EPTSuspect with crowbar killed by police - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
that may be the case in wild west cowboy country in civilized countries police, if there is no direct danger to life, is even required to give a warning shot and even then (if there is no direct need to, as here it is the case) they are obligated to do so with as much care as possible leave nation wars to starcraft please | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:46 Swaddled wrote: Yeah... Why don't they just call in the local rodeo troop and calf rope him. Those guys can hogtie in seconds... Be reasonable. There aren't enough resources for a corral to be put around the dude. What about a helicopter with a cage at the end of the rope. That seems like it would do the trick.. Or a force field.... Yea it would certainly seem extreme for our police force to be prepared and follow reasonable protocol when faced with something as absurd as a man armed with a deadly melee weapon... Standing real close to him and taunting him, That sounds like perfect protocol. This way we get to execute him when he does what he will do. | ||
|
Timurid
Guyana (French)656 Posts
| ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
I think there are a lot of western Europeans in this thread who don't quite understand how very dangerous certain neighborhoods are in the US. Like this guy: On January 25 2012 05:46 Roggay wrote: Shoot to kill? What the hell? How can you even think that? The cops are here to defend people, not kill them, this is just plain wrong! If cops didn't shoot to kill Detroit would be a cop blood bath within days. | ||
|
wunsun
Canada622 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:42 UNeeK wrote: Dog's are treated like human beings in the police force. You don't send a dog in on a guy brandishing pipe(he's using a plumbers tool, not a crowbar - that would be very very deadly if he strikes someone in the head). But as i was saying, dogs aren't treated as disposable weapons to sick on people, they're really a show of force and the cops used the use of force model correctly, they challenged the suspect by telling him to stop, he was resistant to verbal commands, they tazed him (the next step in UFM) which he apparently didn't even get phased by, then he rose the Use of Force Model by showing aggression with a deadly weapon against an officer, the immediate and correct response is to respond with your own lethal force, which he did. While he may have shot too many times, the point is he had every right to shoot and how many times he shot isn't really relevant to the employment of deadly force. Sure, he should have shot twice, but i bet half of you guys have never been in a fight or flight scenario to really know what it feels like. I'm a military cop, i've been deployed, i've seen combat, it's easier said than done, trust me. When it's time to shoot you're adrenaline is going crazy and you tunnel vision very very easily. The officer had the right to shoot, and i dont really see this as excessive force, to be honest. Never really thought of it that way. So typically dogs are used as a show of force and/or to take down unarmed suspects? I do understand that cops respond to the adrendaline, and we get to comb over everything when we are not in the situation and are relatively calm. However, should the cop have released the dog after the first set of shots (i.e. is he trained to) or is he trained to make sure the suspect is down on the ground before the dog can be released? I once was in an almost-fight when my buddy was getting harassed all the way home by a gang of kids. His neighbour bought a pitbull out and I felt some what good after that. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:48 Sufficiency wrote: After watching this again, I am even more confident that the shooting was justified. That man was clearing waving that bar at another officer when he got shot. How many times he got shot is really unimportant. I'd wager it incredibly important. Shooting someone once is generally enough to immobilize them. Shooting someone when they've already been shot to the ground is 100% unacceptable. | ||
|
Tanukki
Finland579 Posts
| ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:49 Bleak wrote: Oh my god they got Gordon! Oh man, that joke sure might be funny if it was actually relevant and not done ten thousand times before you already. | ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:40 StarBrift wrote: Why would that be the case? Do you really think it's reasonable to kill someone because he attacks a police officer with a crow bar? I'm pretty sure he doesn't get the chair for that so what gives a police officer the right to ensure his death? The job of the police is to aprehend people so that they can be tried in court. Not to execute them on the spot. This was just poor training. If the local police were properly trained in how to disable someone without killing them this would not happen. A maximum of 2 bullets to legs or shoulder is enough to stop anyone from moving towards you. To hit someone in any of those areas at that range when they are moving slowly towards you is about the easiest target you'll get. If he had missed and hit a vital organ that would be unfortunate but defendable. It is however not ok to act as an executioner. If there was a more serious threat to the officers life then obviously it would have been ok. But obviously that wasn't the case as we could see on the video. Bottom line. You don't empty a clip into someone if you can avoid it. If that was ok then we could remove court trial and just let police officers start executing people based on their initial judgement. Cops are trained to shoot center mass, why? its the biggest target. If a cop aim for the leg/shoulder and they should happen to miss the bullet could ricochet and hit an innocent bystander. Police are not trained soldiers they go home everyday to a family. Its not very often a police officer has to pull a weapon on a suspect. They go to the shooting range for a test like once a month. This may seem excessive to us (even me) but the cop did what he was trained to do once the gun is pulled out the person should of known this was going to get serious. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
| ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:49 TheToast wrote: I think there are a lot of western Europeans in this thread who don't quite understand how very dangerous certain neighborhoods are in the US. Like this guy: If cops didn't shoot to kill Detroit would be a cop blood bath within days. AND? Does that justify shooting this guy in this particular case? HELL NO! Why would you come with such a stupid argumentation. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13893 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:49 Myles wrote: I'd wager it incredibly important. Shooting someone once is generally enough to immobilize them. Shooting someone when they've already been shot to the ground is 100% unacceptable. When someone is on cocaine or meth it isn't. Want to guess how a lot of cops get killed? | ||
|
DeepBlu2
United States975 Posts
However, the problem with me is what happened before that. The police officer was standing directly next to him, that if the suspect had a bat or another object (like the bender), he could have easily swung and hit him... Pistols don't have a range of just 3 feet...I don't understand why the officer didn't maintain a safe distance from the suspect, as this would have been avoided... About the excessive firing, it was definitely too much but when you have that much adrenaline in you and are trained to shoot to kill, you come into a situation where no amount of training can tell you "just shoot 3 times" if you are faced with such a situation... Officer shouldn't be charged or reprimanded at all, but I believe they might have to revise their training program, as the officer's decision of standing right next to him was just plain stupid... If a man is willing to ignore your taser, mace, and nonchalantly walk past a k9 unit with guns, then you have to expect that he is dangerous. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:48 Timurid wrote: I feel first shots from the 1st police officer was fine, but the 2nd cop just got trigger happy. I agree with this, to me it looked like the guy was going to take a swing at the cop that pepper sprayed him, at which point I think it's justified to shoot him. The second cop though was more like, you don't mess with me son and shot him 5 times more just to show who's boss. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Shooting someone once is generally enough to immobilize them. Not sure if this bit of nonsense is serious... Shooting someone once unless you get a head shot or a direct hit to the heart or spine is generally not enough to immobilize them. Unless you're shooting them with a round large enough to kill instantly via shock (like, say, a .50 cal round). Handgun rounds are not powerful enough to do that. Shooting someone when they've already been shot to the ground is 100% unacceptable. Guess that cop is lucky that isn't what happened then. | ||
|
ozzy1346
United States38 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:11 Keitzer wrote: So do tasers not exist where this cop lives? Er even... other forms besides actually shooting the guy 10 times? do brain cells not live in your head? read the article, it says they shot him with a tazer and he shrugged it off and ran at them with the crowbar. this was justified | ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:42 PanN wrote: ![[image loading]](http://www.westernstageprops.com/miva/graphics/00000001/pm56lr.jpg) Crowbar. ![[image loading]](http://www.totalrentalofmolalla.com/prod_images/full/halfinto5inconduitbender.jpg) 1/2 conduit bender. (Which is what I'm pretty sure he's using in the video.) Well, the guys in the video said it was a Crowbar -- and it's not very apparent due to the poor video quality. | ||
|
Swaddled
12 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:48 Motiva wrote: Yea it would certainly seem extreme for our police force to be prepared and follow reasonable protocol when faced with something as absurd as a man armed with a deadly melee weapon... Standing real close to him and taunting him, That sounds like perfect protocol. This way we get to execute him when he does what he will do. He wasn't taunting him. He was attempting to taser him. Which was ineffective. That seems like proper protocol to me. There aren't a bunch of other options past that. My point is. If a police officer tells me to put down a weapon. I damn well better put it down. | ||
| ||
