|
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 03:37 ZasZ. 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. But dude, he's played Call of Duty! Headshots with a pistol are easy! Show nested quote +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?
Dude, quit arguing semantics. You are missing ALL the points presented. You are not a police officer, you were not there. Hell I doubt you've even been punched in the face. You aren't an expert on the matter, and we all have opinions. Stop forcing yours down everyone throat, because it is without experience.
|
|
|
United States24701 Posts
When a thread gets this long almost nobody actually reads everything that was accomplished. Thus, the same things get argued over and over again. Honestly I don't know of a good solution to this problem.
|
I actually did read your post from the mod link up top, and now just read your second on page 76. And agree with most, the one thing is though. You are comparing instances of a marine in an active war zone against another with equal force (guns) trained soldiers at that. To 3-5 cops against a crackhead with a pipe. That's not the same situation and IMO can't be compared totally.
|
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.
He probably wasn't a threat. PROBABLY. Let's say there's a 0.01% chance that the suspect had a gun, and that he was capable of shooting and killing one of the officers. Now consider that the officers find themselves in situations like this frequently in the line of duty. Maybe 100 times per year? And that they serve for thirty years. Simply put, the magnitude of the threat represented by the suspect is irrelevant, so long as it exists.
Once he threatened deadly force against the officers they had no choice but to unequivocally end that threat; anything else would be irresponsible on their part.
Edit:
I did read your post and it is obvious that you are far more knowledgable than I am on these issues. I hope you don't mind that I chimed in anyway!
Thanks for the post, and for your service.
|
On January 27 2012 04:32 Arkless wrote:I actually did read your post from the mod link up top, and now just read your second on page 76. And agree with most, the one thing is though. You are comparing instances of a marine in an active war zone against another with equal force (guns) trained soldiers at that. To 3-5 cops against a crackhead with a pipe. That's not the same situation and IMO can't be compared totally.
In the video linked in the warning on the top of the page, the police officer probally thought he was dealing with a simple lunatic driver. How could he know he was a veteran from vietnam? Like the guy you are quoting said, you can't rely on "what if"s. What if the guy had a weapon? It's impossible to say that wasn't a possibility looking and his clothing and just a small video as evidence. What if he actually had some physical training and was in a better condition than the officers? On these kind of situations, you take no chances, the officers didn't have much time to analize the situation, as you do now, and relied on what their training told them to do.
|
I don't think the cops should be punished in any way but I do think there might have been a better way to handle this. After he peeled the taser out of his face they should not have waited for him to get aggressive, but stayed on top of the situation and promptly shot him in the legs or arms or wherever. If he would still appear to be a threat then more shots should be fired. If a guy doesn't listen to reason, then he will have to listen to force. If the force applied does not immediately work, then more force is immediately applied until it works.
It was a mistake to let him take a single step towards the police officer, when you start applying force you don't stop until you are done.
This was a fucked up situation. The guy has no valid excuse for his actions, the cops have plenty of excellent reasons to react as they did, but that does not make this the ideal way to handle a situation like this.
|
On January 27 2012 04:28 micronesia wrote:When a thread gets this long almost nobody actually reads everything that was accomplished. Thus, the same things get argued over and over again. Honestly I don't know of a good solution to this problem.
You close the thread
because it has completely deteriorated into circles of uninformed people calling these officers criminals; then Smi. Eternal and others try and explain that the officers were, in fact, perfectly following their training. Then the uninformed person proposes the officers take an action that would have endangered someone's life because they aren't fully accounting for the unknowns in the situation (concealed weapon, body armor, influence of narcotics, police not seeing the individual until he is leaving the carl's jr, the amount of civilians in the area, the fact that you don't send dogs into the line of fire, etc) Then these points are made, and evidence is presented as to the very real dangers officers face when they fail to secure a situation swiftly and with the required force. Then the uninformed person claims this evidence doesn't apply of XYZ, and we start all over.
All the questions in the OP have been answered, all the concerns raised by those saying the officers used excessive force have been answered. Wtf is left to say?
EDIT: this is exactly the average level of post in this thread and its frankly sickening at this point
On January 27 2012 05:01 prplhz wrote:
I don't think the cops should be punished in any way but I do think there might have been a better way to handle this. After he peeled the taser out of his face they should not have waited for him to get aggressive, but stayed on top of the situation and promptly shot him in the legs or arms or wherever. If he would still appear to be a threat then more shots should be fired. If a guy doesn't listen to reason, then he will have to listen to force. If the force applied does not immediately work, then more force is immediately applied until it works.
It was a mistake to let him take a single step towards the police officer, when you start applying force you don't stop until you are done.
This was a fucked up situation. The guy has no valid excuse for his actions, the cops have plenty of excellent reasons to react as they did, but that does not make this the ideal way to handle a situation like this.
The ideal response you propose makes NO SENSE. No one is fucking trained to shoot in the leg or arm or w.e for the 1000000000 time!! You watch too many movies.
The officers did stay on top of situation by using exactly as much force as was required to neutralize the threat to protect the other officers and all the civilians present. They had no reason to stop shooting after the initial rounds because its impossible to know if he had a concealed weapon, body armor, or was simply not interested in stopping his aggression after 5 small caliber rounds.
|
On January 27 2012 04:15 Arkless wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 03:37 ZasZ. wrote: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. 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? Dude, quit arguing semantics. You are missing ALL the points presented. You are not a police officer, you were not there. Hell I doubt you've even been punched in the face. You aren't an expert on the matter, and we all have opinions. Stop forcing yours down everyone throat, because it is without experience.
Which part of the paragraph you bolded was an opinion, exactly? Are you a police officer? Were you there? I only know what I saw in the video, which was clearly two officers acting in self defense when other methods didn't work.
Last time I checked, ending a life in the name of self-defense was legal in this country. Not sure how that's an opinion.
|
United States24701 Posts
On January 27 2012 05:10 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 04:28 micronesia wrote:When a thread gets this long almost nobody actually reads everything that was accomplished. Thus, the same things get argued over and over again. Honestly I don't know of a good solution to this problem. You close the thread because it has completely deteriorated into circles of uninformed people calling these officers criminals; then Smi. Eternal and others try and explain that the officers were, in fact, perfectly following their training. Then the uninformed person proposes the officers take an action that would have endangered someone's life because they aren't fully accounting for the unknowns in the situation (concealed weapon, body armor, influence of narcotics, police not seeing the individual until he is leaving the carl's jr, the amount of civilians in the area, the fact that you don't send dogs into the line of fire, etc) Then these points are made, and evidence is presented as to the very real dangers officers face when they fail to secure a situation swiftly and with the required force. Then the uninformed person claims this evidence doesn't apply of XYZ, and we start all over. All the questions in the OP have been answered, all the concerns raised by those saying the officers used excessive force have been answered. Wtf is left to say?
I don't consider this a good solution to the problem. The same way... I don't think we should close every thread that gets past a few pages (the point where people start to repeat the same stupid things).
|
On January 27 2012 05:01 prplhz wrote:
I don't think the cops should be punished in any way but I do think there might have been a better way to handle this. After he peeled the taser out of his face they should not have waited for him to get aggressive, but stayed on top of the situation and promptly shot him in the legs or arms or wherever. If he would still appear to be a threat then more shots should be fired. If a guy doesn't listen to reason, then he will have to listen to force. If the force applied does not immediately work, then more force is immediately applied until it works.
It was a mistake to let him take a single step towards the police officer, when you start applying force you don't stop until you are done.
This was a fucked up situation. The guy has no valid excuse for his actions, the cops have plenty of excellent reasons to react as they did, but that does not make this the ideal way to handle a situation like this.
You do NOT pre-emptively shoot a person in the arms and legs before they show aggression. That is NOT an option in the escalation of force.
A taser did not work. Someone else said in the thread the man was maced. You are not expected to, nor should you, engage in close quarter combat against a person who just shrugged off a taser and is wielding a weapon. And anyone who pipes up saying "oh I can totally do that" and has been actually trained in martial arts is more than likely ignoring a golden rule in martial arts.
Should those cops have more equipment meant to disable people besides a taser and mace? Possibly. That could be a discussion point. The two officers, however, handled it well as they could in their situation.
|
On January 27 2012 05:12 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 05:10 stokes17 wrote:On January 27 2012 04:28 micronesia wrote:When a thread gets this long almost nobody actually reads everything that was accomplished. Thus, the same things get argued over and over again. Honestly I don't know of a good solution to this problem. You close the thread because it has completely deteriorated into circles of uninformed people calling these officers criminals; then Smi. Eternal and others try and explain that the officers were, in fact, perfectly following their training. Then the uninformed person proposes the officers take an action that would have endangered someone's life because they aren't fully accounting for the unknowns in the situation (concealed weapon, body armor, influence of narcotics, police not seeing the individual until he is leaving the carl's jr, the amount of civilians in the area, the fact that you don't send dogs into the line of fire, etc) Then these points are made, and evidence is presented as to the very real dangers officers face when they fail to secure a situation swiftly and with the required force. Then the uninformed person claims this evidence doesn't apply of XYZ, and we start all over. All the questions in the OP have been answered, all the concerns raised by those saying the officers used excessive force have been answered. Wtf is left to say? I don't consider this a good solution to the problem. The same way... I don't think we should close every thread that gets past a few pages (the point where people start to repeat the same stupid things).
*The same stupid things that are addressed in a moderator's warning at the top of every page.*
Idn, what additional discussion is possible? Whether or not officers in the US should be trained the way they are? That's a pretty shallow discussion that centers on the prevalence of unlicensed firearms in USA. And if you want to have a discussion on that I think it deserves its own thread. So what purpose is this thread serving other than a place for people to make uninformed judgments of US police officers acting completely within their training?
|
On January 27 2012 05:15 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 05:01 prplhz wrote:
I don't think the cops should be punished in any way but I do think there might have been a better way to handle this. After he peeled the taser out of his face they should not have waited for him to get aggressive, but stayed on top of the situation and promptly shot him in the legs or arms or wherever. If he would still appear to be a threat then more shots should be fired. If a guy doesn't listen to reason, then he will have to listen to force. If the force applied does not immediately work, then more force is immediately applied until it works.
It was a mistake to let him take a single step towards the police officer, when you start applying force you don't stop until you are done.
This was a fucked up situation. The guy has no valid excuse for his actions, the cops have plenty of excellent reasons to react as they did, but that does not make this the ideal way to handle a situation like this. You do NOT pre-emptively shoot a person in the arms and legs before they show aggression. That is NOT an option in the escalation of force. A taser did not work. Someone else said in the thread the man was maced. You are not expected to, nor should you, engage in close quarter combat against a person who just shrugged off a taser and is wielding a weapon. And anyone who pipes up saying "oh I can totally do that" and has been actually trained in martial arts is more than likely ignoring a golden rule in martial arts. Should those cops have more equipment meant to disable people besides a taser and mace? Possibly. That could be a discussion point. The two officers, however, handled it well as they could in their situation.
I agree, but peeling a taser out of your face while wielding a huge crowbar seems pretty aggressive to me. The cops had decided to use force, and then you should continue applying force until it works. You can't taser a dude in the face and then go "Oh that didn't work, maybe we can sit down and talk about it instead?"
Again, the officers did absolutely nothing wrong in my opinion.
|
that other video from youtube made me feel like shit...
|
I kinda wish I didn´t see this video and that this guy wouldn´t have been killed, but I cannot really condemn the police officer for killing the suspect.
For reference, I served in the armed forces for 2 years. As a navy radio operator, I didn´t get the best weapon training.
From what I read so far police officers don´t always get the best training either.
I can only sympathise with the shooting officer.
What most people don´t know, guns don´t actually emit dangerousness. Modern weapons look almost exactly like Airsoft weapons. Especially pistols since they are small and light to begin with. Also you can´t really see if a gun is loaded or malfunctioning. You can´t really tell by just looking at it.
You may say this is common sense. In theory everybody knows this. (I thought I did)
Then I was first introduced to a real weapon. I always assumed that real weapons were different from toys, that they are heavier, out of metal or anything. But they aren´t. Modern weapons are increasingly made out of plastic. The trigger isn´t hard to pull either. It is somewhat more resistant than flipping a light switch, but not much.
I was first really shocked when another guy playfully pointed a disassembled gun at me. I knew it was disassembled, I had seen it clearly. I still felt highly threatened.
My point is, most people don´t realize the actual threat. Since pistols are small and easily hidden, part of (my) training was aimed at building awareness of this threat. People like police officers and military personnel are much more likely to be shot at than pretty much anybody else, because they protect and therefore represent a system.
Life is a fragile thing, you only have one. And it can be ended with less effort than lifting a bottle to your mouth.
There are no practical jokes when guns are involved. There are no jokes at all when guns are involved.
Had this suspect known that, he might still be alive.
|
Try to use non lethal force when the suspect uses PCP and has no pain. BTW they used taser didn't work that well, right?
|
On January 27 2012 06:21 Mayd wrote:
Try to use non lethal force when the suspect uses PCP and has no pain. BTW they used taser didn't work that well, right?
The taser either malfunctioned or didn't work because of how much clothing he was wearing. Even if he was on PCP, I don't think you respond to the pain so much as the electrical current from a taser.
Regardless, they were in the process of reloading the taser to try again when he attacked, so that's why they resorted to plan B.
|
it is pretty evident that his judgment was impaired at the time and a failure on the part of the officers for allowing the situation to unfold the way it did. there's no real right or wrong way to have handled it but standing five feet from a man with a melee weapon and then unloading a clip into him when he threatens to swing isn't the smartest thing they could've done.
|
On January 27 2012 06:24 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 06:21 Mayd wrote:
Try to use non lethal force when the suspect uses PCP and has no pain. BTW they used taser didn't work that well, right? The taser either malfunctioned or didn't work because of how much clothing he was wearing. Even if he was on PCP, I don't think you respond to the pain so much as the electrical current from a taser. Regardless, they were in the process of reloading the taser to try again when he attacked, so that's why they resorted to plan B.
What does clothing have to do with this? The taser hit him in the face.
|
On January 27 2012 06:30 Terranist wrote:
it is pretty evident that his judgment was impaired at the time and a failure on the part of the officers for allowing the situation to unfold the way it did. there's no real right or wrong way to have handled it but standing five feet from a man with a melee weapon and then unloading a clip into him when he threatens to swing isn't the smartest thing they could've done.
Well, I don't believe long range tasers have been invented yet, and there were clearly civilians in the area so giving him free reign of the parking lot when he could have a concealed weapon would have been extremely dangerous.
So what is the smartest thing they could have done?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
