|
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 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.
No, the guy with obvious mental or chemical problems deserves to die for assaulting a police officer with a lethal weapon. When he was still just hitting inanimate objects, they were trying to negotiate with him and take him down with a taser. When he changed gears and started attacking police officers, then they take him down with their guns. Pretty distinct escalation isn't it?
It doesn't matter if his problems are mental, chemical or emotional. Consequences are a result of your actions, not your motives. I believe a person's worth can be judged by their actions. On one hand, we have a dirtbag, possibly hopped up on PCP, destroying public property and trying to kill police officers. On the other hand, we have those police officers and the public service animal that is trained to do its job with absolutely no regard for its own life. If one party had to die in this scenario (and it certainly looked that way from the video), I'm glad it turned out the way it did.
L.A. will be just fine without this guy.
|
hmmm pretty sure the other cop shouldn't have been within melee range to begin with. And yes police training kicks in blahblah, so yes while i agree with the steps taken after the perp raised his weapon, i dont agree with everything that lead up to that.
in my uneducated and ignorant general public opinion, if one taser failed, the other cop could have used his too? It's the cop's fault for letting the situation escalate to the point where lethal force became necessary. We all know to dance stalkers out of zealot range.
|
On January 26 2012 16:46 Brawndo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 16:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 26 2012 09:52 drgoats wrote:On January 26 2012 09:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 26 2012 08:25 Flonomenalz wrote:On January 26 2012 08:18 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2012 08:03 Flonomenalz wrote:
Wow this thread is ridiculous.
All I have to say is if you think the cop couldn't have shot him in the leg, arm, or even just let the dog on him to subdue him/scare him, you need a new set of eyes. Yes, cops are supposed to do their job, but the guy had no firearm, he had a fucking crowbar. A crowbar.
Gotta love the hardasses saying "Lol derp shoot to kill". Sure, when the criminal is actually posing a lethal threat. Winding up to swing a crowbar against multiple cops with fully loaded guns and a dog is not a lethal threat. Awful decision, but what's done is done, a guy is dead for trying to swing a crowbar. Yea a fucking crowbar. Do you understand how much damage you can deal to a person with a crowbar? It wasn't a pillow. A single swing from a crowbar can seriously maim someone. The hell is wrong with you? I've never ever heard of a police force that shoots people for the intent of slowing them down. I've got to be honest, that sounds pretty weird to me. There are stun guns for that sort of thing. They used nonlethal force, and when it didn't work, and the man attacked him, they reacted accordingly. Oh yeah, because Cop #1 can't use his legs and move away when he sees the guy winding up to swing the crowbar, while Cop #2 shoots the guy in the leg, he goes down, problem solved.
That's way too much trouble though, it's much easier to shoot him 20 times. Yea, they should just reload the game and do that. Seriously, what the hell? The guy was about to strike him with a crowbar. If he hadn't shot, the other officer would probably have been seriously injured. Did you SEE the wind up the guy had with the crowbar? Like, he literally was winding up for almost 2-3 seconds. There wasn't even a windup. The man postured himself in a threatening position but didn't actually move to swing at all. I saw a windup. Then you're quite simply seeing things that are not there. Sure, it was a threatening position and the officer was in the right to open fire, but saying that the man was already swinging and the tazing officer was a quarter of a second from death is pure hyperbole. There was absolutely no swing there at all. Pause the video at 44 seconds. He is "wound up", "cocked back" ready to release the tension caused by winding up. I don't think you understand what windup means.
wound up would mean he has the weapon raised so he can get a full swing in. which he did not raise the weapon. I have commented in this thread a number of times. Im not saying the cop did the wrong thing at the time but this situation could have been handled alot better
no matter what happened before one man is dead now
|
On January 27 2012 00:35 Arghmyliver wrote:
: / 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.
The suspect made the decision when he swung at a cop with a fucking hammer. I'm fairly sure it is common knowledge that attempting to assault a police officer with a deadly weapon will carry extreme risk of bodily injury for the perpetrator. So.....
This thread is walking in circles, I think its time to close it
|
On January 26 2012 22:44 mazqo wrote:This reminds me of this: + Show Spoiler +wonder if USA's cops would have shot him!
They follow a specific procedure when it comes to confrontations, which is stated in the warning above this thread.
If you click said links, you will see what steps would be followed, up to and including lethal force.
Personally, I think a taser would bring him down quickly.
I also think your trolling, so I don't know whether to scold you or laugh with you... 
|
On January 27 2012 02:36 Railxp wrote:
hmmm pretty sure the other cop shouldn't have been within melee range to begin with. And yes police training kicks in blahblah, so yes while i agree with the steps taken after the perp raised his weapon, i dont agree with everything that lead up to that.
in my uneducated and ignorant general public opinion, if one taser failed, the other cop could have used his too? It's the cop's fault for letting the situation escalate to the point where lethal force became necessary. We all know to dance stalkers out of zealot range.
zealot don't have the potential for concealed firearms, not to mention the significant number of civilians in the immediate vicinity.
It appears you are the one with the uneducated opinion; and terrible analogies.
How could the cop not be in melee range; he was attempting to discharge his taser.... do you know how a taser works? You need to be within ~10 feet cuz the electrodes are attached to the taser itself @_@.
The cops escalated force correctly; there is a reason literally the only place this incident is being discussed is on TL, because even the most sensationalist US journalist can realize this was proper use of force.
|
On January 27 2012 02:32 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 02:22 Arkless wrote: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. No, the guy with obvious mental or chemical problems deserves to die for assaulting a police officer with a lethal weapon. When he was still just hitting inanimate objects, they were trying to negotiate with him and take him down with a taser. When he changed gears and started attacking police officers, then they take him down with their guns. Pretty distinct escalation isn't it? It doesn't matter if his problems are mental, chemical or emotional. Consequences are a result of your actions, not your motives. I believe a person's worth can be judged by their actions. On one hand, we have a dirtbag, possibly hopped up on PCP, destroying public property and trying to kill police officers. On the other hand, we have those police officers and the public service animal that is trained to do its job with absolutely no regard for its own life. If one party had to die in this scenario (and it certainly looked that way from the video), I'm glad it turned out the way it did. L.A. will be just fine without this guy.
Did you read the OP or even watch the video?
MONTEREY PARK, Calif. (KABC) -- A suspect armed with a crowbar was shot outside of a Carl's Jr. restaurant in Monterey Park on Monday morning.
Authorities say the incident began with the suspect breaking windows at Carl's Jr. in the 1200 block of Avenida Cesar Chavez just before 9:30 a.m. The suspect then walked inside, while workers and customers ran outside.
Police arrived as the suspect was exiting the fast-food restaurant. After repeatedly telling the suspect to drop the weapon, the suspect was Tasered.
Police said the Taser was ineffective, and the suspect swung the three-foot metal bar at officers twice. At least one officer opened fire on the suspect.
The suspect was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
No one else was injured in the incident. The officer-involved shooting is under investigation.
(Copyright ©2012 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
The cops showed up as he exited the carls jr. You see all the events police related in the video, as you see him walk out of carl juniors. They claim he swung two times, I see none. I did see him walk towards the police man aggressively yes which would warrant physical apprehension in the form of batons/more tasers/pepper spray/ the dog etc. You also say he is still agressive after the first 5 shots. Well after about 3 I see him fall to the ground, followed by 2 more subsequent shots in the initial barrage. Then he takes about 4 steps and fires another 5 times. Excessive, and will probably be found as such in court. The one police officer already had his gun in hand with 0 intentions of trying any other means of force.
|
As an attorney who has spent a lot of time working in public defender's offices, I don't usually have much sympathy for police officers (the US criminal justice system encourages some pretty questionable behavior by them in order to put suspects away). However, in this case the officers were 100% justified.
Once they were threatened with deadly force (and the crowbar was unquestionably capable of causing serious injury or death) they had a fraction of a second to react. Those of you arguing that they should have shot the suspect in the leg are underestimating how difficult it is to hit a moving target, especially when that target is coming toward you with a huge fucking crowbar cocked back to hit you in the face.
Could the suspect have been put down with fewer than 10 shots? Probably. But as far as the officers knew the drugs he was on may have allowed him to keep attacking them even after being hit multiple times, and he may have had another concealed weapon that could be pulled out at any time.
Police officers already take enough risks with their lives. They probably would have preferred to save the life of this suspect, but it is unreasonable and unjusitifiable to insist that they do so knowing that any other action besides the one that they took would have signicantly increased the risk that they themselves would be killed.
|
5 bullets to get the guy down, then execute with 5 more and this isn't called excessive?
Use the damn dog before the situation escalates, did you take it there to be petted?
Hitting a moving target might not be the easiest thing in the world, but the guy was point blank and they carry guns, I assume it involves being trained in the use of such a thing before it's thrusted into their hands. Besides the guy was fkin rapid firing anyway, you tell me what kind of drugs you gotta have in your veins for your legs to not give out when you lose your kneecap. Jesus, not excessive..
|
On January 27 2012 03:06 daemir wrote:
5 bullets to get the guy down, then execute with 5 more and this isn't called excessive?
Use the damn dog before the situation escalates, did you take it there to be petted?
Hitting a moving target might not be the easiest thing in the world, but the guy was point blank and they carry guns, I assume it involves being trained in the use of such a thing before it's thrusted into their hands. Besides the guy was fkin rapid firing anyway, you tell me what kind of drugs you gotta have in your veins for your legs to not give out when you lose your kneecap. Jesus, not excessive..
Even an expert marksman would have a difficult time hitting the suspect's kneecap in the time the officers had to react. Have you ever fired a handgun before? I assure you that it's not easy, even with training.
It may be legitimate to criticize the officers for getting so close to the suspect that they didn't have time to use non-deadly force, but hindsight is 20/20. Once the suspect charged, there was no other action they could have taken without significantly increasing the risk to their own lives.
|
10 shots of 9mm. this is why the police needs to switch over to the .38 or a 10mm.
|
On January 27 2012 03:17 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 03:06 daemir wrote:
5 bullets to get the guy down, then execute with 5 more and this isn't called excessive?
Use the damn dog before the situation escalates, did you take it there to be petted?
Hitting a moving target might not be the easiest thing in the world, but the guy was point blank and they carry guns, I assume it involves being trained in the use of such a thing before it's thrusted into their hands. Besides the guy was fkin rapid firing anyway, you tell me what kind of drugs you gotta have in your veins for your legs to not give out when you lose your kneecap. Jesus, not excessive.. Even an expert marksman would have a difficult time hitting the suspect's kneecap in the time the officers had to react. Have you ever fired a handgun before? I assure you that it's not easy, even with training. It may be legitimate to criticize the officers for getting so close to the suspect that they didn't have time to use non-deadly force, but hindsight is 20/20. Once the suspect charged, there was no other action they could have taken without significantly increasing the risk to their own lives.
But dude, he's played Call of Duty! Headshots with a pistol are easy!
Did you read the OP or even watch the video?
MONTEREY PARK, Calif. (KABC) -- A suspect armed with a crowbar was shot outside of a Carl's Jr. restaurant in Monterey Park on Monday morning.
The cops showed up as he exited the carls jr. You see all the events police related in the video, as you see him walk out of carl juniors. They claim he swung two times, I see none. I did see him walk towards the police man aggressively yes which would warrant physical apprehension in the form of batons/more tasers/pepper spray/ the dog etc. You also say he is still agressive after the first 5 shots. Well after about 3 I see him fall to the ground, followed by 2 more subsequent shots in the initial barrage. Then he takes about 4 steps and fires another 5 times. Excessive, and will probably be found as such in court. The one police officer already had his gun in hand with 0 intentions of trying any other means of force.
Yes, I read the OP and watched the video? What part of my post suggests to you that I didn't?
You're right, you don't see him swing in the video. I never said he swung before he made a threatening motion towards the officer.
And no, he did not "walk aggressively" towards the officer. He raised his weapon in what was clearly a preparation to strike with it (which would be lethal). This doesn't warrant physical apprehension by nonlethal means, it warrants a takedown at any cost. They'd tried the taser, it didn't work. Releasing the dog would be irresponsible and would take too long, they would still end up with a dead officer.
I love how people are saying they should fight a man wielding a steel conduit bender with a nightstick. Are you insane? Cops are under no obligation to "fight fair" or "fight with honor" and engage in melee combat with the suspect. If he is trying to kill you with a steel pipe, you kill him with your gun. Period.
I never said he was aggressive after the first 5 shots. I said I don't know what he was doing after he falls behind the car. And neither do you. He could be incapacitated already, or he could have been reaching for a concealed firearm. I've said before that 5 shots from a low-caliber sidearm is not necessarily enough to incapacitate someone, especially if they are on narcotics.
The case will be reviewed by a panel of their peers to be sure it was handled ethically, but you're deluding yourself if you think he'll go to court.
And he had his gun in hand in case the perp tried exactly what he did. You expect them to leave it in the holster until he starts swinging the bender around?
|
On January 27 2012 03:06 daemir wrote:
5 bullets to get the guy down, then execute with 5 more and this isn't called excessive?
Use the damn dog before the situation escalates, did you take it there to be petted?
Hitting a moving target might not be the easiest thing in the world, but the guy was point blank and they carry guns, I assume it involves being trained in the use of such a thing before it's thrusted into their hands. Besides the guy was fkin rapid firing anyway, you tell me what kind of drugs you gotta have in your veins for your legs to not give out when you lose your kneecap. Jesus, not excessive..
And welcome again another newcomer to our thread.
For your education there are a number of posts linked in the announcement above the thread, i highly recommend you read them before continuing to post such idiotic stuff we have already covered at least 10 times.
Short summary:
1) cops are trained to fire a salvo of shots at center mass. The number of thosts per salvo varies according to where they are trained, the target never does always center mass.
2) 5 shots from cop 1, 5 shots from cop 2 about a second later is one standard salvo from each. Yes Cop 2 might be too late to make a difference, but fact is once his training had kicked in it was impossible to stop that salvo.
3) The guy being point blank actually makes the job more difficult not less. If your traget is 5f away the vector change to adjust aim is less than if he is 3f away.
In closing, educate yourselve or at least read the friggin thread before you rehash topics we have covered ad absurdum before.
|
On January 27 2012 03:17 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 03:06 daemir wrote:
5 bullets to get the guy down, then execute with 5 more and this isn't called excessive?
Use the damn dog before the situation escalates, did you take it there to be petted?
Hitting a moving target might not be the easiest thing in the world, but the guy was point blank and they carry guns, I assume it involves being trained in the use of such a thing before it's thrusted into their hands. Besides the guy was fkin rapid firing anyway, you tell me what kind of drugs you gotta have in your veins for your legs to not give out when you lose your kneecap. Jesus, not excessive.. Even an expert marksman would have a difficult time hitting the suspect's kneecap in the time the officers had to react. Have you ever fired a handgun before? I assure you that it's not easy, even with training. It may be legitimate to criticize the officers for getting so close to the suspect that they didn't have time to use non-deadly force, but hindsight is 20/20. Once the suspect charged, there was no other action they could have taken without significantly increasing the risk to their own lives.
I've done army service as per my country, personal arms given in hand day1, training began day2 so yes I've fired weapons before and I still say this is excessive if something is. Half clip fired at the suspect point blank into chest, then 5 more after he is down in the ground. What threat was the suspect once he hit ground I wonder, especially after taking 5 in the chest.
Yea the situation was poorly handled by the officer getting so close and I'm sure they were in no short supply of non lethal takedown methods, taser, spray and the dog which they didn't even try using. Someone said they'd value the life of the trained dog over a human being down on their luck that much, just mind boggling really.
So tula, you disagree it was excessive use of force then?
|
On January 27 2012 03:43 daemir wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 03:17 Mercy13 wrote:On January 27 2012 03:06 daemir wrote:
5 bullets to get the guy down, then execute with 5 more and this isn't called excessive?
Use the damn dog before the situation escalates, did you take it there to be petted?
Hitting a moving target might not be the easiest thing in the world, but the guy was point blank and they carry guns, I assume it involves being trained in the use of such a thing before it's thrusted into their hands. Besides the guy was fkin rapid firing anyway, you tell me what kind of drugs you gotta have in your veins for your legs to not give out when you lose your kneecap. Jesus, not excessive.. Even an expert marksman would have a difficult time hitting the suspect's kneecap in the time the officers had to react. Have you ever fired a handgun before? I assure you that it's not easy, even with training. It may be legitimate to criticize the officers for getting so close to the suspect that they didn't have time to use non-deadly force, but hindsight is 20/20. Once the suspect charged, there was no other action they could have taken without significantly increasing the risk to their own lives. I've done army service as per my country, personal arms given in hand day1, training began day2 so yes I've fired weapons before and I still say this is excessive if something is. Half clip fired at the suspect point blank into chest, then 5 more after he is down in the ground. What threat was the suspect once he hit ground I wonder, especially after taking 5 in the chest. Yea the situation was poorly handled by the officer getting so close and I'm sure they were in no short supply of non lethal takedown methods, taser, spray and the dog which they didn't even try using. Someone said they'd value the life of the trained dog over a human being down on their luck that much, just mind boggling really.
So now he's down on his luck? You read his biography? Stop trying to read between the lines on his motives, it doesn't matter. Regardless of whether he was depressed, high, or just a scumbag, he brought that result on himself by destroying public property, resisting arrest, and then attacking the officers.
And yeah, I'm capable of valuing a service animal's life over a gangbanger who didn't think twice about trying to take the life of somebody just doing their job. The dog is actually a productive member of society, while the same can't be said of the thug.
|
No I did not read his bio, I don't know what he was or did or why was he in the situation. Neither do you nor did the officers. That's the point. Maybe it was someone really fucked up in the head aiming to simply bash someone in (unlikely or he'd done that indoors already) or maybe it's someone who had something tragic happen in their life, took some drugs and went the wazoo with a blunt object.
So yea, you value a trained dog over someone who might or might not be a thug gangbanger is what I think is truely mind boggling.
|
On January 27 2012 03:55 daemir wrote:
No I did not read his bio, I don't know what he was or did or why was he in the situation. Neither do you nor did the officers. That's the point. Maybe it was someone really fucked up in the head aiming to simply bash someone in (unlikely or he'd done that indoors already) or maybe it's someone who had something tragic happen in their life, took some drugs and went the wazoo with a blunt object.
So yea, you value a trained dog over someone who might or might not be a thug gangbanger is what I think is truely mind boggling.
I didn't claim to know anything about him. I do however know what he did in that video. That's all that matters. "I was sad" or "I was high" is not a valid defense for murder, sorry. There are consequences for actions, not emotions or motives.
He may or may not have been a thug (although he certainly looks like one), but he most certainly acted like one, and it led to his demise.
To illustrate my point on value of life, if someone had a gun and told you they would either kill your wife or kill a stranger, what would you tell them to do? Don't pretend you value all human life equally, it's a moral high horse that nobody actually believes in, it just sounds really good to say it.
|
On January 27 2012 03:43 daemir wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 03:17 Mercy13 wrote:On January 27 2012 03:06 daemir wrote:
5 bullets to get the guy down, then execute with 5 more and this isn't called excessive?
Use the damn dog before the situation escalates, did you take it there to be petted?
Hitting a moving target might not be the easiest thing in the world, but the guy was point blank and they carry guns, I assume it involves being trained in the use of such a thing before it's thrusted into their hands. Besides the guy was fkin rapid firing anyway, you tell me what kind of drugs you gotta have in your veins for your legs to not give out when you lose your kneecap. Jesus, not excessive.. Even an expert marksman would have a difficult time hitting the suspect's kneecap in the time the officers had to react. Have you ever fired a handgun before? I assure you that it's not easy, even with training. It may be legitimate to criticize the officers for getting so close to the suspect that they didn't have time to use non-deadly force, but hindsight is 20/20. Once the suspect charged, there was no other action they could have taken without significantly increasing the risk to their own lives. I've done army service as per my country, personal arms given in hand day1, training began day2 so yes I've fired weapons before and I still say this is excessive if something is. Half clip fired at the suspect point blank into chest, then 5 more after he is down in the ground. What threat was the suspect once he hit ground I wonder, especially after taking 5 in the chest. Yea the situation was poorly handled by the officer getting so close and I'm sure they were in no short supply of non lethal takedown methods, taser, spray and the dog which they didn't even try using. Someone said they'd value the life of the trained dog over a human being down on their luck that much, just mind boggling really. So tula, you disagree it was excessive use of force then?
Finally, someone with some base born common sense. Who knows about being in threatening situations.
|
On January 27 2012 03:43 daemir wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 03:17 Mercy13 wrote:On January 27 2012 03:06 daemir wrote:
5 bullets to get the guy down, then execute with 5 more and this isn't called excessive?
Use the damn dog before the situation escalates, did you take it there to be petted?
Hitting a moving target might not be the easiest thing in the world, but the guy was point blank and they carry guns, I assume it involves being trained in the use of such a thing before it's thrusted into their hands. Besides the guy was fkin rapid firing anyway, you tell me what kind of drugs you gotta have in your veins for your legs to not give out when you lose your kneecap. Jesus, not excessive.. Even an expert marksman would have a difficult time hitting the suspect's kneecap in the time the officers had to react. Have you ever fired a handgun before? I assure you that it's not easy, even with training. It may be legitimate to criticize the officers for getting so close to the suspect that they didn't have time to use non-deadly force, but hindsight is 20/20. Once the suspect charged, there was no other action they could have taken without significantly increasing the risk to their own lives. I've done army service as per my country, personal arms given in hand day1, training began day2 so yes I've fired weapons before and I still say this is excessive if something is. Half clip fired at the suspect point blank into chest, then 5 more after he is down in the ground. What threat was the suspect once he hit ground I wonder, especially after taking 5 in the chest. Yea the situation was poorly handled by the officer getting so close and I'm sure they were in no short supply of non lethal takedown methods, taser, spray and the dog which they didn't even try using. Someone said they'd value the life of the trained dog over a human being down on their luck that much, just mind boggling really. So tula, you disagree it was excessive use of force then?
Do people just come in here and comment without watching the video? The second round of shots were fired while the guy was still on two feet. Stop claiming that he was lying on the ground. It's painfully obvious that he was still standing when the second officer opened fire. Also the officer most likely got that close so he could hit the guy with the taser. Only his face was visible so it's reasonable he'd have to be closer than usual to try and hit him effectively.
|
On January 27 2012 03:55 daemir wrote:
No I did not read his bio, I don't know what he was or did or why was he in the situation. Neither do you nor did the officers. That's the point. Maybe it was someone really fucked up in the head aiming to simply bash someone in (unlikely or he'd done that indoors already) or maybe it's someone who had something tragic happen in their life, took some drugs and went the wazoo with a blunt object.
So yea, you value a trained dog over someone who might or might not be a thug gangbanger is what I think is truely mind boggling.
That is not what dogs are used for, which people have said about a billion times. If anything using the dog would have added unpredictability and endangered the officers further.
They were justified in deadly force. That means they can use a gun and kill them.
The dog did not just try to kill an officer. Of course the dogs life is worth more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
