From the UK, an amazing video for edged weapon training. London police engaged with a distraught man wielding not scissors or a knife, but… a machete. All captured from a smartphone from across the street. The footage was also shown to public safety consultant Terry Coleman, and he was asked if the man would have survived if the scene had taken place in America. After a short pause of finding the right words, the public safety consultant said “no… he would have survived a couple minutes probably.”
Watch the video below:
COPS WOULD HAVE EXECUTED HIM IN AMERICA
IMAGINE if this had happened here! US cops take note, this is how REAL HEROES handle the mentally ill.
Posted by Filming Cops on Thursday, October 29, 2015
interesting but do you know what professional police could do in that situation ? shut by gun in leg without bad injuring and the person is idiot because he should leave the place
I think you may have missed the point of this piece. Police could handle many dangerous situations without the use of a firearm and/or kill the person in question, as demonstrated here, and that the shooting someone should not be the first reaction of the police.
Not sure what you meant by professional police but I can assure you that the Met in the UK are professional. And who should have left the place, the man with the machete? If he did, then you risk him injuring innocent civilians if he was swinging a machete around.
as you can see, a gun was not necessary in this situation. brains over brawn.
I think, think, that the UK Police are actually professionals! A professional does not need to fire a gun to contain a situation until it is absolutely the last resort.
I agree with your sentiments. It would have to be a last resort situation to end the scene with a fatal shooting. The fact is they did restrain him and the least harm came to anyone. He was then sent to hospital, so they were dealing with the situation.
I can guess you are American, sorry mate but as a guy who is currently in the process to be a Special Constable for my local police I can assure you that even though I will be a very minor officer who volunteers I will still be required to go through all training from victim support all the the way to self defense. In the UK, police are not just people with powers to arrest you, they are trained every day, every week and kept on their toes about their badge and what they do for a living. If you work in Security or Policing you are kept up to date on everything in your training, sorry that America doesn’t have this kind of restriction but over here we let all police have almost equal powers, in return they are trained almost equally and kept upto a very high standard. We call that standard, Professionalism. So sorry to make you feel bad, but like I just said in quite some detail, all police are “professional”.
P.S, you’ll be quite surprised to know if you are an Armed-response copper you are still attending the basic of reports of everything a PCSO or Special would. All the difference between armed and unarmed is if someone is in emergencies. Above is not classed as a paramount emergency as he has not attacked anyone and is obviously in distress, in this instance he is “controlled” not “dominated” in America I know you use domination tactics on everyone, over here we try and treat everyone equally except in extreme circumstances, if he was waving a gun around it would be different but as you saw they cornered him and let the sergeant decide the best tactic which to him was send the public order shields which worked out great.
guys… be honest, USA police enjoy shooting civilians…. under the premise “My safety first” they decide when to shoot, but they not take into account any other option… not because they are idiots, because they like to open fire… thats all
USA conservatives enjoy shooting civilians too. They would have praised gun owners for shooting that guy with a machete in the video (I understand that such actions may not be as “bad” as shooting unarmed, innocent people, but those acts are still not to be condoned by myself). They also do not take into account any other option, seeing how they have such a huge “need” (or should I say lust) for guns for “self-defense” while disregarding non-lethal tools such as tasers and shields, which the less conservative British cops utilized instead of guns.
Soory wrong site..
and I think that the UK Police are actually professionals!
In Australia the man would get tasered. Simple and very effective and it would happen in seconds, without seriously injuring him. If there was a firearm involved, obviously it would be a different story. However they wouldn’t shoot to kill.
They use tasters here in the UK. However it does have its risks and again would be used as a last resort. This method has very little risk in comparison. Postural Asphyxiation would be the main issue but only if they are placed face down on the floor for any length of time. Much better policing here in the UK. Our arms response teams are highly trained and are able to manage most situations without the person being murdered!
And if the guy were to have been carrying a gun? That would have been a lot of wounded / dead officers.
This video is so agenda-based. People kill people; not guns.
Exactly why access to guns should be heavily restricted. I think you have unwittingly made a point for the anti-gun lobby, which I suspect was not your intention. People kill people not guns, okay but guns make killing people both easier and more likely. I think the worst thing about US gun control is that a lot of people are misled to believe that the debate is to do with the constitutional right to bear arms, it isn’t. This is about the profits of American gun manufacturers, yet another example of the US siding with big business over the interests of its own citizens. I do believe there is an argument to be made with regard to a citizens right to bear arms but in this instance, the blatant greed of the gun lobby soils any claim to this being about philosophy, it’s about the dirty dollar nowt else.
Excellent comment Singh. I take it you’re Indian American; Indian Americans are *generally* not as pro-gun as “European” Americans (who are so much more conservative than and out of touch with Europeans that no wonder they’re never referred to by their “home” continent while every other American ethnicity is).
What’s interesting about the conservatives’ viewpoint on guns is that they think “Guns don’t kill people” yet they think that guns defend people. Basically removing any blame from a gun when it is used to kill and giving immense credit to a gun when it is used to defend. Conservatives think that criminals will figure out other ways to kill besides using guns, and yet conservatives, unlike British police officers, are unable to figure out other ways to defend besides using guns. Conservatives claim that their ideology promotes innovation, but evidently they’re way less innovative than the liberal Brits when it comes to self-defense.
Excellent comment Singh.
The conservatives do make the case that “Guns don’t kill people”, yet they also believe that guns defend people. For example, they take away any blame to guns whenever they’re used in a mass shooting, but after the attacks on Paris they claim that guns were needed to defend the French, essentially giving credits to guns whenever they’re used in defense.
Sorry for the repeated comment (by Anti-Censorship which is just me). I thought the first comment didn’t get through so I made another comments basically saying the same thing (with a different name).
Do you know why he didn’t have a gun? Because they regulate them. He’s clearly disturbed, he can’t go to the local pawn shop and pick one up for a hundred bucks. They keep guns away from the nut jobs.
There is a huge cultural divide between the USA and the UK. My father (D Day vet) said he thought the yanks killed more French people than they liberated. My experience (Iraq War) suggests little culturally has changed since then. It is why we can easily sign up to the International Criminal Court and the USA cannot…. yet. I live in hope!