|
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 10:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +What...i've seen this type of reply a few times 'What if he had a gun?' like wtf does everybody in America carry guns and wear kevlar vests? The cops shouldn't have been so close to a guy with a bat, they can't just say 'ohh he had a bar, lets shoot him dead.' why don't they try talking from a decent distance away, try tasing him/spraying him a few times? (Yes I know they tasered him once but come on...that's as far as you go before shooting him dead?) Some people will just bend over backwards to find any kind of twisty excuse to blame the cops. Here's a hint: don't carry a deadly weapon into a business (and, presumably, act in such a manner that the employees feel the need to call the police) and then brandish it towards a cop and you won't have to worry about him being so close it causes his partner to shoot you.
Are you serious? I'm not 'bending over backwards to find any kind of twisty excuse to blame the cops.' - I only know what I see in the video, a man with a bar, posturing aggresively shot dead by multiple police who also had a dog with them.
|
On January 25 2012 10:19 KryptoStorm wrote:I'm curious, what are the Americans in this threads opinion on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16712488'Prosecutors had argued that on the day of the killings Wuterich lost control after seeing a friend blown apart by a bomb, before leading the soldiers under his command on a rampage.' 'They said his decision to send his squad to attack nearby homes went against his training. "That is a horrific result from that derelict order of shooting first, ask questions later," Lt Col Sean Sullivan told the court. Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.'
That's totally different because he attacked with a goal of "revenge", not to PROTECT his partner/friend.
Also, he was killing innocent civilians, not the person who was killing his friend.
This guy is a lot worse than the officers in the video.
@above and below, I can understand why the guy posted this link. He's just wondering what we (Americans) think about the differences (if any) between that guy and the officers - prob just to get an idea of what we think is ok and not ok.
|
On January 25 2012 10:19 KryptoStorm wrote:I'm curious, what are the Americans in this threads opinion on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16712488'Prosecutors had argued that on the day of the killings Wuterich lost control after seeing a friend blown apart by a bomb, before leading the soldiers under his command on a rampage.' 'They said his decision to send his squad to attack nearby homes went against his training. "That is a horrific result from that derelict order of shooting first, ask questions later," Lt Col Sean Sullivan told the court. Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.'
So the logical solution to your curiosity is to post about in a thread that has nothing to do with it?
|
On January 25 2012 10:17 Whole wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:14 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 10:08 Rygasm wrote:On January 25 2012 10:07 plogamer wrote:
From 0:45 to 0:48, 10 shots were fired in three seconds. There was no indication that the suspect was armed with anything other than a crowbar. Wouldn't that be the point if the weapon is hidden? Anyone could have a hidden weapon. So, if two men are having a fist fight, who should the officers shoot? "What if" either of them had a "hidden weapon". This is not argument for that reason. A fist fight is 100% different from a guy who shrugs off a taser shot to the face and charges a cop with a crowbar-like object
The context was 'what if he had a hidden weapon'.
|
On January 25 2012 10:21 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:17 Whole wrote:On January 25 2012 10:14 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 10:08 Rygasm wrote:On January 25 2012 10:07 plogamer wrote:
From 0:45 to 0:48, 10 shots were fired in three seconds. There was no indication that the suspect was armed with anything other than a crowbar. Wouldn't that be the point if the weapon is hidden? Anyone could have a hidden weapon. So, if two men are having a fist fight, who should the officers shoot? "What if" either of them had a "hidden weapon". This is not argument for that reason. A fist fight is 100% different from a guy who shrugs off a taser shot to the face and charges a cop with a crowbar-like object The context was 'what if he had a hidden weapon'.
Assuming a hidden weapon with two guys having a fist fight is ridiculous. Assuming a hidden weapon with a guy who attempted to assault a cop with a crowbar-like object is somewhat realistic.
|
On January 25 2012 09:26 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 09:17 Mr Showtime 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. 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. Tasers are probably used in many scenarios now where the standard used to be taking them down by shots in the legs but it probably still happens a lot. It's not "hard" when it's not a split second life or death thing, there are probably plenty of videos on the internet of people being shot in the legs by the police. But doesn't seem to be used in the US to can't blame the cops for not doing what they aren't supposed to do to begin with.
|
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.
Yeah I'm not sure why there even needs to be 35 pages on this. Guns are designed to kill. The police officer's life was threatened, and was trained to shoot to kill. Therefore he shot him. There's literally no difference in 1, 3, or 10 shots, firing at someone with a gun is designed to kill the guy. The only difference is that if he only shot the guy once he would be endangering even MORE people's lives if the guy got back up and tried to attack someone again, pulled out a gun of his own, etc.
This thread is just another excuse for people to hate on the US for literally no reason, it should probably be closed.
|
After really watching the video carefully, I've come to the conclusion that this guy wasn't really intending to try to hurt the cops. His stance is not one of someone who is trying to attack. If you look carefully, his elbows are still low, near his waste. Try to mimic the stance and see how hard it is to swing your arms across, it's very akward; you would be almost trying to swing upwards and you wouldn't be able to get much power behind the swing. Now imagine what your stance would be like if you were actually tying to hit the cop hard, your elbows would be higher and you would be swinging either in a downward motion like you were chopping wood or straight across like you were swinging a baseball bat. His stance is much more like someone who is trying to make the cops flinch. (almost like as if to give them the "What!?", idk how else to describe it). Basically I think he was trying to scare the cops.
As it turns out, trying to scare or flinch out a cop who has a gun pointed straight at you is a bad idea. I still do not fault the cops at all, some punk kid was threatening them and they responded. They have every right to defend themselves. He was given many warnings by the police and did not cooperate in anyway. In all I think this was just some dumb punk kid who thought he was tougher than the cops and that there weren't going to be any consequences. Well he was wrong. Take away lesson, when a cop has a gun pointed at you and tells you to put up your hands: you do it. Our police in the US put themselves in so much danger to keep the rest of us safe, some of you really need to show some more respect for them.
|
On January 25 2012 10:19 KryptoStorm wrote:I'm curious, what are the Americans in this threads opinion on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16712488'Prosecutors had argued that on the day of the killings Wuterich lost control after seeing a friend blown apart by a bomb, before leading the soldiers under his command on a rampage.' 'They said his decision to send his squad to attack nearby homes went against his training. "That is a horrific result from that derelict order of shooting first, ask questions later," Lt Col Sean Sullivan told the court. Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.'
try reading the thread related to haditha.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=305787
|
On January 25 2012 10:19 KryptoStorm wrote:I'm curious, what are the Americans in this threads opinion on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16712488'Prosecutors had argued that on the day of the killings Wuterich lost control after seeing a friend blown apart by a bomb, before leading the soldiers under his command on a rampage.' 'They said his decision to send his squad to attack nearby homes went against his training. "That is a horrific result from that derelict order of shooting first, ask questions later," Lt Col Sean Sullivan told the court. Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.'
You can find opinions on that article here
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=305787
How is that relevant in any way?
|
how can anyone defend the suspect?
He clearly had a dangerous weapon, and already showed intent for using by smashing windows.
He doesn't obey the law or the commands that the police gave him and he aggressively approached one of the officers.
|
aren't there are hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people on the streets who could have potentially acted exactly the same as that suspect?
why didn't the cop shoot him in the knee at least? imo shooting the guy 10 times is no different than shooting him once and then decapitating him with a tomahawk... it's rediculous overkill...
or maybe the cop thought he was in a computer game where it takes 25 bullets to kill someone.
|
On January 25 2012 09:56 GhandiEAGLE 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. Where is the merit that mentality though? Cops are meant to shoot to kill? Why did he have to die?
Because he was trying to kill someone. That generally means you have to die.
On January 25 2012 09:56 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't one bullet to the leg done the same job?
Where does this myth of being able to shoot people in the leg come from anyway? Hell, you don't even see that in movies these days. Not unless there's someone with superhuman abilities involved.
Shocking though it may be, cops aren't marksmen. Hitting someone in the leg is damn difficult, and missing means you've given up initiative. Which means someone may die. Officers are not trained to aim for the leg. If shit has gotten to the point where an officer decides that the gun is the best solution to the problem at hand, they shoot for the torso. Why?
Because a shot to the leg won't necessarily stop someone even if it does hit. The torso is a much bigger target than isn't moving nearly as fast as the legs of someone who's walking. You're more likely to hit and you're more likely to hit something vital that puts the target down.
On January 25 2012 09:56 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
The man actually hurt nobody
So if the police prevent someone from being hurt, it's unjustified, but if they let him hurt someone, then it's fine? They should let a guy cave someone's skull in with a bar of steel?
I'm not sure I like the morality that you're trying to present here.
On January 25 2012 09:56 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
If he was shooting to kill, then that is even worse, as the cop had other, more humane and effective options at his disposal.
And those were? Some had already been tried, the tazer and such. They didn't work.
On January 25 2012 09:56 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
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.
Again, yes that is an excuse to take a criminal's life. When they're about to kill someone is the right time to take their life. After they've killed someone is too late.
|
On January 25 2012 10:24 TheToast wrote:
After really watching the video carefully, I've come to the conclusion that this guy wasn't really intending to try to hurt the cops. His stance is not one of someone who is trying to attack. If you look carefully, his elbows are still low, near his waste. Try to mimic the stance and see how hard it is to swing your arms across, it's very akward; you would be almost trying to swing upwards and you wouldn't be able to get much power behind the swing. Now imagine what your stance would be like if you were actually tying to hit the cop hard, your elbows would be higher and you would be swinging either in a downward motion like you were chopping wood or straight across like you were swinging a baseball bat. His stance is much more like someone who is trying to make the cops flinch. (almost like as if to give them the "What!?", idk how else to describe it). Basically I think he was trying to scare the cops.
As it turns out, trying to scare or flinch out a cop who has a gun pointed straight at you is a bad idea. I still do not fault the cops at all, some punk kid was threatening them and they responded. They have every right to defend themselves. He was given many warnings by the police and did not cooperate in anyway. In all I think this was just some dumb punk kid who thought he was tougher than the cops and that there weren't going to be any consequences. Well he was wrong. Take away lesson, when a cop has a gun pointed at you and tells you to put up your hands: you do it. Our police in the US put themselves in so much danger to keep the rest of us safe, some of you really need to show some more respect for them.
The fact that he was trying to scare off police officers armed with guns with a crowbar in his hands is downright ridiculous. The fact that he's dead (I have utmost respect for human life, though...) makes the world a better place.
Also, @ all the "shoot at the knee" or "shoot at the leg" nonsense, if the officer who fired the first shots had taken the time to do that WHILE ensuring he didn't accidentally hit one of his partners or a civilian, the officer being attacked could've been killed.
|
On January 25 2012 10:19 KryptoStorm wrote:I'm curious, what are the Americans in this threads opinion on this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16712488'Prosecutors had argued that on the day of the killings Wuterich lost control after seeing a friend blown apart by a bomb, before leading the soldiers under his command on a rampage.' 'They said his decision to send his squad to attack nearby homes went against his training. "That is a horrific result from that derelict order of shooting first, ask questions later," Lt Col Sean Sullivan told the court. Among the dead were women, children and elderly people, including a man in a wheelchair.'
I'm curious on what you were trying to accomplish by posting that here.
Are you trying to draw an analogy between Haditha and this situation? You think the guy in the video was unarmed and the cops just killed him for no good reason?
On January 25 2012 10:27 shizna wrote:
aren't there are hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people on the streets who could have potentially acted exactly the same as that suspect?
why didn't the cop shoot him in the knee at least? imo shooting the guy 10 times is no different than shooting him once and then decapitating him with a tomahawk... it's rediculous overkill...
or maybe the cop thought he was in a computer game where it takes 25 bullets to kill someone.
If you try and think about what kind of situation those officers were in, you would know shooting him in the knee was impossible. And better yet, when they miss, the stray/ricocheted bullet could injure/kill bystanders/fellow officers.
I dunno about you, but I'd rather they shoot him in the chest and eliminate the chance of innocent bystanders than risk innocent bystanders but only minorly injuring the criminal.
|
In this case I think he was completely justified to shoot him. Of course he went over the top but in a moment when someone is swinging a weapon at you or your friend to do harm you don't think you just do.
|
Honestly, when I saw the suspect turning around in the video I really thought he was going to try & hit the officer so I can imagine the officer who shot him thought the exact same thing & immediatly reacted.
I can't really say I think he used excessive force as stuff like that happens so fast & what triggered it was the suspect turning around with the weapon in an agressive/offensive way, who knows the suspect might've swung with the item he had in his hand if the fellow officer didn't put him down, the officer whom the suspect turned towards wasn't paying attention & got caught off guard, if you watch it again just pay attention to that officer & you'll understand even more why it was necessary to shoot the suspect.
|
think about it this way:
better 9 too many shots than 1 too few.
In the prior, the end result remains the same. In the latter, many more people get hurt unnecessarily
|
On January 25 2012 10:29 Sworn wrote:
In this case I think he was completely justified to shoot him. Of course he went over the top but in a moment when someone is swinging a weapon at you or your friend to do harm you don't think you just do.
If he only shot him once it would be endangering even more people. What if the guy wasn't put down from one shot, got back up, and pulled a gun on everyone? Entirely possible considering he's already trying to attack someone.
|
On January 25 2012 10:27 shizna wrote:
aren't there are hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people on the streets who could have potentially acted exactly the same as that suspect?
why didn't the cop shoot him in the knee at least? imo shooting the guy 10 times is no different than shooting him once and then decapitating him with a tomahawk... it's rediculous overkill...
or maybe the cop thought he was in a computer game where it takes 25 bullets to kill someone.
You're the one whose thinking that this is a video game. Shooting someone in the knee? That is completely unrealistic if you know anything about shooting a pistol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
