EPTSuspect with crowbar killed by police - Page 64
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
| ||
|
Forsy
Canada36 Posts
I guess 5 - 9mm shots to the chest/gut of someone who doesn't have any armor isn't enough to neutralize a threat. | ||
|
NSGrendel
United Kingdom235 Posts
If they'd have stood 15 feet away or unleashed the dog or pretty much done anything else, no one would have died. Given that British police deal with these situations with a truncheon (and relatively recently they've had pepper spray) you can't justify this. | ||
|
OwlHarris
United States53 Posts
The guy made an aggressive move with a deadly weapon and got shot. It was the right response by the officer. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:23 tjosan wrote: I think there's a difference between being legally correct, and being morally correct. The law can bite me for all I care. Yeah, the difference is that morals vary widely between people under the same legal system. The legal system does not. For example, your morals tell you that this is wrong (at least that's the vibe I'm getting). My morals tell me the fucker deserved it. There is no right moral answer. There is, however, a correct legal answer, and I'm sure it will be arrived at in due time with this case. | ||
|
BradenKuntz
Canada59 Posts
On January 25 2012 15:27 Curu wrote: Dunno if it's been posted already but this immediately came to mind: Justified IMO. If you blatantly disregard multiple warnings and make any indication you are going for a weapon you deserve to be shot. (Warning the video will make you feel like shit afterwards) Everyone needs to watch this video while thinking about this situation. The video displays what could of happened. You could hear in his voice that he didn't want to kill that man, and as a result he lost his own life. This is exactly why police are given a gun and told to shoot to suppress the threat; so that situations like this can be avoided. Just imagine if civilians would have been around. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:37 NSGrendel wrote: Terrible judgement on the part of the officers. They had a canine and ranged weapons, so they decide to go into close quarters with a guy with a melee weapon. Then they panicked and killed him. If they'd have stood 15 feet away or unleashed the dog or pretty much done anything else, no one would have died. Given that British police deal with these situations with a truncheon (and relatively recently they've had pepper spray) you can't justify this. By getting close they eliminate his available options, which is a good thing in this scenario, even if it causes the situation to escalate. Sorry, but the dog's life is worth more than the thug in this scenario. You unleash the dog on him and he'll take her down with one swing from that conduit bender. Also, who's going to make sure the thug plays nice and only uses nonlethal weaponry? Trying to fight him with a truncheon (lol this isn't Star Wars) or get close enough to use pepper spray is suicide. He shatters your wrist and then follows it up with a blow to the head. Don't understand why people place so much value on the thug's life. Sorry to break it to you, but all life is not created equal. The cops, the bystanders, and even the dog all come before trying to preserve this guy. He asked for it as soon as he decided to attack a police officer. | ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
| ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
On January 25 2012 06:17 Akta wrote: Was thinking it looked like poorly trained police as well. Someone fit for the job with proper training wouldn't have gotten that close and probably wouldn't have fired more than one shot. Or I guess it depends on if anyone cares about the suspects lives to begin with, perhaps that's what it's mainly about. Give me a break. These people put their lives on the line to protect yours and then you criticize them for defending themselves? Regardless of how close they got to him, the guy clearly displayed the intent to harm and/or kill. People like you make me sick at how ignorant people can sound. Rather an officer go home safe to his family then potentially trying to restrain the maniac and dying in the process. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:41 ZasZ. wrote: By getting close they eliminate his available options, which is a good thing in this scenario, even if it causes the situation to escalate. Sorry, but the dog's life is worth more than the thug in this scenario. You unleash the dog on him and he'll take her down with one swing from that conduit bender. Also, who's going to make sure the thug plays nice and only uses nonlethal weaponry? Trying to fight him with a truncheon (lol this isn't Star Wars) or get close enough to use pepper spray is suicide. He shatters your wrist and then follows it up with a blow to the head. Don't understand why people place so much value on the thug's life. Sorry to break it to you, but all life is not created equal. The cops, the bystanders, and even the dog all come before trying to preserve this guy. He asked for it as soon as he decided to attack a police officer. As has been stated over and over in this thread, the dogs are not part of the police force to engage in close range combat against crazed and armed individuals. They are there to chase down someone escaping, locate narcotics, or to travel into places an officer cannot go. | ||
|
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:01 Saryph wrote: 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. I said it a million times already, but.. The 2nd series of shots were shot so fast that it was basically impossible for the suspect to fall down, watch the footage again. Gravity/pain takes a second to kick in, you know. Instead of BACKING OFF from a guy who only had a melee weapon and waiting for him to collapse, the 2nd cop MOVED IN CLOSER to basically finish him off. It's also the same cop who almost got whacked so it looks very much like a twitch revenge reaction. There were no further aggressive actions. If he managed to stand up and lift up his weapon again, sure, shooting another series of shots to put him down would be an understandable twitch reaction. However, suspect was not even close to being able to hit them from that range, he got shoved like 3 meters away by the 1st burst and was about to collapse. The point is that 2nd burst was basically a panic/pissed off "you almost hit me asshole" revenge mode kind of thing from the cop who could have gotten hit and was completely unnecessary. | ||
|
NSGrendel
United Kingdom235 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:41 ZasZ. wrote: By getting close they eliminate his available options, which is a good thing in this scenario, even if it causes the situation to escalate. Sorry, but the dog's life is worth more than the thug in this scenario. You unleash the dog on him and he'll take her down with one swing from that conduit bender. Also, who's going to make sure the thug plays nice and only uses nonlethal weaponry? Trying to fight him with a truncheon (lol this isn't Star Wars) or get close enough to use pepper spray is suicide. He shatters your wrist and then follows it up with a blow to the head. Don't understand why people place so much value on the thug's life. Sorry to break it to you, but all life is not created equal. The cops, the bystanders, and even the dog all come before trying to preserve this guy. He asked for it as soon as he decided to attack a police officer. None of your post appears to contain any internal logic. How is escalating a situation the right call? How does coming up to a guy with a melee weapon reduce his options? As for your "Star Wars" comment, clearly you've never used pepper spray, since it has a good 6-8ft range, depending on manufacturer. And only special police units carry weapons in the UK. Usually these situations are dealt with by a mixture of diplomacy and non-lethal force. And curiously enough, I do place equal value on any human life. There are special names and societies for people who disagree with this idea. The Klan, for example. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:51 MidKnight wrote: I said it a million times already, but.. The 2nd series of shots were shot so fast that it was basically impossible for the suspect to fall down, watch the footage again. Gravity/pain takes a second to kick in, you know. Instead of BACKING OFF from a guy who only had a melee weapon and waiting for him to collapse, the 2nd cop MOVED IN CLOSER to basically finish him off. It's also the same cop who almost got whacked so it looks very much like a twitch revenge reaction. There were no further aggressive actions. If he managed to stand up and lift up his weapon again, sure, shooting another series of shots to put him down would be an understandable twitch reaction. However, suspect was not even close to being able to hit them from that range, he got shoved like 3 meters away by the 1st burst and was about to collapse. The point is that 2nd burst was basically a panic/pissed off "you almost hit me asshole" revenge mode kind of thing from the cop who could have gotten hit and was completely unnecessary. You still don't get it. When a police officer shoots a suspect (at least in this country) it is with the intent to kill. Obviously you want to have exhausted all your other options first, but there is no grey area. A gun is a deadly weapon, and if they use it they fully expect to kill the individual. You have yet to address the possibility that the man had a concealed firearm or was wearing a kevlar vest under all that baggy clothing (which is completely realistic for some of the gangsters in L.A.). So he gets knocked off his feet because of the blows to his chest, but then whips out a pistol and shoots one of the officers before they have time to "assess" whether he is a threat or not. Also, it's worth mentioning that there is a stigma around "cop killers" in the U.S.. Cops have been known to have looser trigger fingers when trying to subdue a suspect who has shown he has no problem attacking officers. Is it ethical or legal for them to have personal vendettas like that? Definitely not, but it gives an insight into the cop's point of view. And it's easy enough for an average citizen not to put themselves in this position as long as they don't break the law and then attempt to attack your arresting officers with a deadly weapon. | ||
|
horste
Belgium54 Posts
| ||
|
BradenKuntz
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:51 MidKnight wrote: I said it a million times already, but.. The 2nd series of shots were shot so fast that it was basically impossible for the suspect to fall down, watch the footage again. Gravity/pain takes a second to kick in, you know. Instead of BACKING OFF from a guy who only had a melee weapon and waiting for him to collapse, the 2nd cop MOVED IN CLOSER to basically finish him off. It's also the same cop who almost got whacked so it looks very much like a twitch revenge reaction. There were no further aggressive actions. If he managed to stand up and lift up his weapon again, sure, shooting another series of shots to put him down would be an understandable twitch reaction. However, suspect was not even close to being able to hit them from that range, he got shoved like 3 meters away by the 1st burst and was about to collapse. The point is that 2nd burst was basically a panic/pissed off "you almost hit me asshole" revenge mode kind of thing from the cop who could have gotten hit and was completely unnecessary. Police were presented with a hostile suspect attacking them with a deadly weapon, and they followed their training and SOP of firing at the suspect until the threat of danger is eliminated. They fired until the suspect hit the ground and not a moment more. In the real world you don't shoot a warning shot, you don't shoot him once and then back off and wait to see what happens. I know it might be that way in the movies, or in video games or whatever, but guess what, in the real world when you suspect someone is using drugs that makes them shrug off pain, and you've been trained over and over that shooting someone doesn't instantly remove them as a threat to your life, (training that is there due to officers that have died making that mistake in the past) you shoot until they are no longer a threat.(I'm quite tired, sorry for that ugly sentence) Also there is no obvious 'revenge reaction' so please stop using it to subtly suggestion they enjoyed killing him, or whatever you're trying to accomplish. | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
On January 26 2012 05:00 BradenKuntz wrote: Why is it, that in situations like this, people seem to value the offender's life over the life of the officer? This isn't about whose life is more valuable, it's about avoiding unnecessary deaths, something that could have been done if the policemen had acted in a more professional manner. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On January 26 2012 04:53 NSGrendel wrote: None of your post appears to contain any internal logic. How is escalating a situation the right call? How does coming up to a guy with a melee weapon reduce his options? As for your "Star Wars" comment, clearly you've never used pepper spray, since it has a good 6-8ft range, depending on manufacturer. And only special police units carry weapons in the UK. Usually these situations are dealt with by a mixture of diplomacy and non-lethal force. And curiously enough, I do place equal value on any human life. There are special names and societies for people who disagree with this idea. The Klan, for example. Despite the various strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks (like calling me a racist) littered throughout your post, I'll respond. My Star Wars comment referred to that poster's comment about using a truncheon or some other melee weapon to attempt to "battle" the suspect. It shows a disconnect from reality to think that this is a viable option. For one, the suspect's weapon is a whole lot more lethal than a nightstick, and two, there is no reason for the cop to put his life in danger like that. Yeah, pepper spray has a longer range than his conduit bender, but how are you going to use it on a suspect that is facing away from you? Wait until he turns around to strike you and then hope you don't miss? It also takes time to incapacitate a suspect, and he's more than capable of hurting someone by flailing around in pain. If you've forgotten, they attempted to use nonlethal force with the tazer (before he tried to strike an officer) and it didn't work. Both the tazer and the pepper spray require you to be close enough that the perp can close the distance and attack within a few seconds. Feel free to place equal value on all human lives. That's your prerogative. But there is a difference between racists and someone like me who doesn't really see a reason to care that a random thug with homicidal tendencies got taken down by the people he was trying to hurt. | ||
|
tjosan
Sweden120 Posts
What were his options? He could run away and perhaps smash another window on the way... the reason they shouldn't have engaged is the same reason why you don't chase cars regardless of the situation - because it can put people in danger. That's really more disturbing than the rest. Those shots were in the direction of a populated street. If moving in close in that situation so they were forced to fire in self defense isn't reckless endangerment I don't know what is. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On January 26 2012 05:05 tjosan wrote: The guy smashed windows. He got shot. What were his options? He could run away and perhaps smash another window on the way... the reason they shouldn't have engaged is the same reason why you don't chase cars regardless of the situation - because it can put people in danger. That's really more disturbing than the rest. Those shots were in the direction of a populated street. If moving in close in that situation so they were forced to fire in self defense isn't reckless endangerment I don't know what is. Are you serious? Just ignore him and no one would have been harmed? The crazed man walking around hitting things with a metal bar in a populated metropolitan area? | ||
| ||
