|
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 09:23 Kolvacs wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
Agreed 100%.
|
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.
You don't bring rubber bullets on patrol the cop was absolutely right. This isn't a game this is real life no such thing as a fair fight the guy didn't follow direct orders by a policeman in a arrest situation. not only that proceeded to move towards a police officer with a weapon.
|
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 don't know that, and the officer didn't know that. He could have been on drugs and merely recoiling from the force entering his body. Turning around could have been him attempting to pull out a more dangerous weapon. That is merely a possibility, but it's not something you can rule out easily.
|
On January 25 2012 09:22 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:16 Nothingtosay wrote: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.
The probability doesn't matter. You don't have time to calculate the odds when you're being faced with a guy charging you with a crow bar. That's a fucking ridiculous way of viewing things.
Not only that, you're viewing the entire situation from a different viewpoint (viewpoint of camera man) AND with hindsight. That's going to skew any numbers that you pull out of your hat in the first place.
Not only that, is it really worth the 1% chance that a policeman gets shot for the sake of saving a guy who has demonstrated himself to be very dangerous? Not everybody is worth the same to society. One policeman is easily worth 100 criminals who might shoot somebody.
|
On January 25 2012 05:58 Excludos wrote:
Half the people on this thread has seen waaaay too many movies.
Shoot him in the leg? wtf? Put yourself in the position of the police officer: "Oh, that man is about to swing a hammer at my partner's face, I better try to aim for his legs so I might be able to catch him alive". You put him down quick and easy.
Also, the people filming are assholes. They continued to laugh way after they knew the guy was dead.
It's not like they were going "ha ha you're dead". One of the bullets could easily have come in their direction. It was nervous laughter which is the natural thing to do in that kind of situation. They really didn't know what to do; so they laughed to remove stress. It's not unreasonable, insensitive, or blameworthy.
|
On January 25 2012 09:27 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:25 plogamer wrote: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 ?
"What if" is not a legal defense, simply because it can be abused so excessively.
|
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
No, I don't think the world is a better place with such cold blood killers in uniform roaming its surface.
I am not a sheep and I don't need dogs to sheperd my life and kill random raging people in the streets in the name of my security and my social comfort.
User was warned for this post
|
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.
You must be trolling... Please read the text and watch the video more carefully before you post anymore if you are not. It was not the first officer that continued to fire.
|
On January 25 2012 09:29 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:22 Geiko wrote:On January 25 2012 09:16 Nothingtosay wrote: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. The probability doesn't matter. You don't have time to calculate the odds when you're being faced with a guy charging you with a crow bar. That's a fucking ridiculous way of viewing things. Not only that, you're viewing the entire situation from a different viewpoint (viewpoint of camera man) AND with hindsight. That's going to skew any numbers that you pull out of your hat in the first place.
the point of the post wasnt an exact statistic, its that there is a chance at all, and that any chance translates to a reason to act
|
On January 25 2012 09:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:25 plogamer wrote: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 don't know that, and the officer didn't know that. He could have been on drugs and merely recoiling from the force entering his body. Turning around could have been him attempting to pull out a more dangerous weapon. That is merely a possibility, but it's not something you can rule out easily.
I agree. The officer shouldn't fire until they know that. That's what makes it unreasonable. If the man staggered back on his feet with his arms going into the pockets, then maybe (a big maybe) it would be justified. But there was no such thing happening there.
It was an almost continuous volley of gunfire.
|
On January 25 2012 09:29 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:22 Geiko wrote:On January 25 2012 09:16 Nothingtosay wrote: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. The probability doesn't matter. You don't have time to calculate the odds when you're being faced with a guy charging you with a crow bar. That's a fucking ridiculous way of viewing things. Not only that, you're viewing the entire situation from a different viewpoint (viewpoint of camera man) AND with hindsight. That's going to skew any numbers that you pull out of your hat in the first place.
You clearly didn't understand what I was saying.
Probabilities like these are the reason why police officers have the training that they do. I'd rather the policeman shoot 10 times rather than once in all situations where one shot is justified than accept to have them be at risk 1 out of 100 times.
|
On January 25 2012 09:31 nam nam 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. You must be trolling... Please read the text and watch the video more carefully before you post anymore if you are not. It was not the first officer that continued to fire.
Pardon me, the officers*
|
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.
It's easy for you to sit at your computer and say that a cop should easily be able to shoot somebody in the knee in a hostile, intense, possibly deadly situation. It's far harder to actually do it, I guarantee you. If I'm in that situation, you better believe I'll eliminate all random chance of missing and go right for the chest.
Sorry, but nobody actually shoots people in the knee except for in Hollywood and Skyrim.
|
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.
Ever heard of shooting someone in the leg? Anyways, that's not even the point of this post. The cop could have just as easily tasered him, but he didn't.
Sadly, stupid things like this happen when you have stupid people in the world.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 25 2012 09:33 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:29 Swede wrote:On January 25 2012 09:22 Geiko wrote:On January 25 2012 09:16 Nothingtosay wrote: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. The probability doesn't matter. You don't have time to calculate the odds when you're being faced with a guy charging you with a crow bar. That's a fucking ridiculous way of viewing things. Not only that, you're viewing the entire situation from a different viewpoint (viewpoint of camera man) AND with hindsight. That's going to skew any numbers that you pull out of your hat in the first place. You clearly didn't understand what I was saying. Probabilities like these are the reason why police officers have the training that they do. I'd rather the policeman shoot 10 times rather than once in all situations where one shot is justified than accept to have them be at risk 1 out of 100 times.
Sorry. I thought you were saying it was worth risking their lives on that 99% chance he doesn't have a gun. So we actually agree. Just a misunderstanding.
|
On January 25 2012 09:35 ratzp0li 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. Ever heard of shooting someone in the leg? Anyways, that's not even the point of this post. The cop could have just as easily tasered him, but he didn't. Sadly, stupid things like this happen when you have stupid people in the world.
They did tazer him, try watching the video next time.
|
What's a "necessary" amount of ammunition to shoot off in this circumstance?
Without pointing blame at any side, I always find it puzzling when people say an officer shot off an "unnecessary amount of ammunition."
How much should he have fired off in this instance for people to have deemed it "acceptable"?
|
On January 25 2012 09:35 ratzp0li 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. Ever heard of shooting someone in the leg? Anyways, that's not even the point of this post. The cop could have just as easily tasered him, but he didn't. Sadly, stupid things like this happen when you have stupid people in the world.
actually he tried to taser him. "stupid people in the world?" like people who make comments without reading threads or watching the video?
|
Don't ready a weapon on a police officer, do people think this is a fucking game? Lives are at stake and if you do that shit, you are asking for it. Perfectly justified.
|
On January 25 2012 09:04 sMi.EternaL wrote: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. 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
It's actually 100% true.
I'm not sure about how many shots are supposed to be fired according to protocol, but I know for a fact that if an officer is going to shoot at someone, it's definitely not to "impair" them. They're only going to shoot with the intent to kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
