|
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 11:27 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:11 Tula wrote:On January 25 2012 10:58 r.Evo wrote: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. 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). Honestly, just try it out. (I just took a wooden katana I've got lying around here and held it the wrong way around to make sure im not spewing out complete bullshit) - copy the way he's standing (left foot in front, right behind), knees slightly bent and then hold an object that's similar to that crowbar or a baseball bat like he does. You will, most likely, notice that it's incredibly awkward if you actually want to HIT something or someone from that position. It's kinda similar to someone raising his chin and having his fists to the side of his body instead of his front. It's a threatening gesture, not an attacking one. Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:12 Jaso wrote:
^
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.) Well, the plain fact that he did what he did while having someone point a gun to his face isn't exactly what I'd call clever in the first place. =D I'm pretty sure that guy is by no means a "professional", but here's another point: He is NOT jumping AT the officer. He is kinda hopping towards him (like a boxer would) - which makes no sense at all if you want to hit him. A crazy person who wants to smack your head in with a crowbar simply won't move like that. (Imagine yourself in that situation. Try out how you would act when you want to be like OMG GET OFF MY BALLS YOU MOTHER**** and how you would act when you are GOING TO SMASH THAT GUYS HEAD IN RIGHT NOW. Those are highly different mindsets and they result in highly different movements. The ability to spot that difference should be what someone who works in law-enforcement should be capable of.
Thats all theoretical. Why would the officer risk injury to his partner for the chance that he might be gesturing? Even if everything you say is true, there is no reason for him to wait until the suspect is in swinging motion. It could be too late by then. Personally, the stance pretty much looks like a baseball bat swing. He could have swung it diagonally quite easily and fast.
10 shots might seem like its alot, but they were within the range of the suspect's weapon. He was likely coked the fuck up so a couple shots might not drop him.
|
On January 25 2012 10:58 r.Evo wrote: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.
It doesn't matter at all if he was in no position to swing at the officer. He turned around and threatened the officer with a deadly weapon and the other officer responded in kind.
|
On January 25 2012 11:30 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:29 FrankWalls wrote:On January 25 2012 11:26 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:21 Whole wrote: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. So they used tasers but the guy didn't drop to the ground and had the ability to swing a weapon? Explain that. I know it said he used a taser, but there are two officers and one taser was ineffective? Why didn't they try the other one and aim around the thick clothing? well what do you want them to do? i can just imagine this exchange "oh sorry sir my taser didnt work please let my partner here get out his so he can try it out too" How about not shooting the guy ten times, maybe just a shot to the arm or leg. That's enough to incapacitate just about anyone. He instantly reacted by shooting him in the head and chest multiple times to kill which was foolish.
You watch to many bad cop movies, you don't aim for a leg or arm on this kind off situation.And how you have gotten the idea they shot him in the head is beyond me...
|
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.
I agree, instincts perfected at training and adrenaline.
On the other hand, I think there should be necessary changes on the training also. There should be a "no-kill-if-possible" principle and do optimal damage to incapacitate suspects, like shoot at the legs and hands. Better for the officers to have a harder training (for accuracy and response time) and the suspect to lose a limb than to lose a life.
Many people fail to comment on this, but I think this is the most significant event in the encounter. I think there is a breach of protocol done by the police as well. Notice at 00:42 - 00:45 the closer officer took his eyes away from the suspect while moving towards him, perhaps to get the cuffs. You never do that. That is a failure of response. He could have stepped back and reached for whatever he needed to reach while maintaining eye contact while the other officer secure with his guns drawn out. That way, the suspect would see a "chance" to be aggerssive and all this would be unecessary. My behavioral psychology professor, who also serve as a consultant and clinical psychologists specializing in trauma in FBI, says that one of the most important things that police officers should also learn other than killing/taking down suspects is that the suspects psyche is unstable especially at the moment of crime (otherwise they wont do such crimes), and should do nothing more to upset or disturb it.
In conclusion, I believe it while it is not excessive, the officers breached protocol which aggravated the situation.
|
In my training, we were always taught "only ever take your weapon out if you're going to use it". At first I felt like 10 shots were excessive, but when I put myself in that position, if your life is on the line and the guy is still standing up, you take the fucker down - that's your only priority.
|
On January 25 2012 11:36 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:26 plogamer wrote:
As a poster above mentioned, there was no re-evaluation of the situation after the initial shots. 10 shots, 3 seconds. I can't get over how rapidly and how much the cops shot. This too. Even if the taser situation didn't work out for whatever reason, there was no need to deliver that many shots to a bluff charge that the officers had time to react and get away. It should have been a shot to the knee cap or really anywhere else I'm sure this officer was trained to shoot towards. I don't care about the whole 'heat of the situation' argument, the officer shot to kill for whatever reason. This wasn't to take the suspect down, it was to kill him. You will never meet anyone who is trained in firearms to fire anywhere other than the center of mass with a handgun. Expecting anyone to shoot someone in the knee to defend themselves is fantastic.
I imagine it would be very very difficult to aim a handgun in a situation like that for something specific. A knee was just an example. The training just sounds like its designed to make officers think poorly and not dynamically. Any other sane being would shoot anywhere else that isn't life threatening to disable the suspect, and if that suspect HAD ACTUALLY been pursuing the other officer rather than doing that turn around (he wasnt even charging at the officer at that point) THEN shoot to kill.
And ten shots at the center of a large mass to take a guy down? REALLY? Ten shots?
|
I just watched the video a third time, on fullscreen. It's a lot more clear that way.
The guy with the taser tried to take down the guy who had the small sledgehammer, and the taser didn't take him down. The officer with the taser then looked down to do something with it. The guy with the small sledge then pulled the hammer back, and then aggressively moved towards the officer who was looking down. When this happened, the officer with the gun pulled the trigger several times.
At 0:45, you can see the guy with the sledge advancing towards the officer who has his attention diverted. Watching closely from :35 to :50 on fullscreen should give a clear picture of what happened.
I think that the officer who shot the person in question was just defending his partner, who was about to get brained by a large chunk of heavy metal on a pole. It's a shame that the attacker died, but shit happens when you attack a police officer. I personally think that more bullets were used than was necessary, but hindsight is 20/20, and I'm not the officer who had the gun.
|
On January 25 2012 11:37 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:09 Kukaracha wrote: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. So how does it work? They just had a gun to every cop and say "Here, use this to protect and serve, gl hf"? I know shooting people in USA is not a big deal, but come on. Are cops really supposed to shoot anyone to death who shows any sign of aggression with any kind of weapon? I mean, I obviously do not know the exact details, the mental state of the cops or their previous experiences in these type of situations, but to say they didn't overreact is a bit silly.
It's not in the slightest bit silly. A blow to the head with a metal bar can easily kill someone and can happen in less than a second.
|
Living in Norway I'm so happy that I will likely never get to see this kind of shit. Even if you think the guy deserved it, it is still fucking disgusting to see someone getting killed.
|
Simple procedure. You order the man to back down. If he refuses or doesn't comply IMMEDIATELY, you shoot him in the knee/leg so long as he remains in an aggressive stance. You don't wait until he's right about to move in and attack, then proceed to kill him. That's not justice. That's barbaric.
|
On January 25 2012 11:37 gameguard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:27 r.Evo wrote:On January 25 2012 11:11 Tula wrote:On January 25 2012 10:58 r.Evo wrote: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. 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). Honestly, just try it out. (I just took a wooden katana I've got lying around here and held it the wrong way around to make sure im not spewing out complete bullshit) - copy the way he's standing (left foot in front, right behind), knees slightly bent and then hold an object that's similar to that crowbar or a baseball bat like he does. You will, most likely, notice that it's incredibly awkward if you actually want to HIT something or someone from that position. It's kinda similar to someone raising his chin and having his fists to the side of his body instead of his front. It's a threatening gesture, not an attacking one. On January 25 2012 11:12 Jaso wrote:
^
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.) Well, the plain fact that he did what he did while having someone point a gun to his face isn't exactly what I'd call clever in the first place. =D I'm pretty sure that guy is by no means a "professional", but here's another point: He is NOT jumping AT the officer. He is kinda hopping towards him (like a boxer would) - which makes no sense at all if you want to hit him. A crazy person who wants to smack your head in with a crowbar simply won't move like that. (Imagine yourself in that situation. Try out how you would act when you want to be like OMG GET OFF MY BALLS YOU MOTHER**** and how you would act when you are GOING TO SMASH THAT GUYS HEAD IN RIGHT NOW. Those are highly different mindsets and they result in highly different movements. The ability to spot that difference should be what someone who works in law-enforcement should be capable of. Thats all theoretical. Why would the officer risk injury to his partner for the chance that he might be gesturing? Even if everything you say is true, there is no reason for him to wait until the suspect is in swinging motion. It could be too late by then. Personally, the stance pretty much looks like a baseball bat swing. He could have swung it diagonally quite easily and fast. 10 shots might seem like its alot, but they were within the range of the suspect's weapon. He was likely coked the fuck up so a couple shots might not drop him.
I never once said to wait for the swinging motion.
Also, no, it doesn't look like a baseball bat swing. From his current position he HAS to make a 1-2s long move to get into a position from where he can swing. If his action until that point is just a threat you have still time to wait for him getting into position.
Baseball bat swing:
+ Show Spoiler +
As I said earlier, try it out for yourself.
On January 25 2012 11:37 Skullflower wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 10:58 r.Evo wrote: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.
It doesn't matter at all if he was in no position to swing at the officer. He turned around and threatened the officer with a deadly weapon and the other officer responded in kind.
If a police officer can't distinguish between a threat with a deadly weapon and the upcoming use of a deadly weapon he is not fit for the job.
If the police officer is 20m from a subject, he pulls a knife and shouts "I'LL KILL YOU!!" while jumping 1m forward this would also not be a scenario where shooting the subject would be appropriate since he wouldn't be able to actually hurt the officier.
You sound as if "Well, I kinda felt threatened by him shouting so I shot at him" would be a solid argument as well.
PS: Is the fact that like 4 people in the last 10 posts are commenting on things I analyzed pretty in-depth in my wall of text like 2 pages ago a sign for people not reading the thread or for people just wanting to vent randomly without actually caring about the what & why? -.-
|
On January 25 2012 11:40 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:36 OsoVega wrote:On January 25 2012 11:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:26 plogamer wrote:
As a poster above mentioned, there was no re-evaluation of the situation after the initial shots. 10 shots, 3 seconds. I can't get over how rapidly and how much the cops shot. This too. Even if the taser situation didn't work out for whatever reason, there was no need to deliver that many shots to a bluff charge that the officers had time to react and get away. It should have been a shot to the knee cap or really anywhere else I'm sure this officer was trained to shoot towards. I don't care about the whole 'heat of the situation' argument, the officer shot to kill for whatever reason. This wasn't to take the suspect down, it was to kill him. You will never meet anyone who is trained in firearms to fire anywhere other than the center of mass with a handgun. Expecting anyone to shoot someone in the knee to defend themselves is fantastic. I imagine it would be very very difficult to aim a handgun in a situation like that for something specific. A knee was just an example. The training just sounds like its designed to make officers think poorly and not dynamically. Any other sane being would shoot anywhere else that isn't life threatening to disable the suspect, and if that suspect HAD ACTUALLY been pursuing the other officer rather than doing that turn around (he wasnt even charging at the officer at that point) THEN shoot to kill. And ten shots at the center of a large mass to take a guy down? REALLY? Ten shots?
Anyone who was handling a gun in a situation in which they would have to defend themselves would know that specifically aiming at any point of the body at all is basically impossible, let alone somewhere that would be non-fatal. That is why people are taught to aim for the center of mass and nowhere else. Let me ask, have you ever handled a hand gun?
Someone can close the distance between the suspect and the officer in less than two seconds and the suspect was clearly beginning an attack with his weapon.
|
why wasn't the taser effective?
like seriously was he a zombie or something?
|
On January 25 2012 11:40 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:36 OsoVega wrote:On January 25 2012 11:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:26 plogamer wrote:
As a poster above mentioned, there was no re-evaluation of the situation after the initial shots. 10 shots, 3 seconds. I can't get over how rapidly and how much the cops shot. This too. Even if the taser situation didn't work out for whatever reason, there was no need to deliver that many shots to a bluff charge that the officers had time to react and get away. It should have been a shot to the knee cap or really anywhere else I'm sure this officer was trained to shoot towards. I don't care about the whole 'heat of the situation' argument, the officer shot to kill for whatever reason. This wasn't to take the suspect down, it was to kill him. You will never meet anyone who is trained in firearms to fire anywhere other than the center of mass with a handgun. Expecting anyone to shoot someone in the knee to defend themselves is fantastic. I imagine it would be very very difficult to aim a handgun in a situation like that for something specific. A knee was just an example. The training just sounds like its designed to make officers think poorly and not dynamically. Any other sane being would shoot anywhere else that isn't life threatening to disable the suspect, and if that suspect HAD ACTUALLY been pursuing the other officer rather than doing that turn around (he wasnt even charging at the officer at that point) THEN shoot to kill. And ten shots at the center of a large mass to take a guy down? REALLY? Ten shots?
I'd shoot where it wasn't life threatening to my partner, ie in the suspects chest to take him out
If I was in the officers position, I'd do the exact same thing. This is the guy I work with and he's right in front of someone who is gesturing to not injure him, but kill him. What kind of person would you be if you told your partner that you didn't shoot the guy because you theorycrafted that he couldn't hit him properly. Shoot not to kill? He is shooting to stop the threat like that guy with experience (ie he is a relevant authority on the matter) said he was. He stopped the threat, and he saved his partners life
I don't trust or like the police at all, but this video clearly shows that the officer was justified in taking action that he deemed necessary to stop the threat. If it was anyones fault that the suspect got shot it was the suspect for being a total idiot and gesturing like he's going to kill the officer
|
On January 25 2012 11:48 shawster wrote:
why wasn't the taser effective?
like seriously was he a zombie or something?
He was wearing close, which reduces the effectiveness.
There's also the possibility that he had a reduced effect because he was high on drugs or something.
|
On January 25 2012 11:40 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:36 OsoVega wrote:On January 25 2012 11:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:26 plogamer wrote:
As a poster above mentioned, there was no re-evaluation of the situation after the initial shots. 10 shots, 3 seconds. I can't get over how rapidly and how much the cops shot. This too. Even if the taser situation didn't work out for whatever reason, there was no need to deliver that many shots to a bluff charge that the officers had time to react and get away. It should have been a shot to the knee cap or really anywhere else I'm sure this officer was trained to shoot towards. I don't care about the whole 'heat of the situation' argument, the officer shot to kill for whatever reason. This wasn't to take the suspect down, it was to kill him. You will never meet anyone who is trained in firearms to fire anywhere other than the center of mass with a handgun. Expecting anyone to shoot someone in the knee to defend themselves is fantastic. I imagine it would be very very difficult to aim a handgun in a situation like that for something specific. A knee was just an example. The training just sounds like its designed to make officers think poorly and not dynamically. Any other sane being would shoot anywhere else that isn't life threatening to disable the suspect, and if that suspect HAD ACTUALLY been pursuing the other officer rather than doing that turn around (he wasnt even charging at the officer at that point) THEN shoot to kill. And ten shots at the center of a large mass to take a guy down? REALLY? Ten shots?
You honestly don't believe if put in that same situation with a split second to react you'd aim for the guys knees do you?
|
On January 25 2012 11:44 Labbetuss wrote:
Living in Norway I'm so happy that I will likely never get to see this kind of shit. Even if you think the guy deserved it, it is still fucking disgusting to see someone getting killed.
And what makes you think in USA we're likely to see this? I live in a state where anyone can carry a concealed weapon and I have never seen anything with a gun occur. Everyone thinks it's terrible that the guy died, it's a discussion of whether or not the force was necessary.
I have also had weapons training courses and agree that this was the correct response, you don't hesitate or think about it, you put the person down. This is what they did and sadly the man died, but I believe they reacted appropriately
|
Maybe too many shots, but the shooting is justified. The suspect went into an attacking stance and reversed direction into one of the police while holding a weapon.
|
On January 25 2012 11:47 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:40 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:36 OsoVega wrote:On January 25 2012 11:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:26 plogamer wrote:
As a poster above mentioned, there was no re-evaluation of the situation after the initial shots. 10 shots, 3 seconds. I can't get over how rapidly and how much the cops shot. This too. Even if the taser situation didn't work out for whatever reason, there was no need to deliver that many shots to a bluff charge that the officers had time to react and get away. It should have been a shot to the knee cap or really anywhere else I'm sure this officer was trained to shoot towards. I don't care about the whole 'heat of the situation' argument, the officer shot to kill for whatever reason. This wasn't to take the suspect down, it was to kill him. You will never meet anyone who is trained in firearms to fire anywhere other than the center of mass with a handgun. Expecting anyone to shoot someone in the knee to defend themselves is fantastic. I imagine it would be very very difficult to aim a handgun in a situation like that for something specific. A knee was just an example. The training just sounds like its designed to make officers think poorly and not dynamically. Any other sane being would shoot anywhere else that isn't life threatening to disable the suspect, and if that suspect HAD ACTUALLY been pursuing the other officer rather than doing that turn around (he wasnt even charging at the officer at that point) THEN shoot to kill. And ten shots at the center of a large mass to take a guy down? REALLY? Ten shots? Anyone who was handling a gun in a situation in which they would have to defend themselves would know that specifically aiming at any point of the body at all is basically impossible, let alone somewhere that would be non-fatal. That is why people are taught to aim for the center of mass and nowhere else. Let me ask, have you ever handled a hand gun? Someone can close the distance between the suspect and the officer in less than two seconds and the suspect was clearly beginning an attack with his weapon.
Okay, I've never handled a hand gun -- I did use a rifle for a long time just for shooting practice because it was fun. No training here.
But another thing comes to mind....why exactly were the officers getting so close to him when he had a god damn melee weapon? Why not stand back and wait out a situation for more cops to arrive and potentially use those be-be bag guns (excuse my lack of knowledge for whatever the thing that fires this is called)?
I mean, COME ON. You're dealing with someone who is mentally unstable here and could possibly be rehabilitated. Why shoot to kill? Why encroach this close with so few officers nearby at the moment? Either way, this situation could have been avoided and it was the officer's faults for this man's death as far as I'm concerned.
|
On January 25 2012 11:47 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:40 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:36 OsoVega wrote:On January 25 2012 11:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:26 plogamer wrote:
As a poster above mentioned, there was no re-evaluation of the situation after the initial shots. 10 shots, 3 seconds. I can't get over how rapidly and how much the cops shot. This too. Even if the taser situation didn't work out for whatever reason, there was no need to deliver that many shots to a bluff charge that the officers had time to react and get away. It should have been a shot to the knee cap or really anywhere else I'm sure this officer was trained to shoot towards. I don't care about the whole 'heat of the situation' argument, the officer shot to kill for whatever reason. This wasn't to take the suspect down, it was to kill him. You will never meet anyone who is trained in firearms to fire anywhere other than the center of mass with a handgun. Expecting anyone to shoot someone in the knee to defend themselves is fantastic. I imagine it would be very very difficult to aim a handgun in a situation like that for something specific. A knee was just an example. The training just sounds like its designed to make officers think poorly and not dynamically. Any other sane being would shoot anywhere else that isn't life threatening to disable the suspect, and if that suspect HAD ACTUALLY been pursuing the other officer rather than doing that turn around (he wasnt even charging at the officer at that point) THEN shoot to kill. And ten shots at the center of a large mass to take a guy down? REALLY? Ten shots? Anyone who was handling a gun in a situation in which they would have to defend themselves would know that specifically aiming at any point of the body at all is basically impossible, let alone somewhere that would be non-fatal. That is why people are taught to aim for the center of mass and nowhere else. Let me ask, have you ever handled a hand gun? Someone can close the distance between the suspect and the officer in less than two seconds and the suspect was clearly beginning an attack with his weapon.
Two seconds are AGES in a situation like this. It's a LOT of time for all the parties involved.
The suspect was not "clearly beginning an attack". You are interpreting, not observing. If you'd simply observe the situation you'd come to the conclusion that he was threatening to attack, not attacking.
On January 25 2012 11:50 askTeivospy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:40 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:36 OsoVega wrote:On January 25 2012 11:28 Deadlyhazard wrote:On January 25 2012 11:26 plogamer wrote:
As a poster above mentioned, there was no re-evaluation of the situation after the initial shots. 10 shots, 3 seconds. I can't get over how rapidly and how much the cops shot. This too. Even if the taser situation didn't work out for whatever reason, there was no need to deliver that many shots to a bluff charge that the officers had time to react and get away. It should have been a shot to the knee cap or really anywhere else I'm sure this officer was trained to shoot towards. I don't care about the whole 'heat of the situation' argument, the officer shot to kill for whatever reason. This wasn't to take the suspect down, it was to kill him. You will never meet anyone who is trained in firearms to fire anywhere other than the center of mass with a handgun. Expecting anyone to shoot someone in the knee to defend themselves is fantastic. I imagine it would be very very difficult to aim a handgun in a situation like that for something specific. A knee was just an example. The training just sounds like its designed to make officers think poorly and not dynamically. Any other sane being would shoot anywhere else that isn't life threatening to disable the suspect, and if that suspect HAD ACTUALLY been pursuing the other officer rather than doing that turn around (he wasnt even charging at the officer at that point) THEN shoot to kill. And ten shots at the center of a large mass to take a guy down? REALLY? Ten shots? I'd shoot where it wasn't life threatening to my partner, ie in the suspects chest to take him out If I was in the officers position, I'd do the exact same thing. This is the guy I work with and he's right in front of someone who is gesturing to not injure him, but kill him. What kind of person would you be if you told your partner that you didn't shoot the guy because you theorycrafted that he couldn't hit him properly. Shoot not to kill? He is shooting to stop the threat like that guy with experience (ie he is a relevant authority on the matter) said he was. He stopped the threat, and he saved his partners life I don't trust or like the police at all, but this video clearly shows that the officer was justified in taking action that he deemed necessary to stop the threat. If it was anyones fault that the suspect got shot it was the suspect for being a total idiot and gesturing like he's going to kill the officer
Where? How? You make statements without backing them up.
Someone who gestures to kill someone is hugely different from someone who is acting to kill someone. There is also a huge difference between "theorycrafting" and proper training for a high-stress situation like this. This should never be about theorycrafting, but about having such a situation internalized and reacting properly.
This is not about some flaw in someones thoughtprocess, this is about a flaw in his personal "panic button", which was pushed too early.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
