EPTUser was warned for this post
User was warned for this post
Suspect with crowbar killed by police - Page 20
| 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. | ||
|
RetroAspect
Belgium219 Posts
User was warned for this post User was warned for this post | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
| ||
|
KryptoStorm
England377 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:50 SupLilSon wrote: I expect TRAINED police officers to be able to overcome ONE suspect when there are TWO OR MORE of them and a KILLER DOG. Like other's have stated, there are countries, like the UK where officers don't even carry firearms. They seem to be able to handle themselve's a right without just murdering everyone who poses somewhat of a threat to them. Too bad most cops in America are uneducated individuals with terrible training. Like I said before cops are supposed to be trained to think with a level head in these situations. Putting 10 bullets into a single person, no matter how deadly they are is not thinking clearly. Thank god someone has it right. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:00 Excludos wrote: 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. Not true, alot of people here are only masters of foreign affairs and preeminent historians Am I the only one that finds the talk between the guys filming more disturbing than the act itself? | ||
|
Eisregen
Germany967 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:02 scatmango2 wrote: 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. In return we can expect cops to use their brains, or am I wrong there? The cops failed so much on many aspects, it is a joke those guys are cops. 1st: they dont keep themselves distant as the guy has a weapon 2nd: They have a dog! Why dont they use it? 3rd: he shoots while holding the Dog, how is he supposed to aim properly for legs/arms or whatever 4th: his buddy doesnt keep his distance and makes himself a target 5th: shooting a complete magazine into a criminal who is already falling backwards, lolz?! 6th: both are total officer failures Not true, alot of people here are only masters of foreign affairs and preeminent historians Am I the only one that finds the talk between the guys filming more disturbing than the act itself? Thought the same tbh..Got that here often also, when an accident happens, ppl tend to do jokes and keepwatching and in fact make it only worse | ||
|
KryptoStorm
England377 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:58 micronesia wrote: 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. Are you serious? You can't be, this 'Police' officer shouldn't be carrying a LETHAL weapon aswell as a dog if he can't handle both at the same time. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
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#263 And to address this: 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. Use the dog? I love dogs to death but seriously. Is the dog's life worth more than a persons? Even if that person is a criminal? People have to look beyond just this single situation. With the way cops are in America, that thug could have been someone's dad or grandfather. Cops in America love to shoot first and ask questions later, thats no secret. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:59 Stratos_speAr wrote: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). The use of force was necessary because he attempted to atack a police officer. Ten shots was seemingly what was needed to be sure the target was dead. You have a criminal that just showed he is more then willing to atack police officers. When that happens, you shoot to kill. You don't put a single bullet in their leg and wait for them to draw a gun out of nowhere and shoot back. The police exists by the grace of criminals. If all the criminals got the idea that shooting at the police was justified then the police would be powerless to fight back. Cop killing has been shown to make violence against cops more likely in the aftermath. It's an imaginary line that, when passed, threatens the stability of an entire area, and the safety of all the cops on duty. You can't take risks with that. Shoot to kill. Ten bullets if that is what it takes to be certain. | ||
|
timwac
Scotland93 Posts
Here is a link to the equipment carried by the Uk police force and the equipment police officers carry. Normal police officers do not carry firearms in any circumstance. Specialist response police officers will intervene should the situation be too dangerous (i.e. person carrying firearm, holding hostage etc etc) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom#Uniform_and_equipment | ||
|
wussleeQ
United States3130 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
after the fact, it appears excessive, but if i were put in the same situation, i dont know if i would have done anything differently. | ||
|
OpticalShot
Canada6330 Posts
| ||
|
Flik
Canada256 Posts
A lot of people have got to live who have committed a lot worse. Shouldn't have threatened to attack a cop but that many shots from that close of range to the upper torso is ridiculous, no chance of survival. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:09 zalz wrote: The use of force was necessary because he attempted to atack a police officer. Ten shots was seemingly what was needed to be sure the target was dead. You have a criminal that just showed he is more then willing to atack police officers. When that happens, you shoot to kill. You don't put a single bullet in their leg and wait for them to draw a gun out of nowhere and shoot back. The police exists by the grace of criminals. If all the criminals got the idea that shooting at the police was justified then the police would be powerless to fight back. Cop killing has been shown to make violence against cops more likely in the aftermath. It's an imaginary line that, when passed, threatens the stability of an entire area, and the safety of all the cops on duty. You can't take risks with that. Shoot to kill. Ten bullets if that is what it takes to be certain. This is an absolutely sickening mindset. You are completely negating the worth of the man's life. Ten shots was not necessary at all. After the first five it was highly, highly questionable as to whether the man was a threat at all anymore, but the second officer (the one with the tazer) just opens up without thinking. Not only that, you're failing to hold the tazing officer accountable for his actions. There's a good chance that if he wasn't dumb enough to be so close to and not paying attention to the man with the weapon, that man would be wounded but still alive right now. | ||
|
sMi.EternaL
United States162 Posts
What I'm trying to illustrate is the fact that no matter how wrong you think they are, this was absolutely text book. These officers first priority is to each other and their families, once that weapon is down, he could have reached into his waistband for a pistol. I'm not saying he did, I'm not saying he didn't. As I said in the first post I made, if you even IMPLY that you have a weapon you may very well find yourself at gun point in best case scenarios and/or, quite likely, dead. This guy didn't imply, he had a weapon, and it was entirely possible he had more weapons. Are you willing to bet your life and the lives of your friends that he didn't? Our outside perspective is utterly clouded, quite literally in this video visually speaking, and by our own set of morals and knowledge of the situation. I am trying to give you the shooters perspective as best as I can, take it for what it's worth. | ||
|
Fealthas
607 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. This law(that lets them kill) is so wrong. 1 shot should be max unless they are armed with a gun. | ||
|
Penecks
United States600 Posts
| ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:05 SupLilSon wrote: 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. Be able to do what? The argument started with someone wondering why you couldn't shoot someone in the legs or arms. If you think anyone can hit a leg or an arm in such a reactionary situation accurately you are seriously deluding yourself or have watched too many movies. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:08 SupLilSon wrote: Use the dog? I love dogs to death but seriously. Is the dog's life worth more than a persons? Even if that person is a criminal? People have to look beyond just this single situation. With the way cops are in America, that thug could have been someone's dad or grandfather. Cops in America love to shoot first and ask questions later, thats no secret. the dog's life is worth more than the criminal's in my opinion. | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
| ||
| ||
