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.
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.
firmly standing or "barely" standing it doesn't matter, standing is standing. He was still a threat. Why take a chance?
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.
"I don't really need to know."
Information might not really be important to you, but you need to look at it from the perspective of the officers. You have a man that is most likely under the influence of drugs, and from your previous attempts to take him down with nonlethal force obvious is highly tolerant of pain. You just shot him five times and he is still standing, with his back turned toward you where he could be doing anything with his hands. Any officer or sensible person would continue firing, as his partner did. I have no doubt his training would call for exactly such action as well.
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?
You got that part right. He was attempting to attack a police officer. He did so knowing full well that there were several loaded weapons pointed at him and that the officers had already tried to subdue him with a taser (unsuccessfully). He still decided he would take a swing (or feint a swing) at one of them.
So no, his life doesn't mean anything. You can cling to your "all life is sacred" argument all you want, but this guy was a scumbag who brought this on himself. Somehow I think L.A. will be just fine without him.
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.
OK: 1. He was clearly standing, watch the video. 2. You are assuming he is on death throes, if you are willing to give a crazy armed suspect the benefit of the doubt when your life is on the line that's one thing: but the officer was completely within his right to not give the suspect that consideration. 3. He was within 10-20 feet of the officers, you can close that distance quite quickly. In my opinion your use of "no where near" is inaccurate. 4. His body position was upright with his back to the officers. Its objectively viewable in the video.
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.
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.
And you know this how? Right, through a Youtube video where you can't even see what the suspect is doing behind the car. For all you know, he was still displaying aggressive behavior or fishing in his pockets for what could be perceived as an attempt to pull out a knife or even a gun of his own.
idk how you could possible justify the 2nd round of shots. The suspect was moving away from them and they went in closer to put more bullets into him. Also he didn't swing the metal bar "twice" like stated in that article, he only raised it. I could understand the cop's situation and it being the heat of the moment you don't have time to analyze things properly but the 2nd round of shots is where it crossed the line from self defense to aggression.
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.
OK: 1. He was clearly standing, watch the video. 2. You are assuming he is on death throes, if you are willing to give a crazy armed suspect the benefit of the doubt when your life is on the line that's one thing: but the officer was completely within his right to not give the suspect that consideration. 3. He was within 10-20 feet of the officers, you can close that distance quite quickly. In my opinion your use of "no where near" is inaccurate. 4. His body position was upright with his back to the officers. Its objectively viewable in the video.
1. Watch the video again. 10 shots in 3 seconds. The suspect barely had time to fall to the ground. 2. 5 bullets usually means death. 3. You can't close that kind of distance with, again, 5 rounds in you against perfectly healthy officers. Officers are not going to sit there while a wounded guy approaches them. 4. Yes, he was in no position to harm the officers with his crowbar after the initial shots.
It thought I had one of the strongest stances to life being valuable and it really saddens me that this criminal was killed. but it saddens me even more that people apperantly value the lives of policemen so very little. From the first shot to the last it was absolutely possable for the suspect to have had the capability to kill some one else if the police didn't act.
It would of been beyond horrorifying for me if the suspect had been allowed to kill some one innocent just because the police or some regulations though he wasn't a danger any more. If he had turned around from having his back turned and shot one of the officers with a hidden gun it would of very much been a question of why the heck was he allowed to have that oppurtunity.
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.
He turned his back AND WAS FALLING when the shooting was continued. This is something you are neglecting to mention. I fail to see how someone who is still hold a pipe or whatever blunt instrument and falling is going to be able to use it in ANY way. The last five shots were clearly unnecessary, and put anyone in the direct vicinity at risk because of the potential for ricochet off of the instrument the perp had.
A similar incident happened in 1997, however the man had a Katana he approached police the same way and it resulted in this video. They never shot him with any lead, they used bean bag rounds which didn't work, then gassed him which didn't work, they then used a fire hose which barely worked and then pinned him with a ladder to finally take him down. THIS IS WHAT POLICE SHOULD DO. They completely handled the situation wrong, they shouldn't have gone in as a duo they should have waited for backup, then boxed him in with their cruisers and kept him on the other side so he is no longer able to attack the police and employ a non lethal method to take him out. So what if he breaks more windows they are fucking windows a person is worth more than an infinite amount of windows.
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.
OK: 1. He was clearly standing, watch the video. 2. You are assuming he is on death throes, if you are willing to give a crazy armed suspect the benefit of the doubt when your life is on the line that's one thing: but the officer was completely within his right to not give the suspect that consideration. 3. He was within 10-20 feet of the officers, you can close that distance quite quickly. In my opinion your use of "no where near" is inaccurate. 4. His body position was upright with his back to the officers. Its objectively viewable in the video.
1. Watch the video again. 10 shots in 3 seconds. The suspect barely had time to fall to the ground. 2. 5 bullets usually means death. 3. You can't close that kind of distance with, again, 5 rounds in you against perfectly healthy officers. Officers are not going to sit there while a wounded guy approaches them. 4. Yes, he was in no position to harm the officers with his crowbar.
5 bullets means death? since when? assuming the officer had a glock 18 side arm they are firing relatively "weak" 9mm rounds. 5 center mass shots from a low caliber side arm certainly would not drop someone 100% of the time. Furthermore the suspect already attempted to attack an officer, so the possibility of him being on a narcotic is already there.
Yes someone full of drugs and adrenaline can quickly close that distance. 3 seconds is certainly enough time to travel 20 feet. (pretty sure most people could travel 120 feet in ~6 seconds) The officers had no reason to believe the suspect was neutralized.
If I got shot 5 times i would immediately drop what was in my hands and collapse cause it would hurt like fucking hell. The fact that this guy simply took a step back and turned around demonstrated to the officer that he was still posing a threat. I would be absolutely shocked if he is found of using excessive force in this situation.
On January 25 2012 14:34 magicallypuzzled wrote: It thought I had one of the strongest stances to life being valuable and it really saddens me that this criminal was killed. but it saddens me even more that people apperantly value the lives of policemen so very little. From the first shot to the last it was absolutely possable for the suspect to have had the capability to kill some one else if the police didn't act.
It would of been beyond horrorifying for me if the suspect had been allowed to kill some one innocent just because the police or some regulations though he wasn't a danger any more. If he had turned around from having his back turned and shot one of the officers with a hidden gun it would of very much been a question of why the heck was he allowed to have that oppurtunity.
You and I have exactly the same point of view. High Five ^^
1) Could there have been better ways for the police to diffuse the situation? Maybe, hindsight is 20/20 and anyone can say oh they should have done this or maybe released the dog. There were probably circumstances that we don't know about with why they didn't... otherwise they probably would have. All this talk about police being bloodthirsty is ridiculous. Are there shitty police? Yes. Are most of them shitty? No. It is just way easier to get a bad reputation and super hard to repair it. It's a bell curve... some people are outstanding, some are terrible, most are average. I think the average person is generally good...
2) Should the police have shot the suspect given the situation? I believe he was in the right to fire the first rounds that dropped the suspect as his partner was in danger. Could his partner have possibly been more aware? Probably as from the video it seems that he was taken a little of guard by the suspect advancing towards him. Never the less he was in danger and the police had to take the shots. Saying that he should have aimed to the leg seems ridiculous as that may have done nothing to stop the suspect and you never know what other weapons he may have.
3) Should the police have taken the second round of shots? A lot of people say it was immoral to do that but you have absolutely no idea what sort of weapons the suspect has or how injured he actually is. What if he had a gun and managed to get a shot off? Dead or injured police officer. What if they rushed him to subdue him and he had a knife? Dead or injured police officer. Should two police officers be able to subdue one man with a weapon? If they do attempt to subdue him what are the chances of them being hurt or killed? 1%? 10%? 50%?
There are lots of things going on here and people who are simplifying this to A) good or B) bad are being sort of ignorant.
tldr: not saying it's great that it happened but I can understand why the decisions were made and the training rationals seem to be correct... it can be a brutal world sometimes. Such is life.
On January 25 2012 14:38 Jibba wrote: I'm not so sure a person who waves a katana at the police is worth more than a window.
The longer a situation goes on, the more complicated it becomes. You're risking far too much to keep a crazy asshole conscious.
Also this is a very good point. Longer situation = more complicated in many cases.
i thought the force was fine, the man turned to swing at another police officer if it was me being swung at i would expect my partner to shoot to kill that person.
After watching this once more It looks like the victim had no real intention of swinging at the cop
as you can see he doesnt bring his arms up for a full swing he only raises it slightly and taunts the cop like he is going to
look where his elbows were, they were tucked into his side making it near impossible to get a real swing in, I mean stand up and try to swing how he was, it just doesnt work
which I guess wasnt a very smart move since it led to his demise.
Does anyone else notice this? he didnt even start to swing really
Hopefully the police force will look into this more because this loss of life definately could have been avoided
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.
He turned his back AND WAS FALLING when the shooting was continued. This is something you are neglecting to mention. I fail to see how someone who is still hold a pipe or whatever blunt instrument and falling is going to be able to use it in ANY way. The last five shots were clearly unnecessary, and put anyone in the direct vicinity at risk because of the potential for ricochet off of the instrument the perp had.
A similar incident happened in 1997, however the man had a Katana he approached police the same way and it resulted in this video. They never shot him with any lead, they used bean bag rounds which didn't work, then gassed him which didn't work, they then used a fire hose which barely worked and then pinned him with a ladder to finally take him down. THIS IS WHAT POLICE SHOULD DO. They completely handled the situation wrong, they shouldn't have gone in as a duo they should have waited for backup, then boxed him in with their cruisers and kept him on the other side so he is no longer able to attack the police and employ a non lethal method to take him out. So what if he breaks more windows they are fucking windows a person is worth more than an infinite amount of windows.
the video is lagging on my computer so i didn't watch all of it but it looks like the guy didn't advance on the officers and just stood there. so different situation if he had advanced i feel confident any one of the police would of shot him dead unless the nonlethal methods were already set up. thats the main thing here that seperates the two instances. in one the fellow clearly closed the nonlethal method had been used up not available and he left the police with no choice. in the other from what i can tell the person never closed and never actually threatened any one while each non lethal method was used.
That katana video is such as waste of time. I'm all for not killing him, but for god's sake, why does it need to be a 10 hour event involving so many people? Shoot the dude with a tranquilizer gun and be done with it.
Normally I'd say that anyone who is stupid enough to attempt to swing a weapon at the police deserves to be shot, but that did seem a little excessive.
I will start by saying that this event is indeed a tragic one, and I am saddened that it had to occur in this way.
However, we do need to realize that the police did exactly what they were supposed to do. In Canada, police are trained to shoot twice in the chest and once in the head; I would assume United States is something similar. That doesn't mean they fire three shots and that's it; if the suspect is still a threat, it is their job to neutralize that threat.
Some are saying that the police had a dog, and should of used that to suppress the assailant.
Yes, the dog COULD of been used, and it MAY have worked. But while we wait to see if the dog would have been able to take down the attacker, the second cop would already be on the ground with potentially life-threatening injuries. Or else he simply could of attacked the dog with his weapon, ending the dog's life, and being shot down anyways. You need to remember that police dogs are considered police officers. They won't willingly send a cop into a high-risk situation; nor will they send a police dog.
Others say they should of shot him in the legs or arms.
Police are not trained to shoot in the limbs for a very simple reason: they're too hard to hit. Not only is it a small target, but if you're walking like this man was, it's a constantly moving target. Even at close range like that, it's a difficult shot for anyone. And what happens if the officer misses? The last thing anyone wants is an innocent person being shot from a stray bullet. And even if they shot him in the limbs, that's no guarantee they would go down. If you have enough adrenaline, you can overcome the pain and still be just as big of a threat as you were before you got shot.
Again, I say that this is indeed a tragic event, but was it an excessive use of force? I would argue to say no. The officer did what he felt was necessary to protect both his partner and the surrounding public. Police work hard every day to keep us safe. I think we need to reevaluate ourselves, and give them a little more credit for what they do.
it's to bad people have to put the burden of their death on others
712
EPT
