EPTExcessive would be loading another clip and continuing to shoot after it was clear he was dead. What happened here was a guy forced police to use deadly force and the cop using deadly force stuck to his training to the letter.
Suspect with crowbar killed by police - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING: The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. If you feel the need to post a reaction to the news, post a comment on the youtube video. Don't bring it here. This thread is for a discussion on the topic, and your post better have substance to it. Low content posts will be met with moderator action. Here is a good post by someone with experience in escalation of force training. Read that too. This post might change your opinion of in the incident. | ||
|
Dekoth
United States527 Posts
Excessive would be loading another clip and continuing to shoot after it was clear he was dead. What happened here was a guy forced police to use deadly force and the cop using deadly force stuck to his training to the letter. | ||
|
silentsaint
Germany540 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:34 Blixy213 wrote: The trained to shoot to kill, not to just drop somebody to save themselves, which he did. Is it like that in the states? In Germany you only are allowed to use lethal force if there was no other way to save your life or another life. In this case shooting at the limbs and keeping a good distance could be sufficient. Maybe the other officer was to near to the subject for the taste of his armed colleague. Edit: also I wouldn't recommend tasering someone with a weapon who is in the action of using it | ||
|
Sgonzo
Canada202 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:08 Excludos wrote: Obviously your experience covers an accident and not a criminal jacked up on adrenaline trying to attack someone. The two are very, very different. its very possible the criminal might not even notice a shot to the stomache before a few seconds later, at which point its a bit late. ^ it involved a robbery of a drug house so yeah | ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:00 Sgonzo wrote: in my experience(ive seen someone shot once), a gut shot puts you into shock and you get light headed and fall to the ground casue blood ceases to flow properly through your body and that was a .38 caliber shell fired from a snub nosed revolver in my experience (i've seen someone shot once with a military rifle!) it took 4 shots and nearly 20 seconds before the target fell down. That doesn't take into accounts what drugs the subject might have taken, or in what state of mind he is. Many people react to shock differently, you described one of the common shock reactions, rage and berserk actions is another common one to being wounded. Shooting to wound is a hollywood concept since ANY bullet wound is serious buisness, that is quite true, but depending on the constitution of the person being shot they might still be very dangerous until bloodloss causes them to black out (at the earliest 20 seconds after being shot). Frankly i'd call 10 bullets excessive force, so the cop who was shooting definitly should be retired to a desk chair and or given some counseling / training before he is sent back on the field. But regardless how many bullets he shot in the end, his partner was threatened with lethal force after repeated warnings and an attempt to tazer (which had failed). In such a situation there is basically no other choice besides shooting him. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:10 MassacrisM wrote: It's a frickin crowbar and it barely looks dangerous. If it was a machete, or an edged weapon of sorts this would be justified, but really ? Emptying a clip at a guy at pointblank range ? This is pathetic. And here I thought police are people with at least some training at disarming or have some hand-to-hand skills to deal with situation like this. Turns out they're just your average incompetent overweight pieces of meat at the corner of the street with guns. Hahahah. Yeah dude, it was a perfect chance to show off his "hand-to-hand" skills! Stand back everybody, watch my partner here, who isn't looking, fend off this dude who is about about to smash him with a crowbar! | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:09 Warillions wrote: i agree with there not suppose to shoot to stun, thats why they have pepper spray and tazers. why did they approach that situation with 1 tazer attempt and then shoot to kill (they shouldnt have). 3 cops there... the situation should have been resolved differently. there chief of police and mayor all need investigating. the cop that shot was trigger happy and noone there. and 10 shots is too much. the man pumped 10 rounds in a man with a stick. srsly Eh, they shot when he made a move to swing the hammer towards the officer. You put it like they decided the pepper spray didn't work and then decided to kill him. The second round of shot was excessive though. | ||
|
choas
Canada23 Posts
| ||
|
Calm
Canada380 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:11 Tula wrote: in my experience (i've seen someone shot once with a military rifle!) it took 4 shots and nearly 20 seconds before the target fell down. That doesn't take into accounts what drugs the subject might have taken, or in what state of mind he is. Many people react to shock differently, you described one of the common shock reactions, rage and berserk actions is another common one to being wounded. Shooting to wound is a hollywood concept since ANY bullet wound is serious buisness, that is quite true, but depending on the constitution of the person being shot they might still be very dangerous until bloodloss causes them to black out (at the earliest 20 seconds after being shot). Frankly i'd call 10 bullets excessive force, so the cop who was shooting definitly should be retired to a desk chair and or given some counseling / training before he is sent back on the field. But regardless how many bullets he shot in the end, his partner was threatened with lethal force after repeated warnings and an attempt to tazer (which had failed). In such a situation there is basically no other choice besides shooting him. I agree with your suggestion for the outcome. Police policy will be updated to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, as we can all agree it's not desirable. However, this officer does not deserve the about half the people seem to suggest. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7943 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:11 Sgonzo wrote: ^ it involved a robbery of a drug house so yeah Well, we can sit here all night going "what if", but the truth is that everyone reacts different at different times. The truth is that it can happen, and therefore its stupid to not prepare accordingly. I wouldn't stop after a single shot either if someone was about to swing a hammer at me. And when the adrenaline takes over, I would probably not be able to stop when I notice him about to hit the ground either. Most likely I'll shoot another shot or two, just like this police officer did. It all goes incredibly fast after all, and you really don't have time to react to what your eyes see. | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote: excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. The cops in my country try to stop with minimum amount of violence. This means if attacked, like in the movie, they try to avoid by going back. If not possible they shoot at the legs. They also learn to don't go so close in the first place. Only if harm for them self or others if not avoidable in any other way, they are allowed to to shout at the body (and take the chance this one shot can kill). Every time a police officer use his weapon, they open a case to check if it was justified. We think that every life is worth full here. Cant say if its the laws in your country, or your opinion only, thats so brutal. perhaps some American can lighten this up. | ||
|
Rixi
Spain77 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote: excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. since when is the police supposed to shoot to kill? that guy was a minor threat. the dog could have done the job or a round and the dog. 10 rounds is way too much. now some mother lost his retard son forever because a cop didn't know how to do his job. | ||
|
pedalpusher
United Kingdom56 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:07 Candadar wrote: In the analysis of the above situation, it's important to consider the following questions: 1. What is the policy of the local law enforcement organisation (in this case Califoria State Police) on the use of firearms of by police officers in such a situation? 2. Is this policy reasonable? Does it stand in line with the stance of other police forces in America or elsewhere in the world? 3. Did the officer follow this policy in this instance? So lets answer these questions. 1. Through a bit of research I have found the following: EO 756 - Authorized Weapons, Weapons Training and Use of Weapons in California University State Police Departments - available from: http://www.calstate.edu/EO/EO-756.pdf . I think this document should be indicative of overall state policing policy on firearms. Page 4 of of this document reads: It is the policy of California law enforcement to resort to the use of a firearm under law when it appears to be resonably necessary. An officer is justified in the use of a firearm: 1. To protect him/herself or others from what he/she reasonably believes to be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; or 2. To effect (...) The relvent section here is point 1. See the original document if you are curious for more. 2. I think that this is a pretty reasonable policy, it is similar to the one for firearms bearing officers in the UK. 3. The suspect moves in clearly to strike a police officer with a dangerous weapon, a threat capable of, as inscribed above "serious bodily injury" on a police officer. This therefore justifes the use of a firearm. However, once the suspect has been shot even just once the idea that he is still a serious threat is utterly absurd. I've seen a few posts previous to mine stating in effect that 9mm ammunition is incapable of significant harm to a human if only a single round is used. This people obviously do not know what they are talking about and I would refer them it the below video: I will conclude by saying: the police officer's use of TEN close range 9mm rounds an the target was clear an exsessive use of force and in breach of local firearms policy. He should be punished for his action and this action and this event should be used as an example of poor police conduct within the USA. | ||
|
Sgonzo
Canada202 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:11 Tula wrote: in my experience (i've seen someone shot once with a military rifle!) it took 4 shots and nearly 20 seconds before the target fell down. That doesn't take into accounts what drugs the subject might have taken, or in what state of mind he is. Many people react to shock differently, you described one of the common shock reactions, rage and berserk actions is another common one to being wounded. Shooting to wound is a hollywood concept since ANY bullet wound is serious buisness, that is quite true, but depending on the constitution of the person being shot they might still be very dangerous until bloodloss causes them to black out (at the earliest 20 seconds after being shot). Frankly i'd call 10 bullets excessive force, so the cop who was shooting definitly should be retired to a desk chair and or given some counseling / training before he is sent back on the field. But regardless how many bullets he shot in the end, his partner was threatened with lethal force after repeated warnings and an attempt to tazer (which had failed). In such a situation there is basically no other choice besides shooting him. ^ 4 shots from what? a .22 short target rifle, 5.56 nato rounds have been know to go straight through and not hitting vital organs leave target alive btu thats when couted wioth teflon and the target goes down, they just dont the reason why the military will keep shooting is cuz the target on the gorund bleeding out ahs an AK-47 assault rifle and can still press the trigger this man armed with prybar of sorts doesnt have the luxury of ak-47 in hand so why? and again please let me know what caliber the rifle you saw someone get shot with 4 times to go down | ||
micronesia
United States24569 Posts
I don't know the details of police training in this type of situation, but my understanding is when you make the determination to shoot a person due to the danger they are posing (which he did), you first a burst and then immediately assess. If the target has not gone down you fire another burst. People who have been shot by 9mm have been known to kill police officers afterwards. The cop that fired his gun wasn't even using two hands; he was holding the dog with one hand. This reduced the accuracy of the shots and greatly increased the chances of misses during the first burst, and therefore the overall stopping power (shooting with one arm is very poor, even at close range unless you are playing some videogame or watching a movie). A 9mm doesn't actually have a lot of stopping power so you can't do something like that in a half assed manner. If someone approaches a cop with a deadly weapon they should expect to get killed. I don't think it was an intentional death by police on the part of the victim although it's not easy to tell. What people should be making a bigger deal about here is the officer who approached the target to attempt to hit him with a tazer shot... he kinda screwed up there and probably will need his training re-evaluated. He's the one who put the officer with the gun in such a tough spot. | ||
|
Carson
Canada820 Posts
That's the training they get, I assume it's the same in the USA. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:55 FireS wrote: why not let the dog on him .. this is so bad .. It turns out that Americans love their dogs WAY more than their violent criminals. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:11 Torte de Lini wrote: It's easy to criticize if the officer used too many shots when we have it on video and not at all attached to the event. I don't think criticizing how many bullets were used is really worthwhile. It just feels like we're scrutinizing the smallest shit. The real issue is the mindset. Should cops take a small risk to try to save the idiot who's attacking them with a crowbar? I feel like the answer should be yes. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32027 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:07 wunsun wrote: From my point of view, the officer could have released the dog after the first string of shots instead of firing the second string of shots. The suspect back was toward the officers and dog, and he seemed to be going down. At this point the dog being released seems to be a better alternative than shooting the second set of shots. However, I do understand the adrendaline pumping through the officer's blood may have resulted in him making sure that he and his buddies (dog included) are safe. It is still the exact same situation as I described before. They've reached the point of no return on lethal force and this is no reason to risk an officer to subdue a suspect. Also, those bullets are from the second officer. So there's a big risk that the dog gets shot by one of the officers since they're already engaging. lastly, that guy is still standing after five shots from the first video. It's the second volley from the second officer that takes him out. | ||
|
dnosrc
Germany454 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:54 UmiNotsuki wrote: This is justified in my opinion. They tried to use a taser, didn't work, and then the dude threatened them. Better him than the officer, that's for sure. In the heat of the moment it's easy to kill someone with a gun rather than just disable them, and the officer was scared for the lives of his fellow officer so he kept shooting. What's done is done, glad it worked out this way rather than not shooting him. How can you possibly disable someone (instead of killing) when you shoot him 10 times in the chest? So if you threaten a officer you have forfeited your live. If thats how it is in the US i hope it will stay there. | ||
| ||
