Flipping a coin and being right could be called 'great judgement'. You simply don't know upon what basis this Policeman made the call not to shoot.

Secondly, my point and Lyman's implication is that it is dangerous if people start expecting Police to take unrealistic chances with their own lives. Every year Police are murdered because we pay them to put themselves into risky situations.

Like Tomcat suggests, if the Policeman was sure then was no danger and this is good policing....otherwise he was taking a chance with his life.

We don't know yet.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Apr 2018 5.39pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The point I wanted to make was a relatively minor one. I know on these forums that disagreeing on something can seem a bit confrontational but I'm not trying to be.

I felt Lyman had a point. Still, the Policeman made a call that turned out well. If he had been wrong and he'd been shot and killed and this nut had gone onto shooting others I guess we would feel differently about it....still, like I said, great eyesight or whatever it was.

Now the Canadian tax payer can pay for locking this fruit cake up for the rest of his natural.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Apr 2018 7.41pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)