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 15:23 ScaryOlive wrote: What fear me the most is that this could happen to any of us... I mean we don't know the guy and we don't know the situation but maybe what he needed was mental treatement like, he had a mental breakdown or whatever and he felt ultra powerfull and he was dillusional at that time. If this happens and the guy have a machine gun then yes you shoot him no hesitation but a crowbar?...
Life has no value anymore it seems...
No it could not happen to any of us. Unless you're the type of person who brandishes deadly weapons in public, vandalized public businesses, ignores police commands, and then attempts to attack those same police officers.
A normal person has a mental breakdown and they go to a bar, or *gasp* seek help. If he felt "ultra powerful" or was delusional, it was because he was on PCP, in which case he is a danger to society. If he wouldn't have attacked the cop, it could have just as easily been someone who looked at him the wrong way.
I don't know what people are so afraid of. If you don't want to be shot dead by police officers, don't attack them? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
And no, his life had no value. Just another gangbanger in L.A.
I feel touched by this story because a situation like this happenned to one of my friend. We were having a good time and this guy was a long time friend, we were his best friends. And we had a couples of drink but nothing abnormal and like at 4 am he started to destroy the house of our friend. He punched in the wall and was completely gone. We tried to stop him but he was very violent and tried to beat with us and so I called the cops and when they arrived he was furious and tried to fight with them. Luckely he didn't have any weapon (aka a kitchen knife) because he could have been killed and we could have been injured but the fact of my story is that this friend of mine was totaly normal before this very moment and he had a breakdown wich can happen to anyone. He's seen psychologist since and it's a mental illness he's got, but right now he takes medecine and he's fine.
You don't know when you are going to fight with the cops, in one of those situation... and I am not arguing that this guy was in one of those situation because I don't know, but we will never know...
The guy was about to swing a huge fucking hammer at an officer. If that doesn't count as a "threat" I really don't know what does. Excessive would be shooting him when he was on the ground not moving, which doesn't happen at all.
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.
Video link:
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.
um no. the way the situations were handled in both the vids were completly diffrent. in that 1997 vid the cops never advanced the suspect and they were behind baracades and such. they were making absolute sure that distance between them and the suspect was a safe distance and proceeded to fire non lethal projectiles at him untill finnally he was subdued but still alive.
the crowbar footage tho? the cops advanced on the suspect and never once tried to distance themselves from him. why? what was the point on getting THAT close to a armed suspect? they liiteraly put themselves in range of the crow bar when they obviously had ranged weapons. they didnt even attempt to play it safe. then when they get close to the suspect and the suspect takes a swing they fire point blank range for there own safety when infact they did nothing to keep themselves safe in the first place judging from the vid.
what was the point of getting THAT close to someone that is "wielding a deadly weapon"? if they simply kept there distance and waited for back up to OUT NUMBER the suspect then the situation might have ended diffrently. at the end of the day 1 man with a crowbar having 10+ ppl with guns pointed at him (while keeping there distance from the suspect) is no threat. if he had a gun or something then ya it would be diffrent, but he had a crowbar which u need to get CLOSE in order to use.
but that didnt happen. u had only 2 cops getting in melee range of a suspect wielding a deadly weapon. no action was ever taken to ensure the safety of the suspect and the cops. infact it was the opposite. and because of that the situation ended up the way it did.
also to the ppl that are ssaying "well he was still standing so he was still a threat". no.... the dude was FALLING. after the first set of shots he turned around and was starting to FALL to te ground but they continued to shot anyway. watch the vid more closely and u will see that the guy turned and was starting to fall over.
Very well said. It was the cops fault, they put themselves in a situation that led to the death of someone today. Hopefully this can go with the original post
On January 25 2012 09:21 CecilSunkure wrote: He didn't deserve to die. I see no reason for a lethal firearm to be used against a melee weapon in a wide open area. Even riots are controlled with non-lethal weapons a lot of the time. Use rubber bullets, tasers, pepper spray. Jesus christ that officer was a trigger happy bastard.
You don't bring rubber bullets on patrol the cop was absolutely right. This isn't a game this is real life no such thing as a fair fight the guy didn't follow direct orders by a policeman in a arrest situation. not only that proceeded to move towards a police officer with a weapon.
It isn't about a "fair fight". He didn't deserve to die. The military when in action in other countries will not fire at civilians, or often even organised and dangerous groups unless fired at first. He didn't deserve to die. How about if every time a police officer pointed a gun at someone they'd be shot ten times? Oh wait, this guy didn't point a gun, he raised a metal pole object.
Why don't you go work as a police officer patrolling ghettos and shady places everyday for hours, seeing all kinds of fucked up shit during your career like people shot point blank, cut open, burned etc. Also you are trained to respond a certain way to guarantee the safety of your partner and nearby pedestrians. This is a guy that broke into a restaurant and disobeyed direct orders from a police officer, then attempted assault. Are you seriously going to judge "hurr durr it wasn't even a gun", what if he had a gun in his pocket? What if he had a home made bomb in his pocket? The question is not "why did the police kill him?" the question should be "why the fuck did that guy attempt to attack a police officer knowing he would get shot?"
After shooting a tazer gun in the guys face (which I might add is NOT proper procedure) the dude just rips it out like it's nothing, leads me to believe the man was probable on some sort of narcotic. Made a gesture to swing at the officer IMO was the right decision to shoot him. Sending the dog only puts the dogs life at risk along with the cop he would be swinging at.
If the tazer was used properly and shot him in the leg perhaps since he was wearing a bulky sweatshirt, this could all have been avoided.
I'm not a police officer, but if any of you were in that same situation and had a gun in your hand, and someone was about to swing a deadly weapon at your friend next to you, you would do the exact same thing. And after being shot the first 4-5 times the guy was still standing (albeit his back was turned) I feel it was appropriate given the circumstance that he took a tazer to the face, ripped it out without even flinching and took 4 shots to the chest. I'm perfectly okay with shooting him repeatedly until he fell to the ground. This is exactly what the police did.
It's tragic that there was a loss of life in this situation but the man had several chances to surrender and was undoubtedly about to use a deadly weapon against a police officer.
If you scour the interwebs you can find at least 500 videos showing actual excessive police violence on innocent protesters as well as minor law offenders. This case should not be even close to being labeled as excessive force. Nor should the cops be awarded with anything, they were just doing their jobs.
I remember back in high school, they had those days where police officers would come in and do a Q&A with students. I remember an officer talking about how they were allowed to use guns in situations where another person is in the risk of danger.
The video clearly shows the dude turning 180 with the motion of raising the weapon. Whether he was actually going to swing or not is not the point. His actions can be clearly outlined in any police report and this video will support it when that cop has his hearing.
HOWEVER..
There are crimes where a criminal is charged for murder and he gets more time in jail because he stabbed someone 40 times rather than twice.
Apparently, you get more jail time for the extra stabs..
I don't see why this police officer wouldn't get some type of penalty for so many shots fired. The suspect was clearly shown in the video to have been stopped after the first flurry of bullets; the second round of shots was unnecessary.. IMO
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.
um no. the way the situations were handled in both the vids were completly diffrent. in that 1997 vid the cops never advanced the suspect and they were behind baracades and such. they were making absolute sure that distance between them and the suspect was a safe distance and proceeded to fire non lethal projectiles at him untill finnally he was subdued but still alive.
the crowbar footage tho? the cops advanced on the suspect and never once tried to distance themselves from him. why? what was the point on getting THAT close to a armed suspect? they liiteraly put themselves in range of the crow bar when they obviously had ranged weapons. they didnt even attempt to play it safe. then when they get close to the suspect and the suspect takes a swing they fire point blank range for there own safety when infact they did nothing to keep themselves safe in the first place judging from the vid.
what was the point of getting THAT close to someone that is "wielding a deadly weapon"? if they simply kept there distance and waited for back up to OUT NUMBER the suspect then the situation might have ended diffrently. at the end of the day 1 man with a crowbar having 10+ ppl with guns pointed at him (while keeping there distance from the suspect) is no threat. if he had a gun or something then ya it would be diffrent, but he had a crowbar which u need to get CLOSE in order to use.
but that didnt happen. u had only 2 cops getting in melee range of a suspect wielding a deadly weapon. no action was ever taken to ensure the safety of the suspect and the cops. infact it was the opposite. and because of that the situation ended up the way it did.
also to the ppl that are ssaying "well he was still standing so he was still a threat". no.... the dude was FALLING. after the first set of shots he turned around and was starting to FALL to te ground but they continued to shot anyway. watch the vid more closely and u will see that the guy turned and was starting to fall over.
Very well said. It was the cops fault, they put themselves in a situation that led to the death of someone today. Hopefully this can go with the original post
That is really loaded wording of the statement. The perpetrator put himself in a situation that led to the death of someone today. The police wouldn't have to be camped outside a Carl's Jr. with weapons drawn if someone wasn't inside with whatever that weapon was(can't tell if it's a small double ended sledge, or some type of axe, or something else) smashing the place up. The officers would not have to use said weapons if he responded properly to their verbal orders and didn't resist arrest. If he had dropped his weapon and put his hands in the air, he would be on trial for some vandalism and drug charges.
All that said, that's why I think this is 'suicide by police.' Perhaps I'm just not aware of how far removed from reality some drugs can take you.
On January 25 2012 15:27 Curu wrote: Dunno if it's been posted already but this immediately came to mind:
Justified IMO. If you blatantly disregard multiple warnings and make any indication you are going for a weapon you deserve to be shot.
(Warning the video will make you feel like shit afterwards)
wow, idn how you can watch that and not understand why the officers acted the way they did. The guy in this video gives the obviously disturbed man the benefit of the doubt and doesn't use force to subdue him immediately- He instead stands and yells with the man- and loses his life. The officers in the OP did not give the suspect that consideration and get to go home to their families.
On January 25 2012 15:53 jjun212 wrote: I remember back in high school, they had those days where police officers would come in and do a Q&A with students. I remember an officer talking about how they were allowed to use guns in situations where another person is in the risk of danger.
The video clearly shows the dude turning 180 with the motion of raising the weapon. Whether he was actually going to swing or not is not the point. His actions can be clearly outlined in any police report and this video will support it when that cop has his hearing.
HOWEVER..
There are crimes where a criminal is charged for murder and he gets more time in jail because he stabbed someone 40 times rather than twice.
Apparently, you get more jail time for the extra stabs..
I don't see why this police officer wouldn't get some type of penalty for so many shots fired. The suspect was clearly shown in the video to have been stopped after the first flurry of bullets; the second round of shots was unnecessary.. IMO
You need to watch the video again then.
The first time he was shot, he just turned around and took a couple steps away from the officer.
At this point the officers know this:
There is a man who is highly resistant to pain (probably from narcotics) who just aggressively charged them at close range with a deadly weapon who is only a couple feet away with his back to them, and as such they have no idea whether he is about to spin around to attack again or not, possibly with a weapon he had concealed before.
And I challenge the people speaking poorly of the officers' choices to view the video on the last page. From what I read on these forums most of the people have no problem challenging the officers, complaining they don't hold their fire, yet they don't have the courage to look at that video or real life, and the VERY real possibilities/threats facing officers each and every day.
Justified IMO. If you blatantly disregard multiple warnings and make any indication you are going for a weapon you deserve to be shot.
(Warning the video will make you feel like shit afterwards)
These two situations are completely different tho
The one today the criminal gets caught by suprise as he is ambushed by two cops coming out of a carls jr
this one the guy goes fucking nuts(I mean I would have tazer'd him at the start considering what he is doing.
Next thing you know he has a gun and the officer is still telling him to put it down
What this guy did was dance around crazily then go into his truck. That's less threatening to watch than someone coming at you with a crowbar ready to swing.
If the officer in my video (Kyle Dinkheller) had shot and killed the man when he was trying to go into the truck all the bleeding hearts would probably scream on about "he shouldn't have shot to kill! He didn't know if he had anything in the car!" Same deal here. Kyle Dinkheller didn't know if he had a gun in the truck and acted like many of you are clamouring for the cops to have done and it cost him his life. These cops don't know if the guy has a gun in his pocket, a knife, whatever.
It's bullshit. You blatantly disregard warnings, you deserve to be shot. Was it excessive? Probably with the amount of times he was shot. Was opening fire justified? Absolutely.
Holy shit... I didn't realize what happened until I watched it again and noticed the police stopped talking You're right it's stupid to disregard warnings, that police officer was too nice for his own good.
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.
This is very true. One of the first things that anybody learns when wielding a firearm--whether they are police or not--is that whatever you point that gun at, you had better be ready to completely and utterly destroy it. If you aren't willing to do that then you have no business having a gun in the first place.
But as far as this video goes, the policeman shot a man who was threatening the police in a violent manner. People shouldn't be talking about how the "brutality" of the police is what's wrong with America, the problem is that we have people dumb enough to swing a crowbar at somebody with a gun and a badge.
What happens if that cop doesn't pull that trigger? Does his partner get hurt or possibly die? And as far as emptying a lot of bullets, I can only imagine that shooting somebody is a highly adrenaline filled act, especially when it is in defense of your partner. He did his job, and I don't think that any fault can be found on his part.
I think police usually handle this situations the wrong way by avoiding to take strongh action untill it escalates to an imminent danger situation. A shot in the leg as soon as he didn't obey to drop the crowbar would probably end this story in a better way.
Justified IMO. If you blatantly disregard multiple warnings and make any indication you are going for a weapon you deserve to be shot.
(Warning the video will make you feel like shit afterwards)
These two situations are completely different tho
The one today the criminal gets caught by suprise as he is ambushed by two cops coming out of a carls jr
this one the guy goes fucking nuts(I mean I would have tazer'd him at the start considering what he is doing.
Next thing you know he has a gun and the officer is still telling him to put it down
What this guy did was dance around crazily then go into his truck. That's less threatening to watch than someone coming at you with a crowbar ready to swing.
If the officer in my video (Kyle Dinkheller) had shot and killed the man when he was trying to go into the truck all the bleeding hearts would probably scream on about "he shouldn't have shot to kill! He didn't know if he had anything in the car!" Same deal here. Kyle Dinkheller didn't know if he had a gun in the truck and acted like many of you are clamouring for the cops to have done and it cost him his life. These cops don't know if the guy has a gun in his pocket, a knife, whatever.
It's bullshit. You blatantly disregard warnings, you deserve to be shot. Was it excessive? Probably with the amount of times he was shot. Was opening fire justified? Absolutely.
Holy shit... I didn't realize what happened until I watched it again and noticed the police stopped talking You're right it's stupid to disregard warnings, that police officer was too nice for his own good.
I think Curu's video should be added to the OP so everyone saying the cops acted to quickly or excessively can see the other side of the coin. You really need to see both sides before you can form an accurate opinion.
On January 25 2012 16:10 KevinBacon wrote: I think police usually handle this situations the wrong way by avoiding to take strongh action untill it escalates to an imminent danger situation. A shot in the leg as soon as he didn't obey to drop the crowbar would probably end this story in a better way.
Why don't you just ask them to shoot the crowbar out of his hand while you're at it?
On January 25 2012 05:16 Caryc wrote: why not shoot him in his fucking legs? wtf..
Police are trained so that when they shoot, they shoot to kill. If he had shot him in the legs it would've been very easy for the swing to still go through and hurt his partner.
The thing that is most relevant from the Dinkheller video to the OP video... is that at 2:40-2:45 or so... the bad guy takes a gut shot from the dying officer... the bad guy looks down at his chest and takes one or two steps back... then goes back in for his final shots to finish off the officer.
And the cops found him a day later. (He's still on death row I think).
Point being... that there are no stopping power guarantees from any firearm you can shoot with 1 hand.
There's another equally bad video out there... where the trooper shoots the bad guy 5 times with a .357 Magnum. All 5 shots were center mass. The bad guy gets off a shot with a .22... hits the trooper in the armpit under his vest, and the trooper dies. Bad guy lives.
''Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. Use of force describes the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject" [1]. The levels, or continuum, of force police use include basic verbal and physical restraint, less-lethal force and lethal force.
Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.''
I'm sorry, but i just can't see how firing 10 rounds (5 of them while the suspect is down) is ''moderated, sufficient, and necessary'', in this particular case.
It would have made a diference if the guy was only shot 2-3 times? Probably not, but 10 shots is WAY excessive, i guess its too much to ask for a law enforcer to keep his cool in stressfull situations?
dunno for me its looks like he threatens the police officer then turn arround and gets murdered, in my understanding using the weapon as police officer is the last option u have and there were still options left. i dont understand how in that situation this could ever be accepted by the public in an educated country. and when i read the most posts of people from north america i am really confused how u can say this is a acceptable use of a weapon, and when its really accepted and fine with the law i think the police officer in the states got way to much power and are to protected by the law. but its just my opinion dont take as it insult or us bashing i think the usa is a great country in other ways when it not goes to the point of view of weapons,weapon use etc. .
EPT
You're right it's stupid to disregard warnings, that police officer was too nice for his own good.
