|
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 00:40 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?
What mistakes did he make? Legally, he did nothing wrong. This was also more of a way for me to say that if you show empathy for the guy who was threatening the officers, you should also empathize with the officers.
|
On January 26 2012 00:43 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:40 Traeon wrote: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.
Bullshit. 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 00:43 MHT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:38 RockIronrod wrote: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.
I say it again, you don't know shit about protocol or basic anatomy. Read the thread, or at least the post the moderator so kindly linked on the top of every page about firing protocol.
|
On January 26 2012 00:43 MHT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:38 RockIronrod wrote: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.
Amazing that this is such a widely held view. Is there some popular video game i missed that is making people think being shot in the legs does nothing but slow people?
|
On January 26 2012 00:40 Mordanis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:31 Saryph wrote: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.
would you be more comfortable if we used CQC or vCQC instead? I'd understand what i mean with them, but since i am trying to get my point across I'm using terms which i assume have fairly standard meaning.
I guess we could also fall back on historcal terms and talk about sword range if you prefer.
Or we could fall back on the legal terms and talk about effective threat range, which makes sure no one has a clue what we are talking about. (A knife has an effective threat range of 3m in Austrian legalese, 40f in USA to my knowledge).
It doesn't really make a difference for the discussion does it? He is well inside range for any purpose, no matter what fancy word or abbreviation we use.
|
On January 26 2012 00:42 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:36 Stratos_speAr wrote: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.
I understand exactly how things work. All you're doing is making up excuses for the incompetent actions of the second officer, and I've explained multiple times in this thread why the tazing officer failed in a spectacular fashion.
What mistakes did he make? Legally, he did nothing wrong. This was also more of a way for me to say that if you show empathy for the guy who was threatening the officers, you should also empathize with the officers.
Several of us have already said that the officer with the dog was justified in opening fire to protect his partner. That said, the tazing officer still got himself way too close and shot the second five shots purely out of adrenaline/instinct/fear, which I would never want my police officers doing. If someone is given the legal go-ahead to carry and use a gun, they better be trained to keep a level head when they use it.
|
On January 26 2012 00:45 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:43 MHT wrote:On January 26 2012 00:38 RockIronrod wrote: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. Amazing that this is such a widely held view. Is there some popular video game i missed that is making people think being shot in the legs does nothing but slow people?
if you don't hit an artery you're ok.
|
On January 26 2012 00:45 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:43 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 00:40 Traeon wrote: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. Bullshit. 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.
again welcome to page 30 of this thread where cover area of intervention and SOP how to approach a subject.
short summary, they approach from 5-10m distance to minimize the suspects options and chance to interact with bystanders. It is also close to the maximum effective range of most tazers.
Next they tried to get the situation under control with words, we can't make out what they said, but it was most likely something along the lines of "police drop your weapon". Suspect was dismissive at best.
Next they tried to tazer the suspect, which did not work (too far away to hit his face properly, too heavy clothing to hit him anywhere else).
While the cop with the tazer tried to approach the subject (most likely for a second shot) his partner was covering him. Up to this point the suspect was completly dismissive to any actions the police took, so they most likely assumed that he was completly stoned out of his mind, and were preparing to more or less wrestle him into submission and apply cuffs.
Instead the suspect suddenly raised his weapon (which up to that point had been held down to the ground) and lurches towards the closer officer.
That is exactly the point where the officer giving cover (meaning a bit further away) is supposed to open fire. Yes it would have been better if they had managed to taze him, but sadly with the clothing he wore a tazer is not an effective weapon.
There was very little they could have done differently with the options they had available. If they want to get the situation under control (and again, until 0.38 in the video, the suspect gave no indication of immediate danger, he simply seemed completly out of his mind and hopped up on drugs) they have to approach him.
(note, this is the third time i am posting something like this within the last 5 pages. We also covered the same topic on page 30 and somewhere around page 40. Please read the thread before you post)
|
On the other hand, I think there should be necessary changes on the training also. There should be a "no-kill-if-possible" principle and do optimal damage to incapacitate suspects, like shoot at the legs and hands. Better for the officers to have a harder training (for accuracy and response time) and the suspect to lose a limb than to lose a life.
Wishful thinking. You aim at center of mass. Also "better training" ie more time on the range is often interpreted as "over eagerness" when a shooting has happened and is an impression most cops would like to avoid. Tragic, but the suspect brought it on himself. Not sure why there's even a discussion
|
On January 26 2012 00:16 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 23:56 Ballistixz wrote:On January 25 2012 20:19 UisTehSux wrote:On January 25 2012 20:05 Ballistixz wrote:On January 25 2012 20:02 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 19:58 Tobberoth wrote:
I guess there's a cultural difference. In Sweden, police are trained to NOT shot to kill unless it's necessary, which is why we have almost no lethal shootings in Sweden where a cop kills a criminal. In a situation such as in this video, I'm sure a swedish cop would have shot the suspect in the leg. How can this work? Because in Sweden, it's extremely rare that a criminal will be carrying a gun, so I don't think there's as much pressure to "put the threat down immediately" as there is in the US where everyone and their mother owns at least 2 guns, 1 shotgun and 5 bazookas. And what happens if the police officer missed the leg (very likely) and got his head bashed in with the crowbar? Or shooting him in the leg did nothing, if you remember he was still standing after being tasered in the face, and after being shot five times in the chest? like i keep constantly saying, that wouldnt have happened if the cops simply kept there distance and been more cautios. they walked up to the suspect very non-chalantly as if he wasnt a threat. and what happens next? well the vid tells u what happened next. How do you know everything about this situation and the person who was shot? How do you know that it "wouldn't have happened if the cops simply..."? You don't. Why are you commenting in here like you know exactly what should have happened and what would have happened if what you are saying was done? You don't know! really ppl... use your head for one second. since the cop got close he was in battering/melee range of a crowbar... A CROWBAR. this is not a ranged weapon like a gun or something. this is a MELEE weapon which means have to be CLOSE to someone if ur going to use it as a "deadly weapon". now what does COMMON SENSE tell you to do? get close to the guy so he can pottentially smash ur skull in? or stay a safe distance away from him? seriously think about that. there was another vid of a guy wielding a katana (much more deadly then a crowbar in terms of melee weapons) and the cops kept there distance from the guy. similiar situations but completely diffrent outcomes because caution was used. again welcome to page 30 of this thread where cover area of intervention and SOP how to approach a subject. short summary, they approach from 5-10m distance to minimize the suspects options and chance to interact with bystanders. It is also close to the maximum effective range of most tazers. Next they tried to get the situation under control with words, we can't make out what they said, but it was most likely something along the lines of "police drop your weapon". Suspect was dismissive at best. Next they tried to tazer the suspect, which did not work (too far away to hit his face properly, too heavy clothing to hit him anywhere else). While the cop with the tazer tried to approach the subject (most likely for a second shot) his partner was covering him. Up to this point the suspect was completly dismissive to any actions the police took, so they most likely assumed that he was completly stoned out of his mind, and were preparing to more or less wrestle him into submission and apply cuffs. Instead the suspect suddenly raised his weapon (which up to that point had been held down to the ground) and lurches towards the closer officer. That is exactly the point where the officer giving cover (meaning a bit further away) is supposed to open fire. Yes it would have been better if they had managed to taze him, but sadly with the clothing he wore a tazer is not an effective weapon. There was very little they could have done differently with the options they had available. If they want to get the situation under control (and again, until 0.38 in the video, the suspect gave no indication of immediate danger, he simply seemed completly out of his mind and hopped up on drugs) they have to approach him. If someone has a Katana or a similar live blade in his hand and waves it around all the time, they obviously aren't going to approach him. In that situation SOP would be to keep your distance and scream at him to drop his weapon for as long as it would take (or until he approaches the first bystander, at that point they would assume immenent threat to life and open fire). You cannot compare such situations. In this vid, the suspect seemed fairly unresponsive (read, so drugged out that he isn't much of a risk) until he made his move, which led to his death.
Really good post answering many of the questions people are asking, and responding to many of the complaints people have been making.
|
On January 26 2012 00:45 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:43 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 00:40 Traeon wrote: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. Bullshit. 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.
He shot him in the fucking face with a tazer, what more do you want? And now you're badmouthing converging on the suspect? What the fuck?
On January 26 2012 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:42 Saryph wrote:On January 26 2012 00:36 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. I understand exactly how things work. All you're doing is making up excuses for the incompetent actions of the second officer, and I've explained multiple times in this thread why the tazing officer failed in a spectacular fashion.
Because fucking jumping on top of the guy with the lethal melee weapon, while bullets are hailing down on him is the most competent thing to do. Before I thought you were just kinda stupid, now I realise you actively wish death on the police.
On January 26 2012 00:47 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:45 DannyJ wrote:On January 26 2012 00:43 MHT wrote:On January 26 2012 00:38 RockIronrod wrote: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. Amazing that this is such a widely held view. Is there some popular video game i missed that is making people think being shot in the legs does nothing but slow people? if you don't hit an artery you're ok.
Too bad the legs are a huge network of arteries where a mushrooming bullet is sure to hit one.
|
On January 26 2012 00:45 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:43 MHT wrote:On January 26 2012 00:38 RockIronrod wrote: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. Amazing that this is such a widely held view. Is there some popular video game i missed that is making people think being shot in the legs does nothing but slow people?
You saying that being shot in the leg means certain death? Hell of alot better than being shot 5 time in the torso and 5 more in the back if you ask me.
|
On January 26 2012 00:47 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:45 DannyJ wrote:On January 26 2012 00:43 MHT wrote:On January 26 2012 00:38 RockIronrod wrote: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. Amazing that this is such a widely held view. Is there some popular video game i missed that is making people think being shot in the legs does nothing but slow people? if you don't hit an artery you're ok.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_wound
I could post a lengthy treatise about how you are absolutly wrong. But frankly it doesn't seem worth the effort.
1) You cannot (must not, should not) aim for a leg with a handgun.
2) If you do get shot in the leg, chances are it is a very serious wound just the same.
3) The risk of missing the target completly (newsflash, legs and arms can and do move fairly fast) is MUCH higher, which includes a much higher risk of ricochets and other unacceptable risks to bystanders.
Again, as quite a few other people (including experts) have stated, no one is trained to shoot for the legs with a handgun.
|
On January 26 2012 00:50 MHT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:45 DannyJ wrote:On January 26 2012 00:43 MHT wrote:On January 26 2012 00:38 RockIronrod wrote: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. Amazing that this is such a widely held view. Is there some popular video game i missed that is making people think being shot in the legs does nothing but slow people? You saying that being shot in the leg means certain death? Hell of alot better than being shot 5 time in the torso and 5 more in the back if you ask me.
Apparently common sense flies out the window when American police are involved.
Fuck this thread, I'm out.
|
On January 26 2012 00:48 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:45 Traeon wrote:On January 26 2012 00:43 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 00:40 Traeon wrote: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. Bullshit. 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. again welcome to page 30 of this thread where cover area of intervention and SOP how to approach a subject. short summary, they approach from 5-10m distance to minimize the suspects options and chance to interact with bystanders. It is also close to the maximum effective range of most tazers. Next they tried to get the situation under control with words, we can't make out what they said, but it was most likely something along the lines of "police drop your weapon". Suspect was dismissive at best. Next they tried to tazer the suspect, which did not work (too far away to hit his face properly, too heavy clothing to hit him anywhere else). While the cop with the tazer tried to approach the subject (most likely for a second shot) his partner was covering him. Up to this point the suspect was completly dismissive to any actions the police took, so they most likely assumed that he was completly stoned out of his mind, and were preparing to more or less wrestle him into submission and apply cuffs. Instead the suspect suddenly raised his weapon (which up to that point had been held down to the ground) and lurches towards the closer officer. That is exactly the point where the officer giving cover (meaning a bit further away) is supposed to open fire. Yes it would have been better if they had managed to taze him, but sadly with the clothing he wore a tazer is not an effective weapon. There was very little they could have done differently with the options they had available. If they want to get the situation under control (and again, until 0.38 in the video, the suspect gave no indication of immediate danger, he simply seemed completly out of his mind and hopped up on drugs) they have to approach him. (note, this is the third time i am posting something like this within the last 5 pages. We also covered the same topic on page 30 and somewhere around page 40. Please read the thread before you post)
Again, the main complaint is that SOP isn't as good as it could be. Mainly, you shouldn't be that close in the first place and if you fail to taze once, you shouldn't get closer to try to taze again. All that does is put yourself in harm's way. Hell, why not actually clear all of those random people walking around away from the doorway so they won't be in danger? That means that they wouldn't have to be so close in the first place. Most importantly, why is it ok for the tazing officer to open up five more shots on an almost certainly disabled target?
Because fucking jumping on top of the guy with the lethal melee weapon, while bullets are hailing down on him is the most competent thing to do. Before I thought you were just kinda stupid, now I realise you actively wish death on the police.
WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEO. The guy had turned away in pain and lowered his weapon. There was enough time for either the officers to tackle him before he raised his weapon again or better yet have the dog tackle his ass down. It's not like he's going to go from that position to hefting a large weapon that in all probability required two hands to swing effectively in the time span that it takes for an officer to jump maybe five feet. If you could actually fucking read you would see that I've been consistently saying that the second officer was incredibly stupid because he put himself close enough to get hit and he emotionally reacted and fired five more shots when there were definitely better answers to this problem. It all smells of incompetence and having the SOP highlight some disturbing principles.
|
On January 26 2012 00:50 MHT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:45 DannyJ wrote:On January 26 2012 00:43 MHT wrote:On January 26 2012 00:38 RockIronrod wrote: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. Amazing that this is such a widely held view. Is there some popular video game i missed that is making people think being shot in the legs does nothing but slow people? You saying that being shot in the leg means certain death? Hell of alot better than being shot 5 time in the torso and 5 more in the back if you ask me.
But a whole lot easier to miss. Ricocheting bullets can kill people too, you know? I'd much rather they bury all 10 bullets in that asshole than risk one coming off the ground and killing a child. Coincidentally, this is also the best argument I've heard for why the second officer shouldn't have continued to fire.
|
On January 26 2012 00:50 RockIronrod wrote:
He shot him in the fucking face with a tazer, what more do you want? And now you're badmouthing converging on the suspect? What the fuck?
The cop shot him in the face with the taser. We can see the suspect removing the pins from his face. The taser failed to deliver an electric shock. Even if the suspect was full of drugs, that cannot prevent the current from creating full muscle spasms. People who say he can just shrug this off are ridiculous. It is physically impossible. He was not tasered. We can see it in the video. One must assume a technical defect with the taser or a user error.
In response to being shot with the taser, the suspect actually did the move he did, which forced the other cop to shoot him. That the cop who tasered him kept walking towards the suspect while breaking eye contact is also a big mistake because it greatly reduces the time available to react should the suspect actually attack (which he did not by the way).
|
I can understand that the officer shoot the man once, but he shoot way too many times.
|
On January 26 2012 00:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:48 Tula wrote:On January 26 2012 00:45 Traeon wrote:On January 26 2012 00:43 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 00:40 Traeon wrote: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. Bullshit. 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. again welcome to page 30 of this thread where cover area of intervention and SOP how to approach a subject. short summary, they approach from 5-10m distance to minimize the suspects options and chance to interact with bystanders. It is also close to the maximum effective range of most tazers. Next they tried to get the situation under control with words, we can't make out what they said, but it was most likely something along the lines of "police drop your weapon". Suspect was dismissive at best. Next they tried to tazer the suspect, which did not work (too far away to hit his face properly, too heavy clothing to hit him anywhere else). While the cop with the tazer tried to approach the subject (most likely for a second shot) his partner was covering him. Up to this point the suspect was completly dismissive to any actions the police took, so they most likely assumed that he was completly stoned out of his mind, and were preparing to more or less wrestle him into submission and apply cuffs. Instead the suspect suddenly raised his weapon (which up to that point had been held down to the ground) and lurches towards the closer officer. That is exactly the point where the officer giving cover (meaning a bit further away) is supposed to open fire. Yes it would have been better if they had managed to taze him, but sadly with the clothing he wore a tazer is not an effective weapon. There was very little they could have done differently with the options they had available. If they want to get the situation under control (and again, until 0.38 in the video, the suspect gave no indication of immediate danger, he simply seemed completly out of his mind and hopped up on drugs) they have to approach him. (note, this is the third time i am posting something like this within the last 5 pages. We also covered the same topic on page 30 and somewhere around page 40. Please read the thread before you post) Again, the main complaint is that SOP isn't as good as it could be. Mainly, you shouldn't be that close in the first place and if you fail to taze once, you shouldn't get closer to try to taze again. All that does is put yourself in harm's way. Hell, why not actually clear all of those random people walking around away from the doorway so they won't be in danger? That means that they wouldn't have to be so close in the first place. Most importantly, why is it ok for the tazing officer to open up five more shots on an almost certainly disabled target? Show nested quote +Because fucking jumping on top of the guy with the lethal melee weapon, while bullets are hailing down on him is the most competent thing to do. Before I thought you were just kinda stupid, now I realise you actively wish death on the police. WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEO. The guy had turned away in pain and lowered his weapon. There was PLENTY of time for either the officers to tackle him before he raised his weapon again or better yet have the dog tackle his ass down.
Let's cover your last point first: no there was not plenty of time to tackle him. For the simple reason that once you have opened fire on someone, you cannot under any circumstances whatsoever move yourselve into the line of fire. That is simply asking for a friendly fire incident.
I actually agree with you that the second salvo of shots was unncessary. But i understand why it was fired (stress reaction, adrenaline) and know that it doesn't make a difference. We can judge the 3 seconds in hindsight after watching it 10 times (or more) if we want to. The cops in question had to make their decision in those 3 seconds.
The SOP are standard because in most cases they work exactly as they intend to. I cannot give you any numbers, but quite certainly almost a thousand people are similary approached by police with guns drawn every single day. Why do we not hear about shootings in all those cases? Because almost every suspect drops his weapon and submits in those cases.
Here we have a textbook example of an arrest gone wrong. I agree with that (obviously something must have gone wrong, or we wouldn't have a dead person), but until the arrest went wrong (0.38 in the video, when the suspect turns around and raises his weapon) there were absolutly no warning signs for the officers that he was about to flip out and do something so absurdly idiotic at the time.
Those two officers most likely had 100 or more arrests under similar circumstances which went as you would expect. In the split second when the guy did his crazy move, both reacted exactly as they must under such circumstances, they fell back on their training and opened fire (most likely completly in shock that that was actually happening to them).
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Thanks so much to Tula for great posting. Refreshing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
