|
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. |
On January 25 2012 06:54 altfornorge wrote:
I dont understand why cops dont fire somewhere like his arms or feet, i don't think anyone will be able do to anything if you get shot like 3 times in your thighs/legs/arms
You shoot to hit him. Their guns are inaccurate and they're trained to shoot where they have the best chance to hit, the torso.
|
On January 25 2012 06:16 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Really? I think 1% risk of death for the cop is worth 100% death risk for the criminal.
|
United States24805 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:56 Calm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:54 altfornorge wrote:
I dont understand why cops dont fire somewhere like his arms or feet, i don't think anyone will be able do to anything if you get shot like 3 times in your thighs/legs/arms You shoot to hit him. Their guns are inaccurate and they're trained to shoot where they have the best chance to hit, the torso.
I would be interested to see all the people posting in this thread tested to see how accurate they are shooting a 9mm with one hand while their friend is about to get his head bashed in and a dog is going crazy pulling on the other arm.
|
Once you attack an officer with a deadly weapon, the officer has every right to shoot you. It's either you dead or the officer dead, and I sure as hell rather have the criminal dead.
|
He tried to attack a police officer.
If you try to take an action like that with guns aimed at you, the response should be clear.
The cop made the right move, his partner was in danger, he stepped in.
|
On January 25 2012 06:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:56 Calm wrote:On January 25 2012 06:54 altfornorge wrote:
I dont understand why cops dont fire somewhere like his arms or feet, i don't think anyone will be able do to anything if you get shot like 3 times in your thighs/legs/arms You shoot to hit him. Their guns are inaccurate and they're trained to shoot where they have the best chance to hit, the torso. I would be interested to see all the people posting in this thread tested to see how accurate they are shooting a 9mm with one hand while their friend is about to get his head bashed in and a dog is going crazy pulling on the other arm.
Let go of the dog? Make sure your partner isn't dumb enough to walk towards an armed man while not looking at him? Not shoot ten times when the first five were obviously enough?
He tried to attack a police officer.
If you try to take an action like that with guns aimed at you, the response should be clear.
The cop made the right move, his partner was in danger, he stepped in.
The issue here isn't responding with deadly force, it's 1) how much force was used (ten shots) and 2) why it was necessary to use that force (why was the tazing officer so close and not paying attention).
|
For anyone who lives in California, you probably know that East LA is a ghetto.
I don't blame the cops at all, they're probably really on the edge on that part of town.
|
On January 25 2012 06:56 Sgonzo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:51 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:44 timwac wrote:On January 25 2012 06:38 jeremycafe wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Completely? LOL. So when the guy makes what appears to be an attempted use of a deadly weapon, the copy should curl up in a ball and hope it doesnt hurt? Fuck off you hippie. They made an attempt to subdue him, and then he made a move towards the cop. COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. In the United Kingdom, the average police officer does not carry a firearm. Do you think they have never been faced with someone with a crow bar? Of course they fucking have. Did it end up in the police officer being dead, ofc not! There are various ways in which to take down this guy without killing him. ^ love your logic, and i love teh UKs idea on police and guns, we have strict gun laws to try and ensure they dont get into criminals hands so we dotn need to arm our police, thus police take th esame risk as the criminals they apprehend i believe that this creates a more understanding approach form officers Your point is irrelevant because the man in this situation wasn't using a gun. He was using an object that you can get from several places in society that could be turned into a weapon, and several other everyday objects could have the exact same effect. ^ and in the uk they deal with these things, heavily used are machetes knives and razor blades nad they amnage to get by without weapons was the point of my post you missed taht i think
I don't believe that in the UK, when police officers get called to a scene with an armed criminal, they go there without weapons.
|
On January 25 2012 06:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:56 Calm wrote:On January 25 2012 06:54 altfornorge wrote:
I dont understand why cops dont fire somewhere like his arms or feet, i don't think anyone will be able do to anything if you get shot like 3 times in your thighs/legs/arms You shoot to hit him. Their guns are inaccurate and they're trained to shoot where they have the best chance to hit, the torso. I would be interested to see all the people posting in this thread tested to see how accurate they are shooting a 9mm with one hand while their friend is about to get his head bashed in and a dog is going crazy pulling on the other arm.
Considering most people in this thread have excessive police training, are ex swat members, fighter pilots and astronauts, I'd say it wouldn't be a problem.
|
Totally reasonable amount of force. Typically this sort of thing bothers me, but in this case the guy was first ignoring the police, and then turned and seemed to charge the officer.
|
Just watched the video....and Holy moly. Did he just empty his whole magazine into that dude??? Wtf is wrong with this guy? Using force when attacked is one thing, but that is just gross. From this distance you can easily aim for certain areas and/or you can easily keep your distance also, which he failed completely on both aspects.
And seriously whoever thinks, that officer had the right to put his whole magazine in that guy, even when he was falling backwards already got no brain at all.
|
Because it got lost in the flood:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=306001¤tpage=14#263
And to address this:
Putting 10 bullets into a single person, no matter how deadly they are is not thinking clearly.
If we used your argument and say these officers attempted to rush and take down this suspect there is a very high likelihood of one of these officers being severely injured or killed. You have absolutely no way of knowing this individuals level of skill or ability. You also have no way of knowing what other weapons he has. For all they know he is former military with vast amounts of training all jacked up on heroine or any other drug. In which case he could have easily managed to distribute a lot of damage in a small window of time. You just cannot know and assuming you can handle someone, even with larger numbers, is the fastest way into a grave.
In the moment, in this situation, these officers did exactly as they were trained as I said earlier.
|
On January 25 2012 07:00 Junichi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:56 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:51 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:44 timwac wrote:On January 25 2012 06:38 jeremycafe wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Completely? LOL. So when the guy makes what appears to be an attempted use of a deadly weapon, the copy should curl up in a ball and hope it doesnt hurt? Fuck off you hippie. They made an attempt to subdue him, and then he made a move towards the cop. COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. In the United Kingdom, the average police officer does not carry a firearm. Do you think they have never been faced with someone with a crow bar? Of course they fucking have. Did it end up in the police officer being dead, ofc not! There are various ways in which to take down this guy without killing him. ^ love your logic, and i love teh UKs idea on police and guns, we have strict gun laws to try and ensure they dont get into criminals hands so we dotn need to arm our police, thus police take th esame risk as the criminals they apprehend i believe that this creates a more understanding approach form officers Your point is irrelevant because the man in this situation wasn't using a gun. He was using an object that you can get from several places in society that could be turned into a weapon, and several other everyday objects could have the exact same effect. ^ and in the uk they deal with these things, heavily used are machetes knives and razor blades nad they amnage to get by without weapons was the point of my post you missed taht i think I don't believe that in the UK, when police officers get called to a scene with an armed criminal, they go there without weapons.
maybe can we get a. uker to shed light
|
On January 25 2012 07:00 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:58 micronesia wrote:On January 25 2012 06:56 Calm wrote:On January 25 2012 06:54 altfornorge wrote:
I dont understand why cops dont fire somewhere like his arms or feet, i don't think anyone will be able do to anything if you get shot like 3 times in your thighs/legs/arms You shoot to hit him. Their guns are inaccurate and they're trained to shoot where they have the best chance to hit, the torso. I would be interested to see all the people posting in this thread tested to see how accurate they are shooting a 9mm with one hand while their friend is about to get his head bashed in and a dog is going crazy pulling on the other arm. Considering most people in this thread has excessive police training, are ex swat members, fighter pilots and astronauts, I'd say it wouldn't be a problem.
Lol too true. But astronauts use ray-guns, and those don't have recoil
|
That looked like a execution, clearly too much force. It's not like the other officers life was in danger being hit by that hammer. Shot him once, in the shoulder or legs.. that should do it
|
I feel like this was completely justified. You do not make aggressive moves towards a cop with a weapon at super close range and expect to get a booboo... it just doesn't work like that.
Also what if the cop had gone to shoot for the legs and missed and the perpatrator had gotten a monstrous swing in on the cop and cracked his skull open and the cop died AND the perpatrator died... People need to think this out more before they come to their final decision of whether this was excessive or justified.
|
On January 25 2012 07:01 sMi.EternaL wrote:Because it got lost in the flood: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=306001¤tpage=14#263And to address this: Show nested quote +Putting 10 bullets into a single person, no matter how deadly they are is not thinking clearly. If we used your argument and say these officers attempted to rush and take down this suspect there is a very high likelihood of one of these officers being severely injured or killed. You have absolutely no way of knowing this individuals level of skill or ability. You also have no way of knowing what other weapons he has. For all they know he is former military with vast amounts of training all jacked up on heroine or any other drug. In which case he could have easily managed to distribute a lot of damage in a small window of time. You just cannot know and assuming you can handle someone, even with larger numbers, is the fastest way into a grave. In the moment, in this situation, these officers did exactly as they were trained as I said earlier.
Very high? The man turned away after being shot and either dropped the weapon to his side or straight up dropped it to the ground. There was very little (if anything) to suggest that the man was still a serious threat to the officer's life after five shots. And they still had the dog that they could've used too.
I feel like this was completely justified. You do not make aggressive moves towards a cop with a weapon at super close range and expect to get a booboo... it just doesn't work like that.
Also what if the cop had gone to shoot for the legs and missed and the perpatrator had gotten a monstrous swing in on the cop and cracked his skull open and the cop died AND the perpatrator died... People need to think this out more before they come to their final decision of whether this was excessive or justified.
Then make sure the tazing officer doesn't do stupid shit. Or release the damn dog. That thing is trained to severely maim and possibly kill if necessary.
|
I wonder what the police officer that shot the suspect thinks about all this in retrospect, whether he used excessive force or whether he was justified in shooting about 10 times. Also I don't get why they got close enough to be in striking distance of the crowbar, it seems pretty clear to me that this could easily have been avoided if they had just moved away from the suspect when he started moving towards the police officers.
All in all, a stupid situation that had an unfortunate and probably avoidable outcome.
|
On January 25 2012 06:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:56 Calm wrote:On January 25 2012 06:54 altfornorge wrote:
I dont understand why cops dont fire somewhere like his arms or feet, i don't think anyone will be able do to anything if you get shot like 3 times in your thighs/legs/arms You shoot to hit him. Their guns are inaccurate and they're trained to shoot where they have the best chance to hit, the torso. I would be interested to see all the people posting in this thread tested to see how accurate they are shooting a 9mm with one hand while their friend is about to get his head bashed in and a dog is going crazy pulling on the other arm.
If we all had training in the use of a firearm and using said firearm accurately under pressure was part of our jobs, I'd expect most of us would be able to do it. Or we wouldn't have that job... uh... Stop making excuses for the police. It's their job, if they can't handle it, they need to be replaced by someone who can.
|
On January 25 2012 07:00 Junichi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 06:56 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 06:51 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 06:44 timwac wrote:On January 25 2012 06:38 jeremycafe wrote:On January 25 2012 06:24 EienShinwa wrote:
This is completely unjustified. I don't understand the logic of this police man.
First of all, when you commit yourself to being a cop, you are putting your safety on the line for the good of the public people. That means EVERYONE, including that man he shot. If you can't safely put a man in custody, you pepper spray/taser him. If that doesn't work you back up and call for backup. You do not just take out your gun and shoot the man when you have your partner right there with you. They should have at least tried to tackle him down and put him in custody. Being a cop doesn't justify killing individuals who would try and go at you, that's in the job description of being a cop in my opinion. It's a danger you are accepting as your responsibility. I really think there could have been other methods, such as leaving the dog to distract him, tackling him down, and disarming/cuffing him. Completely? LOL. So when the guy makes what appears to be an attempted use of a deadly weapon, the copy should curl up in a ball and hope it doesnt hurt? Fuck off you hippie. They made an attempt to subdue him, and then he made a move towards the cop. COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED. In the United Kingdom, the average police officer does not carry a firearm. Do you think they have never been faced with someone with a crow bar? Of course they fucking have. Did it end up in the police officer being dead, ofc not! There are various ways in which to take down this guy without killing him. ^ love your logic, and i love teh UKs idea on police and guns, we have strict gun laws to try and ensure they dont get into criminals hands so we dotn need to arm our police, thus police take th esame risk as the criminals they apprehend i believe that this creates a more understanding approach form officers Your point is irrelevant because the man in this situation wasn't using a gun. He was using an object that you can get from several places in society that could be turned into a weapon, and several other everyday objects could have the exact same effect. ^ and in the uk they deal with these things, heavily used are machetes knives and razor blades nad they amnage to get by without weapons was the point of my post you missed taht i think I don't believe that in the UK, when police officers get called to a scene with an armed criminal, they go there without weapons.
He's also forgetting that there are probably more officers per capata that go to the hospital or die from things like stabbings then there are in say the US, where an officer is more likely to die from heart attack, gunshot or car accident.
We would rather have a criminal die then an officer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
