|
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 07:31 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:23 dAPhREAk 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. 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?
Does it matter if they shot him 1 time or 10 times? Their goal was to eliminate the threat, and that is what they did.
|
On January 25 2012 07:31 Cokefreak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:28 Eisregen wrote: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.
What a bear^^
But it still gives you enough time to gain distance, to aim properly.
Even if the dog dies, a life is saved and the officers are out of close danger
|
On January 25 2012 07:24 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +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).
Exactly what I was thinking aswell.
|
why are people defending the guy with the crowbar? what productive end comes from waving a crowbar in front of two armed police officers? he obviously wanted to get shot
|
On January 25 2012 07:31 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:23 dAPhREAk 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. 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?
and how many shots are reasonable while shooting one handed while trying to hold back a dog? i would say enough to get his ass on the ground. i didnt see the officer shooting him after he was on the ground.
|
On January 25 2012 07:31 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:30 Stratos_speAr wrote: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.
That's not a good thing. You're basically saying that because the first officer shot, it was ok for the second to shoot as a reaction, regardless of the situation and consequences. It's idiotic.
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.
you're completely ignoring my point. Five shots was fine. He threatened an officer and the officer with the dog needed to defend the officer with the tazer. Ten shots is not ok, especially when the second burst was after the man lowered his weapon and turned away. Furthermore, the tazing officer should be reprimanded for putting himself in harm's reach. He should've either been better trained or paid attention during his training.
|
It's basic weapons training that you never shoot once.
The amount of misinformation on this topic always seems to baffle me. Police weapons are 9mm, which are not extremely effective for stopping power. You almost ALWAYS need to land 3 bullets just to stop a target from advancing.
Furthermore, there is information this video doesn't show, such as: Maybe he was making a move towards a hidden weapon while on the ground. Maybe he was on drugs (which can make him into superman until he's dead dead). Maybe he missed with half the shots. Maybe something else I'm not thinking of.
Point is simply this... once he chose to shoot, does it really matter how many times he shoots? The thought line behind "shooting him 10 times is worse than 4 times." makes zero sense to me. This is why you do what the cop tells you to do.
|
On January 25 2012 07:33 Eisregen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:31 Cokefreak wrote:On January 25 2012 07:28 Eisregen wrote: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. What a bear^^ But it still gives you enough time to gain distance, to aim properly. Even if the dog dies, a life is saved and the officers are out of close danger
He didn't need time to aim properly, every single round he fired was a hit.
|
This entire thread is full of people speculating without any knowledge other then what they read 10 seconds ago on wikipedia...
The officer was doing his job, any of you elitists saying he was under trained and should hate himself should be ashamed of yourselves, you have no idea how well/poorly this man was trained. I would like to see anybody here handle a lethal situation better then how this officer handled it.
|
On January 25 2012 07:29 FrankWalls 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. do you normally threaten policeman with crobars o.O?
No, but I like to have the option to without risking certain death. Do gangs in America react like this as well, or do they have more self control than police when it comes to other peoples life?
|
On January 25 2012 07:33 Eisregen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:31 Cokefreak wrote:On January 25 2012 07:28 Eisregen wrote: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. What a bear^^ But it still gives you enough time to gain distance, to aim properly. Even if the dog dies, a life is saved and the officers are out of close danger
fuck that. the dog should live....
|
On January 25 2012 07:34 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:31 semantics wrote:On January 25 2012 07:30 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. That's not a good thing. You're basically saying that because the first officer shot, it was ok for the second to shoot as a reaction, regardless of the situation and consequences. It's idiotic. Show nested 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. you're completely ignoring my point. Five shots was fine. He threatened an officer and the officer with the dog needed to defend the officer with the tazer. Ten shots is not ok, especially when the second burst was after the man lowered his weapon and turned away. Furthermore, the tazing officer should be reprimanded for putting himself in harm's reach. He should've either been better trained or paid attention during his training.
Five shots would've killed him too, it's not like he's wearing a bullet proof vest. He would've just bleeded out slower but still was going to die.
|
On January 25 2012 07:31 IMoperator wrote:
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.
Most people would probably, however, there's something called "police training" for police officers in which, supposedly, you are trained in dealing with situations like this and presumably not just "herp derp 'dis de trigger click to fire mkay?"
|
On January 25 2012 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:33 Eisregen wrote:On January 25 2012 07:31 Cokefreak wrote:On January 25 2012 07:28 Eisregen wrote: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. What a bear^^ But it still gives you enough time to gain distance, to aim properly. Even if the dog dies, a life is saved and the officers are out of close danger fuck that. the dog should live....
I agree 100%. I value a dog's life over someone waving a weapon around much more.
|
United States24676 Posts
I'm really not seeing anything accomplished with this thread. I suggest everyone do a ctrl+f for sMi.EternaL
If you have better credentials than him for how the police training went, and want to discuss whether the police were justified in their actions or not, etc, that's relevant to this thread.
If you want to complain about how the police in the USA do things in the USA, that's not really appropriate.
I'm not seeing any progress on the first point.
I'm locking this for a moment to discuss this with other staff.
edit: will unlock with a public note at the top
|
Canada5155 Posts
Unlocked. Discuss reasonably and civilly, please.
|
while the topic was closed i read smi.eternal's post. that should be cut / pasted into the op.... so well stated... i have nothing to add to his comments about police force. i would like to know his thoughts on using the dog to attack though.
|
On January 25 2012 08:21 dAPhREAk wrote:
while the topic was closed i read smi.eternal's post. that should be cut / pasted into the op.... so well stated... i have nothing to add to his comments about police force. i would like to know his thoughts on using the dog to attack though.
I was going to post something similar.
|
The Police in the USA have a zero tolerance policy. ( which i believe every police force should have, not like here in the UK ) he was right to fire his weapon, but the amount of times from the officer was abit excessive. although the first 3 shots of a reasonable response might have killed him anyway.
|
So, I don't understand the emphasis on the number of shots fired. They (officers) shoot to kill when their life is in danger. They're not gonna shoot once and then check the criminal's pulse to see if he still has a heart beat. If the officer's life is in danger, they shoot until they're DAMN sure that the criminal with the deadly weapon is incapacitated.
I'd rather have that than the officer shooting once to subdue the criminal, then criminal proceeds to pull out a gun and kill said officer.
Edit: I guess I'll link to Eternal's post since he seems knowledgeable in this area:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=306001¤tpage=14#263
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
