EPTSuspect with crowbar killed by police - Page 67
| 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. | ||
rotinegg
United States1719 Posts
| ||
|
stokes17
United States1411 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:07 Believer wrote: I sincerely hope that this is trolling or some sort of humour I don't understand. I still respect you as a player though, nothing else. I myself believe that this is completely unjustified and horrible, these officers (both of them) should be stripped of their badges and sent to court. It can never be justified to kill another person unless it is a completely vital situation, this was not. One shot to the leg would have stopped the suspect in his tracks and left the other officer backing further off and regaining control of the situation. You clearly know very little about US police training. No one is trained to shoot for the leg, 3-5 center mass shots is considered a standard round of shots. He was still standing, possibly brandishing a previously concealed weapon, so a sound round was fired. Furthermore, making the claim that a single 9mm round to the leg would be enough to neutralize an aggressive suspect is a claim that would likely cost you your life in a real world situation. People can within stand many small caliber rounds to the center mass and remain a threat for a short period of time; this is objectively true. Yes, in 5 minutes those first 5 shots would probably be enough to incapacitate him, but that is not how Police are trained. They are trained to end the threat Now. These officers are not horrible and should absolutely not lose their badges, they perfectly followed their training. If you want to take issue with how we train our officers that is one thing, but claiming these officers did anything other than follow their training is incorrect. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:07 Believer wrote: I sincerely hope that this is trolling or some sort of humour I don't understand. I still respect you as a player though. I myself believe that this is completely unjustified and horrible, these officers (both of them) should be stripped of their badges and sent to court. It can never be justified to kill another person unless it is a completely vital situation, this was not. One shot to the leg would have stopped the suspect in his tracks and left the other officer backing further off and regaining control of the situation. Edit: Removed unnecessary profanity. We work so hard providing over 60 pages worth of content and you barge in here without reading a single page. Come on! Shoot the leg? They should have shot the club out of his hand! Or used ninja moves to dodge the attack and chop off his arm! Thrown some Jackie Chan stuff in there, throwing chairs and brooms at the guy! | ||
|
Believer
Sweden212 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:19 stokes17 wrote: You clearly know very little about US police training. No one is trained to shoot for the leg, 3-5 center mass shots is considered a standard round of shots. He was still standing, possibly brandishing a previously concealed weapon, so a sound round was fired. Furthermore, making the claim that a single 9mm round to the leg would be enough to neutralize an aggressive suspect is a claim that would likely cost you your life in a real world situation. People can within stand many small caliber rounds to the center mass and remain a threat for a short period of time; this is objectively true. Yes, in 5 minutes those first 5 shots would probably be enough to incapacitate him, but that is not how Police are trained. They are trained to end the threat Now. These officers are not horrible and should absolutely not lose their badges, they perfectly followed their training. If you want to take issue with how we train our officers that is one thing, but claiming these officers did anything other than follow their training is incorrect. Please do not take offense, I did not intend to provoke even though it might look like it. My standpoint comes not from knowledge of law or procedure, it comes from my own ethical view. By no means is my opinion universally true, it is just my opinion. I see the officers in the clip (mainly the one with the dog) as much more criminal than the person with the crowbar. I would have no sympathy at all for them if this did not end well in the investigation. Violence breeds violence, and this was clearly excessive. On January 26 2012 07:21 aksfjh wrote: We work so hard providing over 60 pages worth of content and you barge in here without reading a single page. Come on! Shoot the leg? They should have shot the club out of his hand! Or used ninja moves to dodge the attack and chop off his arm! Thrown some Jackie Chan stuff in there, throwing chairs and brooms at the guy! My apologies for not reading it all, InControl's comment made me very emotional I'm afraid. | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
Man gunned down As another person mentioned in this thread, the number of shots doesn't matter at all, every shot is a shot to kill. From the moment the first shot was fired, he was a dead man. This is also aided by the fact that as a police officer, if a partner starts shooting you don't question them about why, you cover them. The subject was either suicidal, not in his right mind, or just straight up dumb to do that turn and heft of his weapon. To be blunt I very likely would have made the same choice as the first officer to shoot. The second set I'd need to have more information, but from what I've seen I cannot fault it either. Police are serious business, don't fuck with them. While I hate to do it, I have to ask the question, how many people who think the cop was entirely in the wrong here have fired a gun more than a few times. How about had a friend/family member killed on duty? There are a LOT of examples of police brutality and abuse of power, this is NOT one of those times. | ||
|
stokes17
United States1411 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:21 aksfjh wrote: We work so hard providing over 60 pages worth of content and you barge in here without reading a single page. Come on! Shoot the leg? They should have shot the club out of his hand! Or used ninja moves to dodge the attack and chop off his arm! Thrown some Jackie Chan stuff in there, throwing chairs and brooms at the guy! To further your sentiment, any new comers to the thread should find the video posted on ~pg 45, which shows what happens to a police officer when he gives a suspect too much consideration, and watch that before trying to form an opinion on appropriate use of force. Any course of action other than the one taken by the officers in the OP could have easily led to the injury or death of an officer (yes the dog is considered an officer and should never be put in the line of fire). The action the officers took used exactly as much force as necessary to neutralize the threat. That is literally what they are trained to do. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On January 25 2012 15:45 pyrogenetix wrote: Why don't you go work as a police officer patrolling ghettos and shady places everyday for hours, seeing all kinds of fucked up shit during your career like people shot point blank, cut open, burned etc. Also you are trained to respond a certain way to guarantee the safety of your partner and nearby pedestrians. This is a guy that broke into a restaurant and disobeyed direct orders from a police officer, then attempted assault. Are you seriously going to judge "hurr durr it wasn't even a gun", what if he had a gun in his pocket? What if he had a home made bomb in his pocket? The question is not "why did the police kill him?" the question should be "why the fuck did that guy attempt to attack a police officer knowing he would get shot?" Yeah, I understand why the decision was made. He still didn't deserve to die. Nobody here deserved to die. I'm saying the way things are currently conducted gets people killed that shouldn't be. | ||
|
Tetralix
Netherlands65 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:24 Shiladie wrote: Man threatened police with deadly weapon Man gunned down As another person mentioned in this thread, the number of shots doesn't matter at all, every shot is a shot to kill. From the moment the first shot was fired, he was a dead man. This is also aided by the fact that as a police officer, if a partner starts shooting you don't question them about why, you cover them. The subject was either suicidal, not in his right mind, or just straight up dumb to do that turn and heft of his weapon. To be blunt I very likely would have made the same choice as the first officer to shoot. The second set I'd need to have more information, but from what I've seen I cannot fault it either. Police are serious business, don't fuck with them. While I hate to do it, I have to ask the question, how many people who think the cop was entirely in the wrong here have fired a gun more than a few times. How about had a friend/family member killed on duty? There are a LOT of examples of police brutality and abuse of power, this is NOT one of those times. That's the problem. It's a sickening mindset that cops have if they are trained to "shoot to kill" instead of "shoot to neutralize". It's not in a cop's jurisdiction to decide a death sentence for a man just because he turns around and makes an imposing move towards someone else. That man was neutralized as a threat perfectly well after the first five shots - the next five were purely to make sure that he was dead. That's wrong on so many levels. | ||
|
rotinegg
United States1719 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) god dammit i dont understand how people can still side with the criminal after watching this FUCK i lose more faith in humanity with each passing day | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:23 Believer wrote: Please do not take offense, I did not intend to provoke even though it might look like it. My standpoint comes not from knowledge of law or procedure, it comes from my own ethical view. By no means is my opinion universally true, it is just my opinion. I see the officers in the clip (mainly the one with the dog) as much more criminal than the person with the crowbar. I would have no sympathy at all for them if this did not end well in the investigation. Violence breeds violence, and this was clearly excessive. My apologies for not reading it all, InControl's comment made me very emotional I'm afraid. Yes, the suspect's violence bred the police officers' violence. You got that right. Is self-defense a crime in your country? If not, I'm not sure how you could say the police officers are more criminal for taking down a person swinging a lethal weapon at them. You have no reason to be afraid if you're not the type of person who swings deadly objects at police officers with the intent to maim or kill them. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
The man was about to hit the other cop. He could have easily had another concealed weapon, so he unloaded another round of shots. What part of this is unjustified? And I'm pretty sure Incontrol is totally correct. There's none of this weird "shoot the leg" thing. I've never heard that any police force is trained in such a way. That's not how you neutralize a threat. If cops are ever shooting at someone, it's to kill them, not to stop them. | ||
|
stokes17
United States1411 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:23 Believer wrote: Please do not take offense, I did not intend to provoke even though it might look like it. My standpoint comes not from knowledge of law or procedure, it comes from my own ethical view. By no means is my opinion universally true, it is just my opinion. I see the officers in the clip (mainly the one with the dog) as much more criminal than the person with the crowbar. I would have no sympathy at all for them if this did not end well in the investigation. Violence breeds violence, and this was clearly excessive. My apologies for not reading it all, InControl's comment made me very emotional I'm afraid. What?, a dood with a giant hammer took a swing at a cop and got met with the required force. If in so much as the suspect's violent actions led to his violent demise, I agree. But suggesting any other course of action as "better" in that situation is foolish. There is absolutely no evidence that the officers did anything remotely criminal. How would you have handled the situation the officers were put in? Please enlighten me as to how you would ensure all your partners (and yourself) lived while not acting in a manner you view as criminal? Did you watch the video of the traffic stop? Do you understand how easily an officer can lose his life? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:26 rotinegg wrote: god dammit i dont understand how people can still side with the criminal after watching this FUCK i lose more faith in humanity with each passing day This is a very different situation and comparing the two is just bullshit that's trying to bring up an overly emotional reaction to side with cops in all cases. | ||
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
On January 26 2012 05:02 Saryph wrote: 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. They don't have common sense then, cause that guy didn't have a gun only a short range weapon and there is no more threat after he got shoved away far enough to not be able to harm anyone anymore after the first 5 shots. Drugs or no drugs, a junkie is not a terminator, he wasn't gonna suddenly jump 3 meters through the air and hit them after taking 5 close range shots. If he has a gun, he has to reach for it, then he gets shot. If he does ANY conscious reaction after 5 bullets to his body, he gets shot. No problem. Yes, this is me examining the situation from my home after watching the video several times, they didn't have the luxury to do that, hindsight is 20/20, blah blah blah. It doesn't change the fact that what they did is incompetent. Again, it is understandable why he would do it (a twitch adrenaline and emotion filled reaction to keep shooting until the suspect falls down and the lack of experience in this sort of situation) and I'm not saying a cop should be punished or anything, it still doesn't change the fact that a person might not have lost their life if a cop was more competent. Yes, a person was probably a low life junkie with a little to no worth to society, but that's a completely irrelevant point. It could have been a generally good person who lost their job that day, got left by their wife before founding out that their best friend died in a tragic car accident, felt sorry for themselves, got drunk and high, decided to channel all that rage by smashing some store windows and then didn't realise that making an aggressive gesture towards armed police officers is not a good idea. And his life could have been saved. There are enough situations where I wouldn't ever argue for cop's decision to protect his life, this is one of those rare cases where the circumstances (no long range gun, far enough distance to cops/civilians, already took 5 shots, which as far as I understand is supposed to be lethal most of the time, NO further aggressive or ANY reaction for that matter after said 5 shots) show that shooting the 2nd burst was a twitch response overreaction. However they are trained, there's also a thing called common sense and the ability to re-evaluate a situation. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:26 Stratos_speAr wrote: That's the problem. It's a sickening mindset that cops have if they are trained to "shoot to kill" instead of "shoot to neutralize". It's not in a cop's jurisdiction to decide a death sentence for a man just because he turns around and makes an imposing move towards someone else. That man was neutralized as a threat perfectly well after the first five shots - the next five were purely to make sure that he was dead. That's wrong on so many levels. You seem to be confused about what firearms are for. Rubber bullets were invented to "neutralize" dangerous suspects. Gunpowder, and a result, modern firearms, were invented to kill people. It's the reason discharging a firearm is the absolute last resort for an officer of the law. You'll notice that these officers attempted to subdue the suspect with nonlethal means first (the tazer) and when that failed and he started to attack, they fell back to their guns. Unless you are a crackshot or a sniper, you don't fire a gun at someone with the intent of "neutralizing" them. It's naive, and shows a lack of respect for firearms, for you to think that this is even possible. As soon as you fire the gun, you are taking responsibility for the death of the person you are firing at. The standard operating procedure is probably something like "act to neutralize" which includes pepper spray and tasers. The standard operating procedure for using your firearm when left with no other option is "shoot to kill." And yes, it is in a cop's jurisdiction (and any civilian's jurisdiction) to decide a death sentence for someone threatening their life. Have you never heard of self-defense? | ||
|
Pawsom
United States928 Posts
I'm normally the first one to call out police for abuse of power, and overall being overall disrespectful, but I simply can't see any mistakes the police made. (Perhaps the cop with the taser stepped to close? but this is a technical mistake not a moral issue.) To sum it up the suspect made a dangerous advance on another human with a deadly weapon in the presence of the police officer. The officer only has one choice here. | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:26 Stratos_speAr wrote: That's the problem. It's a sickening mindset that cops have if they are trained to "shoot to kill" instead of "shoot to neutralize". It's not in a cop's jurisdiction to decide a death sentence for a man just because he turns around and makes an imposing move towards someone else. That man was neutralized as a threat perfectly well after the first five shots - the next five were purely to make sure that he was dead. That's wrong on so many levels. I don't want to be mean here, but you are showing your ignorance of guns. A gunshot is ALWAYS an intent to kill, there is no 'aim to neutralize' like in hollywood action flicks. This goes doubly for handguns, where the purpose is fast response. This isn't even the main reason for it, but you always target center of mass as a police officer to prevent collatoral, aiming for anything but CoM substantially increases the chance of a shot missing or clipping and hitting something behind the intended target. | ||
|
stokes17
United States1411 Posts
On January 26 2012 07:26 Stratos_speAr wrote: That's the problem. It's a sickening mindset that cops have if they are trained to "shoot to kill" instead of "shoot to neutralize". It's not in a cop's jurisdiction to decide a death sentence for a man just because he turns around and makes an imposing move towards someone else. That man was neutralized as a threat perfectly well after the first five shots - the next five were purely to make sure that he was dead. That's wrong on so many levels. OK for the 1 millionth time. Cops are not trained to shoot to kill. they are trained to end the threat immediately. This translates to bursts of 3-5 rounds at the center mass. The suspect was not neutralized after the 1st 5 shots so a second round was fired. You are making an UNBELIEVABLY suicidal assumption to say he was neutralized after 5 shots from a low caliber side arm. 1. He was still standing. 2. his back was to the officers so they could not see his hands. It is just as likely he was pulling out a concealed gun as it is that he was about to fall over/surrender. You ABSOLUTELY cannot give the suspect the benefit of the doubt in that situation. You WILL put you and your partners and the general public at risk. | ||
|
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
On January 26 2012 05:36 Sweeper8 wrote: Hope this puts that situation into perspective. This got me interested, so I read up quite a bit on the matter. There is no way that situation should have ended that way. If they warned them a few times in advance, would it be okay if the officers shot the students with shotguns? Makes you wonder what the role of the police in a democratic society is. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/11/19/192897-us-davis-police-lt-john-pike-dousing-seated-students-with-pepper-spray.jpg)
