|
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 09:50 goswser wrote:
Shooting at arms and legs might not be the best idea, when a victim is coming at you in baggy sweatpants and a sweatshirt from 5 feet away while swinging a crowbar it wouldn't be hard to miss the arms and the legs, possibly just shooting through the victims clothes if you even hit him, while missing the actual limbs.
Anybody who has ever actually fired a pistol knows how crazy of an idea it is to suggest that cops activate their V.A.T.S. system and shoot for a specific limb on a moving target. Cops shoot for the chest because it maximizes their odds of hitting. If you have put yourself in a position where cops can rightfully shoot you AT ALL then your life is forfeit.
This shooting was perfectly justified. All other details have no value.
|
Its hard to tell on the video what exactly the suspect was doing when he raised the crowbar, but by the way it looks i would tend to side with the cops on this one. Yeah, they might have tried to shoot with an intent to stun rather than kill, but I cant blame the police for choosing the safest action in that split-second moment when they must decide. At the end of the day the cops are putting their lives on the line every day dealing with these kinds of people, and it only takes one blunder or hesitation to lose the life of an officer. If this kid did not want to die he should have not walked into a Carl's Jr with a crow bar and then should not have raised it in a threatening manner towards police.
|
On January 26 2012 09:41 Holy_AT wrote:
The policeman didnt react accordingly.
A warning shot or one shot at the limb or somewhere else then head or chest would have sufficed in my opinion.
The man, you cant even call him an attacker because he didnt attack anything was "armed" with a meele weapon and didnt pose a great threat at all.
Even if the man was dumb shooting him is even dumber.
Maybe he had a bad day because his girlfriend left him and was drunk and got shot because he caused a little trouble without actually harming anyone.
As long as he didnt harm anyone seriously or poses a serious threat you cant simply shoot someone ...
I would go so far as to say that if the man was able to shoot the policeman, the man would have acted in self defence because the policemen was a massive threat to his life. Even if some buystander would shoot the policeman after he had given of the first shot I would say he was defending a life.
A cop is only allowed to shoot someone like and citizen is allowed to shoot someone. If his life or that of others is seriously threatend and that was not the case.
You cant simply run around and shoot people with crowbars, baseball bats or what not if they dont pose a serious threat or if every other possible measure of resolving the situation has failed.
This Policemen should loose his job should not be allowed to carry a weapon ever again in his life and be imprisoned for some years. Also education standards and regulations for police should be improoved.
Okay, just for the sake of it: What The Fuck!
Warning Shot: Not allowed in Urban Areas.
Shot at the Limb befor the Criminal posed a Threat: Shitload of people crying "Abuse of Power!!!"
You, yourself, call it a weapon, so why is it "armed" and not armed? Once you carry a weapon you ARE armed.
He posed a threat as soon as he took a stance to attack the Officer closest to him: giving the second Police Officer the right to shoot to save his fellow Teammate from being injured/murdered.
The reason why the man acted like he did isn't even a little bit important to the Officer who is trying to save his Teammate from getting his head smashed in.
Figures; I wouldn't say to the guy who bashed my head in: "Oh, so your wife cheated on you and you just lost your temper and bashed my head in... then that's totally ok! :DDD"
He wasn't simply shot, he posed a threat (through taking a stance to attack the officer) and that threat was stopped.
The Officer being a threat for his life... never laughed that hard. If the guy had put his weapon down like the officer demanded, the situation would have never gone that far. He FORCED the police officer to stop his threat.
So you don't even have the "right" to stop a person if every other option failed... then what should you do? Let that guy go and let him smash in some more windows and in the end might even kill a person? Totally stupid....
|
As a criminal justice major planning on becoming a cop, this makes me so fucking angry that this is even up for debate. Anyone that says the officer was "excessive" needs to get out of their cushy nerf life.
|
Perfectly justified
As soon as he made that step toward the police officer WITH A WEAPON IN HAND AND MOTIONED TO USE IT, you kill the damn guy, doesn't matter how many bullets you use.
At that point, it's either you/your partner or him/her.
|
|
|
I just feel the number of shots fired was excessive. After the guy had been knocked back, there was no reason to continue firing. He would only have been knocked back if he was hit. If he was hit, there is time to see how he reacts before he is able to get back up and swing again. They fired 11 shots in this video.
Also, what the hell was the other officer doing by putting his gun down and walking up right behind the guy?
|
On January 26 2012 09:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 09:41 Holy_AT wrote:
The policeman didnt react accordingly.
A warning shot or one shot at the limb or somewhere else then head or chest would have sufficed in my opinion.
The man, you cant even call him an attacker because he didnt attack anything was "armed" with a meele weapon and didnt pose a great threat at all.
Even if the man was dumb shooting him is even dumber.
Maybe he had a bad day because his girlfriend left him and was drunk and got shot because he caused a little trouble without actually harming anyone.
As long as he didnt harm anyone seriously or poses a serious threat you cant simply shoot someone ...
I would go so far as to say that if the man was able to shoot the policeman, the man would have acted in self defence because the policemen was a massive threat to his life. Even if some buystander would shoot the policeman after he had given of the first shot I would say he was defending a life.
A cop is only allowed to shoot someone like and citizen is allowed to shoot someone. If his life or that of others is seriously threatend and that was not the case.
You cant simply run around and shoot people with crowbars, baseball bats or what not if they dont pose a serious threat or if every other possible measure of resolving the situation has failed.
This Policemen should loose his job should not be allowed to carry a weapon ever again in his life and be imprisoned for some years. Also education standards and regulations for police should be improoved. I'm sorry, but after 73 pages of people like you being refuted, I'm forced to believe that you are 100% without a doubt, completely clueless, and oblivious to your surroundings. Go read the thread very very carefully. And then stop and think about it for a day. Sleep on it if necessary....But what you said makes absolutely no sense at all, and only goes to show that you did not read a single post that anyone has made in this entire thread.
Mostly because everyone in this thread wants to play "Be a cop for a day" and act like it's perfectly fine and dandy that our police forces aren't trained/do not care to be able to analyze situations quickly, or that it is unrealistic to expect a policeman to have good enough aim to shoot at a person's limbs within 6 feet of him (if they're aim is poor, why are we giving them guns?), or have the knowledge to realize that 1-2 shots would have given his fellow officer enough time to recover from his stumble and back away, but rather shoot on instinct and shoot to kill.
As if the perp was running full speed while swinging, in which case shooting at the limbs would be a far fetched idea, but no, he was inching forward and had not even begun his swinging motion.
It also doesn't help that for some reason, this thread has been mod edited to be in favor of the police, which inhibits any form of discussion otherwise, when the very heading of the thread is directing you to another, completely unrelated video that shows a cop getting brutally murdered. What if I were to post a video of cops abusing their power, should that somehow have a relevance to the situation we're discussing?
Lol.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
@Flonomenalz
Dude, just forget it. If you don't want to get educated, get out of here. Pretty much anyone here is tired of you spouting the same nonsense over and over again without even getting one bit closer to what's actually going in that video.
|
On January 26 2012 10:37 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 09:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 26 2012 09:41 Holy_AT wrote:
The policeman didnt react accordingly.
A warning shot or one shot at the limb or somewhere else then head or chest would have sufficed in my opinion.
The man, you cant even call him an attacker because he didnt attack anything was "armed" with a meele weapon and didnt pose a great threat at all.
Even if the man was dumb shooting him is even dumber.
Maybe he had a bad day because his girlfriend left him and was drunk and got shot because he caused a little trouble without actually harming anyone.
As long as he didnt harm anyone seriously or poses a serious threat you cant simply shoot someone ...
I would go so far as to say that if the man was able to shoot the policeman, the man would have acted in self defence because the policemen was a massive threat to his life. Even if some buystander would shoot the policeman after he had given of the first shot I would say he was defending a life.
A cop is only allowed to shoot someone like and citizen is allowed to shoot someone. If his life or that of others is seriously threatend and that was not the case.
You cant simply run around and shoot people with crowbars, baseball bats or what not if they dont pose a serious threat or if every other possible measure of resolving the situation has failed.
This Policemen should loose his job should not be allowed to carry a weapon ever again in his life and be imprisoned for some years. Also education standards and regulations for police should be improoved. I'm sorry, but after 73 pages of people like you being refuted, I'm forced to believe that you are 100% without a doubt, completely clueless, and oblivious to your surroundings. Go read the thread very very carefully. And then stop and think about it for a day. Sleep on it if necessary....But what you said makes absolutely no sense at all, and only goes to show that you did not read a single post that anyone has made in this entire thread. Mostly because everyone in this thread wants to play "Be a cop for a day" and act like it's perfectly fine and dandy that our police forces aren't trained/do not care to be able to analyze situations quickly, or that it is unrealistic to expect a policeman to have good enough aim to shoot at a person's limbs within 6 feet of him (if they're aim is poor, why are we giving them guns?), or have the knowledge to realize that 1-2 shots would have given his fellow officer enough time to recover from his stumble and back away, but rather shoot on instinct and shoot to kill. As if the perp was running full speed while swinging, in which case shooting at the limbs would be a far fetched idea, but no, he was inching forward and had not even begun his swinging motion. It also doesn't help that for some reason, this thread has been mod edited to be in favor of the police, which inhibits any form of discussion otherwise, when the very heading of the thread is directing you to another, completely unrelated video that shows a cop getting brutally murdered. What if I were to post a video of cops abusing their power, should that somehow have a relevance to the situation we're discussing? Lol.
adrenaline fucks up aim big time. it's just plain unreliable. there's no doubt in my mind that he could shoot the perp in the leg in a calm state, but in this situation it's just unrealistic. not everyone is a secret agent with precision shooting under pressure. that is why they are trained to shoot at CoM, not because they CANT shoot a limb, but because simulating reality is impossible and the adrenaline and rush of the situation fucks with everything
|
Totally agree, every police guy should be trained on mop-combat techniques.
|
On January 26 2012 10:37 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 09:50 RoosterSamurai wrote:On January 26 2012 09:41 Holy_AT wrote:
The policeman didnt react accordingly.
A warning shot or one shot at the limb or somewhere else then head or chest would have sufficed in my opinion.
The man, you cant even call him an attacker because he didnt attack anything was "armed" with a meele weapon and didnt pose a great threat at all.
Even if the man was dumb shooting him is even dumber.
Maybe he had a bad day because his girlfriend left him and was drunk and got shot because he caused a little trouble without actually harming anyone.
As long as he didnt harm anyone seriously or poses a serious threat you cant simply shoot someone ...
I would go so far as to say that if the man was able to shoot the policeman, the man would have acted in self defence because the policemen was a massive threat to his life. Even if some buystander would shoot the policeman after he had given of the first shot I would say he was defending a life.
A cop is only allowed to shoot someone like and citizen is allowed to shoot someone. If his life or that of others is seriously threatend and that was not the case.
You cant simply run around and shoot people with crowbars, baseball bats or what not if they dont pose a serious threat or if every other possible measure of resolving the situation has failed.
This Policemen should loose his job should not be allowed to carry a weapon ever again in his life and be imprisoned for some years. Also education standards and regulations for police should be improoved. I'm sorry, but after 73 pages of people like you being refuted, I'm forced to believe that you are 100% without a doubt, completely clueless, and oblivious to your surroundings. Go read the thread very very carefully. And then stop and think about it for a day. Sleep on it if necessary....But what you said makes absolutely no sense at all, and only goes to show that you did not read a single post that anyone has made in this entire thread. Mostly because everyone in this thread wants to play "Be a cop for a day" and act like it's perfectly fine and dandy that our police forces aren't trained/do not care to be able to analyze situations quickly, or that it is unrealistic to expect a policeman to have good enough aim to shoot at a person's limbs within 6 feet of him (if they're aim is poor, why are we giving them guns?), or have the knowledge to realize that 1-2 shots would have given his fellow officer enough time to recover from his stumble and back away, but rather shoot on instinct and shoot to kill. As if the perp was running full speed while swinging, in which case shooting at the limbs would be a far fetched idea, but no, he was inching forward and had not even begun his swinging motion. It also doesn't help that for some reason, this thread has been mod edited to be in favor of the police, which inhibits any form of discussion otherwise, when the very heading of the thread is directing you to another, completely unrelated video that shows a cop getting brutally murdered. What if I were to post a video of cops abusing their power, should that somehow have a relevance to the situation we're discussing? Lol.
It's harder to shoot a limb in real life than in Call of Duty. As I posted before only about 1/3 shots an officer takes hits the target in real world situations. These are trained officers and good shots - handguns just aren't that easy to aim!!
You seem to be advocating that it's OK for an officer to risk getting a crowbar to the face if it means saving a life. The problem with that is that we as a society cannot expect officers to willingly put themselves in harm's way without giving them a little extra leeway in terms of force used / benefit of the doubt. These officers did not have the option of running away - they had to confront the person and, no, they should not be required to take a hit in the face with a crowbar as part of the job.
|
Most people in this thread are morons. When an officer shoots to disarm, they put their own lives in danger. You advance on an armed officer with a crowbar, expect to die.
This thread should be closed.
|
@naggerNZ
Though an Officer doesn't shoot to disarm.
They only shoot as last means and/or if someones life is in danger.
In the best case, someone would just lay his weapon down when told to do so and surrender.
Saying they "shoot to disarm" could lead people to beliece they fire at every person with a weapon just do disarm them, which is not correct.
They ask the person do surrender/let go of the weapon.
If the person doesn't comply, the use non-lethal methods = Tazer/Pepper Spray
If the person still doesn't surrender/stops and continues to pose a threat to someone (especally when being armed with a gun) then they will shoot. Shooting is a "worst case/last means of options action"
They don't go around shooting people like hunters....
|
On January 26 2012 11:04 ChronicleEU wrote:
@naggerNZ
Though an Officer doesn't shoot to disarm.
They only shoot as last means and/or if someones life is in danger.
In the best case, someone would just lay his weapon down when told to do so and surrender.
Saying they "shoot to disarm" could lead people to beliece they fire at every person with a weapon just do disarm them, which is not correct.
They ask the person do surrender/let go of the weapon.
If the person doesn't comply, the use non-lethal methods = Tazer/Pepper Spray
If the person still doesn't surrender/stops and continues to pose a threat to someone (especally when being armed with a gun) then they will shoot. Shooting is a "worst case/last means of options action"
They don't go around shooting people like hunters....
They yelled at him to drop the weapon. He completely ignored them. Then he lunged at one of the cops. He deserved those bullets and anyone who thinks differently should put themselves in a situation where your partners life is in your hands.
|
I would've unleashed the dog on him. Just sayin'..
|
@naggerNZ
I didn't say that their actions were uncalled, actually, I approve of them. I just wanted to point out that your phrasing "shooting to disarm" is not correct.
@Uldridge
K9 units still aren't trained for combat with criminals equipped with melee weapons. They catch fleeing, hiding or difficult to reach criminals or search for drugs. They do not, however, enter actuall comboat with a non-fleeing ready-to-fight criminal. Just sayin'...
|
On January 26 2012 11:14 ChronicleEU wrote:
@naggerNZ
I did say that their actions were uncalled, actually, I approve of them. I just wanted to point out that your phrasing "shooting to disarm" is not correct.
@Uldridge
K9 units still aren't trained for combat with criminals equipped with melee weapons. They catch fleeing, hiding or difficult to reach criminals or search for drugs. They do not, however, enter actuall comboat with a non-fleeing ready-to-fight criminal. Just sayin'...
In that case I think you just didn't get my inference. I was talking about a hypothetical situation in which a cop might try to shoot to disarm. My point was that they don't, because it's incredibly unreliable and dangerous. Heaps of people in this thread are saying the cops should have shot to disarm, and I was explaining why they don't.
|
On January 26 2012 10:51 naggerNZ wrote:
Most people in this thread are morons. When an officer shoots to disarm, they put their own lives in danger. You advance on an armed officer with a crowbar, expect to die.
This thread should be closed.
Yea I'm starting to lean that way, 4 separate occasions I've visited this thread and the overall level of post has remained abysmal.
Every single person who wants to criticize the officers should be required to provide a more optimal handling of the situation.
Every person saying the cops should have stopped at 5 shots when his back was turned because there is no way he can hit you with a hammer from there needs to understand:
its completely plausible that the suspect had a previously concealed weapon that he is now brandishing, his back was to the police at this point, or that he is wearing some form of body armor, its impossible to tell because he has a large hoodie on.
Every person saying the cops should have aimed for a limb, fired a warning shot, stopped at 5 shots because you can live after 5 bullets needs to realize:
The side arms the police carry fire a 9mm round which is, relatively speaking, not very effective at stopping an aggressive suspect immediately (meaning it wont blow you away like a .50 round will. Someone taking 5 center mass 9mm rounds, body armor or not, can still possibly discharge a fire arm, or charge at the officer w. the hammer.) While its likely those 5 rounds (assuming he did not have body armor) would have incapacitated the suspect later, they clearly did not stop him from posing a threat in the NOW. Furthermore absolutely no police officer in the USA is trained to aim for the limbs of a suspect. They are trained to fire bursts ~3 center mass shots until the suspect is neutralized. If you take issue with this then you take issue with how Officers in the USA are trained, NOT how these officers fell back on their training in a moment of crisis.
Every person saying the police shouldn't have had their guns drawn in the 1st place, violence begets violence, or anything of this sort needs to realize:
In the USA the rate of legal and illegal gun ownership is EXTREMELY high in comparison with most of Europe. While it is totally reasonable for Swedish and Norwegian Police to not carry or brandish fire arms while on duty, US police do not share this luxury. Random people carrying unlicensed concealed firearms is a serious legitimate concern for US police officers. So when called to the site of what could be described as "armed man breaking windows at Carl's Jr on XXXXX" it is completely reasonable for them to approach the situation with their weapons drawn as they try to access the situation and safely remove all civilians.
EDIT: O yea and people saying stuff like thisOn January 26 2012 11:10 Uldridge wrote:
I would've unleashed the dog on him. Just sayin'..
NO YOU WOULDN'T
A dog is a sworn in officer just like anyone else. They are treated like officers in basically every way. And you never would willingly run an officer directly into the line of fire. You NEVER put dogs in the line of fire.
I seriously have NO CLUE what else can be said on this subject. The Officers followed their training properly; so if you want to criticize how we train our cops, Go make a thread on that.
There is absolutely nothing that hasn't been said by me or others on why these officers are not "criminals" or "deserve to lose their badge and go to jail" or whatever "slight on officers." That was the question posed in the OP and that question has been answered.
|
K9 units still aren't trained for combat with criminals equipped with melee weapons. They catch fleeing, hiding or difficult to reach criminals or search for drugs. They do not, however, enter actuall comboat with a non-fleeing ready-to-fight criminal. Just sayin'...
Alright, I guess the suspect was looking scary enough not to be handled by the dog, or something else.
But I'm just butting in basically, don't really know the details of this thread and just started following from the last page..
I still seriously doubt, even under heavy adrenaline rush, you can't aim at a limb or the knee from a few feet away. And the shooting was also a bit excessive for my taste.
But pulling the trigger wasn't the wrong thing to do, even if he could have restrained himself from killing the suspect by using up less bullets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
