|
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 07:19 sMi.EternaL wrote:
Also, I am unable to speak for the dog as a certainty, so take this as an opinion.
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.
They obviously didnt care about protocol or were too untrained to know. If they did they wouldnt have shot the guy an additional 5 times after he was dead.
|
On January 25 2012 07:13 Fealthas wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There's no guarantee that a single shot will drop/incapacitate a normal person, let alone one on drugs or plain crazy. There's also no way of knowing if the target is wearing some sort of body armor. You use enough force to neutralize the threat, period.
|
On January 25 2012 07:20 Sigrun wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 07:09 zalz wrote: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. 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, after he fell to the ground he reached into his pockets or displayed other aggressive behaviors which could have given the officers reason to continue firing.
Could've been mentally ill.
|
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...
We have no way of knowing what the suspect was doing once he hit the ground, he could have been reaching for something in his jacket or trying to swing that weapon.
|
I love, how many scenarios people kind of make up, just to justify 10 bullets into one criminal after both officers failed to keep their distance, failed to use the dog, one buddy didnt pay attention, the other trying to shoot and hold a dog at the same time etc etc
you guys are hilarious!
|
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. looks like assisted suicide to me. or he was tripping some crazy drugs and didn't know wtf was happening. if you threaten a cop with a weapon like that, you will be shot 100%
|
On January 25 2012 07:20 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:19 sMi.EternaL wrote:
Also, I am unable to speak for the dog as a certainty, so take this as an opinion.
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. They obviously didnt care about protocol or were too untrained to know. If they did they wouldnt have shot the guy an additional 5 times after he was dead.
He was still on his feet when the second rounds were fired.
|
On January 25 2012 07:20 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:19 sMi.EternaL wrote:
Also, I am unable to speak for the dog as a certainty, so take this as an opinion.
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. They obviously didnt care about protocol or were too untrained to know. If they did they wouldnt have shot the guy an additional 5 times after he was dead.
Have you read anything I've written at all? I'm telling you, they ARE trained and they DID what they were trained to do. I don't know how to make it any more clear....
|
That police seemed to like to shoot people, wouldnt be to surprised if his statement was way off than what was recorded 
|
On January 25 2012 07:20 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:19 sMi.EternaL wrote:
Also, I am unable to speak for the dog as a certainty, so take this as an opinion.
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. They obviously didnt care about protocol or were too untrained to know. If they did they wouldnt have shot the guy an additional 5 times after he was dead.
the amount of bullshit you have spouted in this thread is amazing. they gave him verbal warnings to no effect; they tasered him to no effect; and then they shot him after he physically threatened an officer.... did they forget to ask "pretty please?"
|
On January 25 2012 05:16 Caryc wrote:
why not shoot him in his fucking legs? wtf..
this brings up a whole new line of questions if this happens. it can subject the criminal to extreme pain/disabilities, so the police are trained to use guns in a strictly lethal manner.
it seems excessive to describe it, but as someone who has hunted before, (totally different extremes i know, but the affect of firing a weapon is still there) the adrenaline rush is insane. I'm sure that had something to do with him unloading on the crowbar guy like he did. in technical terms it is 'excessive', but i do not find any fault with the officer for what he did, nor do i think any less of him as a policeman
|
|
|
On January 25 2012 07:23 Eisregen wrote:
I love, how many scenarios people kind of make up, just to justify 10 bullets into one criminal after both officers failed to keep their distance, failed to use the dog, one buddy didnt pay attention, the other trying to shoot and hold a dog at the same time etc etc
you guys are hilarious!
Agreed, US police training seems to be the issue.
The mentally difference across the Atlantic is quite striking (shocking sometimes).
|
For all the police procedure experts in the thread:
There are posters here advocating that sicking the dog on the suspect would have been the better choice, but the guy had a crowbar and was obviously willing to use it.
Do police use dogs on armed suspects? It doesn't seem to be a good idea to my civilian brain.
|
I hope he hates himself till the end of his life now.
He'll probably just get a promotion though.
|
On January 25 2012 07:20 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 25 2012 07:09 zalz wrote: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. 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.
He sure as hell would care if the difference between five and ten was life and death. Do you know if he could've survived with only five shots in him? No, but the chances are significantly higher.
And the tazing officer failed spectacularily by walking towards an armed man while not looking at him because he was reloading his tazer. That is the definition of fucking stupid.
For all the police procedure experts in the thread:
There are posters here advocating that sicking the dog on the suspect would have been the better choice, but the guy had a crowbar and was obviously willing to use it.
Do police use dogs on armed suspects? It doesn't seem to be a good idea to my civilian brain.
The man had turned around and lowered his weapon after being shot the first five times. That gives you ample opportunity to tackle him, let alone let a dog loose that is faster than you and would probably subdue him more quickly than you.
|
On January 25 2012 07:26 snow2.0 wrote:
I hope he hates himself till the end of his life now.
He'll probably just get a promotion though.
Why should he hate himself for doing his job?
|
On January 25 2012 07:23 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +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. looks like assisted suicide to me. or he was tripping some crazy drugs and didn't know wtf was happening. if you threaten a cop with a weapon like that, you will be shot 100%
lol I'm fucking glad I don't live in the US.
|
On January 25 2012 07:26 haffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:23 Alejandrisha wrote: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. looks like assisted suicide to me. or he was tripping some crazy drugs and didn't know wtf was happening. if you threaten a cop with a weapon like that, you will be shot 100% lol I'm fucking glad I don't live in the US.
We're fucking glad you don't live here too. See? Miracles do happen.
|
On January 25 2012 07:26 Cokefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:26 snow2.0 wrote:
I hope he hates himself till the end of his life now.
He'll probably just get a promotion though. Why should he hate himself for doing his job?
didn't know it was his job to shoot 10 effing bullets into people.
On January 25 2012 07:27 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:26 haffy wrote:On January 25 2012 07:23 Alejandrisha wrote: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. looks like assisted suicide to me. or he was tripping some crazy drugs and didn't know wtf was happening. if you threaten a cop with a weapon like that, you will be shot 100% lol I'm fucking glad I don't live in the US. We're fucking glad you don't live here too. See? Miracles do happen.
Sup, there just happen to be countries where you don't get killed for being in a mentally deranged state.
And certainly not with 10 shots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
