|
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 07:23 sMi.EternaL wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:20 SupLilSon wrote: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....
First off, you have no idea about their training. And many American police are very undertrained, especially in poor areas. And if they were doing what they were trained to do, why did they even have the dog there in the first place? If they knew their training well and knew that the dog was of no use in that situation, why was it there in the first place? Like I said before, they were obviously undertrained or not trained at all. Our law enforcement is such an embarassment.
|
I just can't believe some people. Someone with a lethal weapon attacks a police officer. The police officer does as he is supposed to do and removes the threat. And people give the officer shit.
Apparently, the officer should have let his partner get brained. After all, it's the police officer's job to get killed by criminals. The officer should also have left the suspect free to potentially do incredible amounts of damage to others.
It's ridiculous to call someone trigger happy for shooting at a suspect who's seconds away from killing your partner.
|
On January 25 2012 07:25 bonifaceviii wrote:
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.
Actually they do, dogs are trained to attack suspects with weapons, to attack their arm, and take em to the ground. Do you seriously believe, a sheppard, biting you with full force, wont make you drop your weapon?
. But keep me entertained with your knowledge please.
|
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.
because you plan to break up windows at a carls jr and then brandish weapons at the police?
|
|
|
On January 25 2012 07:19 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:10 timwac wrote:On January 25 2012 07:01 Sgonzo wrote:On January 25 2012 07:00 Junichi wrote: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 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?
If it was just a robbery then no, not at all. But this looks like he just broke some windows then went inside (didn't steal anything) then left. So no.
But in all honestly the police probably wouldn't of actually got to the location before he exited the building. This is England after all.
|
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.
do you normally threaten policeman with crobars o.O?
|
On January 25 2012 07:25 bonifaceviii wrote:
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 problem I have with the people arguing that is that they put it as a consious choice to shoot him instead of sending the dog at him. They shot him as a reaction to him trying to hit a policeman. Before that they had tried the verbal warning and the tazer. If he hadn't tried to hit them maybe they would have sent the dog as the next step (I don't know if they send dogs at armed suspects but you get the point). It's a fallacy to say "oh gosh why didn't they just send the dog."
|
On January 25 2012 07:27 snow2.0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:26 Cokefreak wrote: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. Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:27 RoosterSamurai wrote: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 mentally deranged state.
His job is to protect human lives, which he did. Had he not shot, there could've possible been two bodies on the scene instead of just one.
|
On January 25 2012 07:27 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:23 sMi.EternaL wrote:On January 25 2012 07:20 SupLilSon wrote: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.... First off, you have no idea about their training. And many American police are very undertrained, especially in poor areas. And if they were doing what they were trained to do, why did they even have the dog there in the first place? If they knew their training well and knew that the dog was of no use in that situation, why was it there in the first place? Like I said before, they were obviously undertrained or not trained at all. Our law enforcement is such an embarassment.
You poor fool, he was a marine instructor and is still an arms instructor at the moment. Please read the thread. Please read the thread. Please read the thread. Please read the thread.
Please read the thread.
|
On January 25 2012 07:27 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:23 sMi.EternaL wrote:On January 25 2012 07:20 SupLilSon wrote: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.... First off, you have no idea about their training. And many American police are very undertrained, especially in poor areas. And if they were doing what they were trained to do, why did they even have the dog there in the first place? If they knew their training well and knew that the dog was of no use in that situation, why was it there in the first place? Like I said before, they were obviously undertrained or not trained at all. Our law enforcement is such an embarassment.
this is LA, not a poor area. also, having a dog in case the suspect run seems like a reasonable thing to do. they dont arrive at the scene with 100% knowledge of what is going on. only monday morning quarterbacks have that information.
|
On January 25 2012 07:28 Incognoto wrote:
I just can't believe some people. Someone with a lethal weapon attacks a police officer. The police officer does as he is supposed to do and removes the threat. And people give the officer shit.
Apparently, the officer should have let his partner get brained. After all, it's the police officer's job to get killed by criminals. The officer should also have left the suspect free to potentially do incredible amounts of damage to others.
It's ridiculous to call someone trigger happy for shooting at a suspect who's seconds away from killing your partner.
There's a difference between shooting someone 3-5 times to neutralize a threat and shooting someone ten times, in two different bursts, one of which was after the man had lowered his weapon and turned around in response to being shot.
|
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.[/quote]
The plan was never to only inflict light harm on the target.
He was agressive towards an officer with his weapon drawn. He can pull a gun on you in a split second and kill you. They had to take him out. If 5 bullets didn't do the trick as you said, the other 5 would. They shot to kill, and rightly so.
|
On January 25 2012 07:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:20 SupLilSon wrote: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?"
Funny I could say the exact same thing about you.... It's not as much about what they tried to do and more the fact that they shot him 10 TIMES. Are you mentally ill or just looking for an internet argument?
User was warned for this post
|
On January 25 2012 07:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:28 Incognoto wrote:
I just can't believe some people. Someone with a lethal weapon attacks a police officer. The police officer does as he is supposed to do and removes the threat. And people give the officer shit.
Apparently, the officer should have let his partner get brained. After all, it's the police officer's job to get killed by criminals. The officer should also have left the suspect free to potentially do incredible amounts of damage to others.
It's ridiculous to call someone trigger happy for shooting at a suspect who's seconds away from killing your partner. There's a difference between shooting someone 3-5 times to neutralize a threat and shooting someone ten times, in two different bursts, one of which was after the man had lowered his weapon and turned around in response to being shot.
I ask again like i did pages ago were all the shots from the same officer. Simply put the first officer could have started and the 2nd officer off seeing/hearing the gunshots pull his gun and quickly preceded to open fire as well. People seem to be posting like one officer did all the shooting, taking a nice pause before finishing the guy off.
|
On January 25 2012 07:28 Eisregen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:25 bonifaceviii wrote:
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. Actually they do, dogs are trained to attack suspects with weapons, to attack their arm, and take em to the ground. Do you seriously believe, a sheppard, biting you with full force, wont make you drop your weapon? . But keep me entertained with your knowledge please.
Some years ago in Finland there was a man armed with a shotgun and a police dog was sent after him. The dog bit him on the hand but he just shot the dog, so no, it might not be enough to drop a weapon.
|
I think if he would neutralize him it would had been different but he loaded a shit ton of bullets to him, even when he begun to staggering and fall down. I think if he had just shot him in his legs or maybe the arms, not lethal but still so he couldn't get up. But I think this is just very very very very wrong.
|
I lol@people here thinking the cops were going to just sit back and try to decide the best option. I guarantee most people here in that situation would do the same thing. You don't have time to sit back and think about what to do, it's literally a split second decision and to protect his partner the cop did what he had to do.
|
On January 25 2012 07:27 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:23 sMi.EternaL wrote:On January 25 2012 07:20 SupLilSon wrote: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.... First off, you have no idea about their training. And many American police are very undertrained, especially in poor areas. And if they were doing what they were trained to do, why did they even have the dog there in the first place? If they knew their training well and knew that the dog was of no use in that situation, why was it there in the first place? Like I said before, they were obviously undertrained or not trained at all. Our law enforcement is such an embarassment.
You did not read a single thing Eternal posted prior, did 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.
he took someone who acts like a wild animal off the streets. anyone who is stupid enough to charge at someone with a weapon doesn't deserve any pity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
