EPTSuspect with crowbar killed by police - Page 21
| 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. | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
RogerX
New Zealand3180 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:18 phlebas wrote: Fuck they killed Gordon Freeman. LOL; argh I shouldn't laugh but it made me giggle. The man shalt be scared for the rest of hi remaining life | ||
|
Eisregen
Germany967 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:13 Penecks wrote: Interesting to see the divide between opinions here, just asking: do European countries generally have a tendency for greater criminal rights/more police moderation? Or maybe the posters here just aren't familiar with the violence that can happen in inner city/ghetto areas of the US (though I somewhat doubt this)? I guess the police officers here value life a bit more. Their own and the other life, even if it a criminal. I mean those guys failed so hard in so many aspects. how bad are those trained? Even a soldier can do better than those 2 And we could also start a discussion about, why US got so many problems with ghettos and violence | ||
|
Cokefreak
Finland8096 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24788 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. I'm impressed that you are more knowledgeable on this topic than most police forces in the United States (based on the research of some very reputable groups of people including the secret service and the military, no less). On January 25 2012 07:07 KryptoStorm wrote: 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. Ideally he wouldn't have had the dog.... this isn't the type of situation where a dog is that helpful. However, if he decided not to draw the gun because he was pre-occupied with the dog, his partner very likely would have had a bashed in head. From what I saw, he handled the gun + dog as well as you could be trained to... but nobody is as accurate that way. | ||
|
Spades
United States249 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/justified-fx-premiere_20110325043645.jpg) If an officer pulls his weapon, it is with the intent to kill if necessary, they arent trained to shoot you in the leg. What if you shoot him in the leg and he drops to the floor and pulls a gun or another weapon? Once the situation escalates, it's you die, or they die, I prefer the criminal dies. Completely justified. The extra 5 shots is kind of odd i suppose, but we dont see whats happening, he could be going into his jacket, or something, i doubt he was lying dead on the floor and they decided to pump a few more. They are trained to fire until threat is completely neutralized(dead). Thats why in all these bank robbery movies, you see the cops fire like 100 shots into the bad guys, thats exactly how it works in real life. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:14 dAPhREAk wrote: the dog's life is worth more than the criminal's in my opinion. And it's absolutely pathetic that you think this way. It isn't like this guy was a known serial killer or pedophile or something like that. All we know is that he had a close-ranged weapon and stepped towards the officer. This kind of attitude is sickening and it's an embarrassment to this country. | ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
In my opinion, the first round of bullets are completely justified when it comes to involuntary manslaughter. The second round of bullets were fired after a moment of relief and the suspect was clearly critically injured. If these guys weren't cops, they probably would've been charged with second degree murder, but they're cops so they'll probably get away with it... | ||
|
Cokefreak
Finland8096 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:16 Stratos_speAr wrote: And it's absolutely pathetic that you think this way. It isn't like this guy was a known serial killer or pedophile or something like that. All we know is that he had a close-ranged weapon and stepped towards the officer. This kind of attitude is sickening and it's an embarrassment to this country. Based only on the video I have to agree with dAPhREAk here. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:15 Eisregen wrote: I guess the police officers here value life a bit more. Their own and the other life, even if it a criminal. I mean those guys failed so hard in so many aspects. how bad are those trained? Even a soldier can do better than those 2 Yea, it's pretty obvious those 2 cops were hardly trained or had never been in a life or death situation. It's just sad that shit like this happens all the time here in America because cops are given guns and the rights to kill when many of those cops are pretty much criminals themselves. | ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:00 Kimaker wrote: 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. Yeah I agree. I think that his crimes up to that point didn't justify dying, but at the same time there was no faster way to react to the swing at the other cop than shooting him. Potentially it could have been better to attempt to taze him some more or release the dogs on him as he exited the building, but that's only in hindsight. At the time maybe the cops were thinking he'll give up once he has a few guns pointed in his face and so didn't take a more aggressive course of action, and that's totally reasonable too given they had their guns to fall back on should anything go wrong (as it did). Either way, nothing to go nuts about here. Perhaps somewhat poorly executed by the police overall since they let it get to the point where there was an opportunity for the guy to swing at an officer in the first place, but not the most awful thing I've seen. | ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
| ||
|
sMi.EternaL
United States162 Posts
K9's are generally not employed in a weapons hot situation. There are very strict guidelines and protocols each unit and division of police have for their K9 units. Releasing the dog in this situation would A) put him in direct harms way and B) put him in the line of fire if/when shots are fired. And, it's entirely possible that they were simply not allowed to use the dog in this case due to whatever restriction applied. | ||
|
Sgonzo
Canada202 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:17 LoLAdriankat wrote: When the thug made the motion to swing his weapon, it actually caught me by surprise. If I was in those cop's shoes, I would've made a panic decision, which will most likely be pulling the trigger. In my opinion, the first round of bullets are completely justified when it comes to involuntary manslaughter. The second round of bullets were fired after a moment of relief and the suspect was clearly critically injured. If these guys weren't cops, they probably would've been charged with second degree murder, but they're cops so they'll probably get away with it... ^ indeed | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:16 Stratos_speAr wrote: And it's absolutely pathetic that you think this way. It isn't like this guy was a known serial killer or pedophile or something like that. All we know is that he had a close-ranged weapon and stepped towards the officer. This kind of attitude is sickening and it's an embarrassment to this country. valuing animal life is an embarrassment? if i had to choose between my pets and some random criminal, 100% of the time i would pick my pets. humans have a heightened sense of entitlement considering we are destroying earth and animal life with little remorse. | ||
|
svi
405 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:11 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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. lol. when some retard grabs a crowbar and rushes at someone then he's the one negating the worth of his life. if someone rushes at you with the intent to severely harm you, then they WILLINGLY put their lives at the mercy of your good will. whatever the response is, is justified as long as the cop didn't severely provoke the guy into attacking. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:14 zeru wrote: You are defending the value of the mans life, but saying 5 shots are okay? He wasnt gonna survive after 5 shots. Using his life value as an argument for not shooting the last 5 shots is a bit silly. Sure the shots were unnecessary, but not because it might've saved his life, he was dead no matter what, and it's his own fault. Life isn't an action movie. People can survive from pretty horrible things. Five shots probably did kill him, but he had a significantly better chance to survive five shots than ten, and the last five were quite likely to be completely unnecessary. Like I said, it was completely acceptable to use deadly force in this position - the man was threatening one of the officers' lives. But force should never be used excessively - the man was almost definitely neutralized after the first five shots. If he was dead then, so be it. But the last five shots were completely excessive and served no purpose except to make the idiot that was looking away from an armed man while walking towards him feel better. valuing animal life is an embarrassment? if i had to choose between my pets and some random criminal, 100% of the time i would pick my pets. humans have a heightened sense of entitlement considering we are destroying earth and animal life with little remorse. It's an embarrassment that we think the slightest violation of law forfeits a life's value. Like I said, we don't know the man's circumstances. It's not like he was a known and convicted pedophile. All we know is that he made an aggressive act towards a police officer. Hell, even if it was a known and convicted pedophile, it's not within a police officer's jurisdiction to enact justice on this man - it should be the job of the courts to decide if he should forfeit his life. Giving officers that kind of power is incredibly dangerous. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:10 timwac wrote: 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 So would this kind of situation warrant the special response police to be called in? | ||
Sigrun
United States1655 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:11 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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. I find it hilarious that you're blaming the officer for this. Or you know, maybe that guy shouldn't have gone around carrying a cowbar and smashing shit in the first place, let alone raising it against an armed officer. And secondly, you have no idea if he was a threat at all anymore. Were you there? No- all you're basing this off of is a Youtube video in which you can't see anything after he stumbles behind the car. For all you know, he reached into his pockets or displayed other aggressive behaviors which could have given the officers reason to continue firing. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On January 25 2012 07:11 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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. Correct. Anyone who attempts to atack a police officer with his weapons drawn opens himself to deadly retaliation. That's not negating the worth of the man's life. You simply do not have the right to atack a police officer with his weapon drawn. Such an action will be followed by deadly force. The rest of your post seems a bit peculiar. You don't object to the fact that he was shot, but rather that he was shot 10 times instead of 5 times. I doubt the man himself cared much whether he got 10 or 5 rounds pumped into his corpse. The fact that the police officer missed his tazer is a mistake, but it's exactly that, a mistake. It was spur of the moment, he was being atacked, he missed, that can happen. The criminal did not make a mistake in atacking the officer, he made a choice in atacking the officer. You can be held responsible for your choices, but mistakes much less so. For the record, from what i read the officer didn't miss his tazer. The tazer struck his hoodie and bounced off. In that case it's not even the officers fault. He hit his mark, his mark was just wearing what was essentially body armor for tazers. | ||
| ||
