|
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 26 2012 00:24 FirstProbe wrote:
Were the 10 bullets needed? No.
Did it make a difference? No.
Is it police brutality? No. Try being hopped up on Adrenaline and in fear of your life. See how many times you pull the trigger.
Did it make a difference? It definitely could have. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html
That guy survived 19, so don't tell me you can't survive 5.
I don't give a fuck if you are hopped up on adrenaline. If you are given permission by the law to use deadly force on someone, you better be fucking trained not to just go apeshit and let loose a barrage of bullets unnecessarily. I don't want untrained cops that can't control themselves being allowed to have a gun on the streets.
I don't think you can use language like "ranged" and "melee" in this discussion. They aren't used in this type of situation and clearly disqualify any posts that contain them as uneducated. They are terms from the world of video games, and this did not happen inside one, so please use the correct language. To clarify to the poster above me, a gun and a blunt weapon are both "deadly force" within about 40 ft. (I think), so the police didn't legally escalate the level of violence. Also I'd like you to think about what you would have done in the officer's position. Imagine you have 2 boys and a girl and a beautiful wife whom need you to come home, and your partner is your best friend who also has a child and a wife. Do you want to risk losing the life of an officer or some kid who is threatening to kill an officer?
I don't understand how you can say it's ok for someone who is legally allowed to use deadly force on another as part of his job to have such an emotional and irrational reaction. It's part of the man's job - he should be trained and held to a better standard than your average person would be in this situation.
|
On January 26 2012 00:30 Mordanis wrote:
I don't think you can use language like "ranged" and "melee" in this discussion. They aren't used in this type of situation and clearly disqualify any posts that contain them as uneducated. They are terms from the world of video games, and this did not happen inside one, so please use the correct language. To clarify to the poster above me, a gun and a blunt weapon are both "deadly force" within about 40 ft. (I think), so the police didn't legally escalate the level of violence. Also I'd like you to think about what you would have done in the officer's position. Imagine you have 2 boys and a girl and a beautiful wife whom need you to come home, and your partner is your best friend who also has a child and a wife. Do you want to risk losing the life of an officer or some kid who is threatening to kill an officer?
You realize that video games didn't invent the words "melee" and "ranged" right?
|
This thread is painful to read. It's like people like to re-enact the scenario with them in the cops place, while having little to no understanding about protocol or basic human fucking anatomy, only their own self-inflated egos and hero complexes.
You don't shoot to disable. You don't shoot people in the legs to stop them non-lethally. That is fucking retarded. Do you know how many arteries are in someones leg? Do you know how much damage a bullet does to someone?
If he shot the guy in the leg, the guy would've just bled out painfully. When cops shoot, they shoot to kill, immediately, by firing on the center mass. They only fire when there is genuine concern for their life, or the life of an innocent.
The officer was completely justified in the shooting. The guy was right fucking next to him, apparently ready to hit him with a lethal weapon. That you think it's only justified if the cop actually got hit is absolutely disgusting. That you think that weapon wasn't lethal is laughable.
|
On January 26 2012 00:18 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +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. Wtf so shocking, the guy was not even an immediate threat. One bullet in the leg(even that would have been extreme IMO), he can't do shit and they arrest hi. Police aren't supposed to shoot to kill OMG THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ARREST PEOPLE. The justice decides the sentence. If the guy had himself a gun it would be a whole different, but the guy wasn't even in range to hit with his hammerthing. The police officers were not at risk, neither any people. There weren't any urge to fuckin shoot the guy. The thing that disgusts me the most are the guys with the camera, why the fuck are they laughing. A guy just got killed, they are thinking it's a fuckin videogame? The family of the guy, his friends whatsoever are going to be ravaged. Again, maybe one day I will be fuckin high on drugs I will take a dumb hammer and got towards a police officer. I hope I won't get killed for this but get arrested and get fairly punished. It's the same whith the kid who killed his bully. All the people, mostly americans, who were saying the bully deserved it. So everyone can understand I would say that LIFE IS FUCKIN UNDERRATED. A guy who bullies doesn't deserve to die, neither an idiot with a hammer. The guy is dead, gone. He is fuckin dead. I used to say that all the violence we see everyday didn't change our perception, but I'm kinda feeling the other way when I'm reading somes posts.
Be carefull trying to apply your cultural values to different societies. You are trying to hold the cops to the standard of training and values you would expect in the UK, not in the USA.
Frankly aside from that fallacity you also have a few things in your post that make me doubt your grasp on reality. Where does that idiotic shoot someone in the leg come from again? No one is trained to shoot for anything except center mass with a handgun. Full stop.
It seems we value life differently. I value the life of the officers who go out and try to keep order in our fairly chaotic society, exposing themselves to risks you most likely cannot even imagine from your post, much higher than the life of a suspect who made a fairly idiotic mistake while resisting arrest.
Yes you can try to argue that he might not have meant to swing his weapon, but in truth it doesn't matter. Many police officers are killed in such situations, because quite a few suspects DO mean to attack when they make such gestures. He decided to threaten the arresting officers when they already had guns trained on him, at that point i value the officers life much more than his, so in my opinion they made the right call.
I have absolutly no idea why you are trying to confuse the discussion by including a different thread, with an entirely different topic of discussion. Here we are discussing use of force by the police. Everyone should be aware that police CAN and SHOULD use their weapons if the situation calls for it. We can argue that the situation didn't call for it (I disagree), or we can argue that they used too much force (I agree, but don't think it matters). Discussions about the value of life or other philosophical approaches hardly come into it.
|
On January 26 2012 00:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:24 FirstProbe wrote:
Were the 10 bullets needed? No.
Did it make a difference? No.
Is it police brutality? No. Try being hopped up on Adrenaline and in fear of your life. See how many times you pull the trigger. Did it make a difference? It definitely could have. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.htmlThat guy survived 19, so don't tell me you can't survive 5. I don't give a fuck if you are hopped up on adrenaline. If you are given permission by the law to use deadly force on someone, you better be fucking trained not to just go apeshit and let loose a barrage of bullets unnecessarily. I don't want untrained cops that can't control themselves being allowed to have a gun on the streets.
They are trained to use force until the threat no longer exists. After firing the first five rounds the suspect was still standing and as his back was turned toward them at close range he was still a threat. More shots were fired, and not a single round was fired after he hit the ground.
|
I think it was a perfectly justified response.
You look like you are going to assault a fellow police officer a meter away with a deadly weapon.
You neutralize the threat as fast as you can.
I am not sure if the last 5 shots are needed, but they happen so fast that I think it's just training that kicks in - he was still standing, shoot again - make certain you aren't in danger.
Assaulting someone when they are pointing a gun at you is just ...
|
Felt like an on-the-fly death sentence, he could easily have injured and stopped him. If this was what their trained to do then somethings properly fucked up in your country.
|
On January 26 2012 00:33 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 26 2012 00:24 FirstProbe wrote:
Were the 10 bullets needed? No.
Did it make a difference? No.
Is it police brutality? No. Try being hopped up on Adrenaline and in fear of your life. See how many times you pull the trigger. Did it make a difference? It definitely could have. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.htmlThat guy survived 19, so don't tell me you can't survive 5. I don't give a fuck if you are hopped up on adrenaline. If you are given permission by the law to use deadly force on someone, you better be fucking trained not to just go apeshit and let loose a barrage of bullets unnecessarily. I don't want untrained cops that can't control themselves being allowed to have a gun on the streets. They are trained to use force until the threat no longer exists. After firing the first five rounds the suspect was still standing and as his back was turned toward them at close range he was still a threat. More shots were fired, and not a single round was fired after he hit the ground.
When a man doubles up in pain, turns away from you, and lowers his weapon, that's hardly a threat. Tackle him, let the fucking dog loose, but it's not ok to just decide that it's time to end this man's life. The goal in that situation shouldn't be to kill the man, it should be to stop him from hurting people. It's not the officer's job to decide if this man lives or dies. Not only that, you don't walk towards an armed man while not looking at him because you're reloading a fucking tazer. That's just five kinds of stupid and this probably wouldn't have even happened if the tazing officer hadn't done that.
Felt like an on-the-fly death sentence, he could easily have injured and stopped him. If this was what their trained to do then somethings properly fucked up in your country.
Unfortunately it is.
|
My interpretation of that video is that the guy was moreso trying to intimidate the police officer rather than bash his head in. In the heat of the moment that is very hard to judge. Ultimately I think the shooting was premature and the situation could have been handled differently, however, the shooting was clearly justified in terms of police code. Unfortunate, to say the least.
|
On January 26 2012 00:36 MHT wrote:
Felt like an on-the-fly death sentence, he could easily have injured and stopped him. If this was what their trained to do then somethings properly fucked up in your country.
Please, point me towards the places on the body that can be reliably shot to injure someone enough to put them out, while not causing them to bleed to death.
Afterwards, read the fucking thread.
|
On January 26 2012 00:31 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:30 Mordanis wrote:
I don't think you can use language like "ranged" and "melee" in this discussion. They aren't used in this type of situation and clearly disqualify any posts that contain them as uneducated. They are terms from the world of video games, and this did not happen inside one, so please use the correct language. To clarify to the poster above me, a gun and a blunt weapon are both "deadly force" within about 40 ft. (I think), so the police didn't legally escalate the level of violence. Also I'd like you to think about what you would have done in the officer's position. Imagine you have 2 boys and a girl and a beautiful wife whom need you to come home, and your partner is your best friend who also has a child and a wife. Do you want to risk losing the life of an officer or some kid who is threatening to kill an officer? You realize that video games didn't invent the words "melee" and "ranged" right?
True, but it's not language that is used for these situations. If you use that type of language, it is like a red flag over your post that screams "I'm not familiar at all with police work or violent situations, but I am familiar with video games". This is why I don't really trust anyone who uses that kind of vocabulary.
|
On January 26 2012 00:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:24 FirstProbe wrote:
Were the 10 bullets needed? No.
Did it make a difference? No.
Is it police brutality? No. Try being hopped up on Adrenaline and in fear of your life. See how many times you pull the trigger. Did it make a difference? It definitely could have. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.htmlThat guy survived 19, so don't tell me you can't survive 5. I don't give a fuck if you are hopped up on adrenaline. If you are given permission by the law to use deadly force on someone, you better be fucking trained not to just go apeshit and let loose a barrage of bullets unnecessarily. I don't want untrained cops that can't control themselves being allowed to have a gun on the streets.
That wasn't my argument. Was it police brutality? No. Was it excessive use of force? Possibly, depending on how you see things.
It frustrates me to see the somewhat general attitude towards police. Imagine a world without police. Imagine now being a policeman in the world we live in. The officer was clearly in danger. If I saw somebody breaking into my house today, and I had a gun, should I hesitate to use it? Sure they are trained. But they are putting themselves in harms way for no other reason than to protect the peace, that you're spoilt with.
19 Bullets? Show me the number of times someone survives 19 bullets, and those who even survive 5. Sure it could make a difference. Was it likely to? Probably not. That's millions of dollars that the taxpayer won't have to fund, now.
|
On January 26 2012 00:30 Mordanis wrote:
Also I'd like you to think about what you would have done in the officer's position. Imagine you have 2 boys and a girl and a beautiful wife whom need you to come home, and your partner is your best friend who also has a child and a wife. Do you want to risk losing the life of an officer or some kid who is threatening to kill an officer?
Is it too much to ask that a supposedly trained policeman can handle a situation such as this without making several mistakes?
If the cops didn't put themselves at risk by standing so close, and if the cop didn't fail to taser properly (drugs can't prevent muscle spasm from electrical current) the situation would likely have evolved in a different manner. But they stood so close and made mistakes so they had to open fire. But not shoot him 10 times.
|
On January 26 2012 00:33 aebriol wrote:
I think it was a perfectly justified response.
You look like you are going to assault a fellow police officer a meter away with a deadly weapon.
You neutralize the threat as fast as you can.
I am not sure if the last 5 shots are needed, but they happen so fast that I think it's just training that kicks in - he was still standing, shoot again - make certain you aren't in danger.
Assaulting someone when they are pointing a gun at you is just ...
Obviously we'd need better data than the low quality video, but to my ears it sounds like two seperate salvos of shots, from two different guns.
That is almost certainly the delayed reaction and adrenaline action by the 2 cops in the shot. By the time he had processed that his partner had fired and the target was neutralized he had shot 3-4 times.
That is pretty much exactly what any trained person in a high stress situation would do. You are stressed so much that you do not think about the situation, but fall back to your training, which is a salvo of 2 (or 3 or 5 depending on where you are trained) shots aimed at center mass. [note for those interested the 3 numbers above are from different aspects of law enforcement/military in the same country, in order: military police (2 shots), normal police (3 shots), WEGA (special forces police unit, 5 shots).].
In hindsight we can probably (we do not actually see the person being shot at in the video, he might have been going for a gun for all we know) say that the second salvo was too late to make a difference, and unnecessary. In the situation i can almost guarantee that the officer was not able to make such a call.
|
I don't know why so many people are bringing up the country in their posts. It feels like very thinly veiled country-bashing.
|
On January 26 2012 00:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:33 Saryph wrote:On January 26 2012 00:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 26 2012 00:24 FirstProbe wrote:
Were the 10 bullets needed? No.
Did it make a difference? No.
Is it police brutality? No. Try being hopped up on Adrenaline and in fear of your life. See how many times you pull the trigger. Did it make a difference? It definitely could have. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.htmlThat guy survived 19, so don't tell me you can't survive 5. I don't give a fuck if you are hopped up on adrenaline. If you are given permission by the law to use deadly force on someone, you better be fucking trained not to just go apeshit and let loose a barrage of bullets unnecessarily. I don't want untrained cops that can't control themselves being allowed to have a gun on the streets. They are trained to use force until the threat no longer exists. After firing the first five rounds the suspect was still standing and as his back was turned toward them at close range he was still a threat. More shots were fired, and not a single round was fired after he hit the ground. When a man doubles up in pain, turns away from you, and lowers his weapon, that's hardly a threat. Tackle him, let the fucking dog loose, but it's not ok to just decide that it's time to end this man's life. The goal in that situation shouldn't be to kill the man, it should be to stop him from hurting people. It's not the officer's job to decide if this man lives or dies.
Yes, clearly tackling him while your partner is firing at him is the smartest idea, or releasing your dog while bullets are flying. He was still armed, and close enough to be able to hit either officer in a mere second. You have no understanding on how things work. I know you value human life, we all do, but they are trained to eliminate the threat when it is immediately threatening their lives, which was still true at that time. You don't cross your fingers and hope he won't spin around and kill you, not when he has already charged at you with a deadly weapon, when you were pointing a gun at him, and not when you know he is so high on drugs he isn't acting rationally and a taser did not slow him down.
|
On January 26 2012 00:40 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:30 Mordanis wrote:
Also I'd like you to think about what you would have done in the officer's position. Imagine you have 2 boys and a girl and a beautiful wife whom need you to come home, and your partner is your best friend who also has a child and a wife. Do you want to risk losing the life of an officer or some kid who is threatening to kill an officer? Is it too much to ask that a supposedly trained policeman can handle a situation such as this without making several mistakes?
He didn't make any mistakes in regards to protocol, his safety, and the safety of others.
|
On January 26 2012 00:31 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:30 Mordanis wrote:
I don't think you can use language like "ranged" and "melee" in this discussion. They aren't used in this type of situation and clearly disqualify any posts that contain them as uneducated. They are terms from the world of video games, and this did not happen inside one, so please use the correct language. To clarify to the poster above me, a gun and a blunt weapon are both "deadly force" within about 40 ft. (I think), so the police didn't legally escalate the level of violence. Also I'd like you to think about what you would have done in the officer's position. Imagine you have 2 boys and a girl and a beautiful wife whom need you to come home, and your partner is your best friend who also has a child and a wife. Do you want to risk losing the life of an officer or some kid who is threatening to kill an officer? You realize that video games didn't invent the words "melee" and "ranged" right?
It's the classic cart before the wheel thing =D
|
On January 26 2012 00:38 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:36 MHT wrote:
Felt like an on-the-fly death sentence, he could easily have injured and stopped him. If this was what their trained to do then somethings properly fucked up in your country. Please, point me towards the places on the body that can be reliably shot to injure someone enough to put them out, while not causing them to bleed to death. Afterwards, read the fucking thread.
Legs? Sure he could have bled to death if hes unlucky but atleast he'd have chance. Shot with moderation, if it isn't enough shot again. Guns can be used for other things than just killing if you use them right.
|
One of the reasons officers are trained to shot center mass is because its the biggest target to hit, you have a much higher chance of missing if you aim at the leg or arm or even head. To risk missing and hitting someone innocent isn't worth possibly saving the life of a suspect preparing to use lethal force.
Also it looked to me like the officer with the taser took his eyes off the suspect to reload his taser but was still making sure he was still in range. The suspects back was turned and up to that point made no agressive moves towards the officers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
