That was dangerous, she could've hit the hostage too..... , but it didn't happen luckily. She couldn't control her emotions and shot 4 times to make sure that he was dead But meh even at good news people will still be hating =P
i wouldn't call that good news.... 1) she highly risked shooting the hostage 2) sprayed the motherfucker with bullets.... extremely overkill, no professionalism 3) the fucker had a butter knife.... there could have been other ways to apprehend the criminal alive, and have him face a trial. i'd say only one out of two objectives was accomplished, and at the same time, risking the life of the hostage. over here, this would have been considered a failed operation
this kind of news is always broadcasted in china...nothing new love the hosts speech at the end describing the cop XD
i agree with everything, but to discuss the notion of requiring one shot or more, if the intent was to kill, then yes, an officer needs to follow up the initial shot with 2 more... the assailant was disabled from the initial shot, and could have been brought into custody, alive (unless the shot was fatal, could not tell from the video). i'm just saying that she was spraying the disabled assailant when he was on the ground, obviously in a state that he is no longer a risk.... i thought that shooting the criminal when he was already disabled is completely unnecessary, ruthless and unprofessional
cant believe that asshole stabbed her im the arm ....... your already in shit .. dont make it worse ...... fucking dickhead criminals
Saw this on Chinese news, they called her a hero and a specialist or something. What she did was risky even if she have a lot of training in firearms, at least that's what the news said and if it was a regular person or police, they wouldn't dare...
wow i think 1 shot was enough...4 shots is a bit excessive.... stabbing the lady in arm wasnt good either. You would get caught eventually since theres so many people surrounding you. minus will just give up so u can spend less time in prison >>
Who the hell stands in the open and decides to stab a girl while being surrounded with police forces? Atleast the brave girl is safe.
It's quite amazing how everyone just assumed he was a criminal. It could have been a man suffering from a mental sickness without getting the proper help. Nonetheless what he did was wrong. The officer is not a hero just a cold blooded killer, laughing about it after a kill.
^ what ? what you on ... everyone assumed because it was obv if your telling me someone that took someone hostage and stabbed her and demanded things .. then obv hes a criminal ... how can that be a metal illness? if it was he would self more then take someone hostage for a long period time .... chuuiieewwwwww
Of course he made himself a criminal the moment he took a hostage. But what is the reason behind it? Who was this guy and what pushed him to such action. Can you tell if the person was sane or not? What if he was really sick? He asked for a reporter and so he obviously had something to tell, they never sent the reporter to him. Instead of finding out how to solve this problem humanely, they chose to disable him and then execute him in cold blood.
You're correct in your assumptions if you're living in and talking about the western world. However, in the eastern world, especially one that still resides beneath a totalitarian umbrella; well, that's like walking into a hamburger restaurant and trying to order sushi. Also, your characterization of "...executing him in cold blood" is rather extreme and wholly off the mark. There is a major difference between putting someone against a wall to kill him with a bullet to the back of the head (which China routinely does too, BTW) versus killing an armed and (by his actions) proven dangerous criminal. Despite the fact that he may have had any multitude of legitimate emotional, clinical, political or personal reasons for his unhappiness, once he took a hostage and began hurting her, he limited the actions that police (in this case, read as "the state") could take. He himself escalated the event to where he would easily lose his life. Similar to a man that stands at the edge of a windy cliff and is then swept off; who is to blame? The wind? Or is it the man who should have known better? That is, armed hostage takers the world over, routinely face death by law enforcement; any reasonable person should know and expect this as a potential outcome. To worsen that situation, this was an armed hostage taker in a totalitarian society; which almost guarantees the outcome of a swift death. I mean, there are major differences in how police of Iran, North Korea, and the PRC responds when compared to the western world. One cannot use law enforcement templates from the US, Canada or UK and apply them to other restrictive political environments. Also, you noted that the officer was "laughing about killing the man." I beg to differ; in cases of life or death struggle, there is a tremendous release of adrenaline during the event, followed by a period of withdrawal from the flight or fight response. She wasn't laughing because she killed him, she was laughing because she's relieved. This is classically known as nervous laughter. An example would be if someone, say... had bungee jumped for the first time, I would expect to see the same laughter on their face. They're not laughing because of a belief that bungee jumping is humorously comical, they're laughing because they're still alive and around to talk about it. Regarding the number of shots, in another forum, I had this same discussion, and someone had remembered the unfortunate mistaken killing of an unarmed African immigrant by NYPD several years ago. In that case, the police fired a total of 41 bullets, of which 46% (19 rounds, or less than half) struck the victim, and only 10% (4 shots) were considered lethal. My point is, the officer in this case had no real way of knowing whether the suspect was truly incapacitated or not after the first shot. Using only a small personal sidearm, there is very much a likelihood that it would take several shots to kill someone. The desired "One shot, one kill" scenario only really works in computer games and or trained high caliber military sniper engagements. After the first shot, the suspect was still in close physical proximity of the hostage AND the officer; the officer did absolutely the right thing by making sure that the suspect would never get up again. That is, she filled him was as many bullets in as short a time as possible. Again, the only fault I find with her actions was the fact that she chose to take it at all, as it put the hostage at greater risk. She chose to engage the suspect with an inaccurate, hard to control and under powered weapon. She could have just as likely shot the hostage in the eye and killed her instantly, or missed the suspect entirely but genuinely enraged him enough to kill the hostage. At the point of the action, he was still asking for something to drink and wanted access to news cameras. She should have thus engaged his focus in idle conversation and continued to dangle carrots, and given a trained team time to get into position. By moving forward as she did, she was entirely reckless and disregarded the safety of both the hostage and herself. Either way, the man was a already a dead man because of his actions. This is communist China; the political implications thereof are that armed actions of any kind would be dealt with swiftly and without mercy. It is as much about their system of social control as it is about law enforcement. Also, your implication that they should have sent a reporter in to talk to him, so that he would be able to publicly air his complaints in an effort to end this "humanely" is rather politically naive. One has to always remember that the PRC will never allow those who are dissatisfied to have access to any public medium to air their differences. One has to remember that this is a country which routinely imprisons human rights lawyers, Hello?
