|
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 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.
I didn't know but i have read multiple pages saying all police protocol is shoot to kill. police officers are trained to shoot to kill. If they aren't going to use their training why give them a gun. They have been instructed to use the gun as a last resort, if an officer needs to pull out their weapon against you it means your already doing something very wrong and about to get shot at. Its common sense at that point the situation has elevated to a dangerous point and every human instinct should be screaming at you to either run or surrender. (Now the suspect is drugged which obviously explains his lack of fear, which i do understand but that gives the officers more reason to believe that he could be 3x more dangerous than a normal crazy person with a crowbar"
Shooting to aim at someones limb which isn't very large to start with is difficult. I'm not that experience but i've shot a few handguns and i cna respect the difficult of shooting a weapon. Now even if the cop is a decent marksman trying to shoot the limb with adrenaline pumping through your veins?
I'll use an example of starcraft HerO is known for his nerves, lets just say for example HerO has the BEST PvZ in the WORLD ok he can beast Nestea 90% of the time in practice. Suddenly when GSL code S is on the line HerO misses a few forcefields or forgets to make a few workers, he loses on mistake he would never make. Why did HerO lose? he got nervous even the best marksman will miss a shot from 6 feet away if they have adrenaline pumping through their veins.
|
On January 26 2012 11:18 naggerNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 11:14 ChronicleEU wrote:
@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'... 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.
Oh, then I'm sorry. English not being my native language and it being 3 a.m. being at fault here ;P May I ask for forgiveness?
|
On January 26 2012 10:26 Pyskee wrote:
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.
As a criminal justice major you should understand that the true question here is not wether the force was excessive or not but if the way police usually handles this situations by letting them escalate to the point where shooting to kill is actually justified is the right one.
It seems strange to me how most ppl here praise the life of innocent bystanders but yet have so low esteem for a clearly disturbed or mentally ill man's life. As someone with some cases of schizophrenia in my family i have heard a lot of storys of how they could act act menacing (like the guy with the crowbar) even to their loved ones back when there where no medication avaiable or more recently when they forgot or for some reason didn't take the medication.
I don't blame the cop for shooting to kill at that point, the second round of shots seems way too excessive but i guess that's just the natural human survival instinct kicking in.
What i find hard to believe is that there is no other way that two officers with proper training and in a situation where they have time to taser and shout multiple times at the someone to drop a weapon can solve this situation but by either hope the man actually drops the weapon or stand still and wait untill the man gets too close and shooting to kill is justifiable, speacially when you are dealing with someone who is very likely not to drop the weapon since he acts like he is either pulling a suicide by cop or is mentally ill.
The way i see it if someone belives this is the only way this kind of situations can be dealt with he either has no faith in the competence and proper training every officer should have, or believes it's ok for an officer not to risk even taking a sctrach to possibly save a human life which may not be "evil" but just out of it's mind.
|
On January 26 2012 11:21 DreamChaser wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 10:37 Flonomenalz wrote: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. I didn't know but i have read multiple pages saying all police protocol is shoot to kill. police officers are trained to shoot to kill. If they aren't going to use their training why give them a gun. They have been instructed to use the gun as a last resort, if an officer needs to pull out their weapon against you it means your already doing something very wrong and about to get shot at. Its common sense at that point the situation has elevated to a dangerous point and every human instinct should be screaming at you to either run or surrender. (Now the suspect is drugged which obviously explains his lack of fear, which i do understand but that gives the officers more reason to believe that he could be 3x more dangerous than a normal crazy person with a crowbar"
Please stop saying that. especially in bold like its a fact
officers are not trained to shoot to kill; they are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized. While this may likely result in death for the suspect: it is NOT THE OFFICER's INTENTION TO KILL.
|
On January 26 2012 11:19 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +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 this Show nested quote +On 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.
Good post, but you missed one detail: it wasn't a crowbar. From all appearances, it was a conduit/pipe bender.
|
On January 26 2012 11:24 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 11:19 stokes17 wrote: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 this On 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. Good post, but you missed one detail: it wasn't a crowbar. From all appearances, it was a conduit/pipe bender.
Yea it looks like a hammer or something. Blunt Melee weapon that could easily kill someone. What's your point?
|
@KevinBacon
Charging someone swinging around a Conduit Bender, even more so when he is "mentaily ill", will not result in "just a scratch" - of that I'm 100% sure.
And at least one life was certainly saved: that of the officer whos head was going to get smashed in.
@stokes17
Either he is implying that a Conduit Bender has more lethal force than crowbar or he is being a smartass (no offense).
|
I don't mind this happening, but I think a simpler form of "neutralization" was in order. Shooting a person that was assaulting an officer is fine. In fact, I think police need to shoot more people (LOL?)
No, seriously. They need to shoot the people that go on massacares and such, instead of locking them in a prison.
For example, last year there was a guy named Jared Loughner who shot 20 people in Tuscon for no fucking reason. He was arrested, not shot. That is just a giant waste of time. He still lives in jail, which is not justice at all. Someone who shoots 20 people for no fucking reason should be slowly tortured and leave this world without knowing a bit of peace.
The way I view this world is that life is a rare rare rare gift given to you by supernatural means. Once you die, you suffer eternal unconciousness. Like a lightbulb, you could say.
To kill someone is to shut down their conciousness and put them in eternal blackness.
Sickening.
Maybe I have gone off topic here since this thread is not about the Tuscon shooting or anything that I just talked about at all, but you can see where im coming from. My point is, police shouldnt be so merciful and they should take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of others.
Do I think it was wrong to shoot a guy with a crowbar? Perhaps. I'm sure that it was a panic situation that the officer went through, so he did a panic action.
Nothing should be done against the officer, in my opinion. He was just simply doing what he had to do.
/rant
EDIT: Also, after I read that post I think I contradicted myself. It IS wrong to put out the conciousness of life, and maybe the officer shouldn't have killed him.
It was a panic situation and none of us were there, so we cant say for sure.
|
On January 26 2012 11:25 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 11:24 Zealotdriver wrote:On January 26 2012 11:19 stokes17 wrote: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 this On 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. Good post, but you missed one detail: it wasn't a crowbar. From all appearances, it was a conduit/pipe bender. Yea it looks like a hammer or something. Blunt Melee weapon that could easily kill someone. What's your point?
Well you rightfully criticized the continuation of terrible posting, so for the sake of completeness, I would mention that people are still calling it a crowbar when it was not in fact a crowbar.
|
On January 26 2012 11:21 KevinBacon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 10:26 Pyskee wrote:
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. As a criminal justice major you should understand that the true question here is not wether the force was excessive or not but if the way police usually handles this situations by letting them escalate to the point where shooting to kill is actually justified is the right one. It seems strange to me how most ppl here praise the life of innocent bystanders but yet have so low esteem for a clearly disturbed or mentally ill man's life. As someone with some cases of schizophrenia in my family i have heard a lot of storys of how they could act act menacing (like the guy with the crowbar) even to their loved ones back when there where no medication avaiable or more recently when they forgot or for some reason didn't take the medication. I don't blame the cop for shooting to kill at that point, the second round of shots seems way too excessive but i guess that's just the natural human survival instinct kicking in. What i find hard to believe is that there is no other way that two officers with proper training and in a situation where they have time to taser and shout multiple times at the someone to drop a weapon can solve this situation but by either hope the man actually drops the weapon or stand still and wait untill the man gets too close and shooting to kill is justifiable, speacially when you are dealing with someone who is very likely not to drop the weapon since he acts like he is either pulling a suicide by cop or is mentally ill. The way i see it if someone belives this is the only way this kind of situations can be dealt with he either has no faith in the competence and proper training every officer should have, or believes it's ok for an officer not to risk even taking a sctrach to possibly save a human life which may not be "evil" but just out of it's mind.
I don't see what you're trying to say. The officers properly escalated their use of force as the situation necessitated. There really is only 1 option when you have your taser failed and a suspect is about to swing a large hammer at your partner. You shoot. If you are saying they made a procedural error or something leading up to the point I don't think you made yourself very clear as to what you are saying.
|
On January 26 2012 11:32 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 11:25 stokes17 wrote:On January 26 2012 11:24 Zealotdriver wrote:On January 26 2012 11:19 stokes17 wrote: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 this On 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. Good post, but you missed one detail: it wasn't a crowbar. From all appearances, it was a conduit/pipe bender. Yea it looks like a hammer or something. Blunt Melee weapon that could easily kill someone. What's your point? Well you rightfully criticized the continuation of terrible posting, so for the sake of completeness, I would mention that people are still calling it a crowbar when it was not in fact a crowbar.
O!, well thank you 
|
On January 26 2012 11:32 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 11:25 stokes17 wrote:On January 26 2012 11:24 Zealotdriver wrote:On January 26 2012 11:19 stokes17 wrote: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 this On 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. Good post, but you missed one detail: it wasn't a crowbar. From all appearances, it was a conduit/pipe bender. Yea it looks like a hammer or something. Blunt Melee weapon that could easily kill someone. What's your point? Well you rightfully criticized the continuation of terrible posting, so for the sake of completeness, I would mention that people are still calling it a crowbar when it was not in fact a crowbar.
Well, with most people only reading the Titel of the Thread and/or the first post, it would be pretty pointless unless you change the Titel and first post itself first.
Edit:
@Leb
If you force a Police Officer to draw his weapon, it's surrender or get shot. I'm pretty damn sure if the Officer had the chance, he wouldn't have shot, but through attacking his teammate, the man forced him to. That's it.
|
Absolutely fine. Anyone saying 8 shots is too much obviously didn't watch the video, the first 4 shots happened in about a second completely on reaction and justified. After he saw that the guy wasn't down he shot another 4 times super fast, ~1 sec again. If that was what he was taught then it's absolutely fine, you don't have time/adrenaline won't let you think about shooting only twice and stopping.
Anyone saying he should've stopped at 4 shots simple didn't read the linked posts, if he's not on the ground he can pull out a weapon and kill someone. As soon as he charged at the officer and threatened someone's safety in front of an officer there was no reason he shouldn't be shot.
And all the people saying officers should be trained to shoot and aim to not kill are ridiculously dumb, that will cause so many more deaths of police officers because they're trying to get a better shot at the leg or something stupid like that. If you draw your weapon on an officer intending to kill them there's no reason an officer should be trying to save you.
|
@Count9
The second salve came from the Officer closest to the Criminal, not the one with the K9. Doesn't change that it was justyfied though.
|
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. User was temp banned for this post.
@Flono, in the post before this you said you were done, and you lied.
Know that no matter which side is right or wrong, the side you are on seems more at fault for having you.
Unless you're a marine marksmen trainer, navy seal, or another echelon of armed force that could potentially speak down police, just stop. I know for a fact you're not cause your acting like this cop was too newbie to use his bullet time.
Also, watch the right video, "Inching forward and not even begun his swinging motion." leads me to believe you just made something up and argued against that instead of the actual video.
In the video I watched the guy didn't even need another full second to connect. So watch that video, stop lying about how your so fed up only to come back soon after. Then read the posts where people respectfully and intelligently defend the same things you're trying to, but without extremes, bias, and imagination.
Edit : In the time I checked to see I was actually quoting the right person by copy pasting reply and coming back to it, Flono has been temp banned. <3 TL
|
There's always an alternative to ending someone's life. Seriously, shot ~10 times to death because he threatened police officers with a crow bar? The guy was out-numbered and out-gunned.
This makes me sad. It sickens me that people are OK with this man being gunned down by police. There's no justification for this murder.
They could have tazered him, pepper sprayed him, surrounded and disarmed him, shot him in the legs, etc.
|
On January 26 2012 11:58 FREEloss_ca wrote:
There's always an alternative to ending someone's life. Seriously, shot ~10 times to death because he threatened police officers with a crow bar? The guy was out-numbered and out-gunned.
This makes me sad.
The alternative to ending the Criminals life was the Criminal ending the Officers life - oh, what a trade!
1 shot is NOT 100% deadly, so 10 shots do not equal "10 death's"
He didn't react to the demands of an ARMED Office and still threatened his teammate - he should have seen what's going to happen from miles away -, what the hell do you expect them to do?
Edit to respond his edit:
FFS - They DID tazer him; no effect, they DID Pepperspray him; no effect, they DID warn him to lay down the weapon; no effect AND he prepared to attack a police officer.
Also, for the 100th time: shooting the leg is NOT what cops get taught, because it is NOT reliable.
Surrounding someone with 2 people while 1 is handling a K9 would pose the thread of friendly fire if something goes wrong or rather it's impossible.
Get your goddamn facts right befor spouting bs.
|
On January 26 2012 11:58 FREEloss_ca wrote:
There's always an alternative to ending someone's life. Seriously, shot ~10 times to death because he threatened police officers with a crow bar? The guy was out-numbered and out-gunned.
This makes me sad. It sickens me that people are OK with this man being gunned down by police. There's no justification for this murder.
They could have tazered him, pepper sprayed him, surrounded and disarmed him, shot him in the legs, etc.
Come on it's not murder, it's self defense. Some crazy is waving a metal weapon at you clearly posing a threat. Why shoot him ten times? you don't know if he has other weapons on him. You don't know if he's wearing body armor, You can't see this event with hindsight, Shoot at the leg? what if you miss and bullet bounce into something? Body is obviously a bigger target.
Other wise what if you cripple him and he sues you? You'd get a guilty sentence for crippling the man. you'd be in financial ruins. Just kill the guy and get it over with.
|
You know he's alone, you know what weapon he's using, you know he's mentally ill because he's smashing random windows... And your plan is to have two cops point their guns at him?
Cops are so dumb sometimes. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. If you think the cops did great, pick up a sledgehammer and face off against me and a friend barehanded. I guarantee nobody will have to die.
|
Tazering not being effective is bullshit. How weak are these tazers? They must have failed to effectively tazer him. Had they effectively pepper sprayed him, he wouldn't have been able to SEE. How would you threaten someone with a crowbar if you're blinded and unable to breathe?
You think this "criminal" was actually capable of killing one of those officers? He had no chance.
This man was either suicidal, mentally ill, or in some kind of delusional state. Putting 10 bullets into him wasn't the answer to this problem. There's always alternative ways to solving a problem. Perhaps the officers should have thought outside the box a little bit. But then again, they obviously have very little respect for life. As do you, clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
