|
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. |
My personal opinion is, that even tho he had a crowbar. I mean, why not scare him to drop it first? If this happened in my country.
The police officer would have gone to jail (probably for 21 years for unjustified murder.) the family of the dead man/boy would get a good compensation. And it's obvious that the police officer had no idea how to handle the situation. Which means he should'nt be a cop! 9 shots to kill because of some minor disturbance and him having a crowbar? thats excessive. to say the least. The police officer had multiple options he could do before resorting to kill a kid, probably drugged and had no idea what he was doing. Yeah he might have taken the drugs but thats a minor offence which should'nt have led to death.
some of the options he could have done was A) Released the dog. B) shot a warning shot. or C) shot him in the legs/arms or whatever.
+ Show Spoiler +Also theese threads make me a sad man :/
|
On January 25 2012 21:26 Saryph wrote:
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.
You mean his body hasn't hit the ground yet?
I find your rationalizing of a killing that could clearly have been avoided by better training to be disgusting to be honest. Drugged, stupid scumbag or not.
|
On January 25 2012 21:30 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:My personal opinion is, that even tho he had a crowbar. I mean, why not scare him to drop it first? If this happened in my country. The police officer would have gone to jail (probably for 21 years for unjustified murder.) the family of the dead man/boy would get a good compensation. And it's obvious that the police officer had no idea how to handle the situation. Which means he should'nt be a cop! 9 shots to kill because of some minor disturbance and him having a crowbar? thats excessive. to say the least. The police officer had multiple options he could do before resorting to kill a kid, probably drugged and had no idea what he was doing. Yeah he might have taken the drugs but thats a minor offence which should'nt have led to death. some of the options he could have done was A) Released the dog. B) shot a warning shot. or C) shot him in the legs/arms or whatever. + Show Spoiler +Also theese threads make me a sad man :/
Scare him how? He was high on drugs and not of sound mind. If two people pointing firearms and a dog don't scare you, and instead you charge with a crowbar, what would scare him?
|
First of all, most of you criticizing the officers' actions are not from the US, or more importantly from California. Some parts of Los Angeles are very ghetto and crime-ridden, and Police officers have died in duty numerous times in these areas. While it is true that America does give you the right to bear arms, legally obtaining a firearm requires backround checks and permits. However, that does not stop the criminals who obtain them illegally to get their own.
Law enforcement officers are very cautious nowadays, especially those who serve in places where there are many violent crimes. Places like Oakland, California has had their fairshare, where four law enforcement officers lost their lives by the same suspect in 2 shootings within 2 hours. The suspect shot and fatally injured the first two on a traffic stop, then killed another two as he set his last stand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_shootings_of_Oakland_police_officers
|
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.
By "Why did they bring the dog with them?" I actually meant that if you have it, make use of it. Having a dog in situation like that allows you to better control the suspect at a distance. Even if he were to drop the crowbar and reach for the gun he could've been shot before he could reach it or they could just let off the leash and this dog would be upon him in a matter of a second or so. In my assesment this situation could be handled a lot better. Police officers should clear the area of civilians in the first place (as really, protecting them should be their priority, not taking down the suspect) and setting up better for when he leaves the building. The officer with a taser was constantly walking towards the suspect while fiddling with his taser, which he tried to put back on his belt instead of just dropping it to the ground when it turned out to be ineffective.
Like I said, the shooting is completely justifiable, I'd just like to see officers just a bit further away from the suspect.
|
On January 25 2012 20:06 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yea, there seem to be misconceptions from both sides on the shooting at limbs things. How we trained the typical person with axe/knife/whatever scenario was basically 1)get people away from the person while 2)keeping a good range for the situation while 3)trying to stay at good angles in case you have to fire your weapon. I could guess the procedure is somewhat similar in most places. In those scenarios, at least after the first few seconds it's normally not hard to hit for example a leg.
But least for me we weren't trained to try to fire at limbs in split second situation at the distance these cops were in. I'm sure it's "possible", but even if you practice for it 8 hours a day it seems unlikely that you'll reach acceptable accuracy an arm length away. And it wouldn't make much sense to train for it to begin with since proper range is better anyway.
|
On January 25 2012 21:32 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:26 Saryph wrote:
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. You mean his body hasn't hit the ground yet?
If someone just tried to attack you with a deadly weapon, you know he isn't responding to pain like a normal person, and now he is just a few feet from you with his back toward you where you don't know what he is doing, what would you do?
You can't go back to assuming he is no threat and no risk, knowing he is influenced by drugs and is armed and hostile toward you doesn't allow that, nor does your training.
|
On January 25 2012 21:30 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:My personal opinion is, that even tho he had a crowbar. I mean, why not scare him to drop it first? If this happened in my country. The police officer would have gone to jail (probably for 21 years for unjustified murder.) the family of the dead man/boy would get a good compensation. And it's obvious that the police officer had no idea how to handle the situation. Which means he should'nt be a cop! 9 shots to kill because of some minor disturbance and him having a crowbar? thats excessive. to say the least. The police officer had multiple options he could do before resorting to kill a kid, probably drugged and had no idea what he was doing. Yeah he might have taken the drugs but thats a minor offence which should'nt have led to death. some of the options he could have done was A) Released the dog. B) shot a warning shot. or C) shot him in the legs/arms or whatever. + Show Spoiler +Also theese threads make me a sad man :/
And if he had a gun hidden in his pockets? What if they searched his body or backpack and found a gun, would that make you feel any different about it?
Imagine he gets scared and pulls it out and kills an officer and possibly some civilians.
Do the officers know if he has a gun? No. But do they know he doesn't? Nope.
Even if only 1 in 100 of these cases is carrying firearms, 100 dead criminals insane enough to charge an officer/civilian with a weapon is worth preventing 1 innocent civilian or officer casualty.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On January 25 2012 21:30 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:My personal opinion is, that even tho he had a crowbar. I mean, why not scare him to drop it first? If this happened in my country. The police officer would have gone to jail (probably for 21 years for unjustified murder.) the family of the dead man/boy would get a good compensation. And it's obvious that the police officer had no idea how to handle the situation. Which means he should'nt be a cop! 9 shots to kill because of some minor disturbance and him having a crowbar? thats excessive. to say the least. The police officer had multiple options he could do before resorting to kill a kid, probably drugged and had no idea what he was doing. Yeah he might have taken the drugs but thats a minor offence which should'nt have led to death. some of the options he could have done was A) Released the dog. B) shot a warning shot. or C) shot him in the legs/arms or whatever. + Show Spoiler +Also theese threads make me a sad man :/
Again, I think being a cop in the US is alot different from being a cop in most western countries due to their lack of any meaningful gun control. In the US being a cop is fairly dangerous (eg more so than in other western countries) simply because so many criminals are carrying guns. They are therefore trained, to be more, proactive we shall call it, to ensure their safety of and the safety of their colleagues. This defensive attitude bleeds over into how they react to any sort of threat, whether firearm related or not, and therefore they are more likely to respond to any threat with lethal force, because there is a greater chance the threat facing them might well be lethal.
We are used to our law enforcement being more lenient because Norway, Australia and many other western countries have very effective gun control, and a cop doing their job is (comparatively) safer, and they are trained and inclined to be more lenient.
|
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.
I just saw him lifting the weapon , not charging...
There are 2 police officer with a dog , A DOG , A DOG.
Why don't they have rubber bullets for gods sake.
And it's no pistol , so why don't they use martial arts ?
|
Well I think a shot in the leg would have been sufficent to start with. Then you just need to keep your distance and make sure no one else gets involved and youve saved a life. Shooting him 10 times wasnt necessary. Lets just hope it was a real "bad guy" and not some stupid teenagar that tried drugs and got a bad trip..
|
|
|
People please think about the shows we have seen with people fully prepared to take a tazer shot (i.e. Jackass, Nitro Circus). This man shruged of a tazer shot (WTF) who does this. My thought would be a drug abuser of some kind probably a meth addict. Have you seen meth addicts THEY DONT GO DOWN. Having this information i cannot rightfully blame the officer. You may say well there were several officers on scene why couldn't they overwelm him or use non lethal force. Did you see the size of that weapon? A single blow to anyone of those officers could lead to death. Soooooooo lets see Possible drugged full grown man with a "Lethal" Weapon and there supposed to what jump on him and hope to God that he doesn't have the guts to swing the weapon when hes been breaking windows in a public place.
Im sorry if anyone is offended by anything said in this post but plz take into consideration the points i have made and what they mean before you quote my post and rage at me for being a barbarian Thank You
|
On January 25 2012 21:35 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:19 Saryph wrote: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. By "Why did they bring the dog with them?" I actually meant that if you have it, make use of it. Having a dog in situation like that allows you to better control the suspect at a distance. Even if he were to drop the crowbar and reach for the gun he could've been shot before he could reach it or they could just let off the leash and this dog would be upon him in a matter of a second or so. In my assesment this situation could be handled a lot better. Police officers should clear the area of civilians in the first place (as really, protecting them should be their priority, not taking down the suspect) and setting up better for when he leaves the building. The officer with a taser was constantly walking towards the suspect while fiddling with his taser, which he tried to put back on his belt instead of just dropping it to the ground when it turned out to be ineffective. Like I said, the shooting is completely justifiable, I'd just like to see officers just a bit further away from the suspect.
The only conclusion I can come to for the dog not being used is that they feel the risk to the dog outweighs the benefits of its use. If pain doesn't seem to be affecting the suspect, only nerve damage and the weight of the dog will prevent the suspect from attacking it, while now the dog is exposed to injury from the suspect, as well as putting it in the potential field of fire if the officers are forced to shoot.
The officer with the taser let his eyes drop from the suspect, which is a big mistake, and he definitely could have acted better, though I doubt it would have changed the outcome. Part of the problem with securing the area is that it is hard for two people to secure an area, and short of yelling at the civilians to move there is little they can do, though moving in closer to the suspects does help protect the civilians.
|
On January 25 2012 21:35 Manit0u wrote:
By "Why did they bring the dog with them?" I actually meant that if you have it, make use of it. Having a dog in situation like that allows you to better control the suspect at a distance. Even if he were to drop the crowbar and reach for the gun he could've been shot before he could reach it or they could just let off the leash and this dog would be upon him in a matter of a second or so. In my assesment this situation could be handled a lot better. Police officers should clear the area of civilians in the first place (as really, protecting them should be their priority, not taking down the suspect) and setting up better for when he leaves the building. The officer with a taser was constantly walking towards the suspect while fiddling with his taser, which he tried to put back on his belt instead of just dropping it to the ground when it turned out to be ineffective.
Like I said, the shooting is completely justifiable, I'd just like to see officers just a bit further away from the suspect.
They are trained to be that close to a suspect because pistol accuracy, especially a smaller model designed to be carried all day, are very inaccurate outside of 7-9 yards. And given the fact that he had a dog/ leash in his other hand, that was about the right distance. This is another case of many, many people who are unfamiliar with these types of things getting fired up because someone died but that guy was on something and unfortunately it had to come to that. The police did everything right in that situation.
|
Those dogs are very expensive to train. Sending it in to fight a guy with a weapon has to be the least cost-effective way to use them when you haven't even tried to taser him yet.
|
On January 25 2012 21:47 BlackJack wrote:
Those dogs are very expensive to train. Sending it in to fight a guy with a weapon has to be the least cost-effective way to use them when you haven't even tried to taser him yet.
They did taser him, he wasn't affected.
|
On January 25 2012 21:33 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:30 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:My personal opinion is, that even tho he had a crowbar. I mean, why not scare him to drop it first? If this happened in my country. The police officer would have gone to jail (probably for 21 years for unjustified murder.) the family of the dead man/boy would get a good compensation. And it's obvious that the police officer had no idea how to handle the situation. Which means he should'nt be a cop! 9 shots to kill because of some minor disturbance and him having a crowbar? thats excessive. to say the least. The police officer had multiple options he could do before resorting to kill a kid, probably drugged and had no idea what he was doing. Yeah he might have taken the drugs but thats a minor offence which should'nt have led to death. some of the options he could have done was A) Released the dog. B) shot a warning shot. or C) shot him in the legs/arms or whatever. + Show Spoiler +Also theese threads make me a sad man :/ Scare him how? He was high on drugs and not of sound mind. If two people pointing firearms and a dog don't scare you, and instead you charge with a crowbar, what would scare him?
the dog when its biting his arm?
|
On January 25 2012 21:47 BlackJack wrote:
Those dogs are very expensive to train. Sending it in to fight a guy with a weapon has to be the least cost-effective way to use them when you haven't even tried to taser him yet.
Also, you wouldnt sacrifice a dog for a human life? It could have saved the man. which is probably the most cost effective way to use it.
|
And then he hits it with the crowbar and either kills it or knocks it out. The guy on drugs doesn't respond normally, you can't expect him to be afraid of the dog when he isn't afraid when its barking and he has two guns pointed at him.
On January 25 2012 21:50 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 21:47 BlackJack wrote:
Those dogs are very expensive to train. Sending it in to fight a guy with a weapon has to be the least cost-effective way to use them when you haven't even tried to taser him yet. Also, you wouldnt sacrifice a dog for a human life? It could have saved the man. which is probably the most cost effective way to use it.
You don't even know that sacrificing the dog will save the man's life! But you know more than likely the dog will be injured or killed, with no assurance it will help improve the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
