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 05:16 Caryc wrote: why not shoot him in his fucking legs? wtf..
That's actually very difficult to do, and increases the risk to all involved (takes longer to hit the target, allowing them to continue to be a threat).
I can justify that the cops did as they did, but I still think it was the wrong thing to shoot him after he was down. I don't have any fancy training, but when someone lies down, give them a break from the lead. I think the initial 5 shots to get his mate out of danger would have been enough. But of course, the man was probably acting on the adrenaline and did what was necessary to keep him and his fellow Police Officers safe. I don't think the Officer did anything moraly wrong. I just think the last shots were a little too much, but I think he did the excactly right thing.
They can't just "shoot him in the legs", this isn't a video game. You have someone with a weapon coming at your friend, your blood pressure is high and you're probably a bit scared yourself. Aiming to precisely hit his legs only is not an option.
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.
Agreed. When that officer or his partner are put in harms way, they have the right to use whatever force necissary. There's nothing excessive about this IMO
On January 25 2012 05:17 tapk69 wrote: This is real? only in america , he shot 5 shots and then 4 more to kill the guy , not to take his weapon down ( hammer !? ).. completely unjustified , he could have shoot 2 bullets or so in the legs , not 9 , he even had a dog with him to get the guys arm..
I watched lots of seasons of COPS , i love it , cops on it usually are nice guys ( at least on camera ) but this is plain wrong . Taser works if it reaches the skin always , even on PCP...
this one is in Brasil but its more than justified after a robbery...
Well he was shot in the face with a taser and he ripped the darts off like nothing and then started closing in on the other officer. I don't like killing but the guy didn't even care about the taser and was about to hit a police, of course the other officer would discharge his weapon several times to stop the threat.
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.
not living in the usa but im about 99% sure that, if possible, they are supposed to make a warning shot / shoot in the legs etc first . edit : ok post below me says otherwise. that sounds really stupid and i dont like it,just my 2 cents.
edit2: that may have sound to ignorant but i cant really "discuss" about this ; there is no reason to kill someone unless the police guy had to fear he was injured himself (which i cant decide based upon that video). just because you can use a gun,doesnt mean you have to use it to kill...
Get your facts right... do u really think every shot a police makes is supposed to kill ? lets start with the executions.
Actually, yes. Police are not supposed to use their firearms except in response to a lethal threat and they are not supposed to shoot to wound. You can't guarantee that a suspect will be totally neutralized by non-lethal gunshot wounds.
Police are not trained to shoot to wound. If pulling the trigger is necessary, they are trained to pull the trigger to kill. At least in the US. Firing a gun in any situation but where a life is threatened is (supposed to be) a big no-no, and the other half of that equation is no shooting just to injure.
not living in the usa but im about 99% sure that, if possible, they are supposed to make a warning shot / shoot in the legs etc first . t
It is a shame that he had to be shot but I see it as a necessary action the officer took the man was looking to attack another officer who was unarmed.
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.
not living in the usa but im about 99% sure that, if possible, they are supposed to make a warning shot / shoot in the legs etc first .
a warning shot... What is this naval warfare? Some dude was about to smash his buddy (who wasnt looking) with a crowbar.
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.
100 percent agree, would it have been any different if the officer walked straight up to him and shot him ONCE through his head? I could be wrong but cops are trained to shoot for centre mass and this guy was obviously trying to stop the suspect as fast as possible before he could have KILLED his partner with one single swings....or multiple....
Also, this cop is going to probably live with this for the rest of his life. (Yes, I know "Live") I also can't help but wonder if this was suicide by cop.
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.
not living in the usa but im about 99% sure that, if possible, they are supposed to make a warning shot / shoot in the legs etc first .
Eh, nope. They attempt to use all other methods (taser) and only employ deadly force if it is needed to instantly end an engagement. No such thing as a warning shot or shooting to wound, if they pull the trigger it is to immediately put an end to a threat, not to kinda maybe wing a guy.
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.
you agree with this cold blood kill or that is a joke ?
that is not Iraq , Policemen are not soldiers at war that kill and piss on the dead after that ...
On January 25 2012 05:23 DiLiGu wrote: Not excessive.
Police are also NOT trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to instantly end an engagement/diffuse a situation. Instantly. No officer ever wants to take a life or enjoys having to employ the use of deadly force. Which is why they call it "deadly force" and not "shooting to kill". The amount of force being applied has to immediately end the conflict, and this much force can cause death.
If you watch the video, the man is literally in the process of swinging his weapon at an officer. The officer firing the weapon did exactly what he had to do.
Think this is excessive is a joke... real life is not the movies. When you fire a weapon a person doesn't go shooting backwards, and you don't "aim for the legs". This is why police are trained to fire their weapons accurately and rapidly. He is not intending to kill his victim, he is intending to immediately stop him from trying to kill his partner.
How is this not excessive? The first 5 shots were more than enough to stop the man from attacking. The additional 5 shots once he was on the ground were unnecessary.
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.
not living in the usa but im about 99% sure that, if possible, they are supposed to make a warning shot / shoot in the legs etc first .
That's not true. As previously said, when officers use their weapon, they are shooting to kill. There is a continuum that officers must follow regarding the use of force. Deadly force = deadly force.
At reading the title I thought Gordon Freeman had joined Civil Protection... Upon seeing the video... I gotta say that officers of law enforcements are trained to handle this type of situation with as little violence as possible... this was probably the most direct opposite I've seen in a long time. If he was scared of being attacked, just shoot him once in the leg or something instead of wasting an entire clip into his chest. It's like he didn't even know about the power of the handgun he was using... geez...
On January 25 2012 05:23 DiLiGu wrote: Not excessive.
Police are also NOT trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to instantly end an engagement/diffuse a situation. Instantly. No officer ever wants to take a life or enjoys having to employ the use of deadly force. Which is why they call it "deadly force" and not "shooting to kill". The amount of force being applied has to immediately end the conflict, and this much force can cause death.
If you watch the video, the man is literally in the process of swinging his weapon at an officer. The officer firing the weapon did exactly what he had to do.
Think this is excessive is a joke... real life is not the movies. When you fire a weapon a person doesn't go shooting backwards, and you don't "aim for the legs". This is why police are trained to fire their weapons accurately and rapidly. He is not intending to kill his victim, he is intending to immediately stop him from trying to kill his partner.
How is this not excessive? The first 5 shots were more than enough to stop the man from attacking. The additional 5 shots once he was on the ground were unnecessary.
Considering you can't see him when the second shots are fired, I think it's hard to call it excessive. For all we know he was still attempting to swing at the officers.
On January 25 2012 05:28 HaXXspetten wrote: At reading the title I thought Gordon Freeman had joined Civil Protection... Upon seeing the video... I gotta say that officers of law enforcements are trained to handle this type of situation with as little violence as possible... this was probably the most direct opposite I've seen in a long time. If he was scared of being attacked, just shoot him once in the leg or something instead of wasting an entire clip into his chest. It's like he didn't even know about the power of the handgun he was using... geez...
Don't you think that's what the tazer was for? They tazed the guy, and he pulled the barbs out like they were nothing. What is a shot to the leg going to do?
you agree with this cold blood kill or that is a joke ?
Getting shot because you tried to brain someone with a crowbar is being killed in cold blood?
How is this not excessive? The first 5 shots were more than enough to stop the man from attacking. The additional 5 shots once he was on the ground were unnecessary.
He was probably running on adrenaline and couldn't stop himself, which says to me he shouldn't be a cop.