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 16:24 DDie wrote: ''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?
Its like no one reads the thread before posting.
The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat.
If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately...
Police have no reason to gamble with their lives. They are trained to take the most effective way for their survival, which makes perfect sense, because the police officer is there because it's his job, the threat is there because he put himself there. Police officers face threats like this often, so they cannot take any risks they don't have to. They make absolutely certain a threat is dealt with before continuing, and considering that guys reaction to the tazer, the police knew it was going to take a lot of shots to bring him down.
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)
What people don't realize is that the officer may have thought he had another weapon... In the video the officer (RIP) should have shot when the guy reached into his truck. In the newer video the officers did the right thing, even if they didn't shoot then, he could have got hit in the head by a crow bar leaving the tazing cop's wife and kids behind that justifies the first volley. Also, the guy had a massive hoody on, he could have had a pistol in his waistband pulled it with his back to the cops and turned around and killed one or both officers, thus justifying the second volley.
On January 25 2012 16:27 DanceOnCreep wrote: 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. .
So you're saying when someone comes charging at you with a deadly weapon, after using said weapon earlier to destroy property, and using nonlethal weapons have had no effect on him.....you're supposed to just take the steel bar in the head like a man? How many people does he have to kill before it is alright to shoot him?
Would you want a cop to shoot a man before or after said man kills you?
Edit: Watch the video posted in the last couple of pages, that is what happens if you do what you're suggesting.
On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote: ''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?
Its like no one reads the thread before posting.
The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat.
If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately...
Someone with a close-range weapon, 10 feet away, on his back, and who just got shot 5 times, against two trained and armed officers is still a threat, LOL, ok, i guess that's a way of looking into it..
Serious question: Are policemen in the US trained to shoot at the torso, because policemen in Germany for example are not. They are trained to hit legs/arms to not kill the target but make it immobile.
Why are people pointing out the last 5 shots? It's not like with only 5 previous point blank torso shots he would've lived anyways. But he was still up and moving, so the last 5 shots put him down. He was going to die either way.
On January 25 2012 16:40 Gobe wrote: Why are people pointing out the last 5 shots? It's not like with only 5 previous point blank torso shots he would've lived anyways. But he was still up and moving, so the last 5 shots put him down. He was going to die either way.
I'm not defending either side here, but you're pretty damn wrong if you really think five bullets to the chest instantly means you're going to die.
People have lived being shot in the chest more than 5 times.
On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote: ''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?
Its like no one reads the thread before posting.
The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat.
If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately...
Someone with a close-range weapon, 10 feet away, on his back, and who just got shot 5 times, against two trained and armed officers is still a threat lol, ok, i guess that's a way of looking into it..
Now I know you must be trolling, as you are ignoring the content of my response as well as the information presented to you in the video. He was STILL STANDING after being shot five times, he was not "on his back." He was shot five times, during which he took one step away and turned his back to them. With his back turned they had no idea what he was doing, with his heavy clothing he could easily be concealing a firearm, or preparing to spin around to attack them.
Adrenaline and drugs can let someone shrug off a few shots by a low caliber weapon for a small period of time.
Watch the video posted in the last few pages, there is a guy there who is shot by an officer, shrugs it off and ends up killing the officer. Please, watch it and learn something, possibly a little more respect for the job these people have.
On January 25 2012 16:39 mTw|NarutO wrote: Serious question: Are policemen in the US trained to shoot at the torso, because policemen in Germany for example are not. They are trained to hit legs/arms to not kill the target but make it immobile.
Correct, they are trained to target the center mass.
On January 25 2012 16:44 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Uh, the guy would have been incapacitated after 1 shot, after which he could easily be disarmed and apprehended. This is just police brutality.
Unlikely, watch the video posted in the last few pages, you'll see a police officer killed by a man who has already been shot. A man not incapacitated by one round of (presumably) 9mm ammo.
On January 25 2012 16:44 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Uh, the guy would have been incapacitated after 1 shot, after which he could easily be disarmed and apprehended. This is just police brutality.
Video a few posts above yours completely disproves your claim making you look really ignorant.
Anyone going on that kind of rampage would be dosed up to the eyeballs on something. I am very against police brutality and shit but junkies operate differently to normal people. You have no idea what planet these people are on or what they are thinking, and shooting them in this case is the most appropriate response - you got no idea what they are gonna do next or who they are gonna take a swing at next.
On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote: ''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?
Its like no one reads the thread before posting.
The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat.
If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately...
Someone with a close-range weapon, 10 feet away, on his back, and who just got shot 5 times, against two trained and armed officers is still a threat lol, ok, i guess that's a way of looking into it..
Now I know you must be trolling, as you are ignoring the content of my response as well as the information presented to you in the video. He was STILL STANDING after being shot five times, he was not "on his back." He was shot five times, during which he took one step away and turned his back to them. With his back turned they had no idea what he was doing, with his heavy clothing he could easily be concealing a firearm, or preparing to spin around to attack them.
Adrenaline and drugs can let someone shrug off a few shots by a low caliber weapon for a small period of time.
Watch the video posted in the last few pages, there is a guy there who is shot by an officer, shrugs it off and ends up killing the officer. Please, watch it and learn something, possibly a little more respect for the job these people have.
When i said ''on his back'' that is exactly what i meant, he was standing with his back to the officers, and appears to still be holding the crow, how would he reach for a supposedly firearm while still holding it? He was too far to represent a physical threat to armed officers.
I didn't and won't watch the video because i already know what it is, and just an additional piece of info, that video(the one you are talking about) is used for police training pretty much everywhere. Not to mention it is a COMPLETELY different situation.
Thirdly, where exactly i showed disrespect for the job of policemen, in general? I'm talking about THIS particular case, which, in my opinion is an classic case of police abuse, You are more than welcome to disagree.
ya but the video with the car stop is a complete different situation, cuz he had no backup etc. the situation was far away from under control than in the video of the topic. for me its like u compare apples and tomatos. and in my opinion police officer is a hard job but u have to be on top of the decisions u make there is no room for mistakes, and in my opinon the topic video is a example when its wrong to use the weapon and when a officer should be punished with jail. thats my opinon and u wont change it.
If someone came at me with a frekin crowbar and was in the act of swinging it I would shoot him. I wouldn't shoot him in the chest, but that's the thing. Cops are trained (and rightly so) to go above and beyond what is needed to stop the threat. If the man shot the guy in the shoulder or leg, and he hit his partner in the face with the crowbar the cop wouldn't be doing his job.
On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote: ''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?
Its like no one reads the thread before posting.
The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat.
If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately...
Someone with a close-range weapon, 10 feet away, on his back, and who just got shot 5 times, against two trained and armed officers is still a threat lol, ok, i guess that's a way of looking into it..
Now I know you must be trolling, as you are ignoring the content of my response as well as the information presented to you in the video. He was STILL STANDING after being shot five times, he was not "on his back." He was shot five times, during which he took one step away and turned his back to them. With his back turned they had no idea what he was doing, with his heavy clothing he could easily be concealing a firearm, or preparing to spin around to attack them.
Adrenaline and drugs can let someone shrug off a few shots by a low caliber weapon for a small period of time.
Watch the video posted in the last few pages, there is a guy there who is shot by an officer, shrugs it off and ends up killing the officer. Please, watch it and learn something, possibly a little more respect for the job these people have.
When i said ''on his back'' that is exactly what i meant, he was standing with his back to the officers, and appears to still be holding the crow, how would he reach for a supposedly firearm while still holding the crow? He was too far to represent a physical menace to the police.
I didn't and won't watch the video because i already know what it is, and just an additional piece of info, that video(you are talking about) is used for police training pretty much everywhere.
Thirdly, where exactly a showed disrespect for the job of policemen, in general? Please, do quote, i'm talking about THIS particular case, which, in my opinion is an classic case of police abuse.
My apologies, I took "on his back" to mean he was on his back (on the ground), I have never heard that expression used to mean what you meant. However, the suspect was still on his feet, and at extremely close range to the officers with a weapon that can kill/maim in one blow. People fueled with adrenaline and drugs can and do perform tasks that we do not contemplate or expect, and while a suspect that has shown hostile actions and intent is still a major threat to the officers, action should be taken.
As for the disrespect thing, it was more of a blanket statement toward all of the people who complain that the officers should not have shot the suspect. I'm not saying you share this belief, but the way some of the people in this thread have spoken, it leaves me wondering if they feel a cop needs to be hit by the crowbar before they can use force.
On January 25 2012 16:24 DDie wrote: ''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?
Its like no one reads the thread before posting.
The guy was still standing after five shots, and they knew he was highly resistant to feeling pain(probably from drugs) due to him shrugging off a taser to the face earlier. If a guy who just charged you with a deadly weapon only took a step away and turned his back to you after being shot a few times by a low caliber weapon, you must assume he is still a threat.
If you disagree with him still being up, watch the video, he doesn't go down until the second officer shoots him. Hell, he was still alive until after they took him away from the scene, ten bullets didn't kill him immediately...
Someone with a close-range weapon, 10 feet away, on his back, and who just got shot 5 times, against two trained and armed officers is still a threat lol, ok, i guess that's a way of looking into it..
Now I know you must be trolling, as you are ignoring the content of my response as well as the information presented to you in the video. He was STILL STANDING after being shot five times, he was not "on his back." He was shot five times, during which he took one step away and turned his back to them. With his back turned they had no idea what he was doing, with his heavy clothing he could easily be concealing a firearm, or preparing to spin around to attack them.
Adrenaline and drugs can let someone shrug off a few shots by a low caliber weapon for a small period of time.
Watch the video posted in the last few pages, there is a guy there who is shot by an officer, shrugs it off and ends up killing the officer. Please, watch it and learn something, possibly a little more respect for the job these people have.
When i said ''on his back'' that is exactly what i meant, he was standing with his back to the officers, and appears to still be holding the crow, how would he reach for a supposedly firearm while still holding it? He was too far to represent a physical threat to armed officers.
I didn't and won't watch the video because i already know what it is, and just an additional piece of info, that video(the one you are talking about) is used for police training pretty much everywhere. Not to mention it is a COMPLETELY different situation.
Thirdly, where exactly i showed disrespect for the job of policemen, in general? I'm talking about THIS particular case, which, in my opinion is an classic case of police abuse, You are more than welcome to disagree.
You are being disrespectful because you are substituting "classic case of police abuse" with what should be "classic case of falling back on your training."
On January 25 2012 17:01 DanceOnCreep wrote: ya but the video with the car stop is a complete different situation, cuz he had no backup etc. the situation was far away from under control than in the video of the topic. for me its like u compare apples and tomatos. and in my opinion police officer is a hard job but u have to be on top of the decisions u make there is no room for mistakes, and in my opinon the topic video is a example when its wrong to use the weapon and when a officer should be punished with jail. thats my opinon and u wont change it.
What exactly should the officers have done then? They were presented with a man just a few feet away from them wielding a deadly weapon charging at them with the weapon raised and ready to be used. They used nonlethal force before, but to no avail.
EPT
