|
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 10:48 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:32 Angra wrote: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. I get that anything is possible in these types of situations, but I imagine that if someone were to rob a place his initial weapon at hand would be a gun, with a crowbar tucked away just in case. Not the other way around...
That doesn't make any sense. For the most part, criminals are interested in self preservation as much as anyone else. I guarantee you most criminals would rather rob a place and get out with the money without killing or hurting anyone, because it drastically increases the likelihood they will get caught and how much time they will get. A crowbar is plenty imposing, and is enough to get the attention of people. Once you pull out a gun and use it, you've crossed a line that's hard to come back from. It would make more sense to wield the crowbar and save the gun for "just in case" moments. It was completely reasonable for them to assume he may have had another weapon besides the crowbar.
|
Apparently, 10 shots in 3 seconds is reasonable self defense against a guy with a crowbar. And please do keep entertaining your "what if" arguments. Let's see you argue "what if" in front of a judge one day. 
|
On January 25 2012 10:53 Jaso wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 25 2012 10:50 PoisedYeTi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:41 Jaso wrote:On January 25 2012 10:39 PoisedYeTi wrote:
The whole situation could have been avoided had they actually kept distance to the suspect. Shame the guy had to die but i believe the fault of the murder( and yes it is murder, justifiable or not) lies with the way the officers handled the situation.
The suspect had not harmed a single person but they put themselves into an awkward spot in an open area for no reason.
The police are there to protect everyone, even the suspect, so that they may stand before a court of law where all the facts are represented. lulz This point has already been brought up. He was about to harm the police officer... because they went RIGHT up to him. The tazer failed. The guy is still brandishing a close range weapon. Why don't they back away, they just continue getting closer and closer to him lol Putting themselves in unnecessary danger. What is so hard to understand about this concept. Ranged weapons Vs close, you are not in danger if you keep distance till A) the suspect puts down his weapon B) Deadly force is required if he is likely to strike someone leathally The officers caused B to happen obviously but it could have been avoided. So what you're saying is that if the guy decided to keep on strolling through town and smash hundreds of car windows, the cops should have just stood by watching?
Are you saying they should kill someone over car windows?
|
On January 25 2012 10:50 PoisedYeTi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:41 Jaso wrote:On January 25 2012 10:39 PoisedYeTi wrote:
The whole situation could have been avoided had they actually kept distance to the suspect. Shame the guy had to die but i believe the fault of the murder( and yes it is murder, justifiable or not) lies with the way the officers handled the situation.
The suspect had not harmed a single person but they put themselves into an awkward spot in an open area for no reason.
The police are there to protect everyone, even the suspect, so that they may stand before a court of law where all the facts are represented. lulz This point has already been brought up. He was about to harm the police officer... because they went RIGHT up to him. The tazer failed. The guy is still brandishing a close range weapon. Why don't they back away, they just continue getting closer and closer to him lol Putting themselves in unnecessary danger. What is so hard to understand about this concept. Ranged weapons Vs close, you are not in danger if you keep distance till A) the suspect puts down his weapon B) Deadly force is required if he is likely to strike someone leathally The officers caused B to happen obviously but it could have been avoided.
Seriously, are you even reading the thread?
They HAVE to approach him to arrest him and get the situation under control.
Everything else (like "backing away") means risks to bystanders, which is what the cops are supposed to prevent...
There is literally nothing they could do to arrest him, from 20m range. Therefore the procedure is that one officer slowly approaches him, while his partner covers him.
Normal people drop their weapon and submit in such a situation. Candidates for a darwin award turn towards the approaching officer and actually raise their weapon to threaten/attack him.
|
On January 25 2012 10:49 MidKnight wrote:
The first 5 shots are obviously fine. The other 5 with basically no pause are not. If he had a gun, sure, kill him before he can respond. But he was obviously incapitated, he didn't even have the time to fall down to the ground when they shot another 5 "to make sure". He's not a fucking terminator, they don't know they can BACK OFF for a couple of seconds until he falls down?
Someone on YT video mentioned cops fear NOT killing their victim for the fear of revenge, that would make a lot of sense.
I don't think you have the time to sit back and think about the consequences. You probably feel fear and an adrenaline rush and shoot until you're calm again, and this happens when you're sure that the threat is no more.
Seriously. Stop playing FPS.
|
On January 25 2012 10:53 plogamer wrote:Apparently, 10 shots in 3 seconds is reasonable self defense against a guy with a crowbar. And please do keep entertaining your "what if" arguments. Let's see you argue "what if" in front of a judge one day.
I'm certainly not a lawyer and really don't understand anything about law, but:
a) any reasonable judge would not rule against the shooting officer(s). He did what he was supposed to.
b) any jury would also not rule against the shooting officer(s) - as we can see from the majority of people saying the shooting was justified in this thread.
|
On January 25 2012 10:54 PoisedYeTi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:53 Jaso wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 25 2012 10:50 PoisedYeTi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:41 Jaso wrote:On January 25 2012 10:39 PoisedYeTi wrote:
The whole situation could have been avoided had they actually kept distance to the suspect. Shame the guy had to die but i believe the fault of the murder( and yes it is murder, justifiable or not) lies with the way the officers handled the situation.
The suspect had not harmed a single person but they put themselves into an awkward spot in an open area for no reason.
The police are there to protect everyone, even the suspect, so that they may stand before a court of law where all the facts are represented. lulz This point has already been brought up. He was about to harm the police officer... because they went RIGHT up to him. The tazer failed. The guy is still brandishing a close range weapon. Why don't they back away, they just continue getting closer and closer to him lol Putting themselves in unnecessary danger. What is so hard to understand about this concept. Ranged weapons Vs close, you are not in danger if you keep distance till A) the suspect puts down his weapon B) Deadly force is required if he is likely to strike someone leathally The officers caused B to happen obviously but it could have been avoided. So what you're saying is that if the guy decided to keep on strolling through town and smash hundreds of car windows, the cops should have just stood by watching? Are you saying they should kill someone over car windows?
You're right, let him go free where he can encounter random bystanders. That's a good idea.
|
Honestly I don't think it was necessary to shoot him that many times, however he did stay up for quite a while (likely a result of a drug induced state of mind), However the more you shoot the more you run the risk of someone unrelated to the incident getting hurt or killed. Especially since bullets can ricochet off of the crowbar, Lastly shooting someone who is falling with their back turned is extremely unnecessary.
|
On January 25 2012 10:54 PoisedYeTi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:53 Jaso wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 25 2012 10:50 PoisedYeTi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:41 Jaso wrote:On January 25 2012 10:39 PoisedYeTi wrote:
The whole situation could have been avoided had they actually kept distance to the suspect. Shame the guy had to die but i believe the fault of the murder( and yes it is murder, justifiable or not) lies with the way the officers handled the situation.
The suspect had not harmed a single person but they put themselves into an awkward spot in an open area for no reason.
The police are there to protect everyone, even the suspect, so that they may stand before a court of law where all the facts are represented. lulz This point has already been brought up. He was about to harm the police officer... because they went RIGHT up to him. The tazer failed. The guy is still brandishing a close range weapon. Why don't they back away, they just continue getting closer and closer to him lol Putting themselves in unnecessary danger. What is so hard to understand about this concept. Ranged weapons Vs close, you are not in danger if you keep distance till A) the suspect puts down his weapon B) Deadly force is required if he is likely to strike someone leathally The officers caused B to happen obviously but it could have been avoided. So what you're saying is that if the guy decided to keep on strolling through town and smash hundreds of car windows, the cops should have just stood by watching? Are you saying they should kill someone over car windows?
No, but if he did that they would eventually have to get up to him and physically immobilize him.
|
On January 25 2012 10:54 PoisedYeTi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:53 Jaso wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 25 2012 10:50 PoisedYeTi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:41 Jaso wrote:On January 25 2012 10:39 PoisedYeTi wrote:
The whole situation could have been avoided had they actually kept distance to the suspect. Shame the guy had to die but i believe the fault of the murder( and yes it is murder, justifiable or not) lies with the way the officers handled the situation.
The suspect had not harmed a single person but they put themselves into an awkward spot in an open area for no reason.
The police are there to protect everyone, even the suspect, so that they may stand before a court of law where all the facts are represented. lulz This point has already been brought up. He was about to harm the police officer... because they went RIGHT up to him. The tazer failed. The guy is still brandishing a close range weapon. Why don't they back away, they just continue getting closer and closer to him lol Putting themselves in unnecessary danger. What is so hard to understand about this concept. Ranged weapons Vs close, you are not in danger if you keep distance till A) the suspect puts down his weapon B) Deadly force is required if he is likely to strike someone leathally The officers caused B to happen obviously but it could have been avoided. So what you're saying is that if the guy decided to keep on strolling through town and smash hundreds of car windows, the cops should have just stood by watching? Are you saying they should kill someone over car windows?
Are you saying they should let him roam the streets until he falls asleep?
|
Cops should be held to higher standards than non-police. With great power comes great responsibility. By shooting at the man as he was already falling down, the officer demonstrated that he is not capable of keeping his calm and using the bare minimum of force needed. Once he was falling, he was definitively no longer a threat. He should be persecuted for manslaughter.
|
On January 25 2012 06:25 sMi.EternaL wrote:
I very rarely post in these types of threads. Emotions usually run high and opinions are always fickle beasts. That being said, since this is actually an area in which I am very familiar I will try to shed some light on the situation for those saying this is an unjustified shoot.
A little background first. I am a former Marine weapons instructor and am now a private sector weapons instructor. As someone that teaches officers what to do in this situation I can say that this is an absolutely justifiable shoot.
In the Law Enforcement/Military world you are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Stop the threat means exactly that. There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a "Body Alarm Response," your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don't even realize what was happening until after the fact. This officer did exactly what he should have done and fell back on his training and by doing so potentially saved the life of his partner. His initial burst did not drop the suspect, as you can see he's still standing, they have no way of knowing what kind of weapons systems he is carrying on his person other than the object in his hand. You either put the threat down and know you're safe or gamble with your life and the lives of those around you. How horrible would you feel if you were this officer, you shot your initial rounds and then stopped giving the suspect time to pull his pistol from his waistband and kill your partner? It happens, and so we train to make sure that does NOT happen.
I personally teach every student I've ever trained that his main priority is to make it home safe. Your wife/kids/husband/partner are expecting you & counting on you. If someone is coming at you/friend/family, you drop them absolutely. You never shoot to kill but you always shoot to stop the threat, in most cases this will kill the individual but that is never our intention. Hindsight and outside perspective is extremely skewed in these types of situations.
As far as being able to justify a shooting you have to be able to say to yourself, DAM! DAM is Desire, Ability and Means. This suspect displayed desire, he was well within range/had the capability to end that officers life and he definitely had the means.
Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense. If a person walks into a bank and tries to rob it in this manner he still gets assault with a deadly weapon/armed robbery etc charges. And those cases happen more frequently than you might think. In this case the suspect very obviously had a weapon and displayed an attempt to use it. Training kicked in and that was all she wrote.
Hi there.
I kinda feel the need to respond to your post since it's being quoted as high quality and therefore supposedly the highest post from the "this shoot is justified" position. I am no weapons instructor or ex-marine. However, I am training in various martial arts since about 8 years total, I have trained with several police officers and had instructors with a background ranging from ex-military to ex-special ops. I have also received training on small arms and the topic of "When does which situation call for a complete escalation?" is something everyone in this sector should be familar with.
Coming from a martial arts and no military background I am able to use weapons like swords, knives or baseball bats (which is probably the best comparison to the suspects crowbar) and I therefor know how they work and how they don't work.
There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a "Body Alarm Response," your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don't even realize what was happening until after the fact.
I completely agree. This should be the goal of any physical training in this departement. However the suspect in this short film is by no means displaying the intention to attack the policeman. He turns. He jumps towards the cop like a boxer, having his weapon in a position ready to strike. As scary as that might look, he is in no position to actually swing that weapon properly against the officer.
He holds the crowbar at the bottom end. While this part is technicly "correct" for a blunt weapon like this (think baseball bat) he has the weapon in one line with his body, the right hand above and behind his left hand, the heavy point of the weapon at neck height. If this was a Katana (which would be balanced right above his right hand), he could instantly strike and hurt someone. Since this however is a crowbar, to swing it at the officer he would have to:
a) lunge out behind his back (backwards motion) to then swing at the officer (think baseball-batter).
b) tilt the crowbar to the (from him) right side and then turn his body to swing it from right to left.
c) apply pressure with his right hand to swing it downwards.
a) and b) are easy to spot (we're talking 1-2s+ reaction time each) and are imo the correct moment to shoot at him.
c) is (remember, we're talking crowbar and not katana here) incredibly slow, even for someone with huge strength (his right hand would have to be higher up the crowbar to do this with speed since the balance point is at the other end of that thing) and, in case he actually moves the right hand up in preparation, (hint: again a sign to shoot at him) incredibly short range compared to the distance the officer has to him at that point.
What I'm seeing from this video, concerning the officers responses is that both are badly trained and overreacting.
The officer who is "under attack" (let's call him A) misses his taser shot, walks towards the suspect while fiddling around in his pocket and not looking at the suspect, then looks up and his first reaction is not drawing his weapon. It's not stepping outside of range. It's not evading a potential fatal blow. It is making a jump backwards and ducking because he's afraid (if the suspect would have swung his crowbar while turning, his head would be right in its way. Good job, well played). His reaction is not that of a person trained in close combat. It's the same reaction any untrained civilian would show.
B sees the suspect getting into a position from which he is not able to take action against his partner (see above), but a position that looks scary - I completely agree. If his Body Alarm Response is to shoot the second something LOOKS threatening then he is either horribly trained or mentally not fit for the job. He does not understand or realize that the suspect was threatening to hit his partner, but not (yet) intending to do so. If he WANTED to smack his face in while having a gun pointed in his face he would have hit the second he turned around, WITHOUT getting his weapon in the above mentioned "ready position". (He could have easily just turned around while swinging the weapon, most likely hitting A pretty damn hard and without any handgun in the world stopping him from doing so. Remember: A wasn't even looking at him because he was busy with getting his taser back into his pocket.)
Not realizing or understanding this crucial difference as officer B makes shooting the suspect a horrible call.
As someone who has been in fights before and has seen fights before, I am absolutely certain that the suspect in that video did not intend to hit the officer at the moment shots were fired, he intended to threaten him. Was it stupid? Yes. You don't fucking threaten someone while his buddy has a gun in your face. Was his threat a justification to open fire on him? No way.
PS: If anyone comes up with "yeah but you can't analyze that in the moment while it's happening" - THAT is what good training is about. As someone who is carrying a weapon you have to be able to make very close calls within a very short time frame under high stress. If you aren't able to do that, you are not fit for the job. It's that simple.
My initial reaction while watching the video was pretty much "wtf he didn't want to hit anyone" when the shots were fired. Yes, I needed to rewatch the video multiple times to understand WHY this was my initial reaction, however it is still the reaction of someone who is trained to correctly read such a situation and to avoid anyone involved getting hurt more than they should be. Even if I take the training I recieved when it comes to actual bodyguarding into account this is still NOT the situation where you have to go all out to save someones ass.
PPS: I would love to hear what the police officers actually said to the suspect. If I missed any kind transcript in the thread, please tell me so.
|
Everybody on here saying they used excessive force is retarded...Everyone in my family is a cop and hell I'd rather them come home then some criminal trying to create havoc and hurt or even kill them. If that guy used that weapon he could have easily killed that cop with one swing (Temple, throat or jugular). And like many people have stated cops don't shoot to just hopefully disarm the subject cause if they were doing that they'd be dead. This guy could have been high on pcp or crack and wouldnt have even felt a shot to the leg or arm. All in all I'd like to see any of you idiots put in these types of situations and see how much you hesitate to take someone else's life to save your own.
|
On January 25 2012 10:44 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:39 PoisedYeTi wrote:
The whole situation could have been avoided had they actually kept distance to the suspect. Shame the guy had to die but i believe the fault of the murder( and yes it is murder, justifiable or not) lies with the way the officers handled the situation.
The suspect had not harmed a single person but they put themselves into an awkward spot in an open area for no reason.
The police are there to protect everyone, even the suspect, so that they may stand before a court of law where all the facts are represented. welcome to page 30, where we cover Area of intervention and SOP about from what distance you approach subjects to minimize risks for bystanders while still keeping adequate distance to protect the cops. The instance the subject not only resists arrest but actually approaches an officer of the law with a deadly weapon with intent to harm they give up their right to "protection". Instead it becomes an officers duty to protect themselves with reasonable force (in this case deadly force since that hammer/crowbar thing is a deadly weapon in meele). Ps: Read up on the definition of murder before you use it.
You're my hero of all these posts. <3
|
I don't see anything wrong with what the police did, although it may of been a bit excessive. Verbal commands failed, the taser failed, coming closer to taser him again or apphrehending him was interrupted as he retaliated for being tasered. The officer defended his partner from getting hit.
Now I don't know about the suspect's history, both medical and criminal, but I'm assuming he knew what he was doing. It's seriously stupid to just continue when the police are tasering you. They're never going to back down unless other civilians are in danger, so when it's just you and them, you should stop what you are doing and listen.
|
On January 25 2012 10:58 SmackDiablo wrote:
Everybody on here saying they used excessive force is retarded...Everyone in my family is a cop and hell I'd rather them come home then some criminal trying to create havoc and hurt or even kill them. If that guy used that weapon he could have easily killed that cop with one swing (Temple, throat or jugular). And like many people have stated cops don't shoot to just hopefully disarm the subject cause if they were doing that they'd be dead. This guy could have been high on pcp or crack and wouldnt have even felt a shot to the leg or arm. All in all I'd like to see any of you idiots put in these types of situations and see how much you hesitate to take someone else's life to save your own.
Nope, cops are held to higher standards. Once the man was falling down, the cop continued to shoot. Once the man fell down, he was 100% incapable of hurting the cop or anyone else. If the cop was capable of keeping his cool in tense situations like this, as I am sure you would like anyone to be who is allowed to carry a gun, he wouldn't have kept shooting. Its possible to keep your cool in these situations, as there are plenty of cops who can and have. The force was excessive because the man was already subdued after less than the total shots fired.
|
If anyone was trying to attack me with anything I would probably use lethal force if i thought it was their intention to do the same. (Which it is going to be almost every time during an assault)
Sure maybe the extra shots were a bit more than needed, but with all the adrenaline and emotions im sure its hard to stop yourself from going over the top. Yeah, he should be trained to subdue not kill, but sometimes in the moment you dont consider it an option.
|
This guy is some kind of stupid
See police with a gun/taser/k9
Keeps on walking
Gets tasered
Keeps walking while pulling taser wires off
Turn around brandishing crowbar
What the hell did he expect, a brawl?
|
On January 25 2012 10:55 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:49 MidKnight wrote:
The first 5 shots are obviously fine. The other 5 with basically no pause are not. If he had a gun, sure, kill him before he can respond. But he was obviously incapitated, he didn't even have the time to fall down to the ground when they shot another 5 "to make sure". He's not a fucking terminator, they don't know they can BACK OFF for a couple of seconds until he falls down?
Someone on YT video mentioned cops fear NOT killing their victim for the fear of revenge, that would make a lot of sense. I don't think you have the time to sit back and think about the consequences. You probably feel fear and an adrenaline rush and shoot until you're calm again, and this happens when you're sure that the threat is no more. Seriously. Stop playing FPS.
They are supposed to be trained professionals tho, that's the difference. They should know the consequences of what happens when you shoot someone 5 times.There was no one around in the 20 meter radius and his only weapon was a crowbar.
I see the case of trigger happy dumb-ass cops overreacting.
|
@r.Evo I agree that it is bad training, but I don't think Police Departments are paid enough to be trained that well. It is unfortunate, but it is fact. Example, my town's police department looks like a standard old building that is hardly maintained and could almost pass for being abandoned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
