|
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.
Not only that, but many K9 units are minimally trained in combat. As a last resort to disarm a suspect. They are much more valuable as a deterrent and used for searching for suspects than as a "weapon" against threats.
|
I dont think the situation, as we can see it in the video is were it went wrong. What i absolutely do not understand is the police behaviour in the first place, and i would like if someone who maybe is a policeman or knows what the official routine is could give a little insight, so my question is:
Why do they "lure" him into this situationthe first place. Because they seem to be well prepared they seem to know that the guy will move out through the front door. Why do they stand so close, and why do they talk to him from behind?
I think the fact that he didnt see the policemen in the first place really provokes such a situation, especially if you are on drugs or in a place where attacking someone from behind is a common thing?(Which this area seems to be, at least that was mentioned in some posts).
I think if they would just have stood away they could have avoided the whole thing. If you stand away he can't attack you with a melee weapon, if he draws a gun you can still shoot, and if he tries to run you can obiously chase him.
Also: After watching the video again i noticed that the guy actually pulled earphones out. So he possibly didnt even here what the policemen told him. So just imagine you walk out of a door, hear music, you hear something, turn around , see a gun, what are you going to do? Actually after noticing that i think the police behaviour was very very bad and risky and completely avoidable.
|
On January 25 2012 08:31 aksfjh 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. Not only that, but many K9 units are minimally trained in combat. As a last resort to disarm a suspect. They are much more valuable as a deterrent and used for searching for suspects than as a "weapon" against threats.
I would also point out that a trained dog like that costs a lot of money, whereas a bullet costs much less. If there's a chance the dog would be injured, I would guess the police force would refrain from using them.
|
On January 25 2012 08:31 aksfjh 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. Not only that, but many K9 units are minimally trained in combat. As a last resort to disarm a suspect. They are much more valuable as a deterrent and used for searching for suspects than as a "weapon" against threats.
Also most officers place their lives over the K9 units, because that's just the sense of brotherhood that they have (I don't have any police training, but I've spoken at length to a lot of local K9 units because german shepards are really cute).
|
United States5162 Posts
On January 25 2012 08:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
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.
I personally think the number of shots is important because as much as they have every right to use lethal force, I think the primary goal should be to eliminate the threat, which doesn't have to end with death even if you shoot the perpetrator. If you can disable them with only 3 shots there's probably a good chance of death, but it's still less then if you shoot them 10 times(not taking location into account).
In this case I think the first burst of fire was perfectly acceptable. The second burst seems questionable considering it looks like the guy had turned around hunched over and was about to fall the the ground. The benefit of the doubt goes to the cops, but I really hope there was something else going on that we couldn't see.
|
I get really scared when I read some of your statements. How do you think the rest of the worlds police forces handles potentially dangerous situations? Do you honestly believe shooting that guy ten fucking times to DEATH was the only proper solution to that situation?
And just a side thought, what the FUCK was the use of the dog? Send the beast on that metal swinging fuck wad, or wrestle that ass to the ground, or pepper spray the shit out of him, or use the 5 TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS to 1 STREET PUNK advantage and overwhelm that sorry ass. But no, in America, shooting the fucker dead is the proper response apparently, an attitude which you bring with you when you meddle in other nations affairs across the globe. I honestly can't find words for how sick your country has become.
I apologize for generalizing like this, but you guys are fucking insane.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 25 2012 08:23 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'm going to chime in here aswell and say that eternal's post post should be brought to attention.
The officers acted accordingly to the situation they found themselves in and used lethal force as their training had taught them to.
The incident might have ended differently (better?) if the officers had not been as close to the suspect as they were, if the back officer's taser shot connected, or the third officer managed to land his succesfully. However it's rather hard to estimate the exact positions based on the grainy footage and the angle from which it was shot, so I cannot be sure. I also imagine the officers might have felt they had to act quickly to keep the suspect from getting close to bystanders.
I'd be interested to get someone with expertise in this field to comment on the officers' handling of the situation prior to the shots being fired with regards to keeping distance and such.
|
No taser? No remote attempts at leg shots? The guy looked like he was all bark and no bite, just pulling the hammer back in threat and trying to walk away... and the insane amount of shots fired... should get manslaughter at least imo, but he'll probably just get a paid day off, as most cops do.
Edit: And why are the officers walking right up to the guy? Almost like they want any little excuse to shoot him and provoke him.
|
On January 25 2012 08:34 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:31 aksfjh 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. Not only that, but many K9 units are minimally trained in combat. As a last resort to disarm a suspect. They are much more valuable as a deterrent and used for searching for suspects than as a "weapon" against threats. Also most officers place their lives over the K9 units, because that's just the sense of brotherhood that they have (I don't have any police training, but I've spoken at length to a lot of local K9 units because german shepards are really cute).
My sister has 2 K9 trained German shepherds. She used to work at a facility that raised them for people all over the globe. Apparently, one of her dogs flips out and will disarm her when she pulls out her airsoft pistol on the other side of the house.
|
On January 25 2012 08:39 Powerpill wrote:
No taser? No remote attempts at leg shots? The guy looked like he was all bark and no bite, just pulling the hammer back in threat and trying to walk away... and the insane amount of shots fired... should get manslaughter at least imo, but he'll probably just get a paid day off, as most cops do.
Edit: And why are the officers walking right up to the guy? Almost like they want any little excuse to shoot him and provoke him.
they did try to taser him. please watch the video with your eyes open this time.
|
On January 25 2012 08:35 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
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. I personally think the number of shots is important because as much as they have every right to use lethal force, I think the primary goal should be to eliminate the threat, which doesn't have to end with death even if you shoot the perpetrator. If you can disable them with only 3 shots there's probably a good chance of death, but it's still less then if you shoot them 10 times(not taking location into account).
It is and it isn't. It's subjective how many shots it takes for an officer to consider a threat to be neutralized. I've never been in that situation and I don't pretend that I know I would have the control to use the exact number of bullets to neutralize a threat. I think we should cut the officer some slack for that reason. The review process will determine if he was out of line. I imagine a panel of his peers would decide, people who know more about the situation.
At the same time, my gut reaction to a similar story in my town was that too many bullets were fired. I talked to an officer after that, someone whose opinion I respect a lot, and he said almost exactly what I have said. Everyone will handle this situation differently, so it's hard to determine what is excess.
|
I think if the majority of people understood the concept that guns are not meant to subdue, this thread would be about 24 pages shorter.
|
On January 25 2012 08:40 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:34 Endymion wrote:On January 25 2012 08:31 aksfjh 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. Not only that, but many K9 units are minimally trained in combat. As a last resort to disarm a suspect. They are much more valuable as a deterrent and used for searching for suspects than as a "weapon" against threats. Also most officers place their lives over the K9 units, because that's just the sense of brotherhood that they have (I don't have any police training, but I've spoken at length to a lot of local K9 units because german shepards are really cute). My sister has 2 K9 trained German shepherds. She used to work at a facility that raised them for people all over the globe. Apparently, one of her dogs flips out and will disarm her when she pulls out her airsoft pistol on the other side of the house.
Which works well against a woman holding an airsoft gun loaded with not-ammunition which is not being utilized to kill said dog.
|
Seems legit to me.
You make a threatening move towards a police officer with a deadly weapon and you get put in the ground. Simple as that. These guys put their lives on the line every day, and most of us have no idea what it's like to be in a situation where someone could try to kill you at any moment. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as this dirtbag started waving a crowbar around, he invited this response.
Also, I'm not sure how anyone can try to excuse him by blaming it on drugs or being a dangerous area. If whatever drugs the man is taking cause him to behave this way, then he's obviously a danger to society regardless. And if it's a dangerous area, that probably gives some insight into why the cop was so trigger-happy. If the thug doesn't feel safe, how do you think the cops feel?
What it comes down to is inequality of life. If I'm a cop, you better believe I'm going to take down some random gangbanger if I think he's a threat to myself, my partner, or the civilians nearby. And in the heat of the moment it can be hard to realize when he's no longer a threat. Until you're in that situation I don't know how you can judge him for it.
|
On January 25 2012 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I dont think the situation, as we can see it in the video is were it went wrong. What i absolutely do not understand is the police behaviour in the first place, and i would like if someone who maybe is a policeman or knows what the official routine is could give a little insight, so my question is:
Why do they "lure" him into this situationthe first place. Because they seem to be well prepared they seem to know that the guy will move out through the front door. Why do they stand so close, and why do they talk to him from behind?
I think the fact that he didnt see the policemen in the first place really provokes such a situation, especially if you are on drugs or in a place where attacking someone from behind is a common thing?(Which this area seems to be, at least that was mentioned in some posts).
I think if they would just have stood away they could have avoided the whole thing. If you stand away he can't attack you with a melee weapon, if he draws a gun you can still shoot, and if he tries to run you can obiously chase him.
Also: After watching the video again i noticed that the guy actually pulled earphones out. So he possibly didnt even here what the policemen told him. So just imagine you walk out of a door, hear music, you hear something, turn around , see a gun, what are you going to do? Actually after noticing that i think the police behaviour was very very bad and risky and completely avoidable.
He clearly both saw and heard the police as he walked out the door but instead of following their instructions he continues walking away (he turns his head to look directly at them while you can hear the police screaming at him). It's not like they snuck up behind him.
|
On January 25 2012 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:
I dont think the situation, as we can see it in the video is were it went wrong. What i absolutely do not understand is the police behaviour in the first place, and i would like if someone who maybe is a policeman or knows what the official routine is could give a little insight, so my question is:
Why do they "lure" him into this situation into the first place. Because they seem to be well prepared they seem to know that the guy will move out through the front door. Why do they stand so close, and why do they talk to him from behind?
I think the fact that he didnt see the policemen in the first place really provokes such a situation, especially if you are on drugs or in a place where attacking someone from behind is a common thing?(Which this area seems to be, at least that was mentioned in some posts)
I think if they would just have stand away they could have avoided the whole thing. If you stand away he can't attack you with a melee weapon, if he draws a gun you can still shoot, and if he tries to run you can obiously chase him.
That is pretty much standard procedure to a certain extent.
They take position so that the suspect cannot see them when he exits the building (mostly to avoid the suspect taking hostages) and then challenge them and give verbal warnings from a certain range (5-10m optimal range in Austria, not sure what they train for in the USA).
They need to be close enough to be clearly understood, and also to reduce the chance of bystanders to become involved. The video is not good enough to accuratly judge the distance, but it seems to be about 5m.
Anything beyond that range makes it almost impossible to tazer someone (unless he is in swim shorts). Even at the range he used the tazer failed because he did not hit correctly.
If they stand away more than that they cannot stop him from drawing a gun in many situations, it also becomes difficult to shoot accuratly with a handgun beyond 10m range.
To make my position clear again, i agree that 10 shots is too much, but i harshly disagree with the fact that it makes a difference. Once the situation has escalated to shooting level its almost certain the suspect being shot at will die. If a suspect attacks (or threatens to attack very clearly) a police officer with a deadly weapon, i have no sympathy for them.
Ps: Nowadays most police dogs are not actually trained to attack suspects, they are used to search for drugs, bombs, bodies etc.
PPS: German and Austrian police would have reacted almost the same if they had operated by the book. The only difference is they would likely not have brought a tazer in the first place, but if a suspect refuses to disarm and approaches a police officer with something close to a weapon they will be required to shoot for center mass by their training.
edit: From the sound it seems to me as if the shots were fired from two different guns. Possible different reaction speeds from the two officers present. Also note that we have absolutly zero knowledge what happened behind that car, from the way they kept their guns trained on him, it certainly doesn't seem to me as if the police officers considered him completly disabled or dead.
|
On January 25 2012 08:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:39 Powerpill wrote:
No taser? No remote attempts at leg shots? The guy looked like he was all bark and no bite, just pulling the hammer back in threat and trying to walk away... and the insane amount of shots fired... should get manslaughter at least imo, but he'll probably just get a paid day off, as most cops do.
Edit: And why are the officers walking right up to the guy? Almost like they want any little excuse to shoot him and provoke him. they did try to taser him. please watch the video with your eyes open this time.
Oh missed the failed 1 attempt in the beginning, no need to be rude sir. Still, I'm sure they had more than 1 taser between the bunch of them, or at least shoot the knee caps.
|
On January 25 2012 08:40 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:34 Endymion wrote:On January 25 2012 08:31 aksfjh 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. Not only that, but many K9 units are minimally trained in combat. As a last resort to disarm a suspect. They are much more valuable as a deterrent and used for searching for suspects than as a "weapon" against threats. Also most officers place their lives over the K9 units, because that's just the sense of brotherhood that they have (I don't have any police training, but I've spoken at length to a lot of local K9 units because german shepards are really cute). My sister has 2 K9 trained German shepherds. She used to work at a facility that raised them for people all over the globe. Apparently, one of her dogs flips out and will disarm her when she pulls out her airsoft pistol on the other side of the house.
Interesting insight. I'm actually kind of surprised by this. But it's also up to the police to deploy it.
|
seems like they were scared he took a taser to the face with no reaction.
|
On January 25 2012 07:34 haffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:29 FrankWalls 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. 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?
uhh im not sure what you're saying exactly, but if you mess with a gang at all you are playing russian roulette. like even if you accidentally make the wrong hand signal in a bad area by accident that can mean death. it's really not even remotely comparable
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
