|
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 08:33 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.
You have to be kidding me, those weren't earphones that was a taser...........
Looks totally legit to me, that guy was literally mid swing on his partner, The officer shot till the threat was neutralized, what did that guy expect to happen?
|
On January 25 2012 09:14 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Also very difficult to measure properly (otherwise Doctors wouldn't need to study for years how to tranquilize someone properly).
Remember the massacre in Russia where they pumped tranq Gas into a hostage situation? 29 dead or something around that?
Tranq darts are not a solution, neither are tazers (since most clothing is non-conductive enough to block them). So we are left with the imperfect tools we currently have.
I guess people need to respect the police enough to drop their friggin weapons when they are ordered to (and to trust the courts enough that they will not be convicted if they are not guilty).
|
On January 25 2012 09:04 AllHailTheDead wrote:
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
You don't just simply shoot someone in the feet. Pistols are already pretty difficult to be accurate with, and considering the guy had a K9 going berserk in one of his hands, his only hittable target was the torso.
|
On January 25 2012 09:17 GreyMasta wrote:Show nested quote +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.
country bashing: "you guys are fucking insane;" "how sick your country has become;" etc. etc. deserves a ban. he got a warning though.
|
Well in my opinion you can see where he pulled the tazer prongs away from his face.(clearly not something you see everyday) This leads me to believe that this man may have been on some kind of drug or something. Now if this is the case the there have been times where someone on say meth took a bullet and kept coming and by the look of that large metal object officer A would have been rather injured. So in the end if i was a cop and i saw a guy shrug off a tazer i would have done the same thing its his job to keep as many people safe as possible cant fault him for that
|
On January 25 2012 09:17 TSBspartacus wrote:
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.
So you would like the officer to wait until the crowbar is actually on it's path to connect with his partner's skull before putting him down?
He was clearly posturing to take a swing with an incredibly dangerous weapon at an officer.
|
On January 25 2012 09:18 stokes17 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
You have to be kidding me, those weren't earphones that was a taser........... Looks totally legit to me, that guy was literally mid swing on his partner, The officer shot till the threat was neutralized, what did that guy expect to happen?
The officer continued to fire after the suspect was on the ground. The number of shots discharged exceeded what would be reasonablly necessary in this situation.
|
He didn't deserve to die. I see no reason for a lethal firearm to be used against a melee weapon in a wide open area. Even riots are controlled with non-lethal weapons a lot of the time. Use rubber bullets, tasers, pepper spray. Jesus christ that officer was a trigger happy bastard.
|
On January 25 2012 09:12 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sigh. The key word being "may have been more 'elegant' alternatives'. I'm not saying those options were certainly better, which is why I said 'may'. I'm aware of the fact that they tazered him once and attempted to tazer again. There could have been a second officer with another tazer in case. I'm aware of the fact that a dog may not have worked or that the officers may not have been allowed to use it. But I'm not qualified to say.
And don't separate my post. It's fucking annoying. My position looks totally different in context with everything else I said, and it's in total agreement with the actions the police took. Next time READ before you jump all over a person...
|
On January 25 2012 09:20 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:18 stokes17 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
You have to be kidding me, those weren't earphones that was a taser........... Looks totally legit to me, that guy was literally mid swing on his partner, The officer shot till the threat was neutralized, what did that guy expect to happen? The officer continued to fire after the suspect was on the ground. The number of shots discharged exceeded what would be reasonablly necessary in this situation.
dont spread false information. he was still standing during the entire time shots were fired.
|
On January 25 2012 09:17 TSBspartacus wrote:
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.
You expect them to wait until mid swing before taking him down? What if your shot doesn't stop him? Then your partner officer is now seriously injured/dead.
On January 25 2012 09:17 Mr Showtime wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Lol, you expect every police officer to be able to shoot someone charging at them with a deadly weapon in the knee with 100% accuracy? Get real.
|
On January 25 2012 09:16 Nothingtosay wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's an estimation to have a general idea. You can put the numbers you want in there and you'll find a final figure in the range of 0,5%-5% and you can still ask yourself the same question.
|
On January 25 2012 06:25 sMi.EternaL wrote:
I very rarely post in these types of threads. Emotions usually run high and opinions are always fickle beasts. That being said, since this is actually an area in which I am very familiar I will try to shed some light on the situation for those saying this is an unjustified shoot.
A little background first. I am a former Marine weapons instructor and am now a private sector weapons instructor. As someone that teaches officers what to do in this situation I can say that this is an absolutely justifiable shoot.
In the Law Enforcement/Military world you are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Stop the threat means exactly that. There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a "Body Alarm Response," your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don't even realize what was happening until after the fact. This officer did exactly what he should have done and fell back on his training and by doing so potentially saved the life of his partner. His initial burst did not drop the suspect, as you can see he's still standing, they have no way of knowing what kind of weapons systems he is carrying on his person other than the object in his hand. You either put the threat down and know you're safe or gamble with your life and the lives of those around you. How horrible would you feel if you were this officer, you shot your initial rounds and then stopped giving the suspect time to pull his pistol from his waistband and kill your partner? It happens, and so we train to make sure that does NOT happen.
I personally teach every student I've ever trained that his main priority is to make it home safe. Your wife/kids/husband/partner are expecting you & counting on you. If someone is coming at you/friend/family, you drop them absolutely. You never shoot to kill but you always shoot to stop the threat, in most cases this will kill the individual but that is never our intention. Hindsight and outside perspective is extremely skewed in these types of situations.
As far as being able to justify a shooting you have to be able to say to yourself, DAM! DAM is Desire, Ability and Means. This suspect displayed desire, he was well within range/had the capability to end that officers life and he definitely had the means.
Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense. If a person walks into a bank and tries to rob it in this manner he still gets assault with a deadly weapon/armed robbery etc charges. And those cases happen more frequently than you might think. In this case the suspect very obviously had a weapon and displayed an attempt to use it. Training kicked in and that was all she wrote.
Well this was very insightful. Thanks for your input.
After seeing the footage, I can't help but put the blame on the victim and the victim only. Attacking a man holding a gun with something that looks like a giant hammer... the outcome was predictable.
Edit: not only that, but the attacker also seemed quite resolved and coldly aggressive. It's one thing to have a panicking man yelling at you, another to have a man running towards you with a weapon and a serious face.
Things could've been better, but there's nothing we can fix unless we sacrifice a few police officers here and there, and this is not doable.
|
if someone has a mental illness that causes them to kill other people, they should be put to death. I believe one of the taser spikes missed or went into his clothing which is why it didn't work, unlucky for him. The officer who fired the first 5 shots is a hero and looked awesome shooting one handed like a boss, there was barely any recoil on the gun. If i were there i would be cheering and trying to shake his hand. We cant tell if the other officer's 5 shots were excessive because of the car blocking our view.
Using pepper spray or risking the dog's life is out of the question.
This was most likely a suicide by cop, and I am glad he does not live in my world any longer.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 25 2012 05:16 Caryc wrote:
why not shoot him in his fucking legs? wtf..
Because you might miss the leg, and hit a bystander.
Then we would all be QQing about "WHY DIDNT HE JUST SHOOT FOR THE CHEST?"
-
I do think that 10 shots was 8 too many.
|
On January 25 2012 09:21 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:20 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 09:18 stokes17 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
You have to be kidding me, those weren't earphones that was a taser........... Looks totally legit to me, that guy was literally mid swing on his partner, The officer shot till the threat was neutralized, what did that guy expect to happen? The officer continued to fire after the suspect was on the ground. The number of shots discharged exceeded what would be reasonablly necessary in this situation. dont spread false information. he was still standing during the entire time shots were fired.
So.. 5 shots facing the officers, 5 shots on the back. The man was clearly falling, if not fallen, when the officer continues to fire. There is no argument to be had, you can't keep shooting someone who clearly is no longer a threat. This isn't Rambo you know.
|
On January 25 2012 09:17 Mr Showtime wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'm not aware of any police in the world that uses the tactic of shooting someone in the leg, especially in reactionary situations. I've only seen that happen in some form of stalemate where you have expert snipers that have plenty of time to aim and shoot.
|
On January 25 2012 09:25 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 25 2012 09:20 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 09:18 stokes17 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
You have to be kidding me, those weren't earphones that was a taser........... Looks totally legit to me, that guy was literally mid swing on his partner, The officer shot till the threat was neutralized, what did that guy expect to happen? The officer continued to fire after the suspect was on the ground. The number of shots discharged exceeded what would be reasonablly necessary in this situation. dont spread false information. he was still standing during the entire time shots were fired. So.. 5 shots facing the officers, 5 shots on the back. The man was clearly falling, if not fallen, when the officer continues to fire. There is no argument to be had, you can't keep shooting someone who clearly is no longer a threat. This isn't Rambo you know.
you said he was on the ground. that was false. i corrected you. end of story.
|
On January 25 2012 09:21 CecilSunkure wrote:
He didn't deserve to die. I see no reason for a lethal firearm to be used against a melee weapon in a wide open area. Even riots are controlled with non-lethal weapons a lot of the time. Use rubber bullets, tasers, pepper spray. Jesus christ that officer was a trigger happy bastard.
They did use a taser. And the guy was poised to swing the crowbar at the cops head. He even cocked back his arm. Yes, if you run through a bunch of different options, the one they chose isn't the most humane one, but it was the safest one.
On January 25 2012 05:16 Caryc wrote:
why not shoot him in his fucking legs? wtf..
You don't just "shoot someone in the legs". The guy had a K9 in one hand and pistols are already hard to aim without a dog jerking your body.
|
On January 25 2012 09:25 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 25 2012 09:20 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 09:18 stokes17 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
You have to be kidding me, those weren't earphones that was a taser........... Looks totally legit to me, that guy was literally mid swing on his partner, The officer shot till the threat was neutralized, what did that guy expect to happen? The officer continued to fire after the suspect was on the ground. The number of shots discharged exceeded what would be reasonablly necessary in this situation. dont spread false information. he was still standing during the entire time shots were fired. So.. 5 shots facing the officers, 5 shots on the back. The man was clearly falling, if not fallen, when the officer continues to fire. There is no argument to be had, you can't keep shooting someone who clearly is no longer a threat. This isn't Rambo you know.
So what happens if the guy is wearing a kevlar vest and has a gun in his pocket ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
