|
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 09:38 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.
I have a police officer (one of my trainer/instructor co-workers) sitting next to me laughing and shaking his head at the amount of misinformation in this thread. I really can't add anything to the posts I've already made except to make them again. I will take and answer any direct questions to the best of my ability. If it's something I've already answered expect a link back to that post though 
|
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.
Pretty sure police never openly say shoot to kill, but rather to subdue or something alone those lines just due to how people react to the words shoot to kill. But essentially it is what they are doing if you put 3-5 rounds in the center of a person, unless they are right next to a hospital and are lucky that nothing too important was tore-up/hit they are likely to die. The intent is not to kill them but rather make them stop w.e they are doing, death is more of just bi-product.
|
On January 25 2012 09:33 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:28 aksfjh 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. 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.
If you're agreeing with me, then you think the amount of shots and the timing was well justified...
|
On January 25 2012 09:45 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:40 stokes17 wrote: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.
Yes. What if he pulls out a gun? They didn't frisk him so they don't know, anything's possible.
|
I think the 2nd round of bullets was the excessive part. I don't have a problem with the officer that did the initial shooting as much as he did. But to have the guy falling to the ground and to go from officer #1 finishing his volley of bullets to officer #2 initiating the start of his volley of bullets with the guy turned away already seems the excessive point.
Obviously every officer there should keep their weapon readied in that situation until they're sure the suspect is subdued and isn't going to roll over on to his back with a gun pulled out or something. I'd be interested to find out if the 2nd officer that did the firing of the rest of the bullets was fairly new to the force and the adrenaline high caused him to react the way he did by adding an additional amount of bullets.
EDIT: Watched it more closely the 2nd time and the suspect still hadn't fallen to the ground until the 2nd volley of bullets was complete. I would say then that all 10 bullets were justified in that situation. I encourage anyone who thinks the second 5 bullets were fired into him after he was on the ground rewatch the video more closely.
|
On January 25 2012 09:45 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:40 stokes17 wrote: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.
Can you prove he isn't? Do you have any experience when dealing with an individual who is drugged up enough to shrug off a taser and is fueled with adrenaline?
|
On January 25 2012 09:45 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:40 stokes17 wrote: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.
Apparently! He was clearly still standing, he just tried swinging at an officer and was still standing. The officer did exactly what he was suppose to do, as soon as the suspect fell down and stopped being a threat, not another shot was fired.
|
I think the type of weapon needed two shots to stop the thread. I think ten rounds was just intented to kill him in the first place.
I think the idea was to stop him not kill him.
(Well here in my shitty country policemen are also hired hitmans and crime representavite themselves every single one of them, so yeah)
|
edit: nvm, I'm staying out of this.
|
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.
This, Cops arent paid enough to risk trying to shoot someone in the leg (would you aim for someones leg when hes trying to hit you with a crowbar? for 50 grand a year?) . They are trained to hit the biggest target (his chest) He thought the guy was going to drill the his partner. His adrenaline was pumping and he probably didnt even realize how many shots he took. the final few shots might have been excessive, but the first 5 werent. Anyone in a combat situation knows that a single or even 3 bullets wont knock a guy down sometimes (especially on drugs). A clean shooting in my opinion.
|
Well what should they have doen differently? The guy is swining a damn cowbar at a police officer, and we all know how deadly a cowbarr can be ever since 1998. He was most deffinetly on drugs and often times 1 shot dont stop a person that is under the influence. They had their wepons pulled and was shouting and what the hell did he expect? Did he think those were soft air guns?
The first burst would have been enough though.
|
On January 25 2012 09:49 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:45 DenSkumle wrote:
Here in Norway cops don't carry guns, so this type of thing could never. People seems to forget that violence begets violence. Breivik was Norwegian, right?
completely irrelevant.
|
On January 25 2012 09:49 Rafael wrote:
I think the type of weapon needed two shots to stop the thread. I think ten rounds was just intented to kill him in the first place.
I think the idea was to stop him not kill him.
Well you get dithering circumstance, after the first attempt at a swing it probably takes less and less to set off the officers re opening fire. Ie reaching into his jacket, or even just trying to swing again etc. Simply put the quality of the video is good enough for us to judge so openly. Along with the part where i think the 2nd officer opened fire for the 2nd round of shots instead of how some people frame it as an officer shot a perpetrator paused and then re opened fire on him.
|
On January 25 2012 09:45 DenSkumle wrote:
Here in Norway cops don't carry guns, so this type of thing could never. People seems to forget that violence begets violence.
I agree with your sentiments, but there are a hell of a lot more guns in the general population in the US than in most other countries. I really just don't think it's an option for their police to not carry guns any more. It works for other countries though, and is the more ideal situation imo.
|
what exactly is that thing the guy is carrying? name of it? doesnt seem like a conventional crowbar
|
A single blow to the head can kill someone. The first 5 shots seemed completely justified to me.
|
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.
Where is the merit that mentality though? Cops are meant to shoot to kill? Why did he have to die? Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't one bullet to the leg done the same job? The man actually hurt nobody, and while he definitely should have gone to jail, ten bullets to the chest seems extremely excessive. And no, he didn't reload, but he stopped, and when the man fell on the ground again, he rattled off 5 MORE SHOTS. TEN shots in total. Whether he cop is shooting to kill or not is not the point here. The point is he shot a man unnecessarily 5 times, and then proceeded to shoot him again 5 more times when he was already down. If he was shooting to kill, then that is even worse, as the cop had other, more humane and effective options at his disposal. The criminal harmed nobody physically, and the cop killed him. Even though the criminal looked like he might do physical harm at the end, that is no excuse to take his life.
|
On January 25 2012 09:55 simmeh wrote:
what exactly is that thing the guy is carrying? name of it? doesnt seem like a conventional crowbar
1/2 conduit bender. As was suggested it looked like earlier in the thread
![[image loading]](http://www.totalrentalofmolalla.com/prod_images/full/halfinto5inconduitbender.jpg)
Which kind of makes it more like long hammer not a crowbar in terms of weapon, but i think the guys in the video refer to it as a crowbar
|
On January 25 2012 09:55 simmeh wrote:
what exactly is that thing the guy is carrying? name of it? doesnt seem like a conventional crowbar
the description in the video said that it looked like a metal pipe bender
|
On January 25 2012 09:48 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:45 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 09:40 stokes17 wrote: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. Apparently! He was clearly still standing, he just tried swinging at an officer and was still standing. The officer did exactly what he was suppose to do, as soon as the suspect fell down and stopped being a threat, not another shot was fired.
No, he charged at the cop, who shot him five times. After he was on the ground, with 5 bullets in his chest, the cop shot him 5 more times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
