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 05:23 DiLiGu wrote: Not excessive.
Police are also NOT trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to instantly end an engagement/diffuse a situation. Instantly. No officer ever wants to take a life or enjoys having to employ the use of deadly force. Which is why they call it "deadly force" and not "shooting to kill". The amount of force being applied has to immediately end the conflict, and this much force can cause death.
If you watch the video, the man is literally in the process of swinging his weapon at an officer. The officer firing the weapon did exactly what he had to do.
Think this is excessive is a joke... real life is not the movies. When you fire a weapon a person doesn't go shooting backwards, and you don't "aim for the legs". This is why police are trained to fire their weapons accurately and rapidly. He is not intending to kill his victim, he is intending to immediately stop him from trying to kill his partner.
How is this not excessive? The first 5 shots were more than enough to stop the man from attacking. The additional 5 shots once he was on the ground were unnecessary.
So it's not the fact that they killed him it's that they killed him too much.
Sorry but if cops with guns drawn tell you to drop a metal pipe and you instead come at them you can't really complain when they shoot you (provided you're still alive to do so)
I don't like tickets any more than the next guy but I'd rather watch 100 videos of guys like this get shot a couple times too many than of cops getting their heads caved in with metal pipes.
I never understood the thoughts behind "That cop used X amount of bullets to kill him!"
Cops are trained to shoot to kill, not to just drop somebody to save themselves, which he did.
I've seen so many stories of people outraging because a cop used "too many bullets" which in my opinion is completely irrelevant, if they're shooting, they're trying to either save themselves or somebody else which they did.
You can clearly see the guy turn around and start to fall after the first 5 shots...he was in no position to swing. Both the officers were far enough away that the man would've had to turn around and run at them to even get close..
Actually what you can clearly see is the guy turning, not falling down. He doesn't start to go down until the second round of the second barrage. He could have been pulling a gun out of his waistband or whatever, police don't know.
Watching the video there's barely a second, maybe less, between the first 5 and second 5 shots, the guy was not down on the ground and he wasn't clearly falling. He was stumbling. Cop couldn't see what he was doing with his hands and fired five more times. If he'd turned around and aired out the cop it'd be a different story now wouldn't it.
On January 25 2012 05:32 Aristodemus wrote: This guy didnt deserve to die, it is as simple as that. He was killed unjustly.
It has nothing to do with "deserving to die". He was a risk to the lives of other people while committing a crime. When that happens, and lethal force is the only way to ensure the safety of others, lethal force is reasonable.
However, I still don't see how people think the second set of shots were necessary. Oh well.
On January 25 2012 05:32 PanN wrote: It's a tool for bending conduit. A conduit bender, not a crowbar.
Thank you, hopefully when the headline is changed it will include this as well. Are these things heavy? It looks a lot more deadly than a crowbar to me.
On January 25 2012 05:23 DiLiGu wrote: Not excessive.
Police are also NOT trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to instantly end an engagement/diffuse a situation. Instantly. No officer ever wants to take a life or enjoys having to employ the use of deadly force. Which is why they call it "deadly force" and not "shooting to kill". The amount of force being applied has to immediately end the conflict, and this much force can cause death.
If you watch the video, the man is literally in the process of swinging his weapon at an officer. The officer firing the weapon did exactly what he had to do.
Think this is excessive is a joke... real life is not the movies. When you fire a weapon a person doesn't go shooting backwards, and you don't "aim for the legs". This is why police are trained to fire their weapons accurately and rapidly. He is not intending to kill his victim, he is intending to immediately stop him from trying to kill his partner.
How is this not excessive? The first 5 shots were more than enough to stop the man from attacking. The additional 5 shots once he was on the ground were unnecessary.
Considering you can't see him when the second shots are fired, I think it's hard to call it excessive. For all we know he was still attempting to swing at the officers.
You can clearly see the guy turn around and start to fall after the first 5 shots...he was in no position to swing. Both the officers were far enough away that the man would've had to turn around and run at them to even get close..
That's an assumption, not a fact. If he was still making an effort to attack, further force was justified.
He didn't seem to be in his right mind. It didn't look like he was even gonna swing to me, though. The officer was just trying to protect his partner though I suppose..
On January 25 2012 05:32 PanN wrote: It's a tool for bending conduit. A conduit bender, not a crowbar.
Thank you, hopefully when the headline is changed it will include this as well. Are these things heavy? It looks a lot more deadly than a crowbar to me.
I work with them all the time, the handle is usually hollow so its lightweight, but the actual part for bending the conduit is very sturdy and heavy.
Police will never purposefully aim for the legs. By doing so they increase the chance of missing and the bullet ricocheting or the suspect having enough time to harm the police. Police don't have the luxury of making highly skilled shots like you see in the movies. To say that this is excessive force is disturbing. The taser was not effective and the criminal attempted to hurt the police man who did not have his weapon drawn. Pretty simple to see where that police man could have been easily crippled by one hit with that pipe bender.
Get your facts right... do u really think every shot a police makes is supposed to kill ? lets start with the executions.
Actually, yes. Police are not supposed to use their firearms except in response to a lethal threat and they are not supposed to shoot to wound. You can't guarantee that a suspect will be totally neutralized by non-lethal gunshot wounds.
Police are not trained to shoot to wound. If pulling the trigger is necessary, they are trained to pull the trigger to kill. At least in the US. Firing a gun in any situation but where a life is threatened is (supposed to be) a big no-no, and the other half of that equation is no shooting just to injure.
well so i guess, my bad, i though the USA was not different to the place i live in terms on how to use a gun by a law defender, seems u guys have to kill instead of disarm/inmovilice, your country your rules, . edits: typos
If the taser guy would have backed of 3-5 yards instead of walking on behind the suspect fumbling for something and not even looking the police with the gun wouldn't have had to shoot.
On January 25 2012 05:31 Yonnua wrote: There are like three of them. They could easily have just wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him. Bullets should be a last resort, not a first.
Seriously? Why should police officers risk serious harm to increase the chance of the safety of some idiot who is threatening them with a crowbar?
The only alternative I see to how this went down was a swinging of the "crowbar" the officer being hit in the face (possible facial trauma, airway trauma, brain damage, death) the dog being released (possibly getting hit with a second swing by the crow bar) then the other officer being alone to now deal with this suspect....
I think some people here took "Shoot Em Up" as the true Clive Owen story...
On January 25 2012 05:36 Swaddled wrote: Police will never purposefully aim for the legs. By doing so they increase the chance of missing and the bullet ricocheting or the suspect having enough time to harm the police. Police don't have the luxury of making highly skilled shots like you see in the movies. To say that this is excessive force is disturbing. The taser was not effective and the criminal attempted to hurt the police man who did not have his weapon drawn. Pretty simple to see where that police man could have been easily crippled by one hit with that pipe bender.
Plus, you can very easily die of a gunshot wound to the leg...
EPT
.
