|
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 00:57 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +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).
Have you ever tried to tazer someone wearing a hoodie? Most clothing worn today is non-conductive. The tazer was ineffective, because they couldn't land the shot properly (frankly the way he was dressed, a tazer will almost never work).
The video isn't good enough to say, but i'd be willing to wager 10 bucks that one of the two darts was stuck in his hood.
Also i feel i must correct you, some drugs actually mean you can shrug of a tazer for a limited amount of time. It depends on how long the current is applied.
|
I still don't get why police officers world wide don't get extensive training in martial arts like Jiu Jitsu or Aikido, or just any martial art that specializes in dealing with weapons like knives, crowbars etc. With extensive, I mean black belt level, not just once in a week. It would give those officers way more confidence to deal with situations such as these. Ideally, police officers are never in shock at anything happening to them. Being in shock leads to irrational decision-taking, which is almost always a bad thing.
And tazers are just nasty. I never understood why these things were ever made legal in the first place.
|
On January 26 2012 01:08 maartendq wrote:
I still don't get why police officers world wide don't get extensive training in martial arts like Jiu Jitsu or Aikido, or just any martial art that specializes in dealing with weapons like knives, crowbars etc. With extensive, I mean black belt level, not just once in a week. It would give those officers way more confidence to deal with situations such as these.
And tazers are just nasty. I never understood why these things were ever made legal in the first place.
simple question, simple answer: Money vs. need
It would cost too much, and there is not enough need to make the cost necessary.
Tazers might be nasty, but they are almost always non-lethal. A gun is almost always lethal.
|
On January 26 2012 01:08 Tula wrote:
Also i feel i must correct you, some drugs actually mean you can shrug of a tazer for a limited amount of time. It depends on how long the current is applied.
So which drug would cancel out an electrical current?
An electrical current will cause muscles to spasm involuntarily, it doesn't matter if the person is sensible to pain or not. The guy doesn't even flinch and has full control over his body. No electrical current was applied to him.
|
On January 26 2012 01:08 maartendq wrote:
I still don't get why police officers world wide don't get extensive training in martial arts like Jiu Jitsu or Aikido, or just any martial art that specializes in dealing with weapons like knives, crowbars etc. With extensive, I mean black belt level, not just once in a week. It would give those officers way more confidence to deal with situations such as these. Ideally, police officers are never in shock at anything happening to them. Being in shock leads to irrational decision-taking, which is almost always a bad thing.
And tazers are just nasty. I never understood why these things were ever made legal in the first place.
Who's going to pay for millions of law enforcement officers to go through extensive martial arts training?
The fact is we need way too many police officers, it makes giving them really high-level training not feasible. The average police officer in the United States is a regular joe who has taken some law enforcement classes, knows how to operate a firearm and a taser, and has been trained in standard operating procedure for situations just like this one.
They're not Navy SEALS or Chuck Norris, and they're not snipers who can hit a moving target's kneecap. They're cops.
|
you gotta understand that if that crowbar hit the police officer in the head, it would of easily gave him some sort of serious brain injury or even death. He got warned enough and refused to listen, imo that was totally acceptable.
|
On January 26 2012 01:08 maartendq wrote:
I still don't get why police officers world wide don't get extensive training in martial arts like Jiu Jitsu or Aikido, or just any martial art that specializes in dealing with weapons like knives, crowbars etc. With extensive, I mean black belt level, not just once in a week. It would give those officers way more confidence to deal with situations such as these. Ideally, police officers are never in shock at anything happening to them. Being in shock leads to irrational decision-taking, which is almost always a bad thing.
And tazers are just nasty. I never understood why these things were ever made legal in the first place.
Do you know what's the basics of self-defence against a knife (or other weapon) in Jiu Jitsu or Aikido? Run away. Hardly something you'd expect police officers to do. Anyway, when they finally do teach you how to defend yourself against a knife it's 99% bullshit. Knife > bare hands 99% of the time, also the techniques are very unreliable in real life situation. In a situation where someone actually knows how to handle a knife, bare hands lose 100% of the time (with a proper knife stance it's impossible to disarm you without giving you ample opportunity to thrust your knife several times at least).
For reference:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html
http://www.amazon.com/Put-Down-Take-Out-Techniques/dp/0873644840
|
On January 26 2012 01:19 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:08 Tula wrote:
Also i feel i must correct you, some drugs actually mean you can shrug of a tazer for a limited amount of time. It depends on how long the current is applied. So which drug would cancel out an electrical current? An electrical current will cause muscles to spasm involuntarily, it doesn't matter if the person is sensible to pain or not. The guy doesn't even flinch and has full control over his body. No electrical current was applied to him.
Meth. It takes out you're nervous system so your muscles never register. very popular in gang life.
|
I'd like to update an earlier post I made, this time with the benefit of a discussion from my professor in Behavioral Psychology and who serves as a consultant and clinical psychology for the FBI.
First, a berakdown of the event as it can be seen on YT:
00:00 - 00:29 : there is slight commotion outside the restaurant, as 2 police officers position themselves near the exit and point their guns towards the door
00:30 : Suspect exits the restaurant
00:30 - 00:36 - Suspect walks towards the car in front, walking nonchalantly, even with arms swaying, crowbar in right hand
00:36 - 00:39 - Suspect turns to Cops. Cops yell something to him (inaudible) as he continues walking and the cops follow his direction
00:39 - Cop 1 tasers him in the face
00:39 - 00:44 - Still he continues walking while removing the taser, while Cop 1 looks at his waist to return the taser or reach for something, still walking towards Suspect. Police 2 keeps an eye on suspect, also walking forward, with dog on his left hand.
00:44 - 00:45 - Suspect turns to Cop 1, Suspect holds crowbar in two hands, makes 1 semi hope with his left leg, his body perpendicular to Cop 1, and lands with a small hop towards Cop 1, reaches as close as 3 to 2 feet away from him, but momentarily stops never completing the motion of swinging, while Police 1 fumbles backwards awkwardly, reaching again for his right side, perhaps gun
00:45 - 00:47 - Cop 2 shoots 5 times
00:47 - Suspect falls back turning about 3 feet from where he stood when the first shot was fired, and is now at least 8-10 feet away from them. His body is hidden by the car, but he is obviously turned to the other direction, his back towards the 2 Cops, as he is slightly bent. Audience has no sight on his hands. Cops may or may not have sight on what he was doing with his hands. Both Cops now have guns pointed at him. 5 more shots.
00:48 - Cop 1 radios, Cop 3 appears out of nowhere. Siren clearly audible
00:58 - Cop 1 moves in and kneels down to Suspect. Car blocks view. Cop 3 joins him
The rest irrelevant to the incident
Now the significant points of discussion:
1. Was there a threat from the suspect? YES.
2. Was the initial five shots justified? Yes. But Cop 2 had clear shot all the time to shoulders or the legs to momentarily neutralize him and proceed with nonkethal containment. Whatever training the cop had, he did not observe optimum discretion. Killing is a harsh reality in the profession, sometimes even necessary. But Standard Police procedure is to neutralize threat while ensuring no kill if there is opportunity to do so. In this case, there was ample opportunity to save life.
3. Many claim that in real life, you can't aim for the arms or legs and simply disarm. Don't forget these are official law enforcers with ample training. If they are not trained to do that, they are getting the wrong training. In short, Cop 2's reaction was more on adrenaline and surprise, rather than informed by his training
4. Many also claim that you risk not completely disabling the suspect if you don't shoot for the core or to kill. This is wrong. A properly trained police officer knows all the strategic areas to stun and disable movement, even if only momentarily, to buy time and gain advantageous position so they ca proceed with nonlethal methods. To demonstrate, imagine a person about to swing a bat. Now, imagine hitting this person, not even with maximum force, but with just enough force to the rib or arm or thigh. This will completely stun him, and stop him from swinging and bring his attention to the pain. Imagine what a hot bullet can do. THis was an option that was fully avaible to Cop 2 that he did not take. This is one serious breach of protocol. [And where was Cop 3 all this time?]
4. Let us backtrack a bit and go back to how the suspect was even able to get within striking range. After shooting the suspect with taser on the FACE, Cop 1 simply carelessly took away his vision from the Suspect and even continued walking forward blind, not considering: a. Standard police procedure require that you stop when you dont have full perspective of the environment and the suspect; b. he just tasered a guy in the face and the guy might be upset or something and the cop is even still walking straight towards him. Police officers are trained to maintain safe and controllable distance, especially from armed suspects (that is why cops often seek cover if there is any situation where lethal exchange could occur) and proceed only once the suspect is disarmed and possesses no threat. Imagine what could have happened if the Cops were 10 - 12 feet away, ground established, and guns pointed at the suspect to deter any attacks or attempts to attack. Being so far away, it will be enough of a deterent (though not guaranteed as there are a lot of variables) that the suspect will not entertain any thoughts of attacking simply because it is impossible to do so. AND it is the police officers DUTY to ensure that these protocols are observed specifically to avoid unnecessary deaths, both of the officers and the suspect. Another breach of protocol [Again, where was Cop 3 all this time?]
5. This is closely related to 4. More than the regular physical training to neutralizing threat and killing people, cops are trained to take major account the psychological state of the suspect. The mere fact that the suspect is commiting crime is proof that he is not in his regular law abiding, pencil pushing, tax paying, church going self. It is the police officers DUTY to ensure that no controllable variables are present to provoke and escalate the situation. Walking blindly eyes down towards a guy you just tasered on the face is exactly this escalating condition.
6. After the first 5 shots, where the next 2 shots necessary. The video did not give the audience a clear point of view on where the suspect's hands were, whether he was reaching for a gun or preparing to spear the cops with the crowbar. But consider the following: a. he is facing in the opposite direction. b. he already took 5 shots and is apparently curling in pain. IF he is indeed still a threat, then the additional 5 shots might be justified. If not, the cops had a lot of options: a. they are safely at least 10 feet away to be within swining range from a man who just took 5 bullets to the body. 2. they were close enough to subdue him physically (like pounce on him and grab his arms, another standard procedure).
Conclusion.
The Suspect presented sufficient thread to warrant forceful, even lethal, response. BUT, the cops were in an advantageous position to contain the situation and prevent it from excalating, and save lives, but they breached too may protocols (even assuming Cop 3 just arrived at the 1 minute mark) that the condition worsened and someone had to die.
|
On January 26 2012 01:19 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:08 Tula wrote:
Also i feel i must correct you, some drugs actually mean you can shrug of a tazer for a limited amount of time. It depends on how long the current is applied. So which drug would cancel out an electrical current? An electrical current will cause muscles to spasm involuntarily, it doesn't matter if the person is sensible to pain or not. The guy doesn't even flinch and has full control over his body. No electrical current was applied to him.
Anything which could effect the sodium ion channels in the nerves, I'd think.
|
United States22883 Posts
I wish preceding everyone's posts, they included how much experience they have in law enforcement.
I have none.
|
From watching the video i can see a few things hapening in order
1: Left officer puts away taser after failed tasing while aproaching purp
2: Purp goes into an intimidating/threatning pose and takes 2 small jumps towards the left officer who staggers back away from the purp while reaching for his gun
3: Right officer unloads 5 rounds on the purp
4: Purp lowers his weapon and staggers away from the right officer
5: The left officer now unloads 5 rounds into the purp that is staggering away from him with his crowbar lowered
Now for one it was unnesesary to shoot to begin with as the posture was only threatning and not attacking, i can accept the judgement from the officer because of the heat of the moment and purp was "ready to attack" wich is the same as reaching for a gun.
Maby it's a bit excessive unloading 5 bullets at once and i would say 1~3 should have been more than enough but again the officers might be trained to shoot bursts of 5 so this one can slide.
However the left officer had no reason whatsoever to also unload 5 bullets when he finally finished pulling his gun as the perp had allready lowered his weapon and was staggering away from him/falling to the ground (hard to tell because he staggers behind the car in the video)
The reason i say that the left cop actiualy shot the last 5 shots is that the sound of the shots are notably diferent than the first 5, and also you see no gun smoke or shaking from the gun/arm of the right officer from the last 5 shots as you do with the first 5 shots.
|
On January 26 2012 01:33 sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:19 Traeon wrote:On January 26 2012 01:08 Tula wrote:
Also i feel i must correct you, some drugs actually mean you can shrug of a tazer for a limited amount of time. It depends on how long the current is applied. So which drug would cancel out an electrical current? An electrical current will cause muscles to spasm involuntarily, it doesn't matter if the person is sensible to pain or not. The guy doesn't even flinch and has full control over his body. No electrical current was applied to him. Meth. It takes out you're nervous system so your muscles never register. very popular in gang life.
Can you give me a decent source for this claim? The only thing I could find on this topic was this which says that it's a myth stemming from older taser models that rely on pain sensibility. The newer ones do not have this problem . http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111104102934AABZ7vn
"The newest generation of Tasers/stun guns work on both the sensory AND the motor nerves, which is why a person hit by one tends to quickly "stop and drop," since the nerves that control their motor skills are overwhelmed. The technical term is neuromuscular incapacitation, and the only way one could not suffer the effect would be to be already completely paralyzed via anesthetic. Since it would be impossible to move under such conditions, there is no way for any modern Taser to be defeated by drug use."
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 26 2012 01:37 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
I'd like to update an earlier post I made, this time with the benefit of a discussion from my professor in Behavioral Psychology and who serves as a consultant and clinical psychology for the FBI.
First, a berakdown of the event as it can be seen on YT:
00:00 - 00:29 : there is slight commotion outside the restaurant, as 2 police officers position themselves near the exit and point their guns towards the door
00:30 : Suspect exits the restaurant
00:30 - 00:36 - Suspect walks towards the car in front, walking nonchalantly, even with arms swaying, crowbar in right hand
00:36 - 00:39 - Suspect turns to Cops. Cops yell something to him (inaudible) as he continues walking and the cops follow his direction
00:39 - Cop 1 tasers him in the face
00:39 - 00:44 - Still he continues walking while removing the taser, while Cop 1 looks at his waist to return the taser or reach for something, still walking towards Suspect. Police 2 keeps an eye on suspect, also walking forward, with dog on his left hand.
00:44 - 00:45 - Suspect turns to Cop 1, Suspect holds crowbar in two hands, makes 1 semi hope with his left leg, his body perpendicular to Cop 1, and lands with a small hop towards Cop 1, reaches as close as 3 to 2 feet away from him, but momentarily stops never completing the motion of swinging, while Police 1 fumbles backwards awkwardly, reaching again for his right side, perhaps gun
00:45 - 00:47 - Cop 2 shoots 5 times
00:47 - Suspect falls back turning about 3 feet from where he stood when the first shot was fired, and is now at least 8-10 feet away from them. His body is hidden by the car, but he is obviously turned to the other direction, his back towards the 2 Cops, as he is slightly bent. Audience has no sight on his hands. Cops may or may not have sight on what he was doing with his hands. Both Cops now have guns pointed at him. 5 more shots.
00:48 - Cop 1 radios, Cop 3 appears out of nowhere. Siren clearly audible
00:58 - Cop 1 moves in and kneels down to Suspect. Car blocks view. Cop 3 joins him
The rest irrelevant to the incident
Now the significant points of discussion:
1. Was there a threat from the suspect? YES.
2. Was the initial five shots justified? Yes. But Cop 2 had clear shot all the time to shoulders or the legs to momentarily neutralize him and proceed with nonkethal containment. Whatever training the cop had, he did not observe optimum discretion. Killing is a harsh reality in the profession, sometimes even necessary. But Standard Police procedure is to neutralize threat while ensuring no kill if there is opportunity to do so. In this case, there was ample opportunity to save life.
3. Many claim that in real life, you can't aim for the arms or legs and simply disarm. Don't forget these are official law enforcers with ample training. If they are not trained to do that, they are getting the wrong training. In short, Cop 2's reaction was more on adrenaline and surprise, rather than informed by his training
4. Many also claim that you risk not completely disabling the suspect if you don't shoot for the core or to kill. This is wrong. A properly trained police officer knows all the strategic areas to stun and disable movement, even if only momentarily, to buy time and gain advantageous position so they ca proceed with nonlethal methods. To demonstrate, imagine a person about to swing a bat. Now, imagine hitting this person, not even with maximum force, but with just enough force to the rib or arm or thigh. This will completely stun him, and stop him from swinging and bring his attention to the pain. Imagine what a hot bullet can do. THis was an option that was fully avaible to Cop 2 that he did not take. This is one serious breach of protocol. [And where was Cop 3 all this time?]
4. Let us backtrack a bit and go back to how the suspect was even able to get within striking range. After shooting the suspect with taser on the FACE, Cop 1 simply carelessly took away his vision from the Suspect and even continued walking forward blind, not considering: a. Standard police procedure require that you stop when you dont have full perspective of the environment and the suspect; b. he just tasered a guy in the face and the guy might be upset or something and the cop is even still walking straight towards him. Police officers are trained to maintain safe and controllable distance, especially from armed suspects (that is why cops often seek cover if there is any situation where lethal exchange could occur) and proceed only once the suspect is disarmed and possesses no threat. Imagine what could have happened if the Cops were 10 - 12 feet away, ground established, and guns pointed at the suspect to deter any attacks or attempts to attack. Being so far away, it will be enough of a deterent (though not guaranteed as there are a lot of variables) that the suspect will not entertain any thoughts of attacking simply because it is impossible to do so. AND it is the police officers DUTY to ensure that these protocols are observed specifically to avoid unnecessary deaths, both of the officers and the suspect. Another breach of protocol [Again, where was Cop 3 all this time?]
5. This is closely related to 4. More than the regular physical training to neutralizing threat and killing people, cops are trained to take major account the psychological state of the suspect. The mere fact that the suspect is commiting crime is proof that he is not in his regular law abiding, pencil pushing, tax paying, church going self. It is the police officers DUTY to ensure that no controllable variables are present to provoke and escalate the situation. Walking blindly eyes down towards a guy you just tasered on the face is exactly this escalating condition.
6. After the first 5 shots, where the next 2 shots necessary. The video did not give the audience a clear point of view on where the suspect's hands were, whether he was reaching for a gun or preparing to spear the cops with the crowbar. But consider the following: a. he is facing in the opposite direction. b. he already took 5 shots and is apparently curling in pain. IF he is indeed still a threat, then the additional 5 shots might be justified. If not, the cops had a lot of options: a. they are safely at least 10 feet away to be within swining range from a man who just took 5 bullets to the body. 2. they were close enough to subdue him physically (like pounce on him and grab his arms, another standard procedure).
Conclusion.
The Suspect presented sufficient thread to warrant forceful, even lethal, response. BUT, the cops were in an advantageous position to contain the situation and prevent it from excalating, and save lives, but they breached too may protocols (even assuming Cop 3 just arrived at the 1 minute mark) that the condition worsened and someone had to die.
Fantastic post, edited into OP. ^^
|
On January 26 2012 01:37 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
I'd like to update an earlier post I made, this time with the benefit of a discussion from my professor in Behavioral Psychology and who serves as a consultant and clinical psychology for the FBI.
[...]
Conclusion.
The Suspect presented sufficient thread to warrant forceful, even lethal, response. BUT, the cops were in an advantageous position to contain the situation and prevent it from excalating, and save lives, but they breached too may protocols (even assuming Cop 3 just arrived at the 1 minute mark) that the condition worsened and someone had to die.
Finally some common sense rather than blindly supporting cops who clearly made some mistakes.
|
the guy turned around very aggressively and looked to be swinging his weapon at that other officer. the officer that shot just reacted to save his fellow officer. the cops aren't going to let you threaten other peoples lives and health under any circumstances. did he, strictly speaking, need to shoot that many bullets? no, but its better to be absolutely sure that the threat is neutralized rather than shoot one, have the other cop get hit in the face by the weapon, then shoot the guy some more.
|
On January 26 2012 01:40 Jibba wrote:
I wish preceding everyone's posts, they included how much experience they have in law enforcement.
I have none.
I've been a police officer for over a year now, while my experience may not be the longest, i'll try to put my view into this.
My english isnt perfect so sorry about that.
- Like a lot of people said, what happened in the video was a good intervention by the police officers. They even waited till the guy swing the crowbar to the policeman before neutralising the threat. You dont shoot to kill but you shoot to neutralize.
- People who say they could have shot in the legs or arms or just ignorant, sadly. With a 9MM handgun, its near impossible in a situation of stress like this one to shoot from 10 feet away exactly in the hand or the legs. Even if you shot him in the legs, in can very easily kill him if he runs out of blood. It happened in the past thats why you shoot in the chest now. I mean... shooting in a moving hand which is handling a crowbar and the guy also moves, without any chance of the bullet not hitting him and perhaps killing somone else on the other side of the street?? Who would take that risk... no one.
- An important part missing in the video is what the two police officers were saying to the suspect. If you tell someone to dont cross a line 20 times, but the guy still goes along, gives you a good indication of his intentions, but we cant hear anything ont he video.
- For people who say the cop shot too many rounds/bullets, well we are taught to shoot as many bullets as needed to neutralize the suspect. I was not in the cops eyes so i cant tell if all the bullets were necessary to neutralize him.
- I can't really say more because I dont like to give my deep opinion when we dont know the full story which a good investigation could tell. A simple video caught by an amateur doesnt tell everything like all the sayings during the intervention or what happened before and after, or if the guy was well known to be violent by the police department, etc.
- We used to use tazers where I live but they banned them because it killed people here. You dont know if the guy has cardiac problems or something else so using a tazer is always a risk of killing someone too. But the risk is lower than a gun thats for sure.
|
On January 26 2012 01:54 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +On January 26 2012 01:37 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
I'd like to update an earlier post I made, this time with the benefit of a discussion from my professor in Behavioral Psychology and who serves as a consultant and clinical psychology for the FBI.
First, a berakdown of the event as it can be seen on YT:
00:00 - 00:29 : there is slight commotion outside the restaurant, as 2 police officers position themselves near the exit and point their guns towards the door
00:30 : Suspect exits the restaurant
00:30 - 00:36 - Suspect walks towards the car in front, walking nonchalantly, even with arms swaying, crowbar in right hand
00:36 - 00:39 - Suspect turns to Cops. Cops yell something to him (inaudible) as he continues walking and the cops follow his direction
00:39 - Cop 1 tasers him in the face
00:39 - 00:44 - Still he continues walking while removing the taser, while Cop 1 looks at his waist to return the taser or reach for something, still walking towards Suspect. Police 2 keeps an eye on suspect, also walking forward, with dog on his left hand.
00:44 - 00:45 - Suspect turns to Cop 1, Suspect holds crowbar in two hands, makes 1 semi hope with his left leg, his body perpendicular to Cop 1, and lands with a small hop towards Cop 1, reaches as close as 3 to 2 feet away from him, but momentarily stops never completing the motion of swinging, while Police 1 fumbles backwards awkwardly, reaching again for his right side, perhaps gun
00:45 - 00:47 - Cop 2 shoots 5 times
00:47 - Suspect falls back turning about 3 feet from where he stood when the first shot was fired, and is now at least 8-10 feet away from them. His body is hidden by the car, but he is obviously turned to the other direction, his back towards the 2 Cops, as he is slightly bent. Audience has no sight on his hands. Cops may or may not have sight on what he was doing with his hands. Both Cops now have guns pointed at him. 5 more shots.
00:48 - Cop 1 radios, Cop 3 appears out of nowhere. Siren clearly audible
00:58 - Cop 1 moves in and kneels down to Suspect. Car blocks view. Cop 3 joins him
The rest irrelevant to the incident
Now the significant points of discussion:
1. Was there a threat from the suspect? YES.
2. Was the initial five shots justified? Yes. But Cop 2 had clear shot all the time to shoulders or the legs to momentarily neutralize him and proceed with nonkethal containment. Whatever training the cop had, he did not observe optimum discretion. Killing is a harsh reality in the profession, sometimes even necessary. But Standard Police procedure is to neutralize threat while ensuring no kill if there is opportunity to do so. In this case, there was ample opportunity to save life.
3. Many claim that in real life, you can't aim for the arms or legs and simply disarm. Don't forget these are official law enforcers with ample training. If they are not trained to do that, they are getting the wrong training. In short, Cop 2's reaction was more on adrenaline and surprise, rather than informed by his training
4. Many also claim that you risk not completely disabling the suspect if you don't shoot for the core or to kill. This is wrong. A properly trained police officer knows all the strategic areas to stun and disable movement, even if only momentarily, to buy time and gain advantageous position so they ca proceed with nonlethal methods. To demonstrate, imagine a person about to swing a bat. Now, imagine hitting this person, not even with maximum force, but with just enough force to the rib or arm or thigh. This will completely stun him, and stop him from swinging and bring his attention to the pain. Imagine what a hot bullet can do. THis was an option that was fully avaible to Cop 2 that he did not take. This is one serious breach of protocol. [And where was Cop 3 all this time?]
4. Let us backtrack a bit and go back to how the suspect was even able to get within striking range. After shooting the suspect with taser on the FACE, Cop 1 simply carelessly took away his vision from the Suspect and even continued walking forward blind, not considering: a. Standard police procedure require that you stop when you dont have full perspective of the environment and the suspect; b. he just tasered a guy in the face and the guy might be upset or something and the cop is even still walking straight towards him. Police officers are trained to maintain safe and controllable distance, especially from armed suspects (that is why cops often seek cover if there is any situation where lethal exchange could occur) and proceed only once the suspect is disarmed and possesses no threat. Imagine what could have happened if the Cops were 10 - 12 feet away, ground established, and guns pointed at the suspect to deter any attacks or attempts to attack. Being so far away, it will be enough of a deterent (though not guaranteed as there are a lot of variables) that the suspect will not entertain any thoughts of attacking simply because it is impossible to do so. AND it is the police officers DUTY to ensure that these protocols are observed specifically to avoid unnecessary deaths, both of the officers and the suspect. Another breach of protocol [Again, where was Cop 3 all this time?]
5. This is closely related to 4. More than the regular physical training to neutralizing threat and killing people, cops are trained to take major account the psychological state of the suspect. The mere fact that the suspect is commiting crime is proof that he is not in his regular law abiding, pencil pushing, tax paying, church going self. It is the police officers DUTY to ensure that no controllable variables are present to provoke and escalate the situation. Walking blindly eyes down towards a guy you just tasered on the face is exactly this escalating condition.
6. After the first 5 shots, where the next 2 shots necessary. The video did not give the audience a clear point of view on where the suspect's hands were, whether he was reaching for a gun or preparing to spear the cops with the crowbar. But consider the following: a. he is facing in the opposite direction. b. he already took 5 shots and is apparently curling in pain. IF he is indeed still a threat, then the additional 5 shots might be justified. If not, the cops had a lot of options: a. they are safely at least 10 feet away to be within swining range from a man who just took 5 bullets to the body. 2. they were close enough to subdue him physically (like pounce on him and grab his arms, another standard procedure).
Conclusion.
The Suspect presented sufficient thread to warrant forceful, even lethal, response. BUT, the cops were in an advantageous position to contain the situation and prevent it from excalating, and save lives, but they breached too may protocols (even assuming Cop 3 just arrived at the 1 minute mark) that the condition worsened and someone had to die. Fantastic post, edited into OP. ^^
Thanks Candy :p
|
On January 25 2012 21:06 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 14:31 plogamer wrote:On January 25 2012 14:27 stokes17 wrote:On January 25 2012 14:23 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:15 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 14:12 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 14:10 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 14:03 Leporello wrote:On January 25 2012 13:55 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 13:45 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
Thank God you're not a cop.
I love how we don't ask the people who we give guns and special privileges to, to not actually have to make judgments, or use discretion or some form of critical thinking. Just follow some basic guidelines, and everything is okay, no matter who you hurt or how badly.
It's all about the police officer and his safety, and since he's such a simple-minded idiot, we don't question it when he shoots someone ten times in the chest from less than ten yards away.
That situation could have been handled so much better, as is blatantly apparent. Bad cop is a bad cop, and while I may not assault them with a crowbar, it does bother me deeply that someone like the cop in this video is given a gun.
Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill -- any research, Mr. Starcraft "Pro", would tell you that cops are only supposed to use enough force to keep the peace. What the hell are you reading that makes you think cops are supposed to "shoot to kill"?
Comic books?
This officer used excessive force, and judging by the last five shots he fired, he seemed more concerned with killing somebody than protecting the public. I hope he loses his badge, disgracefully. People like you disgust me. People sit safely in their chairs at home and say the police shouldn't fire until after the suspect has bashed their skull in; they feel that police are below everyone else, some people like you even cheer death. This is a person who had a deadly weapon, had been destroying property, refused to follow orders given to him, and brushed off a taser to the face(suggesting he was under the influence of illegal drugs). He then raised his deadly weapon that he had been using at close range toward an armed police officer. Use your brain man, please, please. Okay, Mr. Hyperbole. I never once argued, if you read my post, that the cop shouldn't have fired his gun. The only thing anyone is arguing is that maybe we should hold cops to higher standards than "shoot to kill". Maybe he could have shot the guy three times, instead of ten. Thanks. "You disgust me". "Sitting in your chair". Yeah, yeah. I forgot I'm not allowed to have an opinion (unless I'm standing, of course). No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I suppose it is just too much to ask that you have an intelligent one though. Guns are designed to kill, and that is what they are used for. They tried to taser him, it had no effect. They tried the non-lethal method first, and when you realize that a taser to the face didn't even faze him, you have to consider him to be under the influence of drugs, and thus even more dangerous. They shot him five times, and he was still standing, so his partner then fired. This is the real world, when you fire your gun, you do so to kill, not some trick shot to shoot the weapon out of his hand, or to get a shot on his knee. He charged at the officer while raising a deadly weapon to strike, what do you expect? He was shot five times and still standing? No, he wasn't. Your definition of "standing" differs from mine, greatly. Perhaps you should view the video before posting in this thread. After the first officer fired the suspect took a step so that the car was between the camera and suspect, but his head is still clearly visible above the roof of the vehicle. Hard for that to be possible if he was on the ground. Edit: Even more important, the suspect turned his back to the officers between the first five shots and the second officer firing. With his back toward them, they have no idea what he is doing, only knowing that he is someone that is acting irrational, has a deadly weapon, and has been using it in the last few minutes. Was he on the ground, or standing? Maybe he was neither. Maybe he was somewhere in between, having been shot five times, and probably in his death-throes. He was also no where near the cops, when the second rally of shots were fired. I don't know and don't really need to know his body position. Maybe he was kneeling in prayer? Doesn't matter -- point is there is nothing that shows he was a threat at the point when the officer fired the last five shots. OK: 1. He was clearly standing, watch the video. 2. You are assuming he is on death throes, if you are willing to give a crazy armed suspect the benefit of the doubt when your life is on the line that's one thing: but the officer was completely within his right to not give the suspect that consideration. 3. He was within 10-20 feet of the officers, you can close that distance quite quickly. In my opinion your use of "no where near" is inaccurate. 4. His body position was upright with his back to the officers. Its objectively viewable in the video. 1. Watch the video again. 10 shots in 3 seconds. The suspect barely had time to fall to the ground. 2. 5 bullets usually means death. 3. You can't close that kind of distance with, again, 5 rounds in you against perfectly healthy officers. Officers are not going to sit there while a wounded guy approaches them. 4. Yes, he was in no position to harm the officers with his crowbar after the initial shots. Pretty much this. Yeah, people say all the usual "their lives come first than this low-life junkie's" and "hindsight is 20/20", "real life doesn't work this way" blah blah blah, but it's not an excuse to just kill someone because he threatened them once and was incapable of doing anything else after first 5 shots. It's more like "Oh you no swinging a hammer at me, bitch" kind of thing. After first 5 shots were fired, there were no aggressive actions shown from the suspect and he was blown like 3 meters away from them. But instead of moving AWAY from the guy with a SHORT RANGE weapon, they moved in to finish him off. It was clearly an instinctive "HOW DARE YOU SWING THAT HAMMER AT ME" reaction. The 2nd burst was shot so fast that the body couldn't even hit the ground if you apply the knowledge of, you know, gravity. There are a lot of situations where just finishing the bastard off is justifiable and needed (there are civilians around, there's a long range GUN involved etc.), this is clearly not one of them.
Whether he was incapable of anything else is debatable.
You don't think safety is an excuse? I think it is a much more reasonable excuse for a police man to shoot someone who BEGAN TO ATTACK him than for you to say that it's OK for him to show hostility like that without being taken down. The dude was an idiot, why would you attack a cop? You're just ASKING for it.
You never know if he had any other weapons.
Yeah, it is a bit dumb that he had to die, but you know what? The unknown factor of whether or not he had another weapon (and therefore was still a threat) was created because he began to attack. That's his fault. Because he was shot 5 times, he was no longer facing them, and he still had a hoodie on, and the police can't see his hands.a
In the end, it's his fault, he asked for it, and the police were doing what was safest.
Look at all those videos on youtube where cops are killed because they were too hesitant to shoot. They are disgusting, monstrous, tragic situations. The one I saw still makes me feel really really bad inside. I can't stop thinking of it.
On January 26 2012 02:04 Keyboard Warrior wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 01:54 Candadar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 26 2012 01:37 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
I'd like to update an earlier post I made, this time with the benefit of a discussion from my professor in Behavioral Psychology and who serves as a consultant and clinical psychology for the FBI.
First, a berakdown of the event as it can be seen on YT:
00:00 - 00:29 : there is slight commotion outside the restaurant, as 2 police officers position themselves near the exit and point their guns towards the door
00:30 : Suspect exits the restaurant
00:30 - 00:36 - Suspect walks towards the car in front, walking nonchalantly, even with arms swaying, crowbar in right hand
00:36 - 00:39 - Suspect turns to Cops. Cops yell something to him (inaudible) as he continues walking and the cops follow his direction
00:39 - Cop 1 tasers him in the face
00:39 - 00:44 - Still he continues walking while removing the taser, while Cop 1 looks at his waist to return the taser or reach for something, still walking towards Suspect. Police 2 keeps an eye on suspect, also walking forward, with dog on his left hand.
00:44 - 00:45 - Suspect turns to Cop 1, Suspect holds crowbar in two hands, makes 1 semi hope with his left leg, his body perpendicular to Cop 1, and lands with a small hop towards Cop 1, reaches as close as 3 to 2 feet away from him, but momentarily stops never completing the motion of swinging, while Police 1 fumbles backwards awkwardly, reaching again for his right side, perhaps gun
00:45 - 00:47 - Cop 2 shoots 5 times
00:47 - Suspect falls back turning about 3 feet from where he stood when the first shot was fired, and is now at least 8-10 feet away from them. His body is hidden by the car, but he is obviously turned to the other direction, his back towards the 2 Cops, as he is slightly bent. Audience has no sight on his hands. Cops may or may not have sight on what he was doing with his hands. Both Cops now have guns pointed at him. 5 more shots.
00:48 - Cop 1 radios, Cop 3 appears out of nowhere. Siren clearly audible
00:58 - Cop 1 moves in and kneels down to Suspect. Car blocks view. Cop 3 joins him
The rest irrelevant to the incident
Now the significant points of discussion:
1. Was there a threat from the suspect? YES.
2. Was the initial five shots justified? Yes. But Cop 2 had clear shot all the time to shoulders or the legs to momentarily neutralize him and proceed with nonkethal containment. Whatever training the cop had, he did not observe optimum discretion. Killing is a harsh reality in the profession, sometimes even necessary. But Standard Police procedure is to neutralize threat while ensuring no kill if there is opportunity to do so. In this case, there was ample opportunity to save life.
3. Many claim that in real life, you can't aim for the arms or legs and simply disarm. Don't forget these are official law enforcers with ample training. If they are not trained to do that, they are getting the wrong training. In short, Cop 2's reaction was more on adrenaline and surprise, rather than informed by his training
4. Many also claim that you risk not completely disabling the suspect if you don't shoot for the core or to kill. This is wrong. A properly trained police officer knows all the strategic areas to stun and disable movement, even if only momentarily, to buy time and gain advantageous position so they ca proceed with nonlethal methods. To demonstrate, imagine a person about to swing a bat. Now, imagine hitting this person, not even with maximum force, but with just enough force to the rib or arm or thigh. This will completely stun him, and stop him from swinging and bring his attention to the pain. Imagine what a hot bullet can do. THis was an option that was fully avaible to Cop 2 that he did not take. This is one serious breach of protocol. [And where was Cop 3 all this time?]
4. Let us backtrack a bit and go back to how the suspect was even able to get within striking range. After shooting the suspect with taser on the FACE, Cop 1 simply carelessly took away his vision from the Suspect and even continued walking forward blind, not considering: a. Standard police procedure require that you stop when you dont have full perspective of the environment and the suspect; b. he just tasered a guy in the face and the guy might be upset or something and the cop is even still walking straight towards him. Police officers are trained to maintain safe and controllable distance, especially from armed suspects (that is why cops often seek cover if there is any situation where lethal exchange could occur) and proceed only once the suspect is disarmed and possesses no threat. Imagine what could have happened if the Cops were 10 - 12 feet away, ground established, and guns pointed at the suspect to deter any attacks or attempts to attack. Being so far away, it will be enough of a deterent (though not guaranteed as there are a lot of variables) that the suspect will not entertain any thoughts of attacking simply because it is impossible to do so. AND it is the police officers DUTY to ensure that these protocols are observed specifically to avoid unnecessary deaths, both of the officers and the suspect. Another breach of protocol [Again, where was Cop 3 all this time?]
5. This is closely related to 4. More than the regular physical training to neutralizing threat and killing people, cops are trained to take major account the psychological state of the suspect. The mere fact that the suspect is commiting crime is proof that he is not in his regular law abiding, pencil pushing, tax paying, church going self. It is the police officers DUTY to ensure that no controllable variables are present to provoke and escalate the situation. Walking blindly eyes down towards a guy you just tasered on the face is exactly this escalating condition.
6. After the first 5 shots, where the next 2 shots necessary. The video did not give the audience a clear point of view on where the suspect's hands were, whether he was reaching for a gun or preparing to spear the cops with the crowbar. But consider the following: a. he is facing in the opposite direction. b. he already took 5 shots and is apparently curling in pain. IF he is indeed still a threat, then the additional 5 shots might be justified. If not, the cops had a lot of options: a. they are safely at least 10 feet away to be within swining range from a man who just took 5 bullets to the body. 2. they were close enough to subdue him physically (like pounce on him and grab his arms, another standard procedure).
Conclusion.
The Suspect presented sufficient thread to warrant forceful, even lethal, response. BUT, the cops were in an advantageous position to contain the situation and prevent it from excalating, and save lives, but they breached too may protocols (even assuming Cop 3 just arrived at the 1 minute mark) that the condition worsened and someone had to die. Fantastic post, edited into OP. ^^ Thanks Candy :p
Wow, really nice post!
Just one question though. You didn't really address the fact that he got tazered in the face and was still OK, showing he probably had some drugs or basically a higher than average resistance to pain. Are the police supposed to take this into account or not? You say that he took 5 shots later and therefore the next 5 shots were probably uncalled for since the first 5 shots should buy the police enough time to do something else other than to just shoot again, but what if (assuming he could still move, and was not simply falling to the ground) he wasn't stunned enough, and brought out a gun and shot, possibly killing someone? Though shooting someone should stun them enough, it's not always a guarantee is it? Perhaps after the first 5 shots, if while spinning around he was going to take out a gun and shoot, and even though the police began shooting him again, and probably hitting him with at least another shot first, what if the suspect got 1 shot out anyways, if the pain wasn't enough to stop him, and it happened to hit someone in the head?
|
On January 26 2012 01:37 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
4. Many also claim that you risk not completely disabling the suspect if you don't shoot for the core or to kill. This is wrong. A properly trained police officer knows all the strategic areas to stun and disable movement, even if only momentarily, to buy time and gain advantageous position so they ca proceed with nonlethal methods. To demonstrate, imagine a person about to swing a bat. Now, imagine hitting this person, not even with maximum force, but with just enough force to the rib or arm or thigh. This will completely stun him, and stop him from swinging and bring his attention to the pain. Imagine what a hot bullet can do. THis was an option that was fully avaible to Cop 2 that he did not take. This is one serious breach of protocol. [And where was Cop 3 all this time?]
While I think you bring up good points, I have to disagree with this. Have you tried shooting a gun before? You'd be surprised at how difficult it is to be accurate enough to hit a precise location even only a few feet away. And then you have to factor in your target can move very quickly.
And what part of the body were you thinking that would disable him without killing him? A knee? An elbow? Any limb can be moved extremely quickly independent of the body. Even at 5 feet away, I wouldn't be surprised if an officer missed most of his shots against a dodging aggressive opponent if he's aiming for a knee or elbow. And even if you do hit one of his limbs, it may not be fully incapacitating.
Let's face it, this ain't the movies or a cartoon. The only rare case that an incapacitating shot can be taken over a self-defense body shot is if you've got a trained sniper at a safe concealed distance that can shoot the weapon out of the criminal's hand while he is stationary. (Which does happen) Otherwise, you aim for the body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
