|
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 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.
And why would we agree with that "rule"? Might as well give them all assault rifle to make sure that when they do use their weapon, they poke huge holes in the guy.
Seems to me like when you have an opportunity to maybe keep the guy alive, you should take that opportunity. After the first 5 bullets, the guy was no longer dangerous - the quick 5 other shots where unnecessary. Who cares about whether "a cop is supposed to shoot to kill", how's that not the most disgusting thing you've ever heard?
The cop, in my opinion, is incompetent and should be fired. You don't shoot a guy who's falling over 5 times in the back. It just doesn't happen.
|
it was a poor performance by the police the suspect should have never been able to get into melee range. Also if someone isn't able to control a dog he probably shouldn't use one as a tool. You can clearly see that he couldn't control the situation at any point.
Well the execution after the person attacked is actually taught. I dont really know the standards for police training but Fbi training teaches to shoot untill the target stops moving especially if they carry a gun or another potentially deadly weapon.
The only person failing was the team leader(poor team performance) and he should get fired or at least demoted.
|
On January 25 2012 11:02 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:55 Kukaracha wrote: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.
How do you know they're trigger happy?
What if it was the cop's first time pulling the trigger against an actual human being? I'm sure he would just follow his instincts in that case.
Also, that sure as hell wasn't a 20-meter radius.
|
On January 25 2012 11:03 Whole wrote:
@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.
I'm fine with someone stepping up and saying "we didn't train that guy properly, he wasn't fit for that kind of situation".
However that is not going to happen. In fact it is the whole reason why I even bothered to write that wall of text since most people here seem to come in with a very uneducated view when it comes to both sides of the argument.
Bad training is no excuse for trying to make a wrong move look like a brilliant idea that's setting an example for the entire police force.
|
On January 25 2012 11:02 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:55 Kukaracha wrote: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.
The problem I see with this, and with r.Evo's reaction, is that you assume that the police can get the training given to special intervention forces.
Really? Do you know how many cops there are out there? How much money it would cost to extensively train every single officer in martial art theory and crisis management? How many cops there would be if you only hired people with balls of steel and an impeccable self-control?
Seriously, the guy is a cop. Low salary, just doing his job. Give him a break. If you want higher standards, find the money, and find suitables candidates.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 25 2012 10:58 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Really good post, why lethal weapons are handed out to people who don't know when to use them is insane.
|
I completely disapprove of the actions of this officer.
Threads like this have appeared before, and people who protest "excessive" force (and yes I believe this is excessive) aren't doing so because they don't understand the USA's policies, they're doing so because they believe it's wrong. I won't even bother arguing whether or not this is a "text book" use of force or not, it's irrelevant. In fact I'll take this as a "text book" use of force. I'd rather critique the text book anyway.
On January 25 2012 06:25 sMi.EternaL wrote:
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.
Well you know what? That's just fine and dandy for a battlefield, but it's just not good enough for police working around civilians in a crowded American city. The first priority of a police officer shouldn't just be to make it home safe whatever the cost. The wife/kids/husband/partner may be counting on you, but so is society at large. If that's too much to ask, pursue a different line of work.
On January 25 2012 06:25 sMi.EternaL wrote:
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.
Are you saying this officer pulled his gun and fired 9 or 10 times without even thinking about it? That it was basically a reflex? This is totally unacceptable to me. Again, maybe on a battlefield it's fine and dandy to do that, but this is a crowded city. The more bullets you fire, the more chances you're going to miss and kill an innocent bystander (one whose wife/kids/husband/partner is expecting them home). Something like this happening on the streets of an American city is very damaging. I realize the police won't have much time to think in a scenario like this, and that is why they need to be trained to consider these things. This is a very clear example of where a battlefield and a city full of civilians are two very different things, and why marines and police shouldn't be trained the same way.
On January 25 2012 06:25 sMi.EternaL wrote:
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.
I'm not a doctor, but I'll bet there's a study somewhere that shows that shooting someone 5 times has a disabling effect. The second 4 or 5 shots were excessive in my opinion.
I can respect that you're a weapons expert, that you know what you're talking about, and that what you're saying is correct by the book. I disagree with the book.
|
On January 25 2012 10:58 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Two points of note regarding your post:
1) For all intents and purposes you are vastly more trained and qualified to discuss hand to hand combat and weapons than the cops in question. Aside from a fairly basic training most police officers are not trained for hand to hand or close quarter combat. That might be a mistake which leads to situations such as this, but it is also a fact. In point of fact, they will most likely not need such extensive hand to hand training throughout most of their job either.
Spec ops or even military operators are trained with a certain amount of hand to hand in mind, police officers not really.
2) I'll bow to your superior knowledge regarding his stance, but i must let you know that my reaction to the video was fairly different to yours. Granted i finished my service nearly 10 years ago, but if the situation had happened to me, i most likely would have shot to cover my partner as well.
Threatening to strike is exactly what we were trained to look for, simply because we are NOT trained to the level you seem to have been. A lurch towards the officer coupled with raising a weapon is pretty much more warning than you ever expect to receive.
Maybe you are correct, as i said you seem to know more about hth than I do, but by any handbook i know what he did was more than enough to justify a shot (and VERY stupid to boot).
|
+ Show Spoiler [long quote] +On January 25 2012 10:58 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
This is actually very similar to the point I made a page or two back. It definitely looks more like the guy was trying to threaten the officer than he was attack him. At least at first (he may have subsequently drawn the weapon back to make an actual strike). However you cannot argue the point that he was clearly threatening the officer, at that point I'm not sure what his actual intentions were really matters. Either way you slice it the guy ignored multiple warnings from the officers and turned the threaten them with a weapon. The officers were well within their right to open fire, as I said they have every right to defend themselves.
It's a bit sad, I think this was just some dumb punk kid who was probably high on something. But in life there are consequences to things, these officers gave this guy every opportunity to surrender himself and he chose to ignore them. He knew what he was doing was wrong, he knew what he was supposed to do. He chose to instead threaten them; who knows why maybe he didn't think they were serious or didn't think they would open fire; but he was wrong and his actions cost him his life. Police officers put themselves in incredible danger every single day of the week to protect the rest of us, I think they deserve a little credit instead of the constant second guessing that they are afforded.
-edit: fixed spoiler
|
^
Basically what you're saying is that the cops should've waited until AFTER the officer was hit/killed until they started firing? I believe that goes against every part of "self defense"...
(I'm aware of r.Evo's post which stated the guy had no intention of actually attacking the officer, but the guy wasn't a professional. There's the chance he was holding that like a blind fool. Even if he wasn't planning to, the fact that he turned towards the officer is a pretty big risk to take.)
|
On January 25 2012 11:09 KryptoStorm wrote:
Really good post, why lethal weapons are handed out to people who don't know when to use them is insane.
This is the USA, police officers and citizens have to do with what the law gives them. And the law gives weapons to everyone. Plain and simple.
Such events might be rare in France or England, but this is because gun ownership is too unlikely to be assumed from a random thug.
|
On January 25 2012 11:04 Djzapz 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. And why would we agree with that "rule"? Might as well give them all assault rifle to make sure that when they do use their weapon, they poke huge holes in the guy. Seems to me like when you have an opportunity to maybe keep the guy alive, you should take that opportunity. After the first 5 bullets, the guy was no longer dangerous - the quick 5 other shots where unnecessary. Who cares about whether "a cop is supposed to shoot to kill", how's that not the most disgusting thing you've ever heard? The cop, in my opinion, is incompetent and should be fired. You don't shoot a guy who's falling over 5 times in the back. It just doesn't happen.
Because any other philosophy risks the lives of the innocent to protect the offender. I go by the same philosophy when defending myself and my family.
|
As someone who lives in LA, no one in LA is remotely surprised or cares
edit: not meant to offend or anything
just pointing out the viewpoint here
|
On January 25 2012 11:09 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:02 MidKnight wrote:On January 25 2012 10:55 Kukaracha wrote: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. The problem I see with this, and with r.Evo's reaction, is that you assume that the police can get the training given to special intervention forces. Really? Do you know how many cops there are out there? How much money it would cost to extensively train every single officer in martial art theory and crisis management? How many cops there would be if you only hired people with balls of steel and an impeccable self-control? Seriously, the guy is a cop. Low salary, just doing his job. Give him a break. If you want higher standards, find the money, and find suitables candidates.
As I said, I'm fine with ANYONE saying "Yeah he probably fucked up but our police in general is badly trained for this type of stuff". However, what I'm seeing all over the place is people who either are like "Yeah he did a great job!" or like "omg this police officer made a horrible mistake".
If police is horribly trained, fine. Whoever is responsible for that needs to receive the kick in the nuts and not this officer. However, the second you say "He did fine, give him a break, that's how things are!" you accept the fact that a police force is not able to perform their basic duties properly.
I'm not a doctor, but I'll bet there's a study somewhere that shows that shooting someone 5 times has a disabling effect. The second 4 or 5 shots were excessive in my opinion.
That actually depends. I've heard from cases (police, nothing spec-ops like) where they needed to dislocate joints because people kept brawling after multiple gunshot/knife wounds. This all depends on drugs, adrenaline etc. ... The human body can withstand a lot of shit within a short timeframe and still find ways to hurt someone badly.
The standard procedure when it comes to the application of lethal force though (speaking germany only know, no idea about the USA) is to re-evalute the situation after the first shots are fired. If you - for any reason - assume the person is still the same threat as when you started firing you keep shooting.
|
Completely justified. Unfortunately the officers didn't have the luxury of hindsight.
|
On January 25 2012 11:13 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:09 KryptoStorm wrote:
Really good post, why lethal weapons are handed out to people who don't know when to use them is insane.
This is the USA, police officers and citizens have to do with what the law gives them. And the law gives weapons to everyone. Plain and simple. Such events might be rare in France or England, but this is because gun ownership is too unlikely to be assumed from a random thug.
Except that it's not plain or simple. If you are a felon or have mental issues, you are not allowed to own a gun. You're also not allowed to buy illegal guns from off the street. So no, the law does not allow everyone to have weapons, let alone give them to everyone. This doesn't mean that criminals respect or are stopped by the law.
|
You could practically murder someone in the US as a cop and not get a prison sentence. This cop will get away clean. Why didn't he use a taser or the dog? That would've been much more effective than shooting a guy 10 times. One shot is enough to take a person down, but this cop was aiming at the man's chest/head to kill him. It was a bluff charge too, he hadn't even begun to swing the weapon and just did a threat with his elbow and basically turning to the guy.
The police officer that shot deserves to get life in prison.
User was warned for this post
|
Watched the video many times.
- Taser shot hit his face
- Suspect removes the taser things
- He lunges forward towards the cop who fired taser
- The guy with taser was looking as others have mentioned
- Second cop fires on the suspect and keeps shooting even after the suspect is down
I'm not a cop/self-defense expert just a normal person and I think it was well-within the cop's right to open fire on the suspect for provocative/threatening action towards his partner, but he did shoot one too many. As many others have pointed out, the cops could have diffused the situation much better but things escalated too quickly. If the original taser shot had left the suspect incapicitated I don't think the cop would have fired on the suspect. However the suspect did remove it rather quite easily and lunged forward to the cop who had fucked up on the shot. Good judgement call by the other cop, but it's just really unfortunate it had to end like this.
|
On January 25 2012 11:17 r.Evo wrote:
If police is horribly trained, fine. Whoever is responsible for that needs to receive the kick in the nuts and not this officer. However, the second you say "He did fine, give him a break, that's how things are!" you accept the fact that a police force is not able to perform their basic duties properly.
It isn't really the trainer's fault. It is just that they are funded in a way that gives them little incentive to excel and little means to get advanced training.
On January 25 2012 11:20 Deadlyhazard wrote:
You could practically murder someone in the US as a cop and not get a prison sentence. This cop will get away clean. Why didn't he use a taser or the dog? That would've been much more effective than shooting a guy 10 times. One shot is enough to take a person down, but this cop was aiming at the man's chest/head to kill him. It was a bluff charge too, he hadn't even begun to swing the weapon and just did a threat with his elbow and basically turning to the guy.
The police officer that shot deserves to get life in prison.
They did use a taser. Get your facts straight before you start saying that people should get life in prison.
|
On January 25 2012 10:56 Jaso wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Thats the way it most probably is in the US. But i am very certain in many european countries the cops would at least be charged because of excessive force. And in my opinion rightfully so. I dont see any attempt at deescalating the situation either (e.g. the taser got immediatly fired the guy left the restaurant).
Both criminals and cops seem to be willingfull to use more force and use it faster in the US.
Another question: do cops in the US usually shoot one-handed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
