|
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING:The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. 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 20:49 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 20:45 kaiz0ku wrote:
How can you people even say such things?
There is nothing justified.. This is a murder and he must face jail time.
But from similar incidents the past years i have realized things work much more differently in the US.
I remember when a police officer in Greece decided to use his gun 3-4 years ago...
Athens was on fire for a week... Totally different situation , but if something like this happened here we would
probably have a similar reaction. Yeah, here if some guy drugged up charges at a police officer with a deadly weapon after not being affected by nonlethal weapons, the police will defend themselves rather than be murdered. I find it weird you value the life of someone about to kill a police officer over the life of someone defending themselves. Edit: I strongly urge people to check out the last link posted in the mod section at the top of this thread. It really shows what can happen when police don't use force when facing a threat to themselves.
Yeah, you might argue over the amount of force used but painting this as murder? Cmon...
The guy was acting like he wanted what he got basically. What more reason do you have to give a cop to use his gun (how he uses it is another question but thats cultural and legal differences between the US and wherever other people are from, in our case the EU)
|
Seeing things like this happen makes me feel bad, but I would've done the same if I was in the cop's position, honestly. If somebody charges at me with the intention of taking my life, I will do everything in my power to prevent that, even going as far as to kill him.
Although it might not have been necessary to fire an excessive amount of bullets (yes, I think 10 is quite a high number, considering how fragile humans are).
|
It seemed to me that the suspect was high on something, for the tazer to be completely ineffective, if that was the case what makes you think that a couple shots to the leg would stop him. I think you should always take care of yourself and loved ones ffirst in any situation like that. The cop obviously felt that it was necessary to fire that many shots, who am I, as an outside viewer, to judge someone in a potential life or death situation. I believe, looking back on the situation in hindsight it would probably still be the best resolution to the situation.
Also I would like to point out that many police side arms don't have a large amount of stopping power, and more bullets probably would be necessary to stop him.
|
On January 25 2012 20:58 Zvenn3n wrote:
Seeing things like this happen makes me feel bad, but I would've done the same if I was in the cop's position, honestly. If somebody charges at me with the intention of taking my life, I will do everything in my power to prevent that, even going as far as to kill him.
Although it might not have been necessary to fire an excessive amount of bullets (yes, I think 10 is quite a high number, considering how fragile humans are).
But he was still standing and a threat after five shots, and even after ten, he didn't die until after an ambulance was called and arrived, and transported him to the hospital, where he later died. If a guy who seems intent on killing you is still standing only a few feet away wielding a deadly weapon, I would continue firing, not cross my fingers that he will stop because I don't want to risk killing him after shooting him five times.
|
On January 25 2012 20:49 Saryph wrote:Yeah, here if some guy drugged up charges at a police officer with a deadly weapon
Reality check: the guy turned around and takes a step towards a cop. He did not charge the cops nor raise his weapon. It's stupid and provoking but the cop's response of killing him is not justified.
|
Shooting in the legs is good if you know he doesnt have a concealed weapon.. how would you feel if you shot him in the legs for him to whip out a pistol and down 2 people?
i think he showed intent and made a clearly aggressive move, so he deserved it to be honest..
|
On January 25 2012 14:31 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:27 stokes17 wrote:On January 25 2012 14:23 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:15 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 14:12 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:10 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 14:03 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 13:55 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 13:45 Leporello wrote: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.
Pretty much this.
Yeah, people say all the usual "their lives come first than this low-life junkie's" and "hindsight is 20/20", "real life doesn't work this way" blah blah blah, but it's not an excuse to just kill someone because he threatened them once and was incapable of doing anything else after first 5 shots.
It's more like "Oh you no swinging a hammer at me, bitch" kind of thing.
After first 5 shots were fired, there were no aggressive actions shown from the suspect and he was blown like 3 meters away from them. But instead of moving AWAY from the guy with a SHORT RANGE weapon, they moved in to finish him off.
It was clearly an instinctive "HOW DARE YOU SWING THAT HAMMER AT ME" reaction.
The 2nd burst was shot so fast that the body couldn't even hit the ground if you apply the knowledge of, you know, gravity.
There are a lot of situations where just finishing the bastard off is justifiable and needed (there are civilians around, there's a long range GUN involved etc.), this is clearly not one of them.
|
On January 25 2012 21:00 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 20:49 Saryph wrote:Yeah, here if some guy drugged up charges at a police officer with a deadly weapon Reality check: the guy turned around and takes a step towards a cop. He did not charge him or raise his weapon. It's stupid and provoking but the cop's response of killing him is not justified.
If you watch the video you'll notice that he changes his grip of the weapon from a casual one handed grasp to holding it with both hands in a grip that is loading up for a swing, just like a baseball bat, while moving toward the officers. So lets see: aggressive stance? check. Moving closer to officers with deadly melee weapon? check.
The fact is that with that weapon he can kill a person in a fraction of a second. You don't wait for a suspect to hit you in the head before you take action.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
I think it was a little excessive but I can hardly blame the cop. In the US the cops are trained very much to only shoot when they intend on killing their target. This all happened fairly quickly, so a cop is probably not going to have the time to think 'oh he looks fairly incapacitated now, I'll stop shooting'. Once he starts shooting, his brain is just going into the 'put this guy down" mode, and you can hardly blame him, that is his training.
Shooting at the legs is rarely a good option, it is a smaller target, cops are not trained to do it, and bullets may easily ricochet off the ground.
That said, for those saying that people saying it's excessive are valuing this guys life over that of the police officers, I don't think thats particularly fair, we merely weighing the very minimal risk to the officers (considering he already had several bullets in him), to the fact that he will almost certainly die from firing those bullets into him when he's already down.
Just because he is able to ignore the pain of the bullets already in him and the taser doesn't mean he still posed a massive risk, pain is just biological signalling, you CAN ignore it with enough discipline, but the damage done by the bullets is very real and is not something that can just be ignored. As for the taser to the face, thats not how tasers work. Yes tasers do cause alot of pain, but thats not the primary reason why it incapitates someone. This is why he was able to ignore the taser to the face, because in that case the current will travel only around the face, it may make your facial muscles distort and hurt a hell of alot, but it will not incapacitate you the way a taser is supposed to (eg neuromuscular incapacitation ).
All in all, I think that the sheer scale of the lethal force used was excessive and unfortunate but given the intensity of the situation and the way these policemen are trained to use firearms the cop can hardly be blamed. I also would not fault him for shooting to kill at least on the initial shots.
|
What's really disturbing for me is how this policemen have been trained. I'm not talking about firing excessive number of shots here, you shoot to take opponent down, that's understandable. Also, when the suspect started swinging at an officer it justified intervention.
Things that I'd like to question:
1. Why did they come into striking distance of a suspect armed with a melee weapon when they were carrying guns?
2. Why did they bring the dog with them?
If they kept their distance perhaps they would not provoke aggressive behaviour from the suspect (although he was probably on drugs or something so it's never certain) and could still control him. He wouldn't be able to harm anyone and neither could he run away (can't outrun bullets and a dog).
While I think in this situation shooting was justifiable, I don't think situation like that should ever arise in this case.
|
On January 25 2012 21:08 Saryph wrote:
If you watch the video you'll notice that he changes his grip of the weapon from a casual one handed grasp to holding it with both hands in a grip that is loading up for a swing, just like a baseball bat, while moving toward the officers. So lets see: aggressive stance? check. Moving closer to officers with deadly melee weapon? check.
The fact is that with that weapon he can kill a person in a fraction of a second. You don't wait for a suspect to hit you in the head before you take action.
Yea I noticed the double grip when watching again. And it's true, he can kill someone close enough.
But the cops are standing too close. Especially the one that shot the taser. He even keeps walking towards the suspect while looking on his taser that he is reloading or w/e. Walking towards a suspect armed with a melee weapon that you just tasered while basically looking onto the ground. It's immensely stupid and just asking for an aggression.
In such a situation there really is very little time to react. The suspect is also stupid but this only ended with a dead because of those cops handling the situation poorly.
|
On January 25 2012 21:13 Manit0u wrote:
What's really disturbing for me is how this policemen have been trained. I'm not talking about firing excessive number of shots here, you shoot to take opponent down, that's understandable. Also, when the suspect started swinging at an officer it justified intervention.
Things that I'd like to question:
1. Why did they come into striking distance of a suspect armed in a melee weapon when they were carrying guns?
2. Why did they bring the dog with them?
If they kept their distance perhaps they would not provoke aggressive behaviour from the suspect (although he was probably on drugs or something so it's never certain) and could still control him. He wouldn't be able to harm anyone and neither could he run away (can't outrun bullets and a dog).
While I think in this situation shooting was justifiable, I don't think situation like that should ever arise in this case.
Basically this. A bit of extra distance couldve let the whole situation play out a lot differently. Then again the guy was on drugs most probably and predicting the reactions of a drugged person is really hard to do for someone in a stressed situation.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On January 25 2012 21:13 Manit0u wrote:
What's really disturbing for me is how this policemen have been trained. I'm not talking about firing excessive number of shots here, you shoot to take opponent down, that's understandable. Also, when the suspect started swinging at an officer it justified intervention.
Things that I'd like to question:
1. Why did they come into striking distance of a suspect armed in a melee weapon when they were carrying guns?
2. Why did they bring the dog with them?
If they kept their distance perhaps they would not provoke aggressive behaviour from the suspect (although he was probably on drugs or something so it's never certain) and could still control him. He wouldn't be able to harm anyone and neither could he run away (can't outrun bullets and a dog).
While I think in this situation shooting was justifiable, I don't think situation like that should ever arise in this case.
I think their training actually fits for their situation. With the lax gun control that the US has, you just never know when someone might have a firearm, even if they charged you with a melee weapon and show no signs of having one, simply because having a firearm is just so common.
I think coming from countries where gun control is effective like we do, it is hard for us to understand their mentality, because where we are it would be just insane to simply assume the perpetrator has a firearm on him because there simply aren't that many firearms around, whereas you can't throw a stone in the US without hitting someone who owns a firearm.
|
On January 25 2012 21:13 Manit0u wrote:
What's really disturbing for me is how this policemen have been trained. I'm not talking about firing excessive number of shots here, you shoot to take opponent down, that's understandable. Also, when the suspect started swinging at an officer it justified intervention.
Things that I'd like to question:
1. Why did they come into striking distance of a suspect armed with a melee weapon when they were carrying guns?
2. Why did they bring the dog with them?
If they kept their distance perhaps they would not provoke aggressive behaviour from the suspect (although he was probably on drugs or something so it's never certain) and could still control him. He wouldn't be able to harm anyone and neither could he run away (can't outrun bullets and a dog).
While I think in this situation shooting was justifiable, I don't think situation like that should ever arise in this case.
A few people a lot earlier in the thread suggested that they were so close for two reasons: that it was optimal range for their nonlethal weapons, and that it was procedure to stay close rather than far from a suspect in a situation where the suspect was not contained and there were civilians at risk. This makes sense to me because if you are further from a suspect and he tries to attack a civilian on the opposite side of the suspect from the officer, you can't risk firing at him due to the risk of hitting a civilian.
As for your second question I'm assuming the dog was there because the first unit to respond (probably the closest) was a K-9 unit.
The suspect was already showing aggressive behavior before they arrived, he'd been destroying property etc etc.
|
The shooting was absolutely justified. The moment he turned around, held his weapon up higher, and started advancing toward the cop is where he forfeited his life. Dude was too drugged to even realize.
|
On January 25 2012 21:19 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:13 Manit0u wrote:
What's really disturbing for me is how this policemen have been trained. I'm not talking about firing excessive number of shots here, you shoot to take opponent down, that's understandable. Also, when the suspect started swinging at an officer it justified intervention.
Things that I'd like to question:
1. Why did they come into striking distance of a suspect armed with a melee weapon when they were carrying guns?
2. Why did they bring the dog with them?
If they kept their distance perhaps they would not provoke aggressive behaviour from the suspect (although he was probably on drugs or something so it's never certain) and could still control him. He wouldn't be able to harm anyone and neither could he run away (can't outrun bullets and a dog).
While I think in this situation shooting was justifiable, I don't think situation like that should ever arise in this case. A few people a lot earlier in the thread suggested that they were so close for two reasons: that it was optimal range for their nonlethal weapons, and that it was procedure to stay close rather than far from a suspect in a situation where the suspect was not contained and there were civilians at risk. This makes sense to me because if you are further from a suspect and he tries to attack a civilian on the opposite side of the suspect from the officer, you can't risk firing at him due to the risk of hitting a civilian. As for your second question I'm assuming the dog was there because the first unit to respond (probably the closest) was a K-9 unit. The suspect was already showing aggressive behavior before they arrived, he'd been destroying property etc etc.
Question is would an 5 or so feet really make so much of a difference for the civilians around? I dont know really...
|
On January 25 2012 21:13 Manit0u wrote:
What's really disturbing for me is how this policemen have been trained. I'm not talking about firing excessive number of shots here, you shoot to take opponent down, that's understandable. Also, when the suspect started swinging at an officer it justified intervention.
Things that I'd like to question:
1. Why did they come into striking distance of a suspect armed with a melee weapon when they were carrying guns?
2. Why did they bring the dog with them?
If they kept their distance perhaps they would not provoke aggressive behaviour from the suspect (although he was probably on drugs or something so it's never certain) and could still control him. He wouldn't be able to harm anyone and neither could he run away (can't outrun bullets and a dog).
While I think in this situation shooting was justifiable, I don't think situation like that should ever arise in this case.
I also want to bring something to attention. The person with the dog is front and center. Look at how he is holding his firearm -- at times, he is holding it sidways, like he's a gangster or something. One hand on the gun, one hand on the dog. That person should not be at the front, let alone firing. In my opinion.
|
On January 25 2012 21:00 Saryph wrote:
But he was still standing and a threat after five shots
He was not. Even the 5 shots seem excesive.
They could have shot him twice and backed up to see his response. There are a ton of things that could have gone better on that scene, and dont involve the death of the "scumbag".
That beeing said, the cops probably were afraid/unprepared and overreacted.
|
dont find it too excessive.
we are able to judge it by looking at a video of what happens
pretty easy to say what he should have done when you have hindisght at your disposal.
this cop had to make that judgement call in a 3 second timeframe ,
first shots fired , 3 second in between second salvo, obviously they didn't deem him harmless at that point.
and this is subjective i know, but i really don't get why people deem him " not able to do anything " after the first shots.
he didn't yet seem incapacitated to me.
other than that, the country bashing for this is pretty tiresome tbh.
my father in law is a cop aswell (Netherlands) and they will ONLY go for the leg when the situation permits it.
that is, clear shot , high probability to hit , no immediate danger to own life.
this is not one of those situations in my book.
|
On January 25 2012 21:23 Vinland wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:00 Saryph wrote:
But he was still standing and a threat after five shots He was not. Even the 5 shots seem excesive. They could have shot him twice and backed up to see his response. There are a ton of things that could have gone better on that scene, and dont involve the death of the "scumbag". That beeing said, the cops probably were afraid/unprepared and overreacted.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. If you look at the video though he is still standing, and still armed after being shot five times. He doesn't go down until the second officer fires. In fact, he was still alive with ten rounds fired at him long enough for an ambulance to be called, for it to transport him to the hospital, and for him to eventually pass away from his injuries there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
