|
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 22:22 nikoYO wrote:
this has nothing to do with bashing a nation or a country but ,even in 3rd world countries the police would have handled the situation better. with so many cops around he could in no way make an escape..just talk to the man thats what most police in the world would do. they even had the dog..send the dog and he will for sure drop the crowbar..i cant understand how people can say the cops are right..no way was shooting him necessary
"Hey man, please stop bashing my partner's head in with that metal blunt object and hear me out, we can talk this through".
...and let's just assume he doesn't have a concealed weapon, because NOBODY IN THE STATES HAS GUNS.
@mazqo: that's a wooden stick. If he had a steel bat, would you still like him to be able to swing around and possibly kill someone? It's all fun and games until it's you or someone you know getting seriously hurt by one of these people. And then you go crying that police hasn't done anything. Plus, this guy didn't get tased and just shrugged it off.
Besides, something tells me that the odds of him having a gun were low, because it's Finland. But if he would've pulled a knife or something, see how the police would react. I bet guns would come out in 2 seconds flat.
|
On January 26 2012 22:53 CubEdIn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 22:22 nikoYO wrote:
this has nothing to do with bashing a nation or a country but ,even in 3rd world countries the police would have handled the situation better. with so many cops around he could in no way make an escape..just talk to the man thats what most police in the world would do. they even had the dog..send the dog and he will for sure drop the crowbar..i cant understand how people can say the cops are right..no way was shooting him necessary "Hey man, please stop bashing my partner's head in with that metal blunt object and hear me out, we can talk this through". ...and let's just assume he doesn't have a concealed weapon, because NOBODY IN THE STATES HAS GUNS. @mazqo: that's a wooden stick. If he had a steel bat, would you still like him to be able to swing around and possibly kill someone? It's all fun and games until it's you or someone you know getting seriously hurt by one of these people. And then you go crying that police hasn't done anything. Plus, this guy didn't get tased and just shrugged it off. Besides, something tells me that the odds of him having a gun were low, because it's Finland. But if he would've pulled a knife or something, see how the police would react. I bet guns would come out in 2 seconds flat.
Like the low odds from someone from Belgium (iirc) had grenades and someone from Norway had an assault rifle. Yes, those guys are crazy, but who knows about this one?
If the second cop wasn't so close, I guess I would say the shots could have been avoided. But the guy showed with his body expression that he would swing that thing.
EDIT: typo
|
Seeing that mushroom seller video made me wonder about something. Why is it when I see those kinds of videos (where the police try to arrest someone who keeps insisting on something, legal representation, a reason for why he is being arrested) the police never try to inform them what exactly theyre doing wrong. Sorry for the slight off topic, and maybe its jsut me but thats something that always bothered me when you just have to accept youre being arrested without the cops telling you why they want to do it in the first place.
|
On January 26 2012 23:23 ChinaRestaurant wrote:
Seeing that mushroom seller video made me wonder about something. Why is it when I see those kinds of videos (where the police try to arrest someone who keeps insisting on something, legal representation, a reason for why he is being arrested) the police never try to inform them what exactly theyre doing wrong. Sorry for the slight off topic, and maybe its jsut me but thats something that always bothered me when you just have to accept youre being arrested without the cops telling you why they want to do it in the first place.
Thats what I was thinking too. Never heard them try to explain the situation to him (at least from what we see in the video).
Don't think he would have been shot in the us either. A broken staff is really hard to kill someone with, especially with 4 police officers around.
|
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him.
Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill everytime they fire. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him.
This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face.
|
On January 26 2012 23:41 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill everytime they fire. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him. This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face.
Speaking of so very wrong, it seems like you haven't read a single page of this thread.
We've had numerous people who have been through U.S. police courses, or taught U.S. police courses, say that police are trained to shoot the center of mass of a suspect to minimize the chance of missing and a potential ricochet injury. The second 5 shots were fired within only a few seconds of the first salvo, and since the suspect is behind the car we can't really tell what he's doing as he goes to the ground (reaching for a concealed weapon?).
Suggesting they release the dog proves you know nothing about K-9 units. The dog is for sniffing drugs, chasing running suspects, and going places where the officers can't go. Not for attacking armed suspects with lethal weapons. Releasing the dog would just get the dog killed, and training for those German Shepherds is expensive. I'm much happier they put the perp down instead of risking the dog's life.
You might want to read at least a little bit of this ~80 page thread if you want to be informed about the incident.
|
On January 26 2012 23:41 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him. This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face.
are you kidding me? Of course they shoot to kill. Well its more like they shoot to incapacitate them which usually means a dead suspect. If he goes to the hospital and survives, kudos to him. If they just want to disable him, they could batton him, taser him, mace him, tackle him, etc. When they shoot its not to disable. This is not a game or movie. No one trains to aim for a moving limb or something. Get real.
In this case, the dog would probably die to this guy if they let him go, at which point they would have to shoot anyways. This guys seriously coked up. Some dog biting his arm wont bring him down
Think of this situation. Some guy is fucking nuts and brandishes a sword in public. You arrive there and point the gun at him and tell him to put the weapon down. This guy starts charging you from 20 meters away. What do you do? Do you aim for his sword and knock it off? lol. Do you use martial arts to disarm his sword? You shoot the fucker until he drops. Its essentially the same situation here.
|
: / In the end. That cop killed a man. He had probably never done that ever before. now he has a story for his grandchildren. but that guy is fucking dead. DEAD! Whatever horrible life he was leading is now forever over. Is that good or bad? Who knows. Should that cop be allowed to determine who lives and who dies? I guess so. Hes the one with the gun.
|
On January 27 2012 00:28 gameguard wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 23:41 Arkless wrote:On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him. This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face. are you kidding me? Of course they shoot to kill. Well its more like they shoot to incapacitate them which usually means a dead suspect. If he goes to the hospital and survives, kudos to him. If they just want to disable him, they could batton him, taser him, mace him, tackle him, etc. When they shoot its not to disable. This is not a game or movie. No one trains to aim for a moving limb or something. Get real. In this case, the dog would probably die to this guy if they let him go, at which point they would have to shoot anyways. This guys seriously coked up. Some dog biting his arm wont bring him down Think of this situation. Some guy is fucking nuts and brandishes a sword in public. You arrive there and point the gun at him and tell him to put the weapon down. This guy starts charging you from 20 meters away. What do you do? Do you aim for his sword and knock it off? lol. Do you use martial arts to disarm his sword? You shoot the fucker until he drops. Its essentially the same situation here.
It reminds me of the scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark where that guy gets all fancy with his scimitar and Harrison Ford pulls out his pistol and blows him away.
Apparently contrary to popular belief, the real world isn't like 300. Cops don't bring a knife to a knife fight, they bring a gun to a knife fight. And you'd better believe they'll use it.
|
Excessive force, overkill simply. Why shoot at someone who doesn't even have a gun and doesn't REALLY threaten you. Let dog grab him and subdue him, use pepper gas, use brute force. If you can't understand how this is executable, you shouldn't discuss this.
|
On January 26 2012 23:41 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill everytime they fire. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him. This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face.
As sMi.Eternal said before, the fact the officer was holding it sideways is because he was gesturing with it. When he fires, he switches back to a regular shooting position. And it was not just one officer that fired, the second officer had a delayed reaction due to having his taser out as it happened. You're right, they don't shoot to kill, they shoot to neutralize the target to the point where he no longer was a threat.. But they also train to accept the fact that when they are shooting someone, they might kill them. If you notice, by the time the other 5 shots were fired, the suspect fully had his back to the police, which is a situation where a criminal COULD pull a concealed weapon.
If you don't think a criminal pumped up with adrenaline can't take 5 shots, read this.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci
The guy took 22 shots, from a .40 caliber pistol. That's bigger and has more stopping power than that 9mm the officers in this video used.
|
I think police are just downright scared out of their minds. And thats why they do most of this shit. It really speaks to the lack of proper Law Enforcement training.
|
On January 27 2012 00:38 Arghmyliver wrote:
I think police are just downright scared out of their minds. And thats why they do most of this shit. It really speaks to the lack of proper Law Enforcement training.
Sorry, but humans get scared out of their minds in these situations. It doesn't matter how much training they have. Sure, the training can give them something to fall back on instead of having to think, but don't act like police should be robots that have absolutely no concern for their own lives.
Excessive force, overkill simply. Why shoot at someone who doesn't even have a gun and doesn't REALLY threaten you. Let dog grab him and subdue him, use pepper gas, use brute force. If you can't understand how this is executable, you shouldn't discuss this.
Read the thread please. All of your points have been addressed dozens of times, so you're right we shouldn't discuss this. But I'll humor you. If you don't think someone swinging a conduit bender (not a crowbar) with lethal force is threatening, then you need to get a reality check. The suspect in the video was half a second from caving in the skull of the officer with the taser.
The dog isn't there to subdue armed victims, if he was, they would need a lot more dogs. The dog is for sniffing out narcotics, chasing down fleeing suspects, and going places the cops can't go. And what does brute force even mean? You want them to try to grab the bender out of his hand? That's suicidal.
Your points really make no sense.
|
I could not read through all the 79 pages and just read the first, skimmed a few pages in between, and read from 77 up.
I am really bothered that no one is arguing the right to procedure by the suspect. I don't know exactly in the US, specifically in the law and order atmosphere in California, but in Europe even criminals are afforded due process in litigation and in the actual process of arrest, imprisonment, and engagement. All the argument seem to revolve around whether the shots where necessary or not, and to some degree, whether they police had to kill him or not. Just watching the video, I think there is justifiable cause to shoot the suspect as there was clear threat to life. The important question however is did these actions, everything from the moment they approached the suspect, follow standard procedure are detailed in the US police force, or whichever is in authority of such processes.
|
On January 27 2012 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 23:41 Arkless wrote:On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill everytime they fire. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him. This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face. Speaking of so very wrong, it seems like you haven't read a single page of this thread. We've had numerous people who have been through U.S. police courses, or taught U.S. police courses, say that police are trained to shoot the center of mass of a suspect to minimize the chance of missing and a potential ricochet injury. The second 5 shots were fired within only a few seconds of the first salvo, and since the suspect is behind the car we can't really tell what he's doing as he goes to the ground (reaching for a concealed weapon?).
Suggesting they release the dog proves you know nothing about K-9 units. The dog is for sniffing drugs, chasing running suspects, and going places where the officers can't go. Not for attacking armed suspects with lethal weapons. Releasing the dog would just get the dog killed, and training for those German Shepherds is expensive. I'm much happier they put the perp down instead of risking the dog's life. You might want to read at least a little bit of this ~80 page thread if you want to be informed about the incident.
Your speculation on what happened after the initial 5 shots are pretty unrealistic seeing as how he was already shot to the ground. It's the remaining 5 that I have a problem with. I would go with the assumption that he is already incapacitated seeing as how you see the main weapon fall as well before he goes out of frame over the latter. Aiming for the center of a mass, is different then shooting to kill. Let's not argue what you think is semantics. No no, the second 5 shots were made after enough time to think. Have you ever been in a threatening situation personally? Probably not, because I know from experience that when sketchy shit like that goes down; Your brain is running a mile a minute and everything seems to happen slower than in reality. Plus they are trained officers who have a better disposition than a normal civilian. And apparently you know nothing about K9 units, not all are trained to sniff drugs and bomb products. A vast majority are trained to tackle and incapacitate people with weapons. Nobody has time to read all the posts in an 80 page thread. So I am commenting on the OP and the video in which I watched in it's entirety. And on a comment that caught my attention from none other than InControl.Regardless, you're much happier they killed a human then sending in a dog? That is kinda fucked up to me.
Edit:Spelling/grammar
|
On January 27 2012 02:03 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 23:41 Arkless wrote:On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill everytime they fire. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him. This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face. Speaking of so very wrong, it seems like you haven't read a single page of this thread. We've had numerous people who have been through U.S. police courses, or taught U.S. police courses, say that police are trained to shoot the center of mass of a suspect to minimize the chance of missing and a potential ricochet injury. The second 5 shots were fired within only a few seconds of the first salvo, and since the suspect is behind the car we can't really tell what he's doing as he goes to the ground (reaching for a concealed weapon?).
Suggesting they release the dog proves you know nothing about K-9 units. The dog is for sniffing drugs, chasing running suspects, and going places where the officers can't go. Not for attacking armed suspects with lethal weapons. Releasing the dog would just get the dog killed, and training for those German Shepherds is expensive. I'm much happier they put the perp down instead of risking the dog's life. You might want to read at least a little bit of this ~80 page thread if you want to be informed about the incident. Your speculation on what happened after the initial 5 shots are pretty unrealistic seeing as how he was already shot to the ground. It's the remaining 5 that I have a problem with. I would go with the assumption that he is already incapacitated seeing as how you see the main weapon fall as well before he goes out of frame over the latter. Aiming for the center of a mass, is different then shooting to kill. Let's not argue what you think is semantics. No no, the second 5 shots were made after enough time to think. Have you ever been in a threatening situation personally? Probably not, because I know from experience that when sketchy shit like that goes down; Your brain is running a mile a minute and everything seems to happen slower than in reality. Plus they are trained officers who have a better disposition than a normal civilian. And apparently you know nothing about K9 units, not all are trained to sniff drugs and bomb products. A vast majority are trained to tackle and incapacitate people with weapons. Nobody has time to read all the posts in an 80 page thread. So I am commenting on the OP and the video in which I watched in it's entirety. And on a comment that caught my attention from none other than InControl.Regardless, you're much happier they killed a human then sending in a dog? That is kinda fucked up to me. Edit:Spelling/grammar
A dog is a dog. An asshole walking around robbing things then breaking cars with a pipe bender is a piece of shit.
Yeah, I'm glad the dude is dead over the dog as well. I'd be more sad, way more sad to see the dog get hurt in this vid.
|
On January 27 2012 02:19 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 02:03 Arkless wrote:On January 27 2012 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 23:41 Arkless wrote:On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill everytime they fire. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him. This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face. Speaking of so very wrong, it seems like you haven't read a single page of this thread. We've had numerous people who have been through U.S. police courses, or taught U.S. police courses, say that police are trained to shoot the center of mass of a suspect to minimize the chance of missing and a potential ricochet injury. The second 5 shots were fired within only a few seconds of the first salvo, and since the suspect is behind the car we can't really tell what he's doing as he goes to the ground (reaching for a concealed weapon?).
Suggesting they release the dog proves you know nothing about K-9 units. The dog is for sniffing drugs, chasing running suspects, and going places where the officers can't go. Not for attacking armed suspects with lethal weapons. Releasing the dog would just get the dog killed, and training for those German Shepherds is expensive. I'm much happier they put the perp down instead of risking the dog's life. You might want to read at least a little bit of this ~80 page thread if you want to be informed about the incident. Your speculation on what happened after the initial 5 shots are pretty unrealistic seeing as how he was already shot to the ground. It's the remaining 5 that I have a problem with. I would go with the assumption that he is already incapacitated seeing as how you see the main weapon fall as well before he goes out of frame over the latter. Aiming for the center of a mass, is different then shooting to kill. Let's not argue what you think is semantics. No no, the second 5 shots were made after enough time to think. Have you ever been in a threatening situation personally? Probably not, because I know from experience that when sketchy shit like that goes down; Your brain is running a mile a minute and everything seems to happen slower than in reality. Plus they are trained officers who have a better disposition than a normal civilian. And apparently you know nothing about K9 units, not all are trained to sniff drugs and bomb products. A vast majority are trained to tackle and incapacitate people with weapons. Nobody has time to read all the posts in an 80 page thread. So I am commenting on the OP and the video in which I watched in it's entirety. And on a comment that caught my attention from none other than InControl.Regardless, you're much happier they killed a human then sending in a dog? That is kinda fucked up to me. Edit:Spelling/grammar A dog is a dog. An asshole walking around robbing things then breaking cars with a pipe bender is a piece of shit. Yeah, I'm glad the dude is dead over the dog as well. I'd be more sad, way more sad to see the dog get hurt in this vid.
So using your logic. A guy, with obvious mental or chemical problems (probably both) deserves to die for hitting in adamant objects. Instead of being physically apprehended? That sir, is fucked up. You obviously have no respect for life.
Also, it's interesting how you only respond to the bottom two lines of my post. If that is your opinion on how human life is to be treated, then you should go live with the animals. A dog is a dog, a human is a human. And once again you are under the assumption 3 cops and dog wouldn't be more than enough to apprehend him. You're wrong, and are just as fucked up as the guy holding the crowbar.
|
On January 27 2012 02:03 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 23:41 Arkless wrote:On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill everytime they fire. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him. This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face. Speaking of so very wrong, it seems like you haven't read a single page of this thread. We've had numerous people who have been through U.S. police courses, or taught U.S. police courses, say that police are trained to shoot the center of mass of a suspect to minimize the chance of missing and a potential ricochet injury. The second 5 shots were fired within only a few seconds of the first salvo, and since the suspect is behind the car we can't really tell what he's doing as he goes to the ground (reaching for a concealed weapon?).
Suggesting they release the dog proves you know nothing about K-9 units. The dog is for sniffing drugs, chasing running suspects, and going places where the officers can't go. Not for attacking armed suspects with lethal weapons. Releasing the dog would just get the dog killed, and training for those German Shepherds is expensive. I'm much happier they put the perp down instead of risking the dog's life. You might want to read at least a little bit of this ~80 page thread if you want to be informed about the incident. Your speculation on what happened after the initial 5 shots are pretty unrealistic seeing as how he was already shot to the ground. It's the remaining 5 that I have a problem with. I would go with the assumption that he is already incapacitated seeing as how you see the main weapon fall as well before he goes out of frame over the latter. Aiming for the center of a mass, is different then shooting to kill. Let's not argue what you think is semantics. No no, the second 5 shots were made after enough time to think. Have you ever been in a threatening situation personally? Probably not, because I know from experience that when sketchy shit like that goes down; Your brain is running a mile a minute and everything seems to happen slower than in reality. Plus they are trained officers who have a better disposition than a normal civilian. And apparently you know nothing about K9 units, not all are trained to sniff drugs and bomb products. A vast majority are trained to tackle and incapacitate people with weapons. Nobody has time to read all the posts in an 80 page thread. So I am commenting on the OP and the video in which I watched in it's entirety. And on a comment that caught my attention from none other than InControl.Regardless, you're much happier they killed a human then sending in a dog? That is kinda fucked up to me. Edit:Spelling/grammar
My speculation is just as unrealistic as your speculation. It's the nature of speculation. There have been numerous incidents (cited in this thread) where 5 shots from a low-caliber sidearm to the center of mass was not enough to incapacitate a suspect. You assume they are incapacitated without knowing for sure, and that's when you put your life in the perp's hands. If he didn't want to get shot (read:die) he could have avoided doing any number of the illegal things he did that day.
You seem to be confused about the purpose of a firearm. There is no difference between "shooting" and "shooting to kill." A gun is a deadly weapon, and anyone who fires one at another person is ultimately taking responsibility for killing that person, even if they get lucky and survive.
So you know from experience that your brain is running a mile a minute in situations like this? Sounds like the sort of scenario where training kicks in and you stop thinking. You are in no position to say that the second officer had enough time to think before firing his shots. You can't see what's going on behind the car or how the suspect reacted to the first five shots.
Where is your source for the vast majority of K-9 units that are trained to take down lethal suspects? We've had a number of people in this thread with first-hand experience say that's not the sort of thing most K-9 units are trained for.
And yeah, I'm much happier the life lost here was a gangbanging thug hopped up on PCP destroying public property and attempting to attack police officers and not a public service animal or heaven forbid, the police officers or innocent bystanders.
|
-Man walks out of store with hammer
-Cops order him to drop his weapon
-Man does not drop it
-cops tazer man hitting him in the left cheek
-man does not go down
-man swings hammer at cop who tazed him
-other cop shoots him
justified
|
On January 27 2012 02:22 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 02:19 PanN wrote:On January 27 2012 02:03 Arkless wrote:On January 27 2012 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On January 26 2012 23:41 Arkless wrote:On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Ummmmm, no. Not even close, police do NOT shoot to kill everytime they fire. They go through rigorous training classes on where to shoot to disable, and not kill. I don't know who fed you that shit, but it's so so very wrong. 10 bullets is ridiculous, 5 to disable then 5 to execute seems pretty messed up to me. They didn't even let the dog go or attempt to take him down. They just shot him. This guy obviously needed to be controlled, but i think 10 shots is kinda messed up when so many other options are available. I know he reacted in real time, but honestly I dont think the cop knew what he was doing. I mean ffs, the one with the dog was holding his gun sideways like a gangster, any gun noob knows that is dangerous and you'll take a shell casing to the face. Speaking of so very wrong, it seems like you haven't read a single page of this thread. We've had numerous people who have been through U.S. police courses, or taught U.S. police courses, say that police are trained to shoot the center of mass of a suspect to minimize the chance of missing and a potential ricochet injury. The second 5 shots were fired within only a few seconds of the first salvo, and since the suspect is behind the car we can't really tell what he's doing as he goes to the ground (reaching for a concealed weapon?).
Suggesting they release the dog proves you know nothing about K-9 units. The dog is for sniffing drugs, chasing running suspects, and going places where the officers can't go. Not for attacking armed suspects with lethal weapons. Releasing the dog would just get the dog killed, and training for those German Shepherds is expensive. I'm much happier they put the perp down instead of risking the dog's life. You might want to read at least a little bit of this ~80 page thread if you want to be informed about the incident. Your speculation on what happened after the initial 5 shots are pretty unrealistic seeing as how he was already shot to the ground. It's the remaining 5 that I have a problem with. I would go with the assumption that he is already incapacitated seeing as how you see the main weapon fall as well before he goes out of frame over the latter. Aiming for the center of a mass, is different then shooting to kill. Let's not argue what you think is semantics. No no, the second 5 shots were made after enough time to think. Have you ever been in a threatening situation personally? Probably not, because I know from experience that when sketchy shit like that goes down; Your brain is running a mile a minute and everything seems to happen slower than in reality. Plus they are trained officers who have a better disposition than a normal civilian. And apparently you know nothing about K9 units, not all are trained to sniff drugs and bomb products. A vast majority are trained to tackle and incapacitate people with weapons. Nobody has time to read all the posts in an 80 page thread. So I am commenting on the OP and the video in which I watched in it's entirety. And on a comment that caught my attention from none other than InControl.Regardless, you're much happier they killed a human then sending in a dog? That is kinda fucked up to me. Edit:Spelling/grammar A dog is a dog. An asshole walking around robbing things then breaking cars with a pipe bender is a piece of shit. Yeah, I'm glad the dude is dead over the dog as well. I'd be more sad, way more sad to see the dog get hurt in this vid. So using your logic. A guy, with obvious mental or chemical problems (probably both) deserves to die for hitting in adamant objects. Instead of being physically apprehended? That sir, is fucked up. You obviously have no respect for life. Also, it's interesting how you only respond to the bottom two lines of my post. If that is your opinion on how human life is to be treated, then you should go live with the animals. A dog is a dog, a human is a human. And once again you are under the assumption 3 cops and dog wouldn't be more than enough to apprehend him. You're wrong, and are just as fucked up as the guy holding the crowbar.
You read my post wrong and are assuming too much with your emotions. I stated I'm glad the dude is dead OVER the dog. I'd obviously prefer that nothing dies. Also, if you think a dog is enough to take care of the situation, then you raise one to be a police dog, then you go ahead and send your friend out in harms way ok? See how you feel if your dog friend gets hit and killed by this low life piece of shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
