|
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 11:46 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:37 gameguard wrote: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. Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 11:37 Skullflower wrote: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? -.-
I think there are a couple of different issues at play here, but people have generally agreed that the officers involved followed the textbook in this case. You are asserting that the officer could have read the positioning of the attacker and inferred that they were not in any immediate danger, assuming your analysis is correct (which I'm not doubting). Thus your suggesting that more training or different rules should be enforced so if this exact situation were to occur again, they would not have shot.
I think however, that the police need to have a certain level of protection, both physical and legal. If the rules are changed, and the police have stricter guidelines on what is a physical or immediate threat based on body position etc., their level of protection just became significantly reduced. In most cases, there would simply not be the time to asses 100% correctly, in which case, they have to err on the side of caution for themselves and any innocent bystanders. Ultimately, we need police officers, and they need to have a *reasonable* level of protection, else no one would want to do the job.
Obviously the attacker in this case has rights too, but when you brandish what could be a lethal weapon against officers who have warned you, tazered you and pulled their guns on you, your rights have to be somewhat reduced compared to the other innocent parties.
If I was an officer, I would wan't my partner to be the one who was willing to shoot to protect me rather than decide I wasn't in enough danger yet.
|
I feel like the dude had to either have wanted this outcome to happen or he was just seriously messed up on some drugs (though I don't no much about drugs and I don't know what drug/s could put someone in this state of mind).
There is no way that someone could reasonably expect to be able to do what this guy did and NOT get shot, with the end result likely being death. So maybe the guy was playing an angle or something but whatever it was he certainly payed for it.
|
Guy was being a nitwit. Although it probably was an overreaction, it's very understandable to see how training kicked in.
There are some advantages to cops using revolvers, although very few do anymore.
|
On January 25 2012 12:57 Hall0wed wrote:
I feel like the dude had to either have wanted this outcome to happen or he was just seriously messed up on some drugs (though I don't no much about drugs and I don't know what drug/s could put someone in this state of mind).
There is no way that someone could reasonably expect to be able to do what this guy did and NOT get shot, with the end result likely being death. So maybe the guy was playing an angle or something but whatever it was he certainly payed for it.
Well said.
|
The guy was dumb, and it was not an overreaction. As already stated, they are trained to stop a threat and they did that. It's silly to argue that they should try to guess what could or could not happen and what the threat would do. Then you're just saying that police should have to gamble with their own lives in these types of situations.
|
Sad way to end a life.
The suspect could have helped himself by not being so aggressive on TWO ARMED cops.
|
I don't see the big deal. Guy with a crowbar acts menacing at the store, cops are called. He charges a cop with the crowbar. What other outcome could have come? You attack a cop you're gonna get shot. Lol.
|
How many people watched the video and then realized they just saw someone die. Pretty powerful.
|
On January 25 2012 13:28 Phayze wrote:
How many people watched the video and then realized they just saw someone die. Pretty powerful.
Although a bit cold, he didn't die until he reached the hospital, to keep the facts straight.
>_>
Or did I read that wrong?
|
On January 25 2012 13:28 Phayze wrote:
How many people watched the video and then realized they just saw someone die. Pretty powerful.
I didn't watch it. I don't watch to because it'll be pretty disturbing to me. I'm just here to read about intelligent posts.
|
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.
Thank God you're not a cop.
I love how we don't ask the people who we give guns and special privileges to, to not actually have to make judgments, or use discretion or some form of critical thinking. Just follow some basic guidelines, and everything is okay, no matter who you hurt or how badly.
It's all about the police officer and his safety, and since he's such a simple-minded idiot, we don't question it when he shoots someone ten times in the chest from less than ten yards away.
That situation could have been handled so much better, as is blatantly apparent. Bad cop is a bad cop, and while I may not assault them with a crowbar, it does bother me deeply that someone like the cop in this video is given a gun.
Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill -- any research, Mr. InControl, would tell you that cops are only supposed to use enough force to keep the peace. What the hell are you reading that makes you think cops are supposed to "shoot to kill"?
Comic books?
This officer used excessive force, and judging by the last five shots he fired, he seemed more concerned with killing somebody than protecting the public. I hope he loses his badge, disgracefully.
Maybe some of us expect our officers to be smart and capable people. Not "Chuck Norris", but at least capable of stopping someone with a crowbar without splattering their flesh all over a parking lot by unloading their pistol at them, even when they're down, ten times. That's all I ask. Assaulting a police officer --- while vile --- doesn't mean you lose your right to live. That is not how the law is written in this country. It is not "shoot to kill", it is quite the opposite. I respect that police officer's right to use his firearm -- but I do so with the assumption that he takes that responsibility seriously, and will never "shoot to kill". That is heinous, I'm surprised to hear InControl say something that stupid.
|
The guy was dumb, and it was not an overreaction.
Not an overreaction? You people are playing too much call of duty. How is shooting a person with a melee weapon 10 times (5 of which when he was already on the ground) not an overreaction? Think about it. Seriously.
He had a hammer, after 2 rounds he is not rly that vigorous anymore, turns around, gets 3 more rounds in the back and drops down. What is he going to do with this hammer having 5 bullets in his chest and lying down? Throw it? I don't think so. Why fire next 5?
If cop is tought to stop the threat than he accomplished that after 1-2 rounds, after 5 for sure!
|
I don't understand how the officer with the tazer being close makes it his fault that the suspect took a swing at him so they shouldnt have shot him? Sure maybe he should have been back a bit farther but the fact of the matter is the guy swung at him and getting hit in the head with a big chunk of metal on the end of a pole will fuck you right up. The suspect deserved to be shot for that gesture towards the cop there is no "LOLOLOLOL JK guis I wasn't actually gonna bust your head open you look silly now". Shooting in the arm or leg is equally stupid missing or even hitting and then he still hits your partner is an unreasonable risk to take. The second round was neccesarry for the same reason he looked like he was getting back up.
The bottom line is you want to come home at the end of the day to your kids and family and protect everyone else so that they can do the same. If some person is tweaking out and they threaten you with deadly force you don't fuck around and play a game of what ifs you put them down and thats it. Some people live in a fantasy world where cops are Chuck Norris and can stop some fuck up with a weapon in his hands with their bare fists...
Usually I am pretty pissed at some cops actions but this is totally justified.
|
In my view, the first burst of shots was completely justified; the deceased turned and postured to possibly strike with a weapon capable of killing another person. However I am personally not so sold on the second burst of shots.
If you look at the video shortly after the first burst, in fact I believe it was 47 seconds in, you can actually see the deceased's beanie popping up above the car. It appears that he is in fact facing AWAY from the police officers, and more distance has been put between them all. It is then that another burst is fired. That alone, however, is not enough for me to criticise the officer though, because the bloody car blocks the rest of the deceased's body from view. I have no idea what the fuck he is actually doing at that point, whilst (probably) facing away from the police. If he was simply slowly staggering or falling to the ground, then I don't believe that second burst was necessary. If he was posturing further in some way which betrays risk of some further threat, then it was warranted.
Hypothetically speaking, if I accept Eternal's comments that police are trained to fire until the target is downed, then the discussion is actually over. However, I don't see how simply downing someone clears the possibility of further threat; they may still be capable of firing from the ground. Therefore, isn't it more appropriate that, when required to fire as I believe this officer was (at least initially), they only fire until such time as the threat is removed. Which could actually also mean, firing only that first burst of shots... Unless of course he postured to produce risk of some further threat.
In any event, regardless of whether people agree or disagree, discussion about issues like this is valuable to society; if there is a way to resolve conflicts such as this in a less severe/final manner, then clearly that is worth looking for.
|
On January 25 2012 13:46 kcbgoku wrote:Not an overreaction? You people are playing too much call of duty. How is shooting a person with a melee weapon 10 times (5 of which when he was already on the ground) not an overreaction? Think about it. Seriously. He had a hammer, after 2 rounds he is not rly that vigorous anymore, turns around, gets 3 more rounds in the back and drops down. What is he going to do with this hammer having 5 bullets in his chest and lying down? Throw it? I don't think so. Why fire next 5? If cop is tought to stop the threat than he accomplished that after 1-2 rounds, after 5 for sure!
You should probably rewatch the video again. The 2nd 5 shots were fired from the other officer and the suspect was still standing with his back to the police when those 2nd 5 shots were fired. NO shots were fired after he was on the ground.
|
On January 25 2012 13:45 Leporello 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. Thank God you're not a cop. I love how we don't ask the people who we give guns and special privileges to, to not actually have to make judgments, or use discretion or some form of critical thinking. Just follow some basic guidelines, and everything is okay, no matter who you hurt or how badly. It's all about the police officer and his safety, and since he's such a simple-minded idiot, we don't question it when he shoots someone ten times in the chest from less than ten yards away. That situation could have been handled so much better, as is blatantly apparent. Bad cop is a bad cop, and while I may not assault them with a crowbar, it does bother me deeply that someone like the cop in this video is given a gun. Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill -- any research, Mr. Starcraft "Pro", would tell you that cops are only supposed to use enough force to keep the peace. What the hell are you reading that makes you think cops are supposed to "shoot to kill"? Comic books? This officer used excessive force, and judging by the last five shots he fired, he seemed more concerned with killing somebody than protecting the public. I hope he loses his badge, disgracefully.
People like you disgust me. People sit safely in their chairs at home and say the police shouldn't fire until after the suspect has bashed their skull in; they feel that police are below everyone else, some people like you even cheer death.
This is a person who had a deadly weapon, had been destroying property, refused to follow orders given to him, and brushed off a taser to the face(suggesting he was under the influence of illegal drugs). He then raised his deadly weapon that he had been using at close range toward an armed police officer.
Use your brain man, please, please.
|
On January 25 2012 13:46 kcbgoku wrote:Not an overreaction? You people are playing too much call of duty. How is shooting a person with a melee weapon 10 times (5 of which when he was already on the ground) not an overreaction? Think about it. Seriously. He had a hammer, after 2 rounds he is not rly that vigorous anymore, turns around, gets 3 more rounds in the back and drops down. What is he going to do with this hammer having 5 bullets in his chest and lying down? Throw it? I don't think so. Why fire next 5? If cop is tought to stop the threat than he accomplished that after 1-2 rounds, after 5 for sure!
He was still standing during the second round of shots. Seriously watch the video closer.
|
On January 25 2012 13:45 Leporello 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. Thank God you're not a cop. I love how we don't ask the people who we give guns and special privileges to, to not actually have to make judgments, or use discretion or some form of critical thinking. Just follow some basic guidelines, and everything is okay, no matter who you hurt or how badly. It's all about the police officer and his safety, and since he's such a simple-minded idiot, we don't question it when he shoots someone ten times in the chest from less than ten yards away. That situation could have been handled so much better, as is blatantly apparent. Bad cop is a bad cop, and while I may not assault them with a crowbar, it does bother me deeply that someone like the cop in this video is given a gun. Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill -- any research, Mr. InControl, would tell you that cops are only supposed to use enough force to keep the peace. What the hell are you reading that makes you think cops are supposed to "shoot to kill"? Comic books? This officer used excessive force, and judging by the last five shots he fired, he seemed more concerned with killing somebody than protecting the public. I hope he loses his badge, disgracefully. Maybe some of us expect our officers to be smart and capable people. Not "Chuck Norris", but at least capable of stopping someone with a crowbar without splattering their flesh all over a parking lot by unloading their pistol at them, even when they're down, ten times. That's all I ask.
Thank god you aren't a cop. You would need to take your skirt off and come out from sheltered-fantasy-land first.
|
On January 25 2012 13:45 Leporello 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. Thank God you're not a cop. I love how we don't ask the people who we give guns and special privileges to, to not actually have to make judgments, or use discretion or some form of critical thinking. Just follow some basic guidelines, and everything is okay, no matter who you hurt or how badly. It's all about the police officer and his safety, and since he's such a simple-minded idiot, we don't question it when he shoots someone ten times in the chest from less than ten yards away. That situation could have been handled so much better, as is blatantly apparent. Bad cop is a bad cop, and while I may not assault them with a crowbar, it does bother me deeply that someone like the cop in this video is given a gun. Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill -- any research, Mr. InControl, would tell you that cops are only supposed to use enough force to keep the peace. What the hell are you reading that makes you think cops are supposed to "shoot to kill"? Comic books? This officer used excessive force, and judging by the last five shots he fired, he seemed more concerned with killing somebody than protecting the public. I hope he loses his badge, disgracefully. Maybe some of us expect our officers to be smart and capable people. Not "Chuck Norris", but at least capable of stopping someone with a crowbar without splattering their flesh all over a parking lot by unloading their pistol at them, even when they're down, ten times. That's all I ask.
Cops are supposed to shoot to kill... When pull a gun it isn't just because it's to stop a threat to peoples lives. They don't gamble with life and death if you make a threatening move you are well within your rights to shoot. It doesn't mean shit how many times he shot him at what point do you draw the line? 3 shots is okay but 4 means your a bad human being...
You can't even see what happens for the second burst how do you know he didn't grab at something by his waist when he was on the ground?
Like you said he was less than 10 yards away do you know how much damage a crow bar can do to someone? What do you suggest the cop do as he postures to swing at his partners head? Anything he could do would be too late and his partner could be dead, a vegetable, crippled or seriously wounded. If you seriously think someone who brandishes a weapon at a person with a gun pointed at them doesn't give up their right to safety your living in a fantasy world.
Sure the tazer cop made a mistake taking his eyes off the guy but because he did should he just let the guy crack his head open?
I notice you removed your "pro" comment too... classy
|
On January 25 2012 13:55 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 13:45 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Thank God you're not a cop. I love how we don't ask the people who we give guns and special privileges to, to not actually have to make judgments, or use discretion or some form of critical thinking. Just follow some basic guidelines, and everything is okay, no matter who you hurt or how badly. It's all about the police officer and his safety, and since he's such a simple-minded idiot, we don't question it when he shoots someone ten times in the chest from less than ten yards away. That situation could have been handled so much better, as is blatantly apparent. Bad cop is a bad cop, and while I may not assault them with a crowbar, it does bother me deeply that someone like the cop in this video is given a gun. Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill -- any research, Mr. Starcraft "Pro", would tell you that cops are only supposed to use enough force to keep the peace. What the hell are you reading that makes you think cops are supposed to "shoot to kill"? Comic books? This officer used excessive force, and judging by the last five shots he fired, he seemed more concerned with killing somebody than protecting the public. I hope he loses his badge, disgracefully. People like you disgust me. People sit safely in their chairs at home and say the police shouldn't fire until after the suspect has bashed their skull in; they feel that police are below everyone else, some people like you even cheer death. This is a person who had a deadly weapon, had been destroying property, refused to follow orders given to him, and brushed off a taser to the face(suggesting he was under the influence of illegal drugs). He then raised his deadly weapon that he had been using at close range toward an armed police officer. Use your brain man, please, please.
Okay, Mr. Hyperbole.
I never once argued, if you read my post, that the cop shouldn't have fired his gun. The only thing anyone is arguing is that maybe we should hold cops to higher standards than "shoot to kill". Maybe he could have shot the guy three times, instead of ten.
Thanks.
"You disgust me". "Sitting in your chair". Yeah, yeah. I forgot I'm not allowed to have an opinion (unless I'm standing, of course).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
