|
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. |
Norway3381 Posts
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.
They might be supposed to shoot to kill, but it's still not right.
|
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.
This plus the range at which a gun is of equal "violent force" ( I forget the legal term) to a knife is about 40 ft., so this guy is way within range that he could have probably killed one of the cops before they could respond.
Edit: what I'm saying is that the guy may have been able to kill anyone in the area
|
Lol some dude in the comment section wrote "...and so ends freeman's tale".
|
Police are supposivly trained to use batons to hit knees and arms, many videos released of them hitting in the head
Police are supposivly use tasers as non lethal weapons, they have killed
Police are supposivly trained to shoot to kill only if it is last possible action, many poeple have been killed unjustly by police
Police are not suppose to be above the law, but whenever there is an investigation into a police officer misdoing they get suspended with pay
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110928/rcmp-beating-accusation-haller-110928/
police are not suppose to beat handcuffed perpetrators, i dont think it matetrs if she was kicking the window its called leg irons
with all of these inconsistencies in police training and police action i think proves a situation where police have become above the law or at least act outside of the law when it benefits them which is the largest and most disgusting hypocrasy in the world
|
to me it looks like he was really drunk or on some other shit. it looked like he faked to aim at the officer (what is still super retarded) but had already lowered his arms. then the officer shot him 5 times point blank in the fucking chest and shot him couple times more when he was falling to the ground.
im not saying shooting him is unjustified because he clearly endangered the cops, but the amount of shots and how everything went is just not right and clearly shows the irresponsibility of the officer. i think he should be atleast suspended for a certain amount of time because this is in no way justified nor should a police officer react in such manner.
|
The first shots were entirely justified. I don't understand how that's even controversial to some people.
After the guy was down, I'm not sure. Maybe he thought he saw him reach into his jacket or something. Probably wasn't necessary, but I'm not going to second-guess at that point.
|
that warranted a knee cap shot at most.
then go become a cop and try that, let us know where you want the flowers sent for your funeral, or where you want the condolences sent for being sued up the butt for being sadistic. because one of those two things would happen. police running around kneecapping people (even if the cops say "it's so we don't have to kill them!") would not be acceptable.
After the guy was down, I'm not sure. Maybe he thought he saw him reach into his jacket or something. Probably wasn't necessary, but I'm not going to second-guess at that point.
people need to watch the video. you can see his head when his body is blocked by the car, he's still upright. he wasn't down when the K9 officer opened fire. he wasn't actually down on the ground until the 8th or 9th shot.
|
United States5162 Posts
I'm all for police using lethal force in a situation like this. I'm not OK with shooting people when they're no longer a threat, which is generally when they're on the ground already shot.
|
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.
Shoot to kill? What the hell? How can you even think that? The cops are here to defend people, not kill them, this is just plain wrong!
|
On January 25 2012 05:42 justsayinbro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:36 Swaddled wrote:
Police will never purposefully aim for the legs. By doing so they increase the chance of missing and the bullet ricocheting or the suspect having enough time to harm the police. Police don't have the luxury of making highly skilled shots like you see in the movies. To say that this is excessive force is disturbing. The taser was not effective and the criminal attempted to hurt the police man who did not have his weapon drawn. Pretty simple to see where that police man could have been easily crippled by one hit with that pipe bender. a man with a crowbar is not very threatening from a distance. they could have just set a surround from distance until they had proper resources to take him down without getting anyone killed ie rubber bullets and such.
Yeah... Why don't they just call in the local rodeo troop and calf rope him. Those guys can hogtie in seconds...
Be reasonable. There aren't enough resources for a corral to be put around the dude. What about a helicopter with a cage at the end of the rope. That seems like it would do the trick.. Or a force field....
|
Considering the circumstances i think this is justified.
|
On January 25 2012 05:44 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:42 karpo wrote:On January 25 2012 05:38 karpo wrote:
If the taser guy would have backed of 3-5 yards instead of walking on behind the suspect fumbling for something and not even looking the police with the gun wouldn't have had to shoot. Does anyone have a response to this? I don't really see anything wrong with the police that shot but what lead to that situation is just kinda amateurish. You really see how suprised the taser cop is when the guy turns around. Why let down your guard, look down, and move closer to a suspect when he's armed with a "melee" weapon? What's your point? Sure, maybe the other cop shouldnt have taken his guard down a bit, but he did, and the dude looked like he was going to clobber him. Should the other cop have just let him do that?
I clearly said that i had no problem with the actual shooting. Instead of focusing on the shots people should focus on what brought it on. If the taser guy had moved out of the way the guy would have some space and other options might have been available.
|
absolutely no problem with this.. the guy tried to swing with the crowbar, cop shoots him.
|
On January 25 2012 05:23 DiLiGu wrote:
Not excessive.
Police are also NOT trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to instantly end an engagement/diffuse a situation. Instantly. No officer ever wants to take a life or enjoys having to employ the use of deadly force. Which is why they call it "deadly force" and not "shooting to kill". The amount of force being applied has to immediately end the conflict, and this much force can cause death.
If you watch the video, the man is literally in the process of swinging his weapon at an officer. The officer firing the weapon did exactly what he had to do.
Think this is excessive is a joke... real life is not the movies. When you fire a weapon a person doesn't go shooting backwards, and you don't "aim for the legs". This is why police are trained to fire their weapons accurately and rapidly. He is not intending to kill his victim, he is intending to immediately stop him from trying to kill his partner.
I agree, what the fuck if he shoots the leg and misses. Also, I think the cop just kinda was trying not to shoot and used multiple clips because you just can't really stop to verify if you hit the first time.
Edit: also what some guy said above: if the guy moves his arms on the ground you can't really know if you didn't actually kill him or if he is using his last energy to shoot a concealed weapon
|
Hong Kong9151 Posts
Police are generally trained to empty their magazine at the center mass of a threat that they consider justifies a deadly use of force. The discharge of a firearm by a police officer in the line of duty is inherently not a 'less-than-lethal' use of force, and as such shooting to disable or to maim is out of the question. The officer made a judgement call and acted accordingly.
|
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.
that may be the case in wild west cowboy country
in civilized countries police, if there is no direct danger to life, is even required to give a warning shot and even then (if there is no direct need to, as here it is the case) they are obligated to do so with as much care as possible
|
yea that was definitely excessive.
The guy didnt swing the weapon, and it didnt even look like he was going to. He threatened the cop, then backed away and then the other one shot him 5 times. 5 TIMES!!!!!
And then to shoot him 5 more times once hes down?
it would only take 1 or 2 shots to stop or deter him and once hes on the ground, and you have multiple officers with guns, and a dog, you can arrest him once hes down.
not fucking shoot him 10 times
i dont like vids like this cos it makes all authorities seem excessive, but that was completely over the top 
|
After watching this again, I am even more confident that the shooting was justified.
That man was clearing waving that bar at another officer when he got shot. How many times he got shot is really unimportant.
|
On January 25 2012 05:43 Roggay wrote:
Wow im shocked, not way shit like that would happen in switzerland, cops are not allowed to murder people in my country, and when an accident happens and someone get killed, they get a lot of shit for it. And yea, it was a murder, nothing less. Nothing justify shooting a guy point blank 10times in the body.
thats USA for ya
User was warned for this post
|
On January 25 2012 05:31 Hypertension wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:29 wunsun wrote:
I think the first 5 shots were necessary. However, the second string of shots seems excessive as the suspect was on the way to the ground. Furthermore, why was the dog not released. He seemed like he was a K9 officier and from watching shows (Mythbusters), dogs are trained to take down suspects. Why did he not use to the dog for that purpose. I don't think the angry posters in this thread would have been happier watching a dog maul the suspect.
I guess most of us are intelligent enough to understand that getting mauled by a dog implies that you may live and is thus clearly prefferable to killing someone. And police dogs don't mindlessly maul people. They bite and hold until told to stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
