|
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 14:00 tokicheese 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. 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
The "Pro" comment was out of line and personal, so I removed it. Although, I'm reading some personal attacks against me, so, meh, fair's fair.
Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill.
It's a matter of discretion.
This cop had bad discretion, and maybe should be given a baton instead of a gun. Maybe traffic duty would suit him better.
And for the record, I know real servicemen, and I'm not just talking about cops. This cop is laughable.
Look at the way the cop is holding the gun, by the way.... You think that's textbook? Regulation? This is an amateur, doing an amateur's job, and someone died for it. But I forgot -- his life doesn't mean anything. He's just a criminal. Right?
|
The guy goes to swing his crowbar at an officer, potentially killing or brutally maiming him, after refusing several requests to lay down the crowbar, and the police kill him. It's fairly open and shut, the cops did the appropriate thing (for once).
I'm not an advocate of violence from police officers but it seemed like the only thing he could do.
I see a lot of people complaining that he should have just shot him in the leg or incapacitated him, that's just nonsense. A police officer is trained specifically that when firing his weapon his objective is to kill the perp. When a cop starts shooting he's not gonna stop until you're dead, and for good reason, shooting that guy in the leg or arm wouldn't have stopped him from swinging his crowbar.
The question is, could they have used some sort of non-lethal means to put him down, maybe, but the situation spiraled out of control extremely fast and you have to make snap decisions with you or your partner's life on the line.
|
On January 25 2012 13:56 Skullflower wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 13:46 kcbgoku wrote: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! He was still standing during the second round of shots. Seriously watch the video closer.
Yeah, I did, sry about that. I still think that 10 rounds is too much for a guy with a hammer. Don't you?
If people think this is OK than I don't know what world you're living in. Policeman should shoot to neutralize a threat. If a guy with a hammer requires 10 rounds than I guess police should invest in bigger guns now.
|
Nice kill!
Better to unload 10 rounds just to make sure the man is dead and not flopping on the ground suffering.
|
On January 25 2012 14:03 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 13:55 Saryph wrote: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).
No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I suppose it is just too much to ask that you have an intelligent one though.
Guns are designed to kill, and that is what they are used for. They tried to taser him, it had no effect. They tried the non-lethal method first, and when you realize that a taser to the face didn't even faze him, you have to consider him to be under the influence of drugs, and thus even more dangerous.
They shot him five times, and he was still standing, so his partner then fired. This is the real world, when you fire your gun, you do so to kill, not some trick shot to shoot the weapon out of his hand, or to get a shot on his knee. He charged at the officer while raising a deadly weapon to strike, what do you expect?
|
I don't understand the why people are seriously saying that the officers should have shot them in a limb or something. You shoot at their torso 100% of the time. What happens if you shoot for a leg and miss and hit a bystander? If you are going to use your gun you have to be as close to 100% sure that the bullets you fire only hit its intended target.
|
On January 25 2012 14:10 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:03 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 13:55 Saryph wrote: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). No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I suppose it is just too much to ask that you have an intelligent one though. Guns are designed to kill, and that is what they are used for. They tried to taser him, it had no effect. They tried the non-lethal method first, and when you realize that a taser to the face didn't even faze him, you have to consider him to be under the influence of drugs, and thus even more dangerous. They shot him five times, and he was still standing, so his partner then fired. This is the real world, when you fire your gun, you do so to kill, not some trick shot to shoot the weapon out of his hand, or to get a shot on his knee. He charged at the officer while raising a deadly weapon to strike, what do you expect?
He was shot five times and still standing? No, he wasn't.
Your definition of "standing" differs from mine, greatly.
|
On January 25 2012 14:05 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:00 tokicheese wrote: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. 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 The "Pro" comment was out of line and personal, so I removed it. Although, I'm reading some personal attacks against me, so, meh, fair's fair. Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill. It's a matter of discretion. This cop had bad discretion, and maybe should be given a baton instead of a gun. Maybe traffic duty would suit him better.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Officers are trained to use their firearm to end the threat as quickly as possible. That typically means 3-5 shots to the center mass. When the first rounds did not drop the suspect a second round was fired and the situation was secured.
The officers properly escalated force- verbal, then a less than lethal taser. The suspect clearly attempted to swing at an officer and his partner protected him w/ his firearm. How you can watch that video and think the officer had time to draw a baton, not even mentioning how suicidal attempting to subdue an armed suspect with a baton would be, is beyond me.
The officer exercised perfect discretion: he protected his partner's life and ceased fire immediately once the suspect was no longer a threat.
If you want to criticize the training the officers received that is 1 thing, but to suggest that those officers did anything other than properly follow their training is incorrect.
|
On January 25 2012 14:09 kcbgoku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 13:56 Skullflower wrote:On January 25 2012 13:46 kcbgoku wrote: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! He was still standing during the second round of shots. Seriously watch the video closer. Yeah, I did, sry about that. I still think that 10 rounds is too much for a guy with a hammer. Don't you? If people think this is OK than I don't know what world you're living in. Policeman should shoot to neutralize a threat. If a guy with a hammer requires 10 rounds than I guess police should invest in bigger guns now.
maybe, he was clearly not subdued after 5.............
|
On January 25 2012 14:12 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:10 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 14:03 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 13:55 Saryph wrote: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). No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I suppose it is just too much to ask that you have an intelligent one though. Guns are designed to kill, and that is what they are used for. They tried to taser him, it had no effect. They tried the non-lethal method first, and when you realize that a taser to the face didn't even faze him, you have to consider him to be under the influence of drugs, and thus even more dangerous. They shot him five times, and he was still standing, so his partner then fired. This is the real world, when you fire your gun, you do so to kill, not some trick shot to shoot the weapon out of his hand, or to get a shot on his knee. He charged at the officer while raising a deadly weapon to strike, what do you expect? He was shot five times and still standing? No, he wasn't. Your definition of "standing" differs from mine, greatly.
Perhaps you should view the video before posting in this thread. After the first officer fired the suspect took a step so that the car was between the camera and suspect, but his head is still clearly visible above the roof of the vehicle. Hard for that to be possible if he was on the ground.
Edit: Even more important, the suspect turned his back to the officers between the first five shots and the second officer firing. With his back toward them, they have no idea what he is doing, only knowing that he is someone that is acting irrational, has a deadly weapon, and has been using it in the last few minutes.
|
On January 25 2012 14:15 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:12 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:10 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 14:03 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 13:55 Saryph wrote: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). No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I suppose it is just too much to ask that you have an intelligent one though. Guns are designed to kill, and that is what they are used for. They tried to taser him, it had no effect. They tried the non-lethal method first, and when you realize that a taser to the face didn't even faze him, you have to consider him to be under the influence of drugs, and thus even more dangerous. They shot him five times, and he was still standing, so his partner then fired. This is the real world, when you fire your gun, you do so to kill, not some trick shot to shoot the weapon out of his hand, or to get a shot on his knee. He charged at the officer while raising a deadly weapon to strike, what do you expect? He was shot five times and still standing? No, he wasn't. Your definition of "standing" differs from mine, greatly. Perhaps you should view the video before posting in this thread. After the first officer fired the suspect took a step so that the car was between the camera and suspect, but his head is still clearly visible above the roof of the vehicle. Hard for that to be possible if he was on the ground.
Moreover, standard police sidearms in most of the US are not very good* at stopping people since the cops and military did away with .45s however many years ago
*when the suspect is hyped up on drugs especially, and everything is relative
|
I wonder why the guy did that....such a waste.
|
On January 25 2012 14:14 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:05 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:00 tokicheese wrote: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. 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 The "Pro" comment was out of line and personal, so I removed it. Although, I'm reading some personal attacks against me, so, meh, fair's fair. Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill. It's a matter of discretion. This cop had bad discretion, and maybe should be given a baton instead of a gun. Maybe traffic duty would suit him better. You really don't know what you are talking about. Officers are trained to use their firearm to end the threat as quickly as possible. That typically means 3-5 shots to the center mass. When the first rounds did not drop the suspect a second round was fired and the situation was secured. The officers properly escalated force- verbal, then a less than lethal taser. The suspect clearly attempted to swing at an officer and his partner protected him w/ his firearm. How you can watch that video and think the officer had time to draw a baton, not even mentioning how suicidal attempting to subdue an armed suspect with a baton would be, is beyond me. The officer exercised perfect discretion: he protected his partner's life and ceased fire immediately once the suspect was no longer a threat. If you want to criticize the training the officers received that is 1 thing, but to suggest that those officers did anything other than properly follow their training is incorrect.
I'm not one of the people saying the cop should have "shot him in the leg". People seem to be trying to pigeon-hole my statements and kind of put words in my mouth.
Yes, cops are definitely told to shoot center mass. That does NOT mean "shoot to kill". No cop is ever told "Shoot to kill", and if any department told their cops that, then that entire department needs to be torn down and rebuilt, because it's unconstitutional.
I understand the cop's initial reaction. But in my opinion, the cop went beyond his station and beyond his training, continuing to shoot, repeatedly, at a perp that was clearly out of commission and probably in need of an ambulance.
First five shoots were fine. The next five shots -- not so much.
I'm going to go adjust my skirt now. Goodbye ladies.
|
On January 25 2012 14:18 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:14 stokes17 wrote:On January 25 2012 14:05 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:00 tokicheese wrote: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. 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 The "Pro" comment was out of line and personal, so I removed it. Although, I'm reading some personal attacks against me, so, meh, fair's fair. Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill. It's a matter of discretion. This cop had bad discretion, and maybe should be given a baton instead of a gun. Maybe traffic duty would suit him better. You really don't know what you are talking about. Officers are trained to use their firearm to end the threat as quickly as possible. That typically means 3-5 shots to the center mass. When the first rounds did not drop the suspect a second round was fired and the situation was secured. The officers properly escalated force- verbal, then a less than lethal taser. The suspect clearly attempted to swing at an officer and his partner protected him w/ his firearm. How you can watch that video and think the officer had time to draw a baton, not even mentioning how suicidal attempting to subdue an armed suspect with a baton would be, is beyond me. The officer exercised perfect discretion: he protected his partner's life and ceased fire immediately once the suspect was no longer a threat. If you want to criticize the training the officers received that is 1 thing, but to suggest that those officers did anything other than properly follow their training is incorrect. I'm not one of the people saying the cop should have "shot him in the leg". People seem to be trying to pigeon-hole my statements and kind of put words in my mouth. Yes, cops are definitely told to shoot center mass. That does NOT mean "shoot to kill". No cop is ever told "Shoot to kill", and if any department told their cops that, then that entire department needs to be torn down and rebuilt, because it's unconstitutional. I understand the cop's initial reaction. But in my opinion, the cop went beyond his station and beyond his training, continuing to shoot, repeatedly, at a perp that was clearly out of commission and probably in need of an ambulance. First five shoots were fine. The next five shots -- not so much. I'm going to go adjust my skirt now. Goodbye ladies.
Except he wasn't "clearly out of commission." He turned his back to them and was still standing, and wielding a deadly weapon.
|
On January 25 2012 14:18 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:14 stokes17 wrote:On January 25 2012 14:05 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:00 tokicheese wrote: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. 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 The "Pro" comment was out of line and personal, so I removed it. Although, I'm reading some personal attacks against me, so, meh, fair's fair. Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill. It's a matter of discretion. This cop had bad discretion, and maybe should be given a baton instead of a gun. Maybe traffic duty would suit him better. You really don't know what you are talking about. Officers are trained to use their firearm to end the threat as quickly as possible. That typically means 3-5 shots to the center mass. When the first rounds did not drop the suspect a second round was fired and the situation was secured. The officers properly escalated force- verbal, then a less than lethal taser. The suspect clearly attempted to swing at an officer and his partner protected him w/ his firearm. How you can watch that video and think the officer had time to draw a baton, not even mentioning how suicidal attempting to subdue an armed suspect with a baton would be, is beyond me. The officer exercised perfect discretion: he protected his partner's life and ceased fire immediately once the suspect was no longer a threat. If you want to criticize the training the officers received that is 1 thing, but to suggest that those officers did anything other than properly follow their training is incorrect. I'm not one of the people saying the cop should have "shot him in the leg". People seem to be trying to pigeon-hole my statements and kind of put words in my mouth. Yes, cops are definitely told to shoot center mass. That does NOT mean "shoot to kill". No cop is ever told "Shoot to kill", and if any department told their cops that, then that entire department needs to be torn down and rebuilt, because it's unconstitutional. I understand the cop's initial reaction. But in my opinion, the cop went beyond his station and beyond his training, continuing to shoot, repeatedly, at a perp that was clearly out of commission and probably in need of an ambulance. First five shoots were fine. The next five shots -- not so much. I'm going to go adjust my skirt now. Goodbye ladies.
his training is to shoot until the suspect is no longer a threat aka on the ground. He stopped when the suspect was on the ground
Therefore: he did not go beyond his training
Peace ^^
|
On January 25 2012 14:14 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:09 kcbgoku wrote:On January 25 2012 13:56 Skullflower wrote:On January 25 2012 13:46 kcbgoku wrote: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! He was still standing during the second round of shots. Seriously watch the video closer. Yeah, I did, sry about that. I still think that 10 rounds is too much for a guy with a hammer. Don't you? If people think this is OK than I don't know what world you're living in. Policeman should shoot to neutralize a threat. If a guy with a hammer requires 10 rounds than I guess police should invest in bigger guns now. maybe, he was clearly not subdued after 5.............
Oh he was subdued for sure, he was just still barely standing.
|
On January 25 2012 14:18 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:14 stokes17 wrote:On January 25 2012 14:05 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:00 tokicheese wrote: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. 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 The "Pro" comment was out of line and personal, so I removed it. Although, I'm reading some personal attacks against me, so, meh, fair's fair. Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill. It's a matter of discretion. This cop had bad discretion, and maybe should be given a baton instead of a gun. Maybe traffic duty would suit him better. You really don't know what you are talking about. Officers are trained to use their firearm to end the threat as quickly as possible. That typically means 3-5 shots to the center mass. When the first rounds did not drop the suspect a second round was fired and the situation was secured. The officers properly escalated force- verbal, then a less than lethal taser. The suspect clearly attempted to swing at an officer and his partner protected him w/ his firearm. How you can watch that video and think the officer had time to draw a baton, not even mentioning how suicidal attempting to subdue an armed suspect with a baton would be, is beyond me. The officer exercised perfect discretion: he protected his partner's life and ceased fire immediately once the suspect was no longer a threat. If you want to criticize the training the officers received that is 1 thing, but to suggest that those officers did anything other than properly follow their training is incorrect. I'm not one of the people saying the cop should have "shot him in the leg". People seem to be trying to pigeon-hole my statements and kind of put words in my mouth. Yes, cops are definitely told to shoot center mass. That does NOT mean "shoot to kill". No cop is ever told "Shoot to kill", and if any department told their cops that, then that entire department needs to be torn down and rebuilt, because it's unconstitutional. I understand the cop's initial reaction. But in my opinion, the cop went beyond his station and beyond his training, continuing to shoot, repeatedly, at a perp that was clearly out of commission and probably in need of an ambulance. First five shoots were fine. The next five shots -- not so much. I'm going to go adjust my skirt now. Goodbye ladies.
A voice of reason, finally.
|
On January 25 2012 14:20 kcbgoku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:14 stokes17 wrote:On January 25 2012 14:09 kcbgoku wrote:On January 25 2012 13:56 Skullflower wrote:On January 25 2012 13:46 kcbgoku wrote: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! He was still standing during the second round of shots. Seriously watch the video closer. Yeah, I did, sry about that. I still think that 10 rounds is too much for a guy with a hammer. Don't you? If people think this is OK than I don't know what world you're living in. Policeman should shoot to neutralize a threat. If a guy with a hammer requires 10 rounds than I guess police should invest in bigger guns now. maybe, he was clearly not subdued after 5............. Oh he was subdued for sure, he was just still barely standing.
A person who is still barely standing can pull out the adrenaline to kill a man with a crowbar, or worse, a gun even without adrenaline. Those last 5 shouts were on the "better safe than sorry" principle, and perfectly justified. Anyway, this was an obvious suicide by cop.
|
On January 25 2012 14:15 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:12 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:10 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 14:03 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 13:55 Saryph wrote: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). No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I suppose it is just too much to ask that you have an intelligent one though. Guns are designed to kill, and that is what they are used for. They tried to taser him, it had no effect. They tried the non-lethal method first, and when you realize that a taser to the face didn't even faze him, you have to consider him to be under the influence of drugs, and thus even more dangerous. They shot him five times, and he was still standing, so his partner then fired. This is the real world, when you fire your gun, you do so to kill, not some trick shot to shoot the weapon out of his hand, or to get a shot on his knee. He charged at the officer while raising a deadly weapon to strike, what do you expect? He was shot five times and still standing? No, he wasn't. Your definition of "standing" differs from mine, greatly. Perhaps you should view the video before posting in this thread. After the first officer fired the suspect took a step so that the car was between the camera and suspect, but his head is still clearly visible above the roof of the vehicle. Hard for that to be possible if he was on the ground. Edit: Even more important, the suspect turned his back to the officers between the first five shots and the second officer firing. With his back toward them, they have no idea what he is doing, only knowing that he is someone that is acting irrational, has a deadly weapon, and has been using it in the last few minutes.
Was he on the ground, or standing?
Maybe he was neither.
Maybe he was somewhere in between, having been shot five times, and probably in his death-throes.
He was also no where near the cops, when the second rally of shots were fired.
I don't know and don't really need to know his body position. Maybe he was kneeling in prayer? Doesn't matter -- point is there is nothing that shows he was a threat at the point when the officer fired the last five shots.
|
On January 25 2012 14:20 kcbgoku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:14 stokes17 wrote:On January 25 2012 14:09 kcbgoku wrote:On January 25 2012 13:56 Skullflower wrote:On January 25 2012 13:46 kcbgoku wrote: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! He was still standing during the second round of shots. Seriously watch the video closer. Yeah, I did, sry about that. I still think that 10 rounds is too much for a guy with a hammer. Don't you? If people think this is OK than I don't know what world you're living in. Policeman should shoot to neutralize a threat. If a guy with a hammer requires 10 rounds than I guess police should invest in bigger guns now. maybe, he was clearly not subdued after 5............. Oh he was subdued for sure, he was just still barely standing.
That is merely your opinion. It is just as likely that he was still perfectly capable of injuring the officers. People, particularly on certain narcotics, can withstand a large amount of small caliber rounds (50 cent was shot like 25 times and lived remember ^^) That's why you aren't trained to shoot until he steps back and turns his back on you momentarily. you are told to shoot until the person is no longer a threat. If someone is crazy enough to swing at multiple armed police officers, I would not risk my or my partners lives on his stepping back being sufficiently subdued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
