|
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING:The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. If you feel the need to post a reaction to the news, post a comment on the youtube video. Don't bring it here. This thread is for a discussion on the topic, and your post better have substance to it. Low content posts will be met with moderator action. Here is a good post by someone with experience in escalation of force training. Read that too. This post might change your opinion of in the incident. |
On January 26 2012 08:28 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:17 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote:
Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar. Just because you have a gun in your hand doesn't mean that a guy about to crack you on the head with a conduit bender is any less lethal. This isn't call of duty and the cops weren't just about to drop a juggernaut care package. The guy was about to perform an action that would have killed someone, and after the tazer failed to affect him at all, they defended themselves. Oh yeah, because Cop #1 can't use his legs and move away when he sees the guy winding up to swing the crowbar, while Cop #2 shoots the guy in the leg, he goes down, problem solved. That's way too much trouble though, it's much easier to shoot him 20 times. You do realize leg shots are extremely dangerous and possibly fatal due to blood loss? If you're shooting someone, you have to assume it will be fatal, and thus consider it lethal force.
So because a leg shot has the potential to be fatal, cops should ignore attempting to disable criminals and should just go straight for the kill. Brilliant logic there buddy.
|
|
|
On January 26 2012 08:30 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:27 ChronicleEU wrote:
Sending the Dog in to get killed (Reminder: It's seen as a fellow Officer, not some animal you can simply sacrifice) would be pure bs.
Lol the dog is seen as a fellow officer. As a fellow officer. Well that certainly justifies excessive violence! We can't harm dogs!
again they almost certainly would have preffered the dog to be at home in the kennel. Dogs are not used as attackers in modern police work. They are used as trackers and sometimes to chase running people.
Yes the dog has the legal status of a fellow officer, mostly to prevent criminals from simply shooting the dog. But that is not the main point, the main point is, until the person was actually posturing to attack sending the dog against him would have been VERY inappropriate as well. You don't simply sic your dog on someone to arrest them.
Hell, until he actually raised the conduit bender they were almost certainly planning to slap the cuffs on him without any harm to either him, or themselves. In the situation where he raised it, the covering partner had exactly one option: Shoot or pray he is just joking. No one takes that risk, everyone shoots if he has the reflexes for it.
|
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hits it is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did.
|
|
|
Suicide by police interaction. Cops are supposed to be wary of people who want to end thier lives at the end of a cops bullet.
I don't agree with this. Its this line of reasoning and justification that leads to 3 months for something like Haditha. How many were killed? shit, private- go get some crowbars.
Sure sure, life in danger, proximity violations, and cops wonder why i shake uncontrollably when they are around me. I say: there is someone who can and will end your life - no consequences. I'm all over the place here, lets just say I disagree and it could've been handled better.
|
On January 26 2012 08:30 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:25 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:18 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote:
Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar. Yea a fucking crowbar. Do you understand how much damage you can deal to a person with a crowbar? It wasn't a pillow. A single swing from a crowbar can seriously maim someone. The hell is wrong with you? I've never ever heard of a police force that shoots people for the intent of slowing them down. I've got to be honest, that sounds pretty weird to me. There are stun guns for that sort of thing. They used nonlethal force, and when it didn't work, and the man attacked him, they reacted accordingly. Oh yeah, because Cop #1 can't use his legs and move away when he sees the guy winding up to swing the crowbar, while Cop #2 shoots the guy in the leg, he goes down, problem solved.
That's way too much trouble though, it's much easier to shoot him 20 times. Yea, they should just reload the game and do that. Seriously, what the hell? The guy was about to strike him with a crowbar. If he hadn't shot, the other officer would probably have been seriously injured. Did you SEE the wind up the guy had with the crowbar? Like, he literally was winding up for almost 2-3 seconds. It's a friggin conduit bender. That is more comparable to a light sledge than a crowbar. The entire shooting happened within 2 seconds. I'm not going to go back and rewatch something i have seen and analyzed 15 times by now, but you might want to. Between him turning around and raising his weapon (in the same movement) until the shooting is over about 3s pass.
The cop with the dog is around 8 feet away from him and has his gun trained on his upper chest while they're talking to him or whatever. The man then turns around, and begins to shuffle steps forward while winding up to swing the conduit bender. There is a 3-4 second window where the cop, who has his gun on the man's body for almost 10 seconds prior, can simply aim downwards and shoot at the leg/shoot him in the chest once or twice/let the dog go, all of which would be POTENTIALLY less fatal options than the one he chose.
Look at the guy's body language once the first shot hits. His forward progress is instantly halted.
Come on now.
|
On January 26 2012 08:31 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:28 Dfgj wrote:On January 26 2012 08:17 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote:
Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar. Just because you have a gun in your hand doesn't mean that a guy about to crack you on the head with a conduit bender is any less lethal. This isn't call of duty and the cops weren't just about to drop a juggernaut care package. The guy was about to perform an action that would have killed someone, and after the tazer failed to affect him at all, they defended themselves. Oh yeah, because Cop #1 can't use his legs and move away when he sees the guy winding up to swing the crowbar, while Cop #2 shoots the guy in the leg, he goes down, problem solved. That's way too much trouble though, it's much easier to shoot him 20 times. You do realize leg shots are extremely dangerous and possibly fatal due to blood loss? If you're shooting someone, you have to assume it will be fatal, and thus consider it lethal force. So because a leg shot has the potential to be fatal, cops should ignore attempting to disable criminals and should just go straight for the kill. Brilliant logic there buddy.
The reason why you don't aim at the leg is the same as why you don't aim at any tiny part of the body. To guarantee you stop a target, to minimize the chance of missing, to minimize the chance of RICOCHET, you shoot center mass. Otherwise you expose yourself to a target who may not be stopped because of a missed shot or an ineffective shot and you may hurt someone else with a shot that missed/ricocheted.
Center mass is center mass. It does not move oddly compared to parts like the arms, hands, legs, etc.
On January 26 2012 08:37 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:30 Tula wrote:On January 26 2012 08:25 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:18 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote:
Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar. Yea a fucking crowbar. Do you understand how much damage you can deal to a person with a crowbar? It wasn't a pillow. A single swing from a crowbar can seriously maim someone. The hell is wrong with you? I've never ever heard of a police force that shoots people for the intent of slowing them down. I've got to be honest, that sounds pretty weird to me. There are stun guns for that sort of thing. They used nonlethal force, and when it didn't work, and the man attacked him, they reacted accordingly. Oh yeah, because Cop #1 can't use his legs and move away when he sees the guy winding up to swing the crowbar, while Cop #2 shoots the guy in the leg, he goes down, problem solved.
That's way too much trouble though, it's much easier to shoot him 20 times. Yea, they should just reload the game and do that. Seriously, what the hell? The guy was about to strike him with a crowbar. If he hadn't shot, the other officer would probably have been seriously injured. Did you SEE the wind up the guy had with the crowbar? Like, he literally was winding up for almost 2-3 seconds. It's a friggin conduit bender. That is more comparable to a light sledge than a crowbar. The entire shooting happened within 2 seconds. I'm not going to go back and rewatch something i have seen and analyzed 15 times by now, but you might want to. Between him turning around and raising his weapon (in the same movement) until the shooting is over about 3s pass. The cop with the dog is around 8 feet away from him and has his gun trained on his upper chest while they're talking to him or whatever. The man then turns around, and begins to shuffle steps forward while winding up to swing the conduit bender. There is a 3-4 second window where the cop, who has his gun on the man's body for almost 10 seconds prior, can simply aim downwards and shoot at the leg/shoot him in the chest once or twice/let the dog go, all of which would be POTENTIALLY less fatal options than the one he chose. Look at the guy's body language once the first shot hits. His forward progress is instantly halted. Come on now.
Aiming in the leg is covered in my post; regarding police dogs:
Police dogs are considered by many police officers to be an equal. A k-9 officer will not expose his dog to a person who has a deadly weapon and can kill the dog. That is just irresponsible of the officer, as the dog cannot determine the difference.
|
On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hit's is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did.
I think most of people here actually understand why the cops shotted in the guy chest. Even if it's a mystake, mystakes are understandable especially in that kind of situation.
The real problem is why shotting 10 times ? Why not even trying to disarm him ? It's obviously overreacting.
|
That guy really looked like he was about to swing--I'd probably have made the same decision as the cop in that moment. Keep in mind this was a high-intensity situation, and he probably got very scared for his fellow cop right there.
Damn what was that idiot doing with a crowbar like that?
|
On January 26 2012 08:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hit's is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did. I think most of people here actually understand why the cops shotted in the guy chest. Even if it's a mystake, mystakes are understandable especially in that kind of situation. The real problem is why shotting 10 times ? Why not even trying to disarm him ? It's obviously overreacting.
Because any sane person would not get into melee range with a person armed with a deadly weapon within a few feet. I honestly don't understand what is so hard to grasp about this.
|
On January 26 2012 08:28 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:23 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 08:17 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:05 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote:
Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar. Just because you have a gun in your hand doesn't mean that a guy about to crack you on the head with a conduit bender is any less lethal. This isn't call of duty and the cops weren't just about to drop a juggernaut care package. The guy was about to perform an action that would have killed someone, and after the tazer failed to affect him at all, they defended themselves. Oh yeah, because Cop #1 can't use his legs and move away when he sees the guy winding up to swing the crowbar, while Cop #2 shoots the guy in the leg, he goes down, problem solved. That's way too much trouble though, it's much easier to shoot him 20 times. Sounds simple to you does it? From your office chair? Contrary to popular belief, your average police officer is not a crackshot with a pistol, and legs and arms can move fairly quickly in a situation like that. So he shoots at the guys legs. What happens if he misses? The bullet ricochets off the ground, possibly hurting innocents, and his partner gets a conduit bender to the head. Not to mention the perp's behavior screams PCP, which means no, one shot wouldn't take him down, especially if it was only to his leg. I also love how you think the weapon isn't deadly. For one, it's not a crowbar, it's a conduit bender. Second, we've had numerous people here in the threat who have worked with that particular tool tell us that you could easily kill someone with it if you swung it hard enough. But yea, we're the ones who need a new set of eyes. Now we're assuming he was on PCP, so I'm going to assume that the police could have shot him in the leg, arm, or hell shoot for the chest if you want, but not that amount of times. Yes, the weapon is deadly, I get that. No shit. The average police officer isn't a crackshot. Can you guys please, please watch this video again and see the slow ass fucking wind up the perp has to swing his crowbar.
Do you just not read the posts where people point out that shots to the leg are often fatal as well, but if you miss, the ricochet could harm civilians AND your partner gets struck by the conduit bender? Police aren't trained to shoot legs bro, this isn't Hollywood. They go for the center of mass, and they fire enough rounds to neutralize the threat. There is a reason they only use their firearm as a last resort.
And this is obviously my opinion, but I would totally value the life of that dog over the perp swinging the bender. Newsflash: not all human life is sacred!
|
Im not sure if theres already somekind of poll about it but im interested in the opinion of TL overall.
Poll: Was the police reacting in the right way?Yes - Totally (37) 79% No - He should have used non lethal force. (10) 21% No - Even one shoot is too much here. (0) 0% 47 total votes Your vote: Was the police reacting in the right way? (Vote): Yes - Totally
(Vote): No - He should have used non lethal force.
(Vote): No - Even one shoot is too much here.
Instead of non lethal - less lethal. Something like two bullets or three.
|
On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hits it is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did.
Wait.
A shot to the LEG (which, mind you, is aimed towards the ground) has a better chance or hitting bystanders than a shot to the chest area, which is aimed in the air?
A shot to the chest is not guaranteed to stop the criminal either. If you want to unload 5 bullets, unloading 5 bullets in the area of his legs within an 8 foot radius will guaranteed stop his momentum and send him down in the same way 5 bullets in the chest would.
What is with the overexaggeration of "real life"? LOL FLO IN THE REAL WORLD YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO NOT CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS OTHER THAN SHOOTING TO KILL.
|
On January 26 2012 08:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hit's is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did. I think most of people here actually understand why the cops shotted in the guy chest. Even if it's a mystake, mystakes are understandable especially in that kind of situation. The real problem is why shotting 10 times ? Why not even trying to disarm him ? It's obviously overreacting.
As said befor: The timewindow of the WHOLE situation is a mere 3-5 seconds and the police officers are taught to continue untill they are TOTALLY sure the threat has been stopped.
The Criminal had his back to the officers AND was still standing and not on the ground (not on the ground = still possible threat) and given the fact that this was a not-so-friendly neighborhood, the possibilty of the criminal carrying a gun was given.
That and the short timespan of the second shooting makes it perfectly fine, at least for me.
|
I am cool with cops shooting to protect themselves from a crazy man that is about to swing a metal object at them with ill-intentions.
Usage of force, yeah it's necessary. Do you have to kill him? to be safe yes you do.
|
On January 26 2012 08:42 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hits it is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did. Wait. A shot to the LEG (which, mind you, is aimed towards the ground) has a better chance or hitting bystanders than a shot to the chest area, which is aimed in the air? A shot to the chest is not guaranteed to stop the criminal either. If you want to unload 5 bullets, unloading 5 bullets in the area of his legs within an 8 foot radius will guaranteed stop his momentum and send him down in the same way 5 bullets in the chest would. What is with the overexaggeration of "real life"? LOL FLO IN THE REAL WORLD YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO NOT CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS OTHER THAN SHOOTING TO KILL.
I don't think you understand how hard it is to shoot someone in the legs, especially when they are moving, and considering his angle was to the side it would have been harder. Have you ever even shot a pistol? A shot to the chest has the highest probability of connecting and is the easiest shot to stop a criminal.
|
On January 26 2012 08:42 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hits it is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did. Wait. A shot to the LEG (which, mind you, is aimed towards the ground) has a better chance or hitting bystanders than a shot to the chest area, which is aimed in the air? A shot to the chest is not guaranteed to stop the criminal either. If you want to unload 5 bullets, unloading 5 bullets in the area of his legs within an 8 foot radius will guaranteed stop his momentum and send him down in the same way 5 bullets in the chest would. What is with the overexaggeration of "real life"? LOL FLO IN THE REAL WORLD YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO NOT CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS OTHER THAN SHOOTING TO KILL.
Yes, legs move more quickly and more erratically than a person's center of mass. A police officer can make sure that no one is behind a suspect when they shoot them in the chest, but if the bullet hits the ground, it can ricochet pretty much anywhere.
And no, in the real world you don't have time to think when someone is swinging a steel pipe at your partner. You react. It's why they train these guys for these situations, so that their training can kick in and they don't have to think.
|
On January 26 2012 08:42 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hits it is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did. Wait. A shot to the LEG (which, mind you, is aimed towards the ground) has a better chance or hitting bystanders than a shot to the chest area, which is aimed in the air? A shot to the chest is not guaranteed to stop the criminal either. If you want to unload 5 bullets, unloading 5 bullets in the area of his legs within an 8 foot radius will guaranteed stop his momentum and send him down in the same way 5 bullets in the chest would. What is with the overexaggeration of "real life"? LOL FLO IN THE REAL WORLD YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO NOT CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS OTHER THAN SHOOTING TO KILL.
Yes. A bullet shot at the chest, because of how dense the chest is, will not exit and ricochet. The human chest is generally larger than a human leg. It also does not move as oddly as the human leg does.
If a civilian is killed by a ricochet by a police officer who was shooting at the legs of a criminal, that is far worse a loss than the criminal. Minimizing the chance of that happening is one of the reasons why they shoot center mass.
Also, I hate when people say it's shooting to kill. The true intent in shooting center mass is to stop the target in the most efficient and least error-prone way. A cop shooting center mass is not shooting to kill. A cop who fires excessive rounds may be shooting to kill. Discussions on whether the 5 extra shots in the back is excessive or not is up in the air. Discussions on center mass vs legs is not.
|
On January 26 2012 08:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 08:36 ChronicleEU wrote:
Why do I get that straaaange feeling Flono is trollin'
Shot to the Leg: Unreliable, can hit bystanders, even if it hit's is not guranteed to STOP the criminal AND in a situation where your partner is under attack, you don't have the time to aim for that leg.
The MOST reliable and thus teached way to stop a threat is to hit the CoM and that's what they did. I think most of people here actually understand why the cops shotted in the guy chest. Even if it's a mystake, mystakes are understandable especially in that kind of situation. The real problem is why shotting 10 times ? Why not even trying to disarm him ? It's obviously overreacting.
As we have said quite often, you are trained to shoot a specific salvo. I was trained to fire 3 shots, others were trained to fire 5, the number varies. Fact is in such a situation you don't truly think. Stress and adrenaline turn your brain "down" and you fall back to practiced routines.
It seems to me that both officers handled that situation (which comes about once in a lifetime for most cops) exactly as their training said they should. They fired their salvo and then reevaluated. Maybe the second officer was too slow to make a difference (I'd probably agree, but we cannot see the suspect at that point in the vid so who knows) but chances are he would not have been able to stop his reflexive action.
Considering disarming? That was probably what the officer with the tazer was planning to do. Approach him slowly and try to take his weapon away. Up to that point the suspect was completly dismissive towards the police. He had not threatened or even reacted to them.
If you mean disarming once he raised his weapon, sadly again that is almost impossible in reality. You simply can't shoot that precisely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
