|
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. |
There's no story here...
Cops, and just about everyone but the most elite forces, are trained to shoot to kill. You even see in the video the first 4 bullets don't bring the man down, they are just 9mm, not rifle bullets.
Pretty obvious this guy, who could be cracked out on who knows what, bears a deadly weapon against an officer.
As someone who's actually seen shooting go down, I can tell you for certain that anyone who says things like "they should've shot him in the legs instead" or "they should've used a tazer instead" are just people who are ignorant and don't know what the real situation is like.
|
I think the first 5 shots were necessary. However, the second string of shots seems excessive as the suspect was on the way to the ground. Furthermore, why was the dog not released. He seemed like he was a K9 officier and from watching shows (Mythbusters), dogs are trained to take down suspects. Why did he not use to the dog for that purpose.
|
On January 25 2012 05:27 Exigaet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:23 DiLiGu wrote:
Not excessive.
Police are also NOT trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to instantly end an engagement/diffuse a situation. Instantly. No officer ever wants to take a life or enjoys having to employ the use of deadly force. Which is why they call it "deadly force" and not "shooting to kill". The amount of force being applied has to immediately end the conflict, and this much force can cause death.
If you watch the video, the man is literally in the process of swinging his weapon at an officer. The officer firing the weapon did exactly what he had to do.
Think this is excessive is a joke... real life is not the movies. When you fire a weapon a person doesn't go shooting backwards, and you don't "aim for the legs". This is why police are trained to fire their weapons accurately and rapidly. He is not intending to kill his victim, he is intending to immediately stop him from trying to kill his partner. How is this not excessive? The first 5 shots were more than enough to stop the man from attacking. The additional 5 shots once he was on the ground were unnecessary.
You can't see him at this point, the first 5 may have missed, not been sufficient, etc.
The point is, when an officer pulls the trigger, the number of shots is entirely irrelevant. They ONLY shoot if it is entirely necessary to end a situation.
|
On January 25 2012 05:27 Exigaet wrote:
How is this not excessive? The first 5 shots were more than enough to stop the man from attacking. The additional 5 shots once he was on the ground were unnecessary.
I may be wrong but the thing is, this took place in the USA. A lot of people carry concealed weapons there, and can still be a threat despite being seemingly "down". You never know, maybe this guy had a gun hidden in his pants or pockets.
|
On January 25 2012 05:29 wunsun wrote:
I think the first 5 shots were necessary. However, the second string of shots seems excessive as the suspect was on the way to the ground. Furthermore, why was the dog not released. He seemed like he was a K9 officier and from watching shows (Mythbusters), dogs are trained to take down suspects. Why did he not use to the dog for that purpose.
I don't think the angry posters in this thread would have been happier watching a dog maul the suspect.
|
There are like three of them. They could easily have just wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him. Bullets should be a last resort, not a first.
|
Europeans and Canadians think this is wrong , Americans say this is the right thing.. Well , maybe we are ones who are wrong , in the heat of the moment things happens too fast . I also know that America had lots of cops killed on duty unlike here in Europe.
|
On January 25 2012 05:29 Dranak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:27 Exigaet wrote:On January 25 2012 05:23 DiLiGu wrote:
Not excessive.
Police are also NOT trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to instantly end an engagement/diffuse a situation. Instantly. No officer ever wants to take a life or enjoys having to employ the use of deadly force. Which is why they call it "deadly force" and not "shooting to kill". The amount of force being applied has to immediately end the conflict, and this much force can cause death.
If you watch the video, the man is literally in the process of swinging his weapon at an officer. The officer firing the weapon did exactly what he had to do.
Think this is excessive is a joke... real life is not the movies. When you fire a weapon a person doesn't go shooting backwards, and you don't "aim for the legs". This is why police are trained to fire their weapons accurately and rapidly. He is not intending to kill his victim, he is intending to immediately stop him from trying to kill his partner. How is this not excessive? The first 5 shots were more than enough to stop the man from attacking. The additional 5 shots once he was on the ground were unnecessary. Considering you can't see him when the second shots are fired, I think it's hard to call it excessive. For all we know he was still attempting to swing at the officers.
You can clearly see the guy turn around and start to fall after the first 5 shots...he was in no position to swing. Both the officers were far enough away that the man would've had to turn around and run at them to even get close..
|
On January 25 2012 05:31 Yonnua wrote:
There are like three of them. They could easily have just wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him. Bullets should be a last resort, not a first.
Oh god I hope you're trolling.
|
It's a tool for bending conduit. A conduit bender, not a crowbar.
|
This guy didnt deserve to die, it is as simple as that. He was killed unjustly.
|
On January 25 2012 05:31 Yonnua wrote:
There are like three of them. They could easily have just wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him. Bullets should be a last resort, not a first.
Which one of the lucky officers in the crowbar lottery gets to attack first and risk his eyeball being dislodged?
|
The guy who shot the taser fumbles with something in his belt and takes his eyes of the guy with the crowbar. If he had just backed away instead of looking the other way the crowbar dude wouldn't have been able to get into range to swing at all.
You can actually see how suprised and scared the taser cop is when the crowbar dude turns around. How can you let your eyes drop or even stay that close to someone dangerous if your gun isn't drawn?
|
On January 25 2012 05:31 Yonnua wrote:
There are like three of them. They could easily have just wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him. Bullets should be a last resort, not a first.
I would like to see you go "wrestle" someone armed with a weapon that wasn't brought down by a taser.
Wresting with an armed subject is stupid. That's arguing that the subject's safety (which is still not guaranteed) is more important than the officers'.
|
^ Second string of shots? Police officers are taught to unload their entire clip as one shot, as they should be. Likely, the officer isn't involved in a ton of shootings either, but been trained on it. Training just kicks in, and he doesn't know if there are 10 of his buddies around the corner, as soon as the situation is hostile you have to take down the target in question to secure yourself.
Releasing the dog would've taken too long. His crowbar would've connected by the time the dog had done anything. It was a situation where the officers needed to defend themselves from imminent deadly force. Imagine if you were in that situation, where a strange, large man with a huge crowbar, who is acting extremely agitated in an area known for drugs and gang violence, is coming at you.
I'm glad that TV is why you are forming your opinion.
|
On January 25 2012 05:32 Aristodemus wrote:
This guy didnt deserve to die, it is as simple as that. He was killed unjustly.
Oh, well ok. Thank you for your insight. I guess when you put it that way, sure!
|
you guys have to watch the video properly... how did the officer shoot the guy while he was on the ground? The car was in the way but you see the guy is still standing after the first couple shots. The second wave of shots put him down. Not knowing the guy and seeing he is willing to attack a cop, the officer had all the rights to use whatever force necessary to put him down.
Edit* O, and when you see your partner officer in danger... you're gonna put that fucker down. End of story. that officer doesn't need more training, that guy who is attacking an officer need training that you can;t walk around wielding a weapon
|
Since one bullet from close distance whould kill him i dont know if it matters that the cop shot seven or eight times.
It increases the possibility of the suspect dying if we assume that its wrong, but it also increases the possibility of the other cop not being hit by that hammer(or whatever he was holding).
Tricky situation my opinion is that cops should NEVER go that near to a guy holding a hammer. If they stayed out of range they whould be 100% safe while they could still shoot and immobilize him no matter the distance. Also they can send that police dog to attack him.My conclusion is that the cops did not handle the situation well. I am not from usa i dont know the laws so i cant speak about them being punished.
|
well they tried to taze him first, and that didn't work, he then brandished a weapon at a police officer, when he already had a gun pushed in his face. yeah i don't think this guy deserves to be defended. if you attack a police officer, or even raise a weapon at them, you are asking for death.
|
And that's why you don't brandish your weapon in such a way when people with guns are pointing them at you... That looked kind of like a mini sledge of some kind of long-handled war-hammer (lol). Either way, that person was a dumbass. There was no excessive force. Just excessive stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
