|
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 08:46 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 07:34 haffy wrote: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
Having grown up in Los Angeles I can verify that there are places that you never want to go.
|
Why are so many people not seeing what happened?
The man ignored the taser. An officer who probably had a wife and kids was less than a second away from having his head turned into a fresh red splatter on the pavement. There was no time to switch weapons and hope that it worked this time. The officer shot to kill, as he had to. Any bullets launched after the initial firing were negligible at best. A bullet to your center of mass, which is where a cop typically aims when seeking to kill, is very hard to survive.
Also, I wonder why people here think that the officers need to value their own life so far below that of a murderous criminal?
The monster was brazenly walking around breaking things with guns pointed at him and tried to kill an officer. The officer saves lives on a daily basis, probably has a wife, kids, etc.
The criminals breaks things... and people.
|
|
|
On January 25 2012 08:48 azdzaazfaz wrote:
If you are ok with that because it is "standard procedure" then you have been successfully brain-washed, congrats.
If you are talking to me (since i used those words a few posts before you), i must congratulate you on both missunderstanding my post and completly missing the point.
Those distances are standard procedure to protect the cop and the bystanders first, while making sure the suspect still has due warning that he is about to be arrested.
What alternative would you prefer? Standing 50m away? You can clearly see how hard it is for the police in the vid to clear bystanders away as close as they are (the first 30s of the clip), from 50m away they would not have been able to attempt an arrest. Hell he likely wouldn't have heard them in any normal city.
There is no information why he was arrested in the video, but from the article it seems pretty clear that he was dangerous and armed and needed to be arrested.
Everything from that point on, is his decision. He decided to raise his weapon and move towards the cop.
|
I'm wondering where people are getting the idea of warning shots, shots to the feet, legs or knees, sending a K9 against someone armed and dangerous. Is this all from movies or something? This isn't done irl.
maybe they think crowbars only do 5 damage.
|
On January 25 2012 08:56 zeru wrote:
I'm wondering where people are getting the idea of warning shots, shots to the feet, legs or knees, sending a K9 against someone armed and dangerous. Is this all from movies or something? This isn't done irl.
That's what I'm assuming about those people. Apparently, cops are all crackshots and K9 are the dogs from C&C.
|
This is why they have pepper spray... Not for spraying protesters, but for situations like this.
|
On January 25 2012 08:56 zeru wrote:
I'm wondering where people are getting the idea of warning shots, shots to the feet, legs or knees, sending a K9 against someone armed and dangerous. Is this all from movies or something? This isn't done irl.
Well, warning shots are standard (in certain situations) in some countries, otherwise I agree. I know Swedish police use warning shots against people with knifes and such.
|
Completely justified.. I remember hearing from a police officer who spoke at my school that they never shoot unless it is to kill.
As for the "9 or 10" shots fired, I'm assuming he was just worried. I probably would do the same because I'm a wimp. You really can't say he did anything wrong.
|
On January 25 2012 08:59 Voltaire wrote:
This is why they have pepper spray... Not for spraying protesters, but for situations like this.
I'll give you pepper spray and I'll take an ice pick. We'll see if you feel adequately protected from me swinging madly in your general direction.
|
On January 25 2012 08:59 Voltaire wrote:
This is why they have pepper spray... Not for spraying protesters, but for situations like this.
You really think pepper spray will subdue him? Especially when he was about to crush that officer's skull in?
|
On January 25 2012 08:59 Voltaire wrote:
This is why they have pepper spray... Not for spraying protesters, but for situations like this.
They tasered him but it didn't do anything to stop him, so I really dont think pepper spray is going to be any better :/
|
On January 25 2012 08:53 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:47 Nawyria wrote:On January 25 2012 08:44 Tula wrote:
...
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.
... If I understand you correctly they got as close as they did to get within warning distance and the effective range of tasers, and they did it as fast as they did to minimize the risk to bystanders? Seems reasonable to me. Yes, those are the basic arguments explained to me in my training. If you are shouting from 20m away you personally might be fairly safe, but there might be (and often are) quite a few bystanders far closer to the suspect. I am not quite sure if the word can be used in English for this context, but in German it's called "Wirkungsraum", i guess the closest translation would area of intervention (instead of effect which would be literal). You need to be close enough to restrict the options for the suspect (run away, take hostage, take cover behind something before shooting etc.) without unduly exposing yourselve to risks (meaning definitly outside of meele range).
Thanks for clearing that up. It seems to me then the police were trying to keep the suspect away from bystanders and disarm him as soon as possible. When the order to lay down his weapon was ignored and suspect turned on the back officer after the taser failed to connect, the situation turned ugly. The K9 officer had little choice but to fire his weapon, while the back officer drew his weapon and (possibly not registering the first shots) fired a burst of his own.
It seems to me that if the officers had kept their distance they would be putting bystanders at risk and we might be wondering why the police force had failed to protect innocent citizens from an armed suspect.
|
I'm not conding the policeman's actions, but you guys are idiots if you think it's easy to shoot a guy in the legs when he's charging you with a crowbar and your heart is literally going through the roof.
One wrong shot and the officers got a concussion/dead, it would have been different if the guy was 15 feet away.
The extra shots were really unnecessary and almost disturbing however.
|
On January 25 2012 08:56 zeru wrote:
I'm wondering where people are getting the idea of warning shots, shots to the feet, legs or knees, sending a K9 against someone armed and dangerous. Is this all from movies or something? This isn't done irl.
combination of movies and different procedures in some countries (though most have stopped using warning shots).
The only area where i know warning shots still happen is in military areas. If you approach a closed off area they are supposed to give a warning shot and a verbal warning.
For police actions warning shots are forbidden in many countries because the risk of accidents is too high in urban areas. Some of the people arguing for a warning shot might come from countries where those are still in use (Switzerland is the only one i know of).
|
Wow pretty unnecessary.
I mean I know technically the guy had a deadly weapon but to ends one life just like that.
Atleast fire two at him maybe in the feet. But from how it sounded and looked from what I could tell he was aiming to kill
|
In USA the police are trained are shoot to kill.
This is 100% false. The only time this statement would be correct is when we are discussing a precision shot when snipers are deployed. IE: Hostage situations etc.
Military and LEOs' are trained to stop the threat. In virtually every academy or weapons training facility in America that translate to this: Three rounds, center mass.
As I said earlier, it is never the intention of the shooter to kill but in a "time is life" situation three shots center mass, repeated as necessary, is the fastest way to stop the threat. Unfortunately yes, the chance of a fatality is high. However, the suspect knows this, it's no secret that if you attempt to harm anyone (officer or civilian) the police will (hopefully) be there to stop you as effectively as they can.
at least shoot the knee caps.
This only occurs in the movies and tv shows. I can tell you from experience the worlds greatest shooters of paper turn into erratic-at-best shooters when under the type of stress this situation puts on you.
As someone so eloquently put earlier, police are sworn to protect everyone, including the criminals. Well, if you go around trying to precision shoot someone in the knee or arm or some such the chances of missing are VERY high and that translates to someone else getting hurt. When you aim center mass you lower your chance of missing which lowers your chance of collateral damage on nearby civilians/friendlies behind or around your intended target.
If you ever get the chance there is a very simple very basic test you can do to get a tiny tiny taste of what this is like. If you ever get a chance, go to a shooting range, pick up a pistol and fire a few rounds taking your time and such. Then, do jumping jacks for five minutes to get your heart racing and then try to fire again even half as accurately as you did before. Now multiply that by about ten and attempt to shoot someone in the knee :x
|
A lot of people that says to shoot the suspect in the leg when the officer's life is threatened is clearly been playing too much video games. In real life that is not the case.
|
On January 25 2012 09:03 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:56 zeru wrote:
I'm wondering where people are getting the idea of warning shots, shots to the feet, legs or knees, sending a K9 against someone armed and dangerous. Is this all from movies or something? This isn't done irl. combination of movies and different procedures in some countries (though most have stopped using warning shots). The only area where i know warning shots still happen is in military areas. If you approach a closed off area they are supposed to give a warning shot and a verbal warning. For police actions warning shots are forbidden in many countries because the risk of accidents is too high in urban areas. Some of the people arguing for a warning shot might come from countries where those are still in use (Switzerland is the only one i know of).
I could be wrong too, but I think in military areas where warning shots are used, it's only if the person entering them is unarmed. Otherwise I think the result would be the same as the crowbar deceased
|
Haha, pepper spray. It doesn't even make female college students stand up man.
In a place as volatile as a rough hood in the states I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you are a dead man should you chose to attack a cop. I doubt the guy will be missed by many...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
