|
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 02:47 Keyboard Warrior wrote:Show nested quote +1. Yes, a cop should be able to hit a bullseye from that distance. Doing it on the range, or in simulation of situations like these, is completely different from actually doing it in situations like these. If he misses the guy's knee or leg, the ricochet can kill random bystanders and his partner is probably dead from skull trauma. You can bitch all you want about his training (which was probably not that great, we need a lot of cops in this country and we can't spend very much money on them), but it's extremely easy to second guess someone from your office chair. I'm willing to be you haven't been in his situation?
2. If you were a criminal you don't get to say where you would "rather" be shot. If you attack a police officer with a deadly weapon, you will be shot. Police officers are trained to shoot the center of mass. You do the math.
3. Agreed, audio would give a better picture, but we don't have it. I think it's safe to say the suspect knew they were trying to subdue him when he got hit in the face with a taser dart, but maybe that's just me. I really dont get this "you are not a cop so you dont know what you are talking about" argument. This is a forum where people discuss opinions freely, hopefully with some degree of intelligence and solid logic. There are a lot of information available to us to assess the situation objectively, whether we are police officers or not. On the first point, you cant overemphasize it - training. 2. I doubt you read the post to which I replied. I was only suggesting that if the two options are available and equally effective, the cop should choose for the nonlethal one. I didnt say "Ok I'll assault a cop with a crowbar, but please shoot me on the toe and not anywhere else." AND I did say the suspect posed enough threat to warrant lethal force. I was only considering all the other contingencies that could have led to a less deadly outcome, and that is by pointing out the mistakes made by the cops.
Yes, you have a lot of information available now, including testimonies from professional combat trainers, ex-police, and ex-military. You have a YouTube video that you can watch however many times you want, and analyze the perp's movements, stance, and posture.
The cop didn't have any of those things. He had about two seconds to react to an unknown person's hostile action, with no knowledge of whether or not he possessed any other weapons or what he intended to do. You don't have to be a cop to judge his actions (although I'm sure it helps, and any review board that looks at the ethics involved here will consist of his peers). You do, however, have to realize that he didn't have time to think about what he was doing, just enough time to let his training kick in and that's exactly what happened.
You can argue the point about insufficient training all you want, but that's not his fault. It's a big country and we need a lot of police officers, we can't afford to train them all in martial arts. He's not a special ops soldier, he's a cop.
And I'm surprised you keep bringing up the "choice" he made to use lethal force. It's more of a reaction than a choice when it takes place over 2 seconds time. In this situation, taking the time to think about it would have resulted in a dead police officer instead of a dead dirtbag. I'll take the latter over the former any day.
|
Pretty tough to say in this case. He could have done some damage with that contractors tool, but 10 shots is a little hard to justify. If nothing else think about the other people behind the suspect. I have no sympathy for his death, he was clearly stupid as shit robbing a Carls jr. I have a CCL in Texas and would certainly fire shots if someone came at me with that thing, but a couple to the legs or gut first seems more reasonable. They're would be little left if the officers were carrying my .45 hollows. However, they (CCL training) does teach you that if you have to shoot someone in self defense they can't argue or lie on the stand if they're dead. I'm sure the officers were carrying 9mm or 40cal pistols so a few shots i understand, but 5 to drop him and then 5 more for good measure.. dAmN!?
|
He also happens to provide psychological help to FBI officers on this situation, and reading encounters based on behavioral indicators.
You make it sound as if cops training is training to shoot to kill. I respectfully disagree. Being a police officer is a devotion to law enforcement, and not to kill at all cost. If they are trained to kill, then it's a shame. Like I said, an equally important part of the trainig is holding the nerves, such that your mind does not go on panic mode and do as the Cop 2 did. Cop 2 had all the time in the world. review the video. And I bet you all my money, you reenact that scene but this time Cop 2 shoots for the legs or hips or even stomach, 10/10 the suspect will pause, and the police will have time to do something nonlethal.
Moreover, I have already laid out the contingencies of the initial shooting, and I explicitly stated that I agree with the lethal force. You clearly miss to comment on my second point, which is the actions of the cops might have escalated it. Care to comment on that one?
|
It saddens me, that even after explanation and 50 pages later, that people are STILL calling it a crowbar.
Sad faces everywhere.
|
On January 26 2012 03:01 PanN wrote:
It saddens me, that even after explanation and 50 pages later, that people are STILL calling it a crowbar.
Sad faces everywhere.
I think it's kind of sad that you're focused on that.
|
On January 26 2012 03:07 2ndThermoLaw wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 03:01 PanN wrote:
It saddens me, that even after explanation and 50 pages later, that people are STILL calling it a crowbar.
Sad faces everywhere. I think it's kind of sad that you're focused on that.
? I posted about it yesterday and read the the thread to catch up and just noticed it. Sorry that bothers you or something.
|
This is completely justified the officer felt as though his fell officer was in danger and he did what was necessary. For anyone that thinks a crowbar isn't dangerous... I don't know what to say to you.
|
On January 26 2012 03:00 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
He also happens to provide psychological help to FBI officers on this situation, and reading encounters based on behavioral indicators.
You make it sound as if cops training is training to shoot to kill. I respectfully disagree. Being a police officer is a devotion to law enforcement, and not to kill at all cost. If they are trained to kill, then it's a shame. Like I said, an equally important part of the trainig is holding the nerves, such that your mind does not go on panic mode and do as the Cop 2 did. Cop 2 had all the time in the world. review the video. And I bet you all my money, you reenact that scene but this time Cop 2 shoots for the legs or hips or even stomach, 10/10 the suspect will pause, and the police will have time to do something nonlethal.
Moreover, I have already laid out the contingencies of the initial shooting, and I explicitly stated that I agree with the lethal force. You clearly miss to comment on my second point, which is the actions of the cops might have escalated it. Care to comment on that one?
There is a difference between "killing at all costs" and "shoot to kill." From my limited understanding, police officers are trained to use their firearm as a last resort. That's why you see them attempt to communicate with him, and then taze him, and only resort to bullets when he goes to attack an officer. But if they must use the weapon, then yes, they are trained to shoot to kill.
Not sure which cop you're denoting as "cop 2." If it's the one that fired the first shots, then no he didn't have all the time in the world. If it's the one that fired the taser, what exactly would be the purpose of shooting his legs after your partner shot him 5 times in the chest? Agreed that after the fact, with all we know, 10 shots was excessive for this particular case. But if he's hopped up on PCP (they don't know), he could easily shrug off a shot to the leg or stomach for at least enough time to whip out a pistol and blow one of the officers away.
I commented on your second point, unless you're referring to an argument you made many posts ago. How did they escalate it? By trying to subdue him with the taser? By getting so close to him? What do you want them to do, stand way back so that he can run, or take an innocent hostage, or pull out a gun? By getting so close, you remove a lot of his options. Regardless of whether or not that escalates the situation, it is a good thing.
Sorry, but the way the real world works, the criminal doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in this situation. If these guys want to go home to their wives and kids, they assume the worst of any person who puts themselves in this situation. As far as I'm concerned, 1 shot and a subdued suspect and 10 shots and a subdued suspect are the same thing. Doesn't matter if he dies or not, he put that choice in the officer's hands when he took a swing at them. I certainly won't mourn the loss (lol).
|
On January 26 2012 03:01 PanN wrote:
It saddens me, that even after explanation and 50 pages later, that people are STILL calling it a crowbar.
Sad faces everywhere.
I was a bit more saddened by all the people still thinking they should have shot him in the leg despite all the risk and impracticability of it.
|
What I find interesting is the amount of people that say things along the lines of "just shoot to disable" or similar.
At least up here in canada, if you fire any fire-arm at another person, you have intent to kill. Full stop.
Similarly, if a cop EVER has a gun drawn in your area, make sure both your hands are visible and empty. I fully support the cop who shot this man, and don't even think he should get a reprimand for it. The suspect was already showing unwillingness to cooperate and took a combative stance ready and within range to swing at an officer with a weapon in hand. The initial 3 shots were the reaction to this stance, the following 6 are the part that could possibly be debated, but only if you forget the rule of guns above, every shot towards a person is a shot to kill.
Firing a gun and learning gun safety is something I think everyone should do, as it gives you a very healthy respect for them.
|
its probably been said but thats not a crowbar, its a 3/4 inch pipe bender. and if you got hit with that it would be the end of you.
|
|
|
He was shot 10 times, NOT 9, NOT 5, NOT 3 and 6.
He was shot 5 times at first, to take him down.
Then he was shot another 5 times - for what? Perhaps to nail the corpse to the ground and prevent his movement?
Ridiculous.
|
On January 26 2012 03:39 Forsy wrote:
He was shot 10 times, NOT 9, NOT 5, NOT 3 and 6.
He was shot 5 times at first, to take him down.
Then he was shot another 5 times - for what? Perhaps to nail the corpse to the ground and prevent his movement?
Ridiculous.
To kill.
Polite shoot to kill.
If you were bleeding out of 5 holes, in agony, would you want to bleed out for 5 minutes or want to just end it?
The instant the guy moved towards them with the weapon raised, he accepted that he was going to die for it.
|
All I have to say is, anyone who's counting the number of bullets fired, does not understand the point of a gun. Whether the man was shot once or two hundred times is irrelevant (okay that's an obvious exaggeration but you understand my meaning). No one possesses the reaction time to fire once, determine whether or not that was enough damage to properly neutralize the target, fire again, look again, fire a third time etc.
This isn't the movies. Shooting him in the leg is no less dangerous than in the chest - in fact it's far more dangerous to innocent bystanders because you're taking a risk of missing and possibly ricocheting the bullet off the ground. You aim for the center of mass and you shoot in bursts to maximize effect. To clarify the concept of firing in bursts - it would be perfectly reasonable to say that the man was not shot ten times, but was shot twice, with five bullets each.
The reason the cops were standing that close to the suspect was to lower their chances of missing in case they needed to use their firearms (which they did and it was entirely justified). No one has any way of knowing if the criminal would have tried to attack a civilian given the chance, and shooting from a longer distance increases the chance of accidentally hitting someone innocent.
I also watched that video six times, or at least the beginning of it anyway. The second round of shots went off while the suspect was still standing. He was never on the ground when they fired. Pay attention people.
|
On January 26 2012 03:39 Forsy wrote:
He was shot 10 times, NOT 9, NOT 5, NOT 3 and 6.
He was shot 5 times at first, to take him down.
Then he was shot another 5 times - for what? Perhaps to nail the corpse to the ground and prevent his movement?
Ridiculous.
The first five shots didn't even drop him, he was still standing and still within a few feet of the officers while wielding a deadly weapon. They continued firing until the suspect was on the ground, at which point they stopped. Also, the guy was still alive long enough for them to call an ambulance, for it to arrive, transport him to a hospital, where he eventually died. So people need to drop the whole "one bullet is more than enough to resolve the situation" (I realize you didn't say this Forsy)
Also, people need to stop saying the officer should have shot the weapon out of his hand, they need to stop saying they should have shot him in the leg, or that the officer should have Matrix-style dodged any attacks while tickling him until he surrendered. All of these things are equally ridiculous. Police are trained to shoot into the chest, anything else increases the chance of hitting innocent civilians with stray ricochets.
|
this thread is actually just an endless cycle of the same arguments over and over again now that i've checked up on the posts a couple of times, lol
|
Edit: Removed post as the mod was unable to appreciate my self-declared non-expert view on this subject. If you want to see, PM I will discuss with you somewhere more permissive to the use of the word "Halo."
User was warned for this post
|
I think there's a difference between being legally correct, and being morally correct. The law can bite me for all I care.
|
Mmm I can't really form much of an opinion just based off watching the first couple minutes of that clip. If I had to make a judgment just based off seeing that footage alone, without the support of eye-witness interviews, etc, I'd say it was a reasonable response, although this judgment obviously does not sit easily with my conscience. Seeing a guy get gunned down is emotional and elicits a hot reaction, but I think it's best to only consider the rules of lethal response in this case. It seems that the man with the blunt weapon made an aggressive move towards the officer that had no weapon drawn. If you accept that the man's movement with the blunt weapon counted as an attempted deadly attack on the second police officer, I think you have to accept the first officer's choice to opt for a lethal response.
With regard to the second burst of shots, I don't think it's very relevant nor important to the matter at hand. Does it matter how many times the guy was shot to death, or does it simply matter that he was shot to death, period? Police shoot to kill. If you are going to question anything, you need to question whether or not he had the right to kill (in other words, whether or not what the video shows is the full story -- that the man committed a deadly 'move' against cop #2), not whether or not he should have squeezed the trigger 1, 2, 3, 5, or 10 times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
