There can be only one.
Isn’t it standard police training for cops to keep shooting until a suspect is actually on the ground? I think the reasoning is that a wounded person can still shoot a gun or swing a bat, and that therefore someone should be treated as dangerous until it is clear that the suspect is no longer a risk.
When a cop makes the decision to use his weapon, it is for lethal purposes only.
Maybe the guy tried to use his girl as a shield or ran at her with the sword directing the fire?
Maybe it was a female cop? (That explains EVERYTHING).
HASSAN CHOP!!
On another note, this quote from the victim’s sister-in-law just seems so wrong…
Yeah, because we all know that a female just can’t do the job like a male can. 
C’mon! How could you not like this guy?
http://www.javacoffeebreak.com/articles/authorprofiles/horton_ivor/
-Rav
Bullshit. It’s a life threatening situation, if it’s a choice between you or your partner dying or the guy with the sword, the sword guy loses.
Yes, yes, yes. I’ve never said I disagree with this. All I’m saying is that if after 14 shots, 2 of which have actually HIT her partner, she has shown that she completely fucked up in that responsibility.
Yes, in a life threatening situation you go for the kill, whatever it takes, but if it takes 14 shots to take down a man armed with a sword, then you are obviously not cut out for police work.
But he was just one letter away from making a clean getaway!
Again, bullshit. You shoot until the threat is neutralized. In a shoot/no shoot situation you have a split second to decide. What if the sword wielder was grappling with the partner, about to stab him? Do you shoot and possibly hit your partner, or wait and let him be stabbed to death. We don’t know the details, we are not qualified to judge the cop’s actions.
Garr!!! You are still missing the point. Does ANYBODY here understand what I am saying?
YES. SHOOT UNTIL THE SON OF A BITCH IS ON THE GROUND BLEEDING, I AGREE.
But if that takes 14 goddamn bullets then someone is exercising poor fire control, poor accuracy, POOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SKILLS.
I’m not questioning the officer’s judgement, I’m questioning her ABILITY.
And yes, I agree, as I did before, that unless we were there or at least have a very detailed knowledge of the situation we can’t know for certain what to make of it.
But I find a situation in which a competent, controlled officer would need to use 14 bullets against a non-firearm wielding target to be very unlikely.
Yeah I see what you are saying Capt.
Maybe she doesn’t have the coolest head or the best aim, which of course can be a bad thing for a LEO.
Depending on the circumstances 14 shots could be a lot or a little.
I envision a a nut charging the officer with a sword and a wild 8 to 10 seconds of shooting taking place.
I think it’s because your point is pointless. In an emergency situation, with a guy who just almost beheaded his wife, who is lunging at you and your partner… it’s not a gun range type of thing, it’s not nearly as easy as you see it on television. The target is moving, despite what you may think, shooting at another human being is not similar to shooting at a paper target at a shooting range. You have no basis at all to judge the skills of the officer, there is not nearly enough information in the article to do so. There will be an investigation of the shooting and a hearing. Every time a law enforcement officer fires their weapon in the line of duty the is an investigation.
What you think of the situation does not concern me in the least, you have no basis to make any judgements. I will wait until the investigation is done and experts who have all of the facts and testimony give their views on the events.
Well, I don’t want to get into a big fight about this. Just as long as everyone understands that I have no beef with her judgement.
I would contend, however, that I have paintballed and hunted with pistols. And it seemed to me like it is as easy as it looks. But you are correct, my assessment of the situation is little more than uninformed opinion; I wouldn’t claim it as anything else.
Now let’s just sit back and have another good laugh at the story like we properly should. 
No problem… it urks me when people think the shooting of another human being is easy. Taking or being willing to take a human life, even when in self defense, is never easy. Many police officers end up in therapy after a line of duty shooting, others quit or request desk jobs. The thought of killing someone also makes the physical act of shooting more difficult also.
In this case, who knows? Being in a situation where you could soon be very dead makes everything a little more difficult.
Sure, but even a person in the worst possible scenario can handle it poorly. I almost always give the benefit of the doubt to the LEO in these cases.
We’ll have to wait for details to come to life though.
Eh, something tells me this is a one headline story. They already got our attention, why bother to ever follow up on it?
I think you are right.
Okay Raven, Ivor Horton seems okay…coincidentally, I just enrolled in my first C++ course last week. Perhaps he’ll be the author of my text. Dantheman, what letter are you referring to? “Y” ? ? ?
It’s probably worth noting that the sword-wielder was only hit in the legs, and the injured officer was shot in a knee. This would seem to suggest where the firing officer was aiming. (The injured officer was also struck in the chest, but his vest stopped that projectile.)
The article also states that the assailant was charging both officers, not grappling one. While ‘circling around’ can be a good LEO technique, they are taught not to interfere with lines of fire, and it is often impractical indoors. While we only know the second- or third-hand account given by the reporter, ‘charging the officers’ doesn’t sound like the injured officer was on the other side of the assailant. Perhaps there were riccochets off a nearby hard surface.
In general, shooting limb is an order of magnitude harder than shooting the torso. It may be desirable when the officer is not in imminent danger. I can see this kind of outcome arising rationally in a situation where the officer is being threatened with a deadly weapon, but feels confident with their ability to manage the situation nonlethally. Firearms may be employed to prevent the situation from escalating to a predictable risk of imminent harm.
As many have said, we do not know what happened, but the leg wounds are compatible with a level-headed officer, with room to withdraw, sought to bring down a weapon-wielding citizen without killing him, or allowing him to close to a dangerous range.
The injuries to the partner gives the account a different emotional color that seems to have made some leap to the assumption that the firing officer panicked, buy the injury to the (vulnerable) knee may have been a riccochet, rather than close range direct fire.