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 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.
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?
I'm so tired of this crap. Learn to fucking read. The first five shots to the chest were fine. The second fine after the man was clearly no longer a threat were excessive and police brutality. There was literally no point to shooting him five times in the back except to make absolutely sure he was dead. He wasn't posing a threat.
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote: excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him.
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.
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.
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.
Well that is just great. You are ignoring 60 pages worth of discussion on the reality of such situations to start a new discussion about philosophy...
I honestly have no idea what you want to do with that. Do you just want to derail this thread completly?
In a perfect world violence would never be the solution. Sadly we live in an imperfect one, where police officers risk their life and limb so you can discuss philosophy.
Frankly you are either an idiot, or completly clueless about reality. Why exactly is the officer with the dog a criminal? Because he saved his partners life? In most definitions i have heard about that makes him either a hero, or at the very least a person doing his job. Certainly not a criminal.
Your "belief" that they should be stripped of their badges and sent to court, for doing their job (that is going out and attempting to arrest someone completly out of control) is mindboggling to me.
Please consider what you are actually writing. As much as i disagree with police actions sometimes (as in often), in this specific case the only thing i disagree with is the number of bullets. But in the long run it doesn't matter much if he was hit 5 times or 10 times. It might make a difference in the short run (and again he is out of our view for most of the time where shots 6-10 are fired).
InControl stated somewhat harshly what many people think. We expect the police to do a very dangerous job, so they need to be given the proper rights and tools to defend themselves (and us) during that job. That includes that in most countries when police shoots, its to make sure the target stays down. They have a ton of regulations about when they may shoot (about 60 pages worth of it in Austria), but in defense of life and limb against imminent threat is the most clear cut case i can think of.
This entire thing is tragic because someone died. I do not disagree on that, but i believe firmly that the cops in question behaved properly, and the suspect died as a result of his own actions.
If the guy had a gun I'd say it was too few shots. Completely justified. I'm not a judge so my opinion doesn't really matter, but I think that when it comes to self defence just about any amount of force is permitted. Like if someone intentionally punches you, you can shoot them to kill. I don't care if the assailant is in a wheelchair.
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
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.
No there is a valid comparison to be drawn. The traffic stop officer had the opportunity to use strong physical force to restrain the suspect. he chose to continue to use verbal warnings, and it cost him his life
The Officers in the OP ascended from verbal warnings, to less than lethal force, to deadly force as the situation dictated, and they get to go home to their families.
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.
Your entire post is speculation. And if you're going to speculate, why side with the violent criminal and not the police officer?
You don't know that he doesn't have a concealed weapon, especially with those baggy clothes. If you hesitate, he can pull it out and end a life. It's perfectly rational to assume if he would take a swing at them with a deadly weapon, he wouldn't hesitate to do it again with that weapon or any other.
You have a lot of "if's" in that italicized paragraph of yours. Even if all of those things happened to him (extremely unlikely, he looks like an average L.A. gangbanger) it still doesn't justify breaking the law (vandalizing) and then resisting arrest and attacking the officers. It doesn't matter what caused him to act that way, the point is he acted that way. There are consequences for your actions, not your motives.
Maybe his life could have been saved, but why should we care? He obviously didn't.
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.
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?
I'm so tired of this crap. Learn to fucking read. The first five shots to the chest were fine. The second fine after the man was clearly no longer a threat were excessive and police brutality. There was literally no point to shooting him five times in the back except to make absolutely sure he was dead. He wasn't posing a threat.
the suspect could've had a concealed gun in his hoodie?
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.
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.
I agree completely and thank you for putting it in better words than me. I hope people can get around their anti-cop bias that's being fostered by the times the police DO act poorly. This situation is almost entirely by the book, just with an unfortunate end to it.
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.
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?
I'm so tired of this crap. Learn to fucking read. The first five shots to the chest were fine. The second fine after the man was clearly no longer a threat were excessive and police brutality. There was literally no point to shooting him five times in the back except to make absolutely sure he was dead. He wasn't posing a threat.
Because people who are standing with their back to you can't brandish a previously concealed weapon, turn around, and shoot you.....
how can you believe your statement "he wasn't posing a threat" is at all accurate?
I think I'm finished with this thread, at least for a while.
The OP really needs to be edited with more information. Everyone claiming the police used excessive force or are criminals 1. don't understand the training police in the US receive. and 2. don't understand the prevalence of illegal firearms in the US.
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.
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?
I'm so tired of this crap. Learn to fucking read. The first five shots to the chest were fine. The second fine after the man was clearly no longer a threat were excessive and police brutality. There was literally no point to shooting him five times in the back except to make absolutely sure he was dead. He wasn't posing a threat.
How do you know? Can you see behind the car? Can you see what happened to him after he fell behind the car? Do you know where the cop hit him with the first 5 shots? If he even hit him with all 5 shots?
The point is you don't know. The only people that do know if he was a threat after the first 5 shots are the cops that were present and the people who treated his injuries.
As I've said before, it's easy to sit here and second guess him, it's a whole lot harder to be sure of it during the heat of the moment.
Regardless, I think California will be just fine without this guy.
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote: excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him.
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.
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.
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?
It is your opinion that is required force. It is your opinion that any other course is foolish. Please do not act as if these things are the absolute truth, because no one opinion is.
The way I would have acted is irrelevant since I have neither the training, experience or cultural indoctrination of the country in mind that these officers do. We couldn't be more different. I have no idea how I would've acted to ensure everyone's well-being, I have never been in the situation.
I did watch the video of the speeding person shooting an officer, I think it is distasteful. In that video I think the officer under-reacted and as a counter-part I think the officers in the OP-clip over-reacted. There is a middle ground between killing and shouting when you have a gun versus an unarmed/sledge wielding person.
On January 26 2012 07:27 ZasZ. wrote: 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.
The police's violence will breed so much more than this when watched on youtube and/or heard on the news. The ramifications of this will cost lives. Of course I do not blame the officers for the way this could be interpreted by others, that is neither the time or the place to consider such things. However I do blame the system that trains these officers if it does indeed condone this sort of action, since it will only cause more extreme counteractions.
It has nothing to do with me or me being afraid or not. I support womens rights even though I am not a woman. This does not impact me in any way, yet I have a strong opinion about it.
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.
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?
I'm so tired of this crap. Learn to fucking read. The first five shots to the chest were fine. The second fine after the man was clearly no longer a threat were excessive and police brutality. There was literally no point to shooting him five times in the back except to make absolutely sure he was dead. He wasn't posing a threat.
1) Are you clairvoyant? Because i certainly can't see what the target may or may not have been doing while he was behind that car. So i honestly cannot say if he was clearly a threat or neutralized.
2) There are about 2seconds of shooting in total. Two seperate and distinct salvos. After that the officers reevaluate the situation. No further shots fired. Maybe the second salvo was superflous, again i cannot see him at that point. It almost certainly was a trained response to imminent threat, coupled with a slightly longer time to bring his weapon in line with the target compared to the first shooter who had his weapon trained on him to give his partner cover from start to finish.
3) Have you ever been in such a situation? You are throwing around quite a few absolutes without any facts to back them up. "He wasn't a threat", without seeing his hands, i would not feel comfortable to make such a call.
4) Note that i have not seen which way he fell (if he fell), but in the time we can actually see not a single shot was fired at his back. So maybe you should learn to watch a video, and to hedge your statements properly before you tell others they should learn to read.
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote: excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him.
Dude I love you as a person but police are supposed to shoot to kill? are you serious? Is it the polices job to kill people than? or to protect them? why does he got the dog than? just for it to bark?
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.
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.
I agree completely and thank you for putting it in better words than me. I hope people can get around their anti-cop bias that's being fostered by the times the police DO act poorly. This situation is almost entirely by the book, just with an unfortunate end to it.
For the record, I am Extremely critical of police behavior. I have made multiple OPs on incidents that I believe are example of police abuse. I am well aware of how police are trained, and when Police substitute proper training and procedure for bullying or blatant assault I am sickened.
BUT, what sickens me even more, is when people look the video posted in the OP, and from the comfort of their desktops, pretend there was ANY OTHER COURSE OF ACTION, that could have been taken to guarantee the safety of the officers, other than the 1 taken.
Have a good evening everyone, I may check up on this later tonight, we'll see X___X
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote: excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him.
Dude I love you as a person but police are supposed to shoot to kill? are you serious? Is it the polices job to kill people than? or to protect them? why does he got the dog for than? just for it to bark?
Im sure you would have been so much less angry if the cop released the dog when the d00d with the hammer was coming out of the store and it tore his face off and ate a few of his fingers!
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.
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?
I'm so tired of this crap. Learn to fucking read. The first five shots to the chest were fine. The second fine after the man was clearly no longer a threat were excessive and police brutality. There was literally no point to shooting him five times in the back except to make absolutely sure he was dead. He wasn't posing a threat.
the suspect could've had a concealed gun in his hoodie?
Then shoot him if he reaches for something. If your everyday officer has the reaction time to shoot a man before he even starts making a swinging motion while simultaneously holding back a dog, he has the reaction time to shoot him if he pulls something out of his pocket. The thing is, that's obviously not what happened here. The tazing officer didn't even hesitate to check the situation. He just opened up fire as soon as he could pull out his gun as a gut reaction.
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
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.
The situation was not that different at all, only the reaction of the policeman in question was different, this officer took the initiative and went for a kill once he saw the dude was raising his crowbar for a swing at his partner. If you are willing to use force against a police officer then you have to be ready to die, a officer under attack will try to kill, he is only human as well after all. There are no excuses, he held on tight to that crowbar willing to swing it and he reaped what he sowed.
For everyone who thinks American cops are just gun-ho hip shooters, when these 2 officers return to the station the entire force isn't going to get up and clap for them. These men will most likely suffer psychological trauma. I don't think any amount of training prepares you to take someones life.
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
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.
The situation was not that different at all, only the reaction of the policeman in question was different, this officer took the initiative and went for a kill once he saw the dude was raising his crowbar for a swing at his partner. If you are willing to use force against a police officer then you have to be ready to die, a officer under attack will try to kill he is only human as well after all. There are no excuses, he held on tight to that crowbar willing to swing it and he reaped what he sowed.
The situation is very different. Completely different circumstances with the suspect and completely different reactions by the officers. The officers is this video did everything right until they unloaded five extra shots into the man's back just to make sure he was dead.
On January 26 2012 07:25 Tetralix wrote: this thread shows that the best shippers are always on the shore.
This, this and this. I do find it interesting that many of the comments supportive of the officers come from the U.S./Canada, while many (not all, mind you) of the comments critical seem to come from Europe. Anyway keep in mind that the entire shooting time was approximately 3 seconds, and we are watching this from a video perspective for the likely 10,000th time.
I have my CCW and own several firearms. Although I have not been in an incident as elevated as this, my wife and I were startled one night at 3AM by a drunk man pounding on our door. It was dark (obviously), I couldn't tell what he was trying to do and if he had any weapons on him. My heart was beating faster than any other time in my life, I had my weapon drawn and fixed on the front door. If he busted down the door, I would have opened fire and continued until I knew he was down and no longer a threat. I had a scared wife huddled in the closet of the house, I couldn't take any chances and if he would have broken down the door, it would have been entirely likely that I would have fired more times than necessary,as I would err on the side of caution and these super tense moments with grave consequences often play out in a matter of seconds. Thankfully a police officer detained the man (apparently he had been banging on doors around the neighborhood and someone had called the police a while back).
Try to imagine yourself in that situation, with all the feelings.
the amount of cop hate in this thread sickens me, that video of officer Dinkheller getting executed sickens me, and the fact that police officers around the country are risking their lives to protect our lives while there are people sitting behind their keyboards shitting on them for using one-too-many-shots to neutralize a threat sickens me the most.
EPT
