|
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 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).
Swedish police uses warning shots as well (if this haven't changed in recent years) when possible.
|
What's the probability this guy wanted to swing the crowbar at the officer or harm him in any way? 50% ?
What's the probability that the he would still be able to move after 3 shots ? 10% ?
What's the probabilty the guy had a gun in his pocket ? 25% ?
That's ~1% total.
If policemen don't react like this (shooting until they are sure the person is neutralized), they'll get shot 1 out of 100 times.
If you were in that officer's place, would you take that risk ?
|
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 think a taser is supposed to be more effective than pepper spray right?
In the video they clearly put a taser into the man's face, to no effect.
I have a hard time understand peoples' feeling of need to defend humanity, this person clearly had malicious intent from the beginning, was given procedural attempts at incapacitation through tasers, and turned to the police officer with his weapon readying himself to swing, well in range of said officer.
Police officer is 100% in line here.
|
About the pepper spray in this instance if they opened with military grade pepper spray from afar i would agree with the use of pepper spray but after the taser failed, things quickly escalated as he stepped to the officer and cocked his arms back, one would assume in order to swing the pipe router he was holding. Pepper spray takes some time to get effect but is a debilitating substance. Simply it could be that the officers there did not have such pepper spray hanging around, also they opened with the taser.
|
On January 25 2012 08:59 Voltaire wrote:
This is why they have pepper spray... Not for spraying protesters, but for situations like this.
And who's going to make sure the perp plays nice and only uses non-lethal weapons as well? You want them to use pepper spray against a man with a deadly weapon? The guy sticks his hand up to spray and gets his wrist shattered, closely followed by his skull. They tried to taser him and he kept on going. Guess what the next step is?
I really don't understand the "shoot him in the knee" crowd (have they played too much Skyrim?). The guy is waving around a lethal weapon in public, probably on drugs (looks like PCP), and makes a threatening move towards an officer. And you want them to risk their lives to save him? If it didn't risk missing so much, compared to shooting towards the center of mass, they'd put one between his eyes every time.
There were four types of people in the area: the cop, his partner, the innocent bystanders, and the perp. Guess where the scumbag falls on the list of people the cops are trying to protect?
And to the guy earlier who said he'd like to have the "option" of waving a crowbar at a police officer without lethal retaliation, get a clue.
|
On January 25 2012 09:07 Geiko wrote:
What's the probability this guy wanted to swing the crowbar at the officer or harm him in any way? 50% ?
What's the probability that the he would still be able to move after 3 shots ? 10% ?
What's the probabilty the guy had a gun in his pocket ? 25% ?
That's ~1% total.
If policemen don't react like this (shooting until they are sure the person is neutralized), they'll get shot 1 out of 100 times.
If you were in that officer's place, would you take that risk ?
what is the probability he had a dangerous weapon? 100%
how many times did he swing the weapon at the police? 2 times
this math seems more apt. ;-)
|
On January 25 2012 09:05 Calm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:03 Tula wrote: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
translating the regs (Austria): "Warning shot obligatory if no present risk to life" so yes you are correct, it is still the only situation i know of where warning shots are given nowadays outside of movies.
Police will not give them in most countries, they will either warn you verbally ("stop or i will have to shoot", "drop your weapon", "on the ground immediatly!!!" etc.) or shoot without warning if they think someones life is in immediate danger.
|
I think my overall opinion is that, while there may have been more 'elegant' alternatives than shooting the guy 10 times (tazering, dogs, pepper spray etc), those of us who aren't familiar with police training or the handling of arms are probably not qualified to say.
Not only that, the police are working with imperfect means of disabling a suspect. Most tools intended purely for disabling a suspect are also close range, and in this situation the suspect had a potentially deadly close range weapon. Unfortunately that basically only leaves the gun, and as others have mentioned in the thread, police are trained to fire their weapon at the centre of mass (for a variety of reasons). A gunshot to the centre of mass has a high chance of killing its victim in the first place, and the suspect may be carrying other weaponry in their pockets etc, therefore firing as many shots as it takes to ensure the safety of yourself and others at the scene is the most logical course of action.
That said, if there was another longer range, accurate way of disabling a target which was immediately available then I'm sure the police would have used that since the suspects crimes up until that point were in no way worthy of death, but like I said, they're working with imperfect means and so the gun is essentially the safest option by virtue of its range, accuracy and availability (loaded and in your hand = very available).
|
On January 25 2012 09:07 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:03 Tula wrote: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). Swedish police uses warning shots as well (if this haven't changed in recent years) when possible.
Possibly because the non-urban areas are so big they can do so with minimal risk. I can almost guarantee that they will consider them impossible or too risky in a city.
Regardless of the policy in the situation in this clip, there would not have been time for a warning shot. The suspect was too close to his partner for that (also for a leg wound btw. A hollywood style crackshot might have shot his hand, but in practice that precision shot is a risk no cop would take.)
|
On January 25 2012 09:10 Swede wrote:
I think my overall opinion is that, while there may have been more 'elegant' alternatives than shooting the guy 10 times (tazering, dogs, pepper spray etc), those of us who aren't familiar with police training or the handling of arms are probably not qualified to say.
Once again, you can NOT use the police dog on a suspect with a deadly weapon. What if the suspect kills the police dog? Then you have a dead criminal AND a dead police dog.
Also, they did tazer, watch the video.
|
On January 25 2012 05:14 BritWrangler wrote:
Whether the police were right to shoot him or not, clearly the world is a better place with this scumbad dead.
User was warned for this post
although he got warned for this, i think its true
in germany you can do everything and still the police aint got the right to do anything against you. i think thats terribly wrong
|
why would you pepper spray a lunatic with a crowbar? if you're close enough to pepper spray his eyes, you're close enough to get smashed in the face in a blind rage. people can disagree with the shooting, but what other method of handling the situation would have been more appropriate? i haven't seen any good alternatives.. admittedly 10 shots might have been more than what was needed to get the job done, but regardless of how many shots the intention was to kill.
|
There will be no half life 3.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 25 2012 09:10 Swede wrote:
I think my overall opinion is that, while there may have been more 'elegant' alternatives than shooting the guy 10 times (tazering, dogs, pepper spray etc), those of us who aren't familiar with police training or the handling of arms are probably not qualified to say.
Not only that, the police are working with imperfect means of disabling a suspect. Most tools intended purely for disabling a suspect are also close range, and in this situation the suspect had a potentially deadly close range weapon. Unfortunately that basically only leaves the gun, and as others have mentioned in the thread, police are trained to fire their weapon at the centre of mass (for a variety of reasons). A gunshot to the centre of mass has a high chance of killing its victim in the first place, and the suspect may be carrying other weaponry in their pockets etc, therefore firing as many shots as it takes to ensure the safety of yourself and others at the scene is the most logical course of action.
That said, if there was another longer range, accurate way of disabling a target which was immediately available then I'm sure the police would have used that since the suspects crimes up until that point were in no way worthy of death, but like I said, they're working with imperfect means and so the gun is essentially the safest option by virtue of its range, accuracy and availability (loaded and in your hand = very available).
Tranq darts from afar, capture him like a gazelle 1 2 mins of thrashing around though :D although that just me more random stuff they need to carry around in a squad car. And more stuff a city has to buy, then train them on.
|
On January 25 2012 09:13 imperator-xy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:14 BritWrangler wrote:
Whether the police were right to shoot him or not, clearly the world is a better place with this scumbad dead.
User was warned for this post although he got warned for this, i think its true in germany you can do everything and still the police aint got the right to do anything against you. i think thats terribly wrong
....
As many problems as the European law systems have, that might be slightly overstating it.
Trust me, if a suspect attacked (or attempted to attack) and arresting officer with a deadly weapon, he will be shot in Germany as well. It happens more often than you might think (at least 50 cases a year in Austria).
Regardless, it is a very tasteless thing to do, to call someone you have never seen except for a short video clip a scumbag. Especielly after he has been shot dead, in a regrettable situation.
|
On January 25 2012 09:07 Geiko wrote:
What's the probability this guy wanted to swing the crowbar at the officer or harm him in any way? 50% ?
What's the probability that the he would still be able to move after 3 shots ? 10% ?
What's the probabilty the guy had a gun in his pocket ? 25% ?
That's ~1% total.
If policemen don't react like this (shooting until they are sure the person is neutralized), they'll get shot 1 out of 100 times.
If you were in that officer's place, would you take that risk ?
It easy to make an argument when you pull number out of thin air. Nothing about your statistics has any substance.
|
Excessive, I think he shot too early, the guy wasn't even mid swing at the other cop and he should've been certain that he was attacking before shooting.
|
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.
I'd agree if the suspect was armed with a firearm. But he had a crowbar. One round to the knee is enough. If the cop is incapable of shooting the guy in the legs, he should just be fired and find a desk job.
|
On January 25 2012 08:38 azdzaazfaz wrote:
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
Why a warning? He clearly said that he apologizes for generalizing and everything.
In this thread, people that say "In the US, OBEY THE COPS OR DIE by overwhelming force! This is how it works!" are fine.
But people that say "In my non-US country, these are acts of pure barbarism and what you guys say SHOCKS our cultural values" are warned or banned...
Ok.
If only one part of the world has the right to comment the subject of a video, is this video really worthing a "discussion" thread?
I don't think so.
|
On January 25 2012 05:07 Candadar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The people in the video are commentating as they are at first because they thought it was rubber pellets, not bullets.Now, when you first hear the story -- you think, "The guy came at the officer with a weapon, he had every justification to shoot him." However, watch the video -- the officer unloads what seems to be a completely unnecessary amount of ammunition into the suspect. Potentially NSFW and vulgar languageAt :42 does the event occur. For the sake of discussion, and not to turn this into mindless "Cops are pigs" idiocy -- was the officer using far too excessive force? Do note, that the suspect was approaching the officer with potentially lethal force. However, did it justify the response? He shot him multiple times, and as he was falling down, shot even further at him. Personally, I find this situation rather neutral. The man with the weapon is an idiot for coming at an officer with a weapon. Simple as. However, I will not commend the officer who shot him for anything. What he did was straight up over excessive. The news report does state they tried to taze him at first, but still. Show nested quote +MONTEREY PARK, Calif. (KABC) -- A suspect armed with a crowbar was shot outside of a Carl's Jr. restaurant in Monterey Park on Monday morning.
Authorities say the incident began with the suspect breaking windows at Carl's Jr. in the 1200 block of Avenida Cesar Chavez just before 9:30 a.m. The suspect then walked inside, while workers and customers ran outside.
Police arrived as the suspect was exiting the fast-food restaurant. After repeatedly telling the suspect to drop the weapon, the suspect was Tasered.
Police said the Taser was ineffective, and the suspect swung the three-foot metal bar at officers twice. At least one officer opened fire on the suspect.
The suspect was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
No one else was injured in the incident. The officer-involved shooting is under investigation.
(Copyright ©2012 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.) And the views of the man who shot it all. + Show Spoiler +After people were running out side of the Carls Jr. a man holding what looked like to be a metal pipe bender was walking very slowly and calmly toward the side of Carls Jr. very nonchalantly smashing in the windows with his weapon, he then walked into the fast food restaurant. while the suspect was inside the police arrived and set up to the right of the enterance. the police told the suspect, some command i was unable to hear, the suspect then walked out side and well the rest can be seen from the video, at the time it was believed that he was shot with rubber pellets and sadly that wasn't case. The suspect seemed to be shot 5 times while facing the officer and then shot at 5 times again while his back was turned to the officer, allegedly of course
This situation is not neutral. The officer was, as you put it, "straight up excessive". While the first few shots fired by the officer can be arguably justified. The latter shots that followed was excessive since the suspect no longer posed a threat of immediate danger.
"Use of deadly force" is often granted to police forces when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
