|
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 09:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:35 ratzp0li 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. 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?
Last I saw in the video, the guy was still walking, therefore not properly immobilized. Using deadly force in a situation such as this (no one had gotten hurt yet) is not only an overreaction, but an outrage.
This is murder.
|
I feel sorry for the police officer. I know its the job he signed up for, but living with the fact that you killed a man wouldn't be a pleasant feeling. Even if you're trained to kill it never can fully prepare you for when it actually happens.
Police officer safety is something that must be ensured, if that means they're trained to shoot to kill then so be it. Firing "warning shots" is not worth it if there is the potential that the officer could be killed as a result. He already used a tazer so in my eyes he really had no options left but to kill given how aggressive the man was being. The man should have listened to the ample warnings given if he wasn't looking to get killed.
However, if he WAS looking to get killed... The whole idea of "assisted suicide" (not saying that is what happened here, but it is a potential reason) is really quite cruel to the person who is left with no choice but to pull that trigger.
|
It's funny - people saying the officer was 'right' to shoot him. In many european countries gun control is almost as strict as it is in Finland - only in the utmost situations is it right to use your weapon. This case doesn't seem like one that would ever warrant the usage of a gun - why the hell are the officers so stupid as to get into a situation like that in the first place? I'm quite sure the cop would be charged for manslaughter in finland.
|
|
|
Police have no reason to expose themselves to excess risk, even if it is small. You say it's highly unlikely he had a kevlar vest, and that he was turning around to pull out a gun? Maybe, but it's a possibility. He had proven himself a threat, and can't be considered to not be a threat after one shot. One shot isn't an instant kill, even to a vital organ, he could easily whip out a gun and fire a few times on the officers.
Who argues that someone, who threatens a police officer with a large weapon, should only be shot once or twice. You shoot to neutralize the threat. Completely.
|
After the first time I took a glimpse at the thread and the video I was simply shocked. How can a policeman do such a thing, he is the one in the stronger position, outnumbered and outgunned that kid and he shoots him point blank.
This was exactly when the mod closed the thread, and I had time to read a lot of the comments, but also the one of Smi.eternal. Then I rewatched the Video, and as much as I despise the outcome,I have to agree, the policeman acted appropriately. First attempt to talk and reason failed, there was an attempt to taser him - it failed - as a reaction this stupid kid attacked the one policeman with what seems to be an axe, a deadly weapon, and paid with is life... Just insanely bad how things went. I think the one thing that outraged people at first is the impression you get that the police in this situation is fully under control. Many officers with tasers,guns,dogs etc. But this video only gives a limited perspective of what was going on there(not counting the stupid and disgusting comments made in it), and does not shed enough light on the fact that there are fallible people involved, as well trained as could be, and still fallible and very limited.... it just makes me even more sad.
|
On January 25 2012 09:38 ratzp0li wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 25 2012 09:35 ratzp0li 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. 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? Last I saw in the video, the guy was still walking, therefore not properly immobilized. Using deadly force in a situation such as this (no one had gotten hurt yet) is not only an overreaction, but an outrage. This is murder.
The cop used a taser dude. The guy was probably drugged, so he shrugged it off...and you realize that shooting someone in the leg is 100% unrealistic in any circumstance unless you're a sniper.
|
On January 25 2012 09:30 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:27 Geiko wrote: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.
you clearly know nothing of the legality of the situation. After the initial shots were fired the suspect was still a threat, so a second round of shots were fired. There was absolutely no excessive force used; they escalated from verbal force to less than lethal force to deadly force and the suspect continually refused to surrender, he was literally swinging at the cop.
The officers responded exactly as they were trained to.
|
Now we know why our taxes are so high, thanks to our police force use of ammunition. ^__^
|
Haven't read everything because it's wayy to much hehe
So, policemen are trained to shoot only when necessary and to kill or put down the subject. The amount of ammo used was WAY too much ONLY BECAUSE he was already stumbling. Also, shooting in the leg is easily a way to kill because of the large arteries.
Also, they tazered him and he ripped the thing off so stop the tazer stuff guys.
And it was justified because he gave an attempt at another officer with a lethal weapon.
just my two cents 
|
On January 25 2012 09:38 ratzp0li wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 25 2012 09:35 ratzp0li 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. 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? Last I saw in the video, the guy was still walking, therefore not properly immobilized. Using deadly force in a situation such as this (no one had gotten hurt yet) is not only an overreaction, but an outrage. This is murder.
dude this wouldnt be murder if it was civilian vs civilian, let alone someone trained to judge situations like this..vs. crazed civilian
|
On January 25 2012 09:39 taran wrote:
It's funny - people saying the officer was 'right' to shoot him. In many european countries gun control is almost as strict as it is in Finland - only in the utmost situations is it right to use your weapon. This case doesn't seem like one that would ever warrant the usage of a gun - why the hell are the officers so stupid as to get into a situation like that in the first place? I'm quite sure the cop would be charged for manslaughter in finland.
Good thing that whenever a nation needs to look for a model of something, they look to Finland
oh wait
If that doesn't warrant the use of a gun, then I don't know what does
|
On January 25 2012 09:38 Jaso wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:04 sMi.EternaL wrote: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 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.
Not intent to kill. Intent to stop. People may survive being shot in the center mass, and the hospital will do their best after the shooting is finished. Likelihood of survival does not change intent.
|
To all the people taking the moral high ground here and giving shit to the cop, what would you do in his situation? If I had a gun and no dog trolling, I would shoot the man in the chest 100% and make FUCKING DAMN SURE there is not a single chance someone innocent gets hurt. Morever with a dog jerking my arm and my partner being the endangered I would unload the entire fucking clip on the criminal, because doing otherwise is putting consiously other people in danger, and running a risk not worth it at all.
|
On January 25 2012 09:38 Jaso wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:04 sMi.EternaL wrote: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 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.
You're arguing with a guy who has trained said officers. I suggest conceding the point.
|
On January 25 2012 09:38 ratzp0li wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 25 2012 09:35 ratzp0li 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. 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? Last I saw in the video, the guy was still walking, therefore not properly immobilized. Using deadly force in a situation such as this (no one had gotten hurt yet) is not only an overreaction, but an outrage. This is murder.
hope you are never on a jury.
|
On January 25 2012 09:39 taran wrote:
It's funny - people saying the officer was 'right' to shoot him. In many european countries gun control is almost as strict as it is in Finland - only in the utmost situations is it right to use your weapon. This case doesn't seem like one that would ever warrant the usage of a gun - why the hell are the officers so stupid as to get into a situation like that in the first place? I'm quite sure the cop would be charged for manslaughter in finland.
Because they're the fucking police? Who else do you call your local gang banger? This guy was WIELDING a DEADLY WEAPON is that so hard to understand? Those police are human beings with friends and loved ones and you are judging them so negatively. In fact that guy could have bludgeoned that police officer and we would have 2 dead individuals instead of one.
|
Hmmm, wait, I change my mind, actually those cops are doing us a favor. Imagine if that guy was taking to jail, we would have to feed him and he get a free room to live and facility to keep healthy. Would we want to spend $40 for a sets of ammunition or $600/month costs to keep him in jail. I think we all know the first is the best. More cops like them, soon, our taxes will be lowered in no time! Go Police Officers!
|
On January 25 2012 09:40 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:30 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 09:27 Geiko wrote: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. you clearly know nothing of the legality of the situation. After the initial shots were fired the suspect was still a threat, so a second round of shots were fired. There was absolutely no excessive force used; they escalated from verbal force to less than lethal force to deadly force and the suspect continually refused to surrender, he was literally swinging at the cop. The officers responded exactly as they were trained to.
So a person armed with a crowbar, with 5 bullets in his body, is still a threat.
|
Here in Norway cops don't carry guns, so this type of thing could never. People seems to forget that violence begets violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
