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 05:18 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 correct. The person in question was about to slug his partner with a huge fucking weapon. Ten shots in the heat of the moment isn't nearly excessive and its clear that he didn't take time to think about it or shoot the person while he's down.
Once you start shooting, you don't stop shooting to check to see if the person is ok.
Lol, that was pretty retarded from the guy with the hammer.
"Oh theres two officers with guns, trained to shoot dangerous suspects, lemme jus brandish this crowbar at em!"
Then again, that many bullets was pretty excessive, 9 of them, probably meant to kill the guy. Why not put one in his leg, it would be over after that...? I doubt he could get up and come at them through the pain. If he was to reach for something, they were close enough to identify and fire first to stop the threat.
Also the officers in question are pretty badly trained if you ask me, they have guns yet they get so close as to allow the guy to actually wave his weapon around threateningly at them, almost as if they were asking for it. Keep your distance and make him dispose of it and get on the ground before moving closer..really. I honestly cant understand why they were so close to the man.
Either way, im neutral, the man probably shouldnt have been as stupid as he was. Brandishing weapons at armed police, then its just if its overuse of force..who knows.
On January 25 2012 19:23 Paperplane wrote: Meh in this case I think the cops were actually right. It really looked like the dude was gonna attack em
Actually, it looks more like him telling them to back the fuck up. He took a threatening step towards the officer behind him and then turned back, lowering the weapon. Then the shots were fired.
Any person in this thread who reasonably believes that in this situation when you see your fellow officer about to be struck by a crowbar, that you, in a tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation where you are scared and don't know what this guy is going to do can aim at a moving target and fire perfectly one shot at his leg to 'wound' him and 'neutralize' is a liar.
Society is too sympathetic to the suspect in situation with use of force. Someone telegraphs towards you with a crowbar and the public expects you an officer to calmly request the man to stop what he is doing and to please get on the ground. If someone does this to you, you defend yourself. If you have a firearm pointed at them then you use that to defend yourself.
People have this notion that if you get shot once you die instantly. This isn't Hollywood, if you get shot that doesn't mean you're dead. A determined assailant will not drop to the ground and apologize. A person in fear for their life or the life of another isn't going to shoot one round and trust his ability shoot so well that he is sure that the bullet he fired landed perfectly on target and the suspect is going to drop everything and stop. A reasonable and prudent person, scared, in fear for their life would discharge as many rounds as they could to make the scary bad guy stop attacking them.
How many people in this thread that are arguing that the officer should have shot him in the leg to stop him do you think have actually even fired a handgun? Let alone had law enforcement training? Firing a weapon looks easy but really it is not. This isn't Battlefield 3 where you can control your recoil by lowering your mouse a bit. This isn't a fucking game with aim-assist.
Do you think in this situation you could execute your sharp-shooter Hollywood tactics on a moving target looking down this sight picture with adrenaline coursing through you?
In situations like this, there is a bottom line. Who is going home tonight? The scumbag or the officer? The tax paying officer has a family to feed and support.
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 correct. The person in question was about to slug his partner with a huge fucking weapon. Ten shots in the heat of the moment isn't nearly excessive and its clear that he didn't take time to think about it or shoot the person while he's down.
Once you start shooting, you don't stop shooting to check to see if the person is ok.
thats not true actually. when a cop shoots its not always to 100% kill the person. it all depends on situation. if there is a way to shoot the suspect without killing him and just get him on the ground then they will. incapacitating a person =/= killing a person.....
for example, if a suspect has been shot and is STILL alive BUT he is unable to move because of his injuries and has basically given up, u dont go and shoot him again just to make sure he is dead. u subdue him while alive because he has been incapacitated. if he dies because of the injuries then that is just a consequence.
so no..... incontrol is completely wrong. a cop does not always shoot to kill UNLESS the situation 100% calls for it(like if the guy is armed with a gun of some kind then it becomes neccesary to stop the guy at any means neccessary, which includes killing him). some times u can shoot a suspect in a way that is not lethal and only stop his movements.
On January 25 2012 19:37 UisTehSux wrote: Any person in this thread who reasonably believes that in this situation when you see your fellow officer about to be struck by a crowbar, that you, in a tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situation where you are scared and don't know what this guy is going to do can aim at a moving target and fire perfectly one shot at his leg to 'wound' him and 'neutralize' is a liar.
Society is too sympathetic to the suspect in situation with use of force. Someone telegraphs towards you with a crowbar and the public expects you an officer to calmly request the man to stop what he is doing and to please get on the ground. If someone does this to you, you defend yourself. If you have a firearm pointed at them then you use that to defend yourself.
People have this notion that if you get shot once you die instantly. This isn't Hollywood, if you get shot that doesn't mean you're dead. A determined assailant will not drop to the ground and apologize. A person in fear for their life or the life of another isn't going to shoot one round and trust his ability shoot so well that he is sure that the bullet he fired landed perfectly on target and the suspect is going to drop everything and stop. A reasonable and prudent person, scared, in fear for their life would discharge as many rounds as they could to make the scary bad guy stop attacking them.
How many people in this thread that are arguing that the officer should have shot him in the leg to stop him do you think have actually even fired a handgun? Let alone had law enforcement training? Firing a weapon looks easy but really it is not. This isn't Battlefield 3 where you can control your recoil by lowering your mouse a bit. This isn't a fucking game with aim-assist.
Do you think in this situation you could execute your sharp-shooter Hollywood tactics on a moving target looking down this sight picture with adrenaline coursing through you?
In situations like this, there is a bottom line. Who is going home tonight? The scumbag or the officer? The tax paying officer has a family to feed and support.
what you are talking about and what actually happened are 2 diffrent things.
the 2 cops put THEMSELVES in danger by getting that close to a armed man... you cant ignore that fact because the vid shows how close they got. so close they could spit on each other. they put themselves in a situation that they had to defend themselves "out of fear". the entire situation could have been handled alot better if they simply did not get that close to him. they litterally got so close that they were in arms reach of the suspect and was forced to shoot at POINT BLANK range...
IMHO it was the cops fault for putting themselves in that kind of danger in the first place... the entire situation could have been handled differently and more safely/cautiously. but it wasnt. the cops got close to him as if he wasnt a threat and look at what happened. they forced themselves in a situation to either kill the suspect or have the suspect kill one of the cops. was a impossible scenario, BUT it could have been AVOIDED if they simply used caution.
People need to stop saying that they should have just shot him in the leg once. It is extremely difficult to hit such a small target, especially when it is moving. Not to mention the risk of hitting a civilian if you miss the shot. We should also all remember that this is a guy who took a taser to the face, and did not even flinch, suggesting he is full of narcotics, so why would a bullet to the leg cause enough pain to stop him, when five bullets to the chest did not even drop him to the ground?
Edit: The only reason the officers were close to the suspect was because 1: they moved into optimal range of their taser, which had no effect, and 2: when faced with a situation where the area is not secure and their are multiple civilians around an uncontrolled dangerous suspect, multiple people in this thread have said it is their training to get closer to the suspect, to prevent him from reaching a civilian.
I guess there's a cultural difference. In Sweden, police are trained to NOT shot to kill unless it's necessary, which is why we have almost no lethal shootings in Sweden where a cop kills a criminal. In a situation such as in this video, I'm sure a swedish cop would have shot the suspect in the leg. How can this work? Because in Sweden, it's extremely rare that a criminal will be carrying a gun, so I don't think there's as much pressure to "put the threat down immediately" as there is in the US where everyone and their mother owns at least 2 guns, 1 shotgun and 5 bazookas.
On January 25 2012 19:58 Tobberoth wrote: I guess there's a cultural difference. In Sweden, police are trained to NOT shot to kill unless it's necessary, which is why we have almost no lethal shootings in Sweden where a cop kills a criminal. In a situation such as in this video, I'm sure a swedish cop would have shot the suspect in the leg. How can this work? Because in Sweden, it's extremely rare that a criminal will be carrying a gun, so I don't think there's as much pressure to "put the threat down immediately" as there is in the US where everyone and their mother owns at least 2 guns, 1 shotgun and 5 bazookas.
And what happens if the police officer missed the leg (very likely) and got his head bashed in with the crowbar? Or shooting him in the leg did nothing, if you remember he was still standing after being tasered in the face, and after being shot five times in the chest?
On January 25 2012 19:58 Tobberoth wrote: I guess there's a cultural difference. In Sweden, police are trained to NOT shot to kill unless it's necessary, which is why we have almost no lethal shootings in Sweden where a cop kills a criminal. In a situation such as in this video, I'm sure a swedish cop would have shot the suspect in the leg. How can this work? Because in Sweden, it's extremely rare that a criminal will be carrying a gun, so I don't think there's as much pressure to "put the threat down immediately" as there is in the US where everyone and their mother owns at least 2 guns, 1 shotgun and 5 bazookas.
And what happens if the police officer missed the leg (very likely) and got his head bashed in with the crowbar?
It's just not a situation which would happen since you would ask the criminal to drop the weapon. If he doesn't, you shoot him in the leg. You do this before he's close enough to engage with ample time to aim. If you miss and he rushes towards you, THEN you fire at his torso.
I don't understand why he didnt back off a little? I mean the police officer. Or just shoot in the hands or legs. Hands more logical since hes wielding the crowbar?
On January 25 2012 20:04 epoc wrote: I don't understand why he didnt back off a little? I mean the police officer. Or just shoot in the hands or legs. Hands more logical since hes wielding the crowbar?
Shooting his hand is probably not viable. Way harder to hit, and requires you to aim higher, which means a miss has a MUCH higher risk of collateral damage.
On January 25 2012 19:58 Tobberoth wrote: I guess there's a cultural difference. In Sweden, police are trained to NOT shot to kill unless it's necessary, which is why we have almost no lethal shootings in Sweden where a cop kills a criminal. In a situation such as in this video, I'm sure a swedish cop would have shot the suspect in the leg. How can this work? Because in Sweden, it's extremely rare that a criminal will be carrying a gun, so I don't think there's as much pressure to "put the threat down immediately" as there is in the US where everyone and their mother owns at least 2 guns, 1 shotgun and 5 bazookas.
And what happens if the police officer missed the leg (very likely) and got his head bashed in with the crowbar? Or shooting him in the leg did nothing, if you remember he was still standing after being tasered in the face, and after being shot five times in the chest?
like i keep constantly saying, that wouldnt have happened if the cops simply kept there distance and been more cautios. they walked up to the suspect very non-chalantly as if he wasnt a threat. and what happens next? well the vid tells u what happened next.
They were shooting to kill. They could have shot in the leg, once, and save his life. Clearly the cop overreacted. He should not be wielding a firearm if he cannot use it responsibly. Basically the cops are poorly trained and trigger happy.
what you are talking about and what actually happened are 2 diffrent things.
the 2 cops put THEMSELVES in danger by getting that close to a armed man... you cant ignore that fact because the vid shows how close they got. so close they could spit on each other. they put themselves in a situation that they had to defend themselves "out of fear". the entire situation could have been handled alot better if they simply did not get that close to him. they litterally got so close that they were in arms reach of the suspect and was forced to shoot at POINT BLANK range...
IMHO it was the cops fault for putting themselves in that kind of danger in the first place... the entire situation could have been handled differently and more safely/cautiously. but it wasnt. the cops got close to him as if he wasnt a threat and look at what happened. they forced themselves in a situation to either kill the suspect or have the suspect kill one of the cops. was a impossible scenario, BUT it could have been AVOIDED if they simply used caution.
You as a civilian with no law enforcement training can Monday night quarterback until your fingers hurt, but use of force situations when brought to court are not judged on 20/20 hindsight, every single person and those not known to this galaxy can say what they should have and would have done. But these cases are determined by what the officer experienced at the time of the incident.
The whole thing could have been AVOIDED, if the suspect dropped his weapon and complied with police commands.
On January 25 2012 20:05 Traeon wrote: They were shooting to kill. They could have shot in the leg, once, and save his life. Clearly the cop overreacted. He should not be wielding a firearm if he cannot use it responsibly. Basically the cops are poorly trained and trigger happy.
On January 25 2012 20:04 epoc wrote: I don't understand why he didnt back off a little? I mean the police officer. Or just shoot in the hands or legs. Hands more logical since hes wielding the crowbar?
Shooting his hand is probably not viable. Way harder to hit, and requires you to aim higher, which means a miss has a MUCH higher risk of collateral damage.
Are you kidding me? How do you expect someone to shoot someones hand to disarm him in this situation? Is this a joke...?
On January 25 2012 19:58 Tobberoth wrote: I guess there's a cultural difference. In Sweden, police are trained to NOT shot to kill unless it's necessary, which is why we have almost no lethal shootings in Sweden where a cop kills a criminal. In a situation such as in this video, I'm sure a swedish cop would have shot the suspect in the leg. How can this work? Because in Sweden, it's extremely rare that a criminal will be carrying a gun, so I don't think there's as much pressure to "put the threat down immediately" as there is in the US where everyone and their mother owns at least 2 guns, 1 shotgun and 5 bazookas.
The swedish police does have an escalating order, going from warning shots, to suppressig fire to leg (if possible) but I think you are mixing things up here. If a swedish police ends up in a similar situation where someone is close and tries to hit them with a hammer, knife or whatever, they won't be aiming for the leg. You have to look at the situation.
I can't believe people here are seriously suggesting that the cops just shoot the weapon out of his hand... this is the real world, not a movie or a video game.
what you are talking about and what actually happened are 2 diffrent things.
the 2 cops put THEMSELVES in danger by getting that close to a armed man... you cant ignore that fact because the vid shows how close they got. so close they could spit on each other. they put themselves in a situation that they had to defend themselves "out of fear". the entire situation could have been handled alot better if they simply did not get that close to him. they litterally got so close that they were in arms reach of the suspect and was forced to shoot at POINT BLANK range...
IMHO it was the cops fault for putting themselves in that kind of danger in the first place... the entire situation could have been handled differently and more safely/cautiously. but it wasnt. the cops got close to him as if he wasnt a threat and look at what happened. they forced themselves in a situation to either kill the suspect or have the suspect kill one of the cops. was a impossible scenario, BUT it could have been AVOIDED if they simply used caution.
You as a civilian with no law enforcement training can Monday night quarterback until your fingers hurt, but use of force situations when brought to court are not judged on 20/20 hindsight, every single person and those not known to this galaxy can say what they should have and would have done. But these cases are determined by what the officer experienced at the time of the incident.
The whole thing could have been AVOIDED, if the suspect dropped his weapon and complied with police commands.
the suspect dropping his weapon OBVIOUSLY wasnt going to happen. so what should be done next? the cops calling for back up and keeping there distance? or getting in battering range of the suspects crow bar? its obvious that the cops in the vid got very close to the suspect as if he wasnt a threat... at one point the cop even took his eyes off the suspect.... srsly, its not about being a civilian or not. its about common sense. u dont get that close to someone with a deadly weapon and u for damn sure dont take ur eyes off him for even a second.
I was at the school across the street from this. Where I attend regularly.
Anyway, I've made this argument alot.
He looks like some gangster who tried to intimidate guys with guns. He got tazed in the face and kept going like nothing was wrong. which means he was clearly drugged up. Then he proceeded to attempt to scare the officer that tazed him.
If you notice, he pulls back. I went to school with gangsters all my life. I know how those idiots work. He went to intimidate him then he was going to walk away. But he was too busy being shot to do so.
IN ANY CASE, This guy got what he asked for. He was probably drugged up and had no sense of reality, so probably didn't know anything happened till he was dead and everything stopped happening. /DEEEEEEEP
The only reason they were close in the first place was to use a taser on him at optimal range, and because if they stayed far away and he charged at a civilian in another direction they would have a high likelihood of either not being able to protect the civilian, or missing the suspect if forced to fire from a distance and possibly hit a civilian.
On January 25 2012 19:58 Tobberoth wrote: I guess there's a cultural difference. In Sweden, police are trained to NOT shot to kill unless it's necessary, which is why we have almost no lethal shootings in Sweden where a cop kills a criminal. In a situation such as in this video, I'm sure a swedish cop would have shot the suspect in the leg. How can this work? Because in Sweden, it's extremely rare that a criminal will be carrying a gun, so I don't think there's as much pressure to "put the threat down immediately" as there is in the US where everyone and their mother owns at least 2 guns, 1 shotgun and 5 bazookas.
And what happens if the police officer missed the leg (very likely) and got his head bashed in with the crowbar? Or shooting him in the leg did nothing, if you remember he was still standing after being tasered in the face, and after being shot five times in the chest?
like i keep constantly saying, that wouldnt have happened if the cops simply kept there distance and been more cautios. they walked up to the suspect very non-chalantly as if he wasnt a threat. and what happens next? well the vid tells u what happened next.
How do you know everything about this situation and the person who was shot? How do you know that it "wouldn't have happened if the cops simply..."?
You don't. Why are you commenting in here like you know exactly what should have happened and what would have happened if what you are saying was done? You don't know!
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.reviewsofthings.com/images-glock/ghost-ring-sights-glock-19-installation%20014.JPG)
