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 21:11 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: 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.
Since when are cops not trained to shoot in the leg? This, together with all the "cops are trained to shoot to kill" makes me wonder how different countries laws are. Police should be trained to shoot to disable, MILITARY PERSONEL are supposed to be trained to shoot to kill. Shooting in the leg is standard procedure in the swedish police force, it surprises me greatly that it wouldn't be in the US or Australia.
Is it SOP to shoot someone in the leg if they are firing a gun at you? If you are facing an immediate and imminent threat to your life? I seriously doubt that is the case. It is much more likely they are taught to aim for a limb if there is little risk, and I believe earlier in this thread something similar was said by other posters concerning their police forces in other European nations.
When i first watched this i said that the officers done wrong , but i really changed my opinion . i know there is very high crime areas with very dangerous people, you never know what you going to get. Police officers dont want to get hurt or die on duty so its justified shooting the suspect .
The number of shots is also something that in the heat of the moment you are not counting , just protecting yourself . One thing is for sure , if the police is too brutal normally the criminals are brutal too , and in countries where having guns is more common things can happen to fast and unconsciously. As for the guys who talk about the dog , the dog life is much more valuable than that scumbag that who was robbing or breaking things .
I totally agree with the shooting now , because police has the right to defend themselves , its their life on the line , not our lives.. they are the ones involved , not the reporters or the viewers at home that probably never were in situations like this .
I totally agree with the shooting now , because police has the right to defend themselves , its their life on the line , not our lives.. they are the ones involved , not the reporters or the viewers at home that probably never were in situations like this .
I have intervened in an assault on a elderly woman in the street. I know that one can drop into a state of pure instinct real quick.
Cops should be trained to handle these situations. If you look at the video, the guy shooting the taser is being immensely stupid and exposing himself to the reach of the melee weapon, thus forcing his partner to shoot at the slightest sign of aggression. The partner promptly overreacts and shoots 10 bullets before the suspect's body hits the ground.
I totally agree with the shooting now , because police has the right to defend themselves , its their life on the line , not our lives.. they are the ones involved , not the reporters or the viewers at home that probably never were in situations like this .
I have intervened in an assault on a elderly woman in the street. I know that one can drop into a state of pure instinct real quick.
Cops should be trained to handle these situations. If you look at the video, the guy shooting the taser is being immensely stupid and exposing himself to the reach of the melee weapon, thus forcing his partner to shoot at the slightest sign of aggression. The partner promptly overreacts and shoots 10 bullets before the suspect's body hits the ground.
It's usually not called a body unless the person is dead. The man lived on for quite a while, long enough for an ambulance to be called and to deliver him to a hospital, where he later died from his injuries at the hospital. (Just saying to remind people that one shot, not even ten, instantly kills someone all of the time. He was still standing, and still considered a threat after the first five shots.)
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.
Hell no. Why would you want to save that man by trading the dogs life? What is wrong with you. He gave up right to live when he attacked. That's also not how k9s are used.
He gave up the right to live? are you stupid? He had not hurt anybody yet, he had a single crowbar. and yes I'd trade a dogs life for a human one any day. Except if the person involved had hurt another person in a was that justifies the loss of a human life. But I dont live in the US, things are rougher there, but I still feel like he should have sent the dog, (the dog might have survived perfectly fine.) then gone to jail, maybe that guy after been to prison a few years would acomplish something great? Not saying he would, but even if he wont, he gave up the right to live? I'm sad for you
He attacked the police with a deadly weapon, yes he gave up his right to live. You will die if you try to do that, which is why in most cases criminals DONT attack the police like he did.
Giving up the right to live and being harmed in order to assure you are no threat arent the same thing. On thing can take place without the other you know?
The police are trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated, which in most cases like this results in the criminals death. They arent the always same thing, but often they are, and in this case it was.
He attacked the police with a deadly weapon, yes he gave up his right to live.
Maybe in an alternate reality. At no point in the video is he actually attacking a cop
0:44 in the video, moving towards the cop with weapon ready to swing.
also feel free to watch this
Dont know why you are linking that video, as it's a extremaly different situation then the one we are discussing. The guy in the video threatened the officer, then went back to his car to get a gun. In the video we are discussing you could see the man, all the time and he didnt have a car with weapons nearby. you dont get this?
I totally agree with the shooting now , because police has the right to defend themselves , its their life on the line , not our lives.. they are the ones involved , not the reporters or the viewers at home that probably never were in situations like this .
I have intervened in an assault on a elderly woman in the street. I know that one can drop into a state of pure instinct real quick.
Cops should be trained to handle these situations. If you look at the video, the guy shooting the taser is being immensely stupid and exposing himself to the reach of the melee weapon, thus forcing his partner to shoot at the slightest sign of aggression. The partner promptly overreacts and shoots 10 bullets before the suspect's body hits the ground.
It's usually not called a body unless the person is dead. The man lived on for quite a while, long enough for an ambulance to be called and to deliver him to a hospital, where he later died from his injuries at the hospital. (Just saying to remind people that one shot, not even ten, instantly kills someone all of the time. He was still standing, and still considered a threat after the first five shots.)
The fact that he was alive isnt an indication whether or not he was a threat though (at least in my opinion). Its whether or not he was still capable of acting in a threatening way. Then again views on this might be different from a legal perspective.
On January 25 2012 17:57 DanceOnCreep wrote: 6) a crowbar isnt at death dealing machine too and it takes some really hard hits to the head to kill someone with that
......
............
Do you get off on spouting nonsense?
Anything heavy and hard that is swing quickly towards your head is life threatening.
You missed the context. It was in response to a post above saying handguns are not "death dealing machines". By that standard, neither are crowbars. The suspect would be required to severely injure the central nervous system with a crowbar as well to deal a deadly blow.
Where do you get all these things from? One blow to the neck or temple can easily be deadly. Not that it matters in any way.
The temple and neck have the brain and the spinal cord (CNS). A blow to the neck can damage the windpipe as well, but again, it was in context of the poster who said that handguns have to damage the CNS to drop someone.
I don't know why some of you bring training of different police dep. in different countries. It happened in USA, so police training in Germany doesn't matter in that case. After watching this recording few times I still believe that officers did the right thing. You can argue about the number of shots, but suspect was clearly agressive, knowing that the gun is being pointed at him. Also - Manit0u, you forgot that (as was already stated), that dogs are treated as fellow officers - you just don't put them in danger like that. Of course whole scene might played out differently if the policemen were standing at greater distance, but since it seems SOP tells them to come closer, there was no other way than use a firearm.
Only in the states. I'm pretty sure somethin like that nearly never happens in Germany. Probably even never at all. And our crime rates are still way lower than in the states. Something is wrong.
Not to say that this was standard procedure and policemen are trained to do that in the us. I think looking back at it those officers would have wnated to do things differently. Stay at greater distance, take him down without using lethal shots and then arrest. It was just poorly handled in that situation. The guy was within 3 feet of the cop with a pipe (?) in his hand and showed no sign of surrendering. I think its understandable that he shot him. Probably a panic move (yes even with 5 shots) or just some sort of reflex to stop the threat. They just shouldnt have put themselves into that position in the first place.
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.
Sorry to say you're wrong. Nowhere in the police academy are you taught to keep firing until the person stops breathing. The entire reason they have any sort of weapon on them is to protect their safety and the safety of civilians. As far as I can see in the video, after the first three shots are fired, the suspect recoils and loses his balance. You can make the justification that the next two shots that effectively drop him are valid, but then there's a short pause, and then five more rounds get unloaded.
Some additional points:
1. The suspect did not commit a crime worthy of a death sentence 2. The suspect was obviously preoccupied with 5 bullets in his gut to immediately get up and go after the officer again, which gave any of the officers plenty of time to go for their less-than-lethal weapons which I believe they're mandated to carry, including pepper spray, tasers, and pellet guns. You can make the argument that the first taser shot was ineffective but not to the point where the suspect deserved 5 additional rounds in him after he was already dropped. 3. Saying that when a cop fires a gun, the intent is to kill is an innocuous enough statement, but in this scenario it's a little ridiculous. Yes, obviously a firearm is a lethal weapon, and if you fire it once and someone is dead, you probably expect it, depending on where the bullet hits. In perspective though, 10 shots were fired at this suspect. Nobody can say for sure what would have happened if 1-9 bullets were fired at him, and nobody will know. The tough part to judge is how many bullets could have both incapacitated the suspect and kept him alive. We can only judge what we consider excessive, and from the fact that after the first five rounds, the suspect wasn't on his feet, coupled with the presence of attack dogs that can safely disarm him completely, the second volley of bullets wasn't necessary at all.
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.
Hell no. Why would you want to save that man by trading the dogs life? What is wrong with you. He gave up right to live when he attacked. That's also not how k9s are used.
He gave up the right to live? are you stupid? He had not hurt anybody yet, he had a single crowbar. and yes I'd trade a dogs life for a human one any day. Except if the person involved had hurt another person in a was that justifies the loss of a human life. But I dont live in the US, things are rougher there, but I still feel like he should have sent the dog, (the dog might have survived perfectly fine.) then gone to jail, maybe that guy after been to prison a few years would acomplish something great? Not saying he would, but even if he wont, he gave up the right to live? I'm sad for you
He attacked the police with a deadly weapon, yes he gave up his right to live. You will die if you try to do that, which is why in most cases criminals DONT attack the police like he did.
Giving up the right to live and being harmed in order to assure you are no threat arent the same thing. On thing can take place without the other you know?
The police are trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated, which in most cases like this results in the criminals death. They arent the always same thing, but often they are, and in this case it was.
On January 25 2012 22:03 Traeon wrote:
On January 25 2012 21:59 zeru wrote:
He attacked the police with a deadly weapon, yes he gave up his right to live.
Maybe in an alternate reality. At no point in the video is he actually attacking a cop
0:44 in the video, moving towards the cop with weapon ready to swing.
Dont know why you are linking that video, as it's a extremaly different situation then the one we are discussing. The guy in the video threatened the officer, then went back to his car to get a gun. In the video we are discussing you could see the man, all the time and he didnt have a car with weapons nearby. you dont get this?
He didnt have any weapons nearby, he had a weapon in his hands, and possibly more hidden weapons.
A little background first. I am a former Marine weapons instructor and am now a private sector weapons instructor. As someone that teaches officers what to do in this situation I can say that this is an absolutely justifiable shoot.
In the Law Enforcement/Military world you are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Stop the threat means exactly that. There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a "Body Alarm Response," your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don't even realize what was happening until after the fact. This officer did exactly what he should have done and fell back on his training and by doing so potentially saved the life of his partner. His initial burst did not drop the suspect, as you can see he's still standing, they have no way of knowing what kind of weapons systems he is carrying on his person other than the object in his hand. You either put the threat down and know you're safe or gamble with your life and the lives of those around you. How horrible would you feel if you were this officer, you shot your initial rounds and then stopped giving the suspect time to pull his pistol from his waistband and kill your partner? It happens, and so we train to make sure that does NOT happen.
Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense. If a person walks into a bank and tries to rob it in this manner he still gets assault with a deadly weapon/armed robbery etc charges. And those cases happen more frequently than you might think. In this case the suspect very obviously had a weapon and displayed an attempt to use it. Training kicked in and that was all she wrote.
You still dont understand that this is a totally different situation? At the video you posted there was 1-2 cops(didnt get to seebehind) going out unarmed against a guy who was clearly insane, in the video in the OP. There was 2 cops aiming a gun at the guy, you could see he's current weapon, and they had a dog. He might have more weapons hidden but send the dog (again rephrasing this) and find out before you kill the guy. Also stop quoting the former marine weapons instructor. We've red it. instead of letting him do you discussions come up with reasonable facts or opinions other then. HE GAVE UP HIS RIGHT TO LIVE.
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.
Hell no. Why would you want to save that man by trading the dogs life? What is wrong with you. He gave up right to live when he attacked. That's also not how k9s are used.
He gave up the right to live? are you stupid? He had not hurt anybody yet, he had a single crowbar. and yes I'd trade a dogs life for a human one any day. Except if the person involved had hurt another person in a was that justifies the loss of a human life. But I dont live in the US, things are rougher there, but I still feel like he should have sent the dog, (the dog might have survived perfectly fine.) then gone to jail, maybe that guy after been to prison a few years would acomplish something great? Not saying he would, but even if he wont, he gave up the right to live? I'm sad for you
He attacked the police with a deadly weapon, yes he gave up his right to live. You will die if you try to do that, which is why in most cases criminals DONT attack the police like he did.
Giving up the right to live and being harmed in order to assure you are no threat arent the same thing. On thing can take place without the other you know?
The police are trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated, which in most cases like this results in the criminals death. They arent the always same thing, but often they are, and in this case it was.
On January 25 2012 22:03 Traeon wrote:
On January 25 2012 21:59 zeru wrote:
He attacked the police with a deadly weapon, yes he gave up his right to live.
Maybe in an alternate reality. At no point in the video is he actually attacking a cop
0:44 in the video, moving towards the cop with weapon ready to swing.
Dont know why you are linking that video, as it's a extremaly different situation then the one we are discussing. The guy in the video threatened the officer, then went back to his car to get a gun. In the video we are discussing you could see the man, all the time and he didnt have a car with weapons nearby. you dont get this?
He didnt have any weapons nearby, he had a weapon in his hands, and possibly more hidden weapons on his person.
A little background first. I am a former Marine weapons instructor and am now a private sector weapons instructor. As someone that teaches officers what to do in this situation I can say that this is an absolutely justifiable shoot.
In the Law Enforcement/Military world you are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Stop the threat means exactly that. There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a "Body Alarm Response," your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don't even realize what was happening until after the fact. This officer did exactly what he should have done and fell back on his training and by doing so potentially saved the life of his partner. His initial burst did not drop the suspect, as you can see he's still standing, they have no way of knowing what kind of weapons systems he is carrying on his person other than the object in his hand. You either put the threat down and know you're safe or gamble with your life and the lives of those around you. How horrible would you feel if you were this officer, you shot your initial rounds and then stopped giving the suspect time to pull his pistol from his waistband and kill your partner? It happens, and so we train to make sure that does NOT happen.
Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense. If a person walks into a bank and tries to rob it in this manner he still gets assault with a deadly weapon/armed robbery etc charges. And those cases happen more frequently than you might think. In this case the suspect very obviously had a weapon and displayed an attempt to use it. Training kicked in and that was all she wrote.
"Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense."
That is the problem. There wasn't any indication the suspect was reaching for a hidden firearm nor implying by any means (except that he is from LA) that he has a gun.
I totally agree with the shooting now , because police has the right to defend themselves , its their life on the line , not our lives.. they are the ones involved , not the reporters or the viewers at home that probably never were in situations like this .
I have intervened in an assault on a elderly woman in the street. I know that one can drop into a state of pure instinct real quick.
Cops should be trained to handle these situations. If you look at the video, the guy shooting the taser is being immensely stupid and exposing himself to the reach of the melee weapon, thus forcing his partner to shoot at the slightest sign of aggression. The partner promptly overreacts and shoots 10 bullets before the suspect's body hits the ground.
Well we all know 50 cent got shot 9 times and has a sexier voice now.
The officer did what it had to do , you should also check how the things roll on brazil , the situation could have gone better but when the guy tries to atack the policeman has to shoot to prevent the assault , he has to stop the threat at that time!
A couple of thoughts. My first reaction was how someone could laugh at the entire incident while video taping it, whether or not the bullets were rubber or not.
Second, I see *very* little over reaction by the police. The man SAW the officer with a gun draw and he had the audacity to turn around to the other officer and raise his weapon?!?! The officer with the gun has no idea when the suspect is going to swing that weapon, and should the suspect strike the other officer, he's more than likely SEVERELY injured. The officer shot til the man was down, which was the best option in my opinion.
Just to note however, before people paint me as some cold-hearted bastard, I find it tragic that the man died; He probably had family that will miss him forever now. But in the given situation and the choice the suspect made, this was the right decision.
Don't turn around and raise a weapon to an officer while another has his gun already drawn.
Since people still seem not to know exactly what the sequence of events were, let me type them out.
Suspect exits building Officers telling him to drop his weapon / get on ground Officer 1 uses his taser on the Suspect Suspect appears unaffected by the Taser Suspect lifts his weapon and starts to go after Officer 1 Officer 2 fires 5 shots at the suspect Suspect is still standing Officer 1 now fires 5 shots Suspect goes down
On January 25 2012 21:50 NeWeNiyaLord wrote: [quote] 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.
Hell no. Why would you want to save that man by trading the dogs life? What is wrong with you. He gave up right to live when he attacked. That's also not how k9s are used.
He gave up the right to live? are you stupid? He had not hurt anybody yet, he had a single crowbar. and yes I'd trade a dogs life for a human one any day. Except if the person involved had hurt another person in a was that justifies the loss of a human life. But I dont live in the US, things are rougher there, but I still feel like he should have sent the dog, (the dog might have survived perfectly fine.) then gone to jail, maybe that guy after been to prison a few years would acomplish something great? Not saying he would, but even if he wont, he gave up the right to live? I'm sad for you
He attacked the police with a deadly weapon, yes he gave up his right to live. You will die if you try to do that, which is why in most cases criminals DONT attack the police like he did.
Giving up the right to live and being harmed in order to assure you are no threat arent the same thing. On thing can take place without the other you know?
The police are trained to shoot until the threat is eliminated, which in most cases like this results in the criminals death. They arent the always same thing, but often they are, and in this case it was.
On January 25 2012 22:03 Traeon wrote:
On January 25 2012 21:59 zeru wrote:
He attacked the police with a deadly weapon, yes he gave up his right to live.
Maybe in an alternate reality. At no point in the video is he actually attacking a cop
0:44 in the video, moving towards the cop with weapon ready to swing.
Dont know why you are linking that video, as it's a extremaly different situation then the one we are discussing. The guy in the video threatened the officer, then went back to his car to get a gun. In the video we are discussing you could see the man, all the time and he didnt have a car with weapons nearby. you dont get this?
He didnt have any weapons nearby, he had a weapon in his hands, and possibly more hidden weapons.
A little background first. I am a former Marine weapons instructor and am now a private sector weapons instructor. As someone that teaches officers what to do in this situation I can say that this is an absolutely justifiable shoot.
In the Law Enforcement/Military world you are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Stop the threat means exactly that. There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a "Body Alarm Response," your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don't even realize what was happening until after the fact. This officer did exactly what he should have done and fell back on his training and by doing so potentially saved the life of his partner. His initial burst did not drop the suspect, as you can see he's still standing, they have no way of knowing what kind of weapons systems he is carrying on his person other than the object in his hand. You either put the threat down and know you're safe or gamble with your life and the lives of those around you. How horrible would you feel if you were this officer, you shot your initial rounds and then stopped giving the suspect time to pull his pistol from his waistband and kill your partner? It happens, and so we train to make sure that does NOT happen.
Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense. If a person walks into a bank and tries to rob it in this manner he still gets assault with a deadly weapon/armed robbery etc charges. And those cases happen more frequently than you might think. In this case the suspect very obviously had a weapon and displayed an attempt to use it. Training kicked in and that was all she wrote.
You still dont understand that this is a totally different situation? At the video you posted there was 1-2 cops(didnt get to seebehind) going out unarmed against a guy who was clearly insane, in the video in the OP. There was 2 cops aiming a gun at the guy, you could see he's current weapon, and they had a dog. He might have more weapons hidden but send the dog (again rephrasing this) and find out before you kill the guy. Also stop quoting the former marine weapons instructor. We've red it. instead of letting him do you discussions come up with reasonable facts or opinions other then. HE GAVE UP HIS RIGHT TO LIVE.
Ill say it again, sending the dog against armed targets it's not standard procedure and puts the dog in unnecessary danger. K9s are fellow coworkers.
So just to clarify, why was one of the first response officers holding the dog on a short chain while pointing his gun at the suspect? Were they planning on doing emergency drug sniffing once they apprehended him? Or do they only set dogs loose against suspects that aren't a threat?
On January 25 2012 22:04 Equity213 wrote: Ten shots is excessive but you cant blame someone for not having perfect awareness in a life of death situation. That 30 seconds was probably a blurr of pure adrenaline, I doubt he even remember how many shots he fired. You cant get up in arms over that.
Except that he's a police officer, not an amateur who can get carried away. What if a random person walked past the whole situation and lifted up his arm? Maybe that would trigger the "unload my whole clip into him" response too?
They are supposed to neutralize a threat which they did perfectly fine after first 5 bullets. Suspect got blown away like 3 meters away from them and showed no more signs of aggression. The other 5 shots were shot before suspect could realistically fall down to the ground due to gravity from the initial shots, yes, THAT'S how fast he decided to shoot the 2nd burst. There was no pause, it was basically a "OH MY GOD I DONT WANNA DIIEE NOOOO, DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM" kind of reaction, which a person who's supposed to be trained for these kind of situations shouldn't have. I mean, yeah, it's not that big of a deal in the end, but to say that this is how cops are supposed to react (whenever someone shows a sign of aggression, shoot enough bullers until the target, well, dies) is simply ridiculous.
There are a lot of situations like this where it's perfectly justifiable to finish the suspect off before he can retaliate (long range weapon, people in close proximity etc.). But this is the perfect example where that line is crossed just because a cop got scared (which is obviously understandable) and didn't keep his cool.
EPT
