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 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.
There are very few non-lethal weapons that a cop has in their arsenal that allows them to stand further than a few feet. The taser is probably the furthest one, mace and batons require melee range. There is a shotgun version of the taser that works up to 30 feet, but I don't believe that is standard police issued.
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.
He definitely ripped a dart out of his face, but that doesn't mean another didn't hit his hood and that's why the taser didn't affect him.
I'm just saying that even if you're immune to pain you will be incapacitated by a taser. Either the weapon malfunctioned or they missed, but the fact that they tried to reload suggests to me like they just missed a direct hit the first time.
Either way, he should have gotten the hint when they tried to tase him that they meant business.
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.
I agree with you that they used too much force, but to praise someone for suggesting things that won't work / were already attempted is extremely laughable. Makes me wonder if you actually bothered to read the article or not. They used a spray yeah? They used a taser, yeah? And they're definitely not going to use the dog like you suggested (if you were in charge of the scenario, you'd likely send the dog to its death and your partner would likely shoot the suspect anyway)
"base born common sense". I haven't laughed this hard in awhile.
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.
There are very few non-lethal weapons that a cop has in their arsenal that allows them to stand further than a few feet. The taser is probably the furthest one, mace and batons require melee range. There is a shotgun version of the taser that works up to 30 feet, but I don't believe that is standard police issued.
there are few non lethal ranged weapons that they have available but that does not excuse them for not using them. i recall a similar situation involving a man with a samurai sword and they used beanbag rounds, fire hoses, and even pinning him with a ladder.
in this case they even brought the dog to have it sit there and do nothing. any other option would've been better than executing him at point blank range because he made a threatening gesture after being hit in the face with a taser (which shooting someone in the face with is not proper protocol).
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.
There are very few non-lethal weapons that a cop has in their arsenal that allows them to stand further than a few feet. The taser is probably the furthest one, mace and batons require melee range. There is a shotgun version of the taser that works up to 30 feet, but I don't believe that is standard police issued.
there are few non lethal ranged weapons that they have available but that does not excuse them for not using them. i recall a similar situation involving a man with a samurai sword and they used beanbag rounds, fire hoses, and even pinning him with a ladder.
in this case they even brought the dog to have it sit there and do nothing. any other option would've been better than executing him at point blank range because he made a threatening gesture after being hit in the face with a taser (which shooting someone in the face with is not proper protocol).
The questions is what they actually had available.
Beanbag rounds are not standard issue for police patrols, neither are many other things you could list (pressure hoses, tear gas etc.). We could spend a day discussing what they could have done if they had had XY, but in the Situation presented to them they had seemingly a tazer, a dog (again unhelpfull at best, and in this situation actually a hindrance), their batons and their guns.
The only weapons they can employ without risking themselves at all are the guns. Instead the officer approached closer to try to tazer the subject (which failed for whatever reason, most likely the clothing). Now the suspect raises the conduit bender.
At that point the police is flat out of options. The only thing left is fire your weapon as your training has taught you.
Again, 3 shot salvos, 5 shot salvos whatever, is a metter of training. Maybe police should be trained to use 2 shot salvos, but that would mean that quite a few police officers each year die to attacks that could have been prevented (Simply because if you hit 1/3 of your shots on average (some say 1/5) and only fire 2 shots, quite a few police officers will miss both of their shots in such a situation). The CA police department seems to consider that an unacceptable risk, so they train for 5 shot salvos.
It seems (we guess) that every shot hit, but frankly that is guesswork, I certainly can't make out such details. Hell i can't even see the suspect when the second salvo is fired. Frankly I am pretty tired of this discussion, mostly because the feeling increases that some of you arguing are watching a different video, or not watching at all.
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
But you don't know!!! Those people could conceal a gun in their wallet or have a spy gadget mobile phone gun, its best to just let police be safe and shoot everyone, like a bunch of times.
It boggles that this guy was so dangerous that he must be put down violently, with a multitude of fire, because he was so capable of providing fatal intentions...
yet they wait for him to exit a public building?
Also they claimed he swung at them twice. Why lie? (i mean procedure was followed, and they were in the right, right?) glad these kids decided to leave the store and go film this. This is one of those cases where the dashboard cams would go missing.
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
I suppose we could have a nearly completely impotent police force, and let killers run rampant on all our islands full of teens. But it's cute how you think that wielding a large metal melee weapon capable of bashing your skull in isn't considered "armed".
On January 27 2012 07:38 Rebel_lion wrote: But you don't know!!! Those people could conceal a gun in their wallet or have a spy gadget mobile phone gun, its best to just let police be safe and shoot everyone, like a bunch of times.
It boggles that this guy was so dangerous that he must be put down violently, with a multitude of fire, because he was so capable of providing fatal intentions...
yet they wait for him to exit a public building?
Also they claimed he swung at them twice. Why lie? (i mean procedure was followed, and they were in the right, right?) glad these kids decided to leave the store and go film this. This is one of those cases where the dashboard cams would go missing.
It's called escalation of force. Upon exiting, he was not a danger to the cop's life. They warned him. Tased him. Then they shot him. If he exited the building and they shot him without doing the first two, then that is wrong.
And with regards to the dog: A policeman will not send his dog at a target who seems unfazed by a taser and is carring a melee weapon. I have said it before: the policeman makes the judgment for the dog, the dog cannot make a judgment. Sending the dog at a person wielding a weapon is suicide for the dog. They brought the dog along expecting a more compliant suspect. They had a taser. They might have mace, according to some of the posts.
Why did they wait for him to exit the building? Because they didn't know he was doing to attack them. They were more than likely hoping he would come out, see the officer with the gun and the dog and surrender. Did he do that? No. Escalation.
Your first statement is a huge fallacy. The police responded to the disturbance. He exits with a weapon in hand. That by itself already puts a ton of scrutiny on the suspect. Do you normally cause police to come to your place and you come out with a weapon?
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
I suppose we could have a nearly completely impotent police force, and let killers run rampant on all our islands full of teens. But it's cute how you think that wielding a large metal melee weapon capable of bashing your skull in isn't considered "armed".
you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The police who arrived at Utøya were armed - but just like thousands of other islands in Norway, there wasn't a police presence there 24/7. You have armed police in the states, and yet you're still unable to prevent massacres when they first happen - it's obvious that arming your police isn't actually fixing or deterring anything.
And I never said that the person in the video in the OP wasn't armed - I'm saying that conditioning your police to always shoot to kill will obviously result in many unjustified deaths.
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.
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.
You think they are going to go to court? This is the only site i have been to were people are so outraged at the outcome of this. In all the American news this is not whats been at the top of headlines.
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
That makes me really glad to not be a Norwegian who sits behind their computers and make clueless remarks about other countries while knowing really nothing at all about American society.
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
That makes me really glad to not be a Norwegian who sits behind their computers and make clueless remarks about other countries while knowing really nothing at all about American society.
oh really? What is it that I don't know or understand in this situation? Please, try and articulate it.. why did the police officer unload more shots into the perp in the video when he was already incapacitated and going down.
Also, you know what else is turning the US into a police state? things like NDAA. Seems to me like you don't even understand your own society
edit: just a note for the mods. I am not "nation bashing." I like the US, I've been there several times, I want to go back. But it is extremely concerning how the US is developing politically - the constant erosion of civil liberties, and the apparent acceptance of excessive force as demonstrated in Incontrol's post.
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
I suppose we could have a nearly completely impotent police force, and let killers run rampant on all our islands full of teens. But it's cute how you think that wielding a large metal melee weapon capable of bashing your skull in isn't considered "armed".
you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The police who arrived at Utøya were armed - but just like thousands of other islands in Norway, there wasn't a police presence there 24/7. You have armed police in the states, and yet you're still unable to prevent massacres when they first happen - it's obvious that arming your police isn't actually fixing or deterring anything.
And I never said that the person in the video in the OP wasn't armed - I'm saying that conditioning your police to always shoot to kill will obviously result in many unjustified deaths.
for what has to be the billionith time, police officers are not trained to shoot to kill. The gun is the last resort of force and like any other level of force it is used to neutralize a threat not to kill. While it is likely that you will die in the process of being neutralized its not the officer's intention.
Its lovely that norway has a significantly lower rate of illegal firearms than the US, but treating these US officers as though they were doing anything but protecting themselves and falling back on training is ridiculous.
If the police officer and any potential suspect both follow protocol- meaning you listen to the officers and the officers follow their training there should be no "unjustifiable" deaths from firearm discharge.
If police didn't respond to lethal force (a hammer being swung at you is deadly force) with lethal force there would be a lot more dead cops and a lot fewer people volunteering to be officers. What this objective fact has to do with a police state is simply beyond my comprehension.
That makes me really glad to not be a Norwegian who sits behind their computers and make clueless remarks about other countries while knowing really nothing at all about American society.
Well of course the society of america is different from other similar developed countrys(technically&economically developed) But just encountering violence with more violence leads to a vicious circle, and it will get worse and worse i guess.
And comparing the general american situation and the police behaviour to one terroristic attack by a mentally disturbed person who planned it for several years is just plain stupid.
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
That makes me really glad to not be a Norwegian who sits behind their computers and make clueless remarks about other countries while knowing really nothing at all about American society.
oh really? What is it that I don't know or understand in this situation? Please, try and articulate it.. why did the police officer unload more shots into the perp in the video when he was already incapacitated and going down.
Also, you know what else is turning the US into a police state? things like NDAA. Seems to me like you don't even understand your own society
edit: just a note for the mods. I am not "nation bashing." I like the US, I've been there several times, I want to go back. But it is extremely concerning how the US is developing politically - the constant erosion of civil liberties, and the apparent acceptance of excessive force as demonstrated in Incontrol's post.
WTF, why did the police continue firing at an armed suspect with his back to them, who just attempted to assault an officer with a deadly weapon? did you consider the suspect could have a gun, be wearing body armor, was not actually incapacitated as you assume. Get your head out of your butt and read the MULTIPLE responses to the tired criticisms you are raising.
And don't try and cover yourself by saying you like the US or w/e, you are bashing the US officers by insinuating they did anything other than exactly what was necessary to protect themselves and the numerous civilians in the area.
and US politics, beyond gun laws, has nothing to do w/ this thread.
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
That makes me really glad to not be a Norwegian who sits behind their computers and make clueless remarks about other countries while knowing really nothing at all about American society.
Which may lead us to the discussion why the heck you got the problems which other countries dont? Nah, that would totally burst the topic.
I mean, to summarize it in short:
What was the situation? - A criminal with a weapon facing 2 police officers, of whose one has a dog.
What was the basic problem in this scenario? - Both were too close to the suspect, which made it impossible to have more options. - Freakin bystanders watching and endangering themselves, reducing the options even more - the suspect doin a tauntattack (dunno if that is the correct word)
Was the desicion to shoot correct? In this situation they brought themselves: Yes, it was! There was no chance to tell if he carried on charging in or not. Sure, they could have made a gamble if the guy would be crazy enough, but as I mentioned earlier, with the short distance, no way. Also: no way to try to safe the life with an aimed shot, on this short distance and short reaction time, even holding a dog while shooting.
What should still be looked at? It has very likely to be discussed why you shoot 10 rounds into the suspect AND also (and this is where I really think the biggest problem was), why they were too close to the suspect so they reduced their options to effectively only 2 (tazer (which failed) and to use their handgun). 2-3m more distance, may eliminate the tazer use, but gives you bigger zone of safety, more time to react, more time to make use of the dog, which can overwhelm a suspect or buy even more time (and no! An animal's live is never valued more than a human's live, as much you may love animals), and even to aim for torso(most likely shoulder area) which is possible on this bigger distance with the weapon in an aiming position.
Sure the criminal rate and the use of firearms in the US is much much higher as e.g. in Germany, and US officers may be much more sensitive to weapons and are faced with much more violence as in other countries, which also may play a role in why it turned out in such an excessive use of his pistol. But that is only a possibility, which only the US officers can actually answer
(sry for the editing, but there are always so many thoughts coming up ater pressing the submit button :D)
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
That makes me really glad to not be a Norwegian who sits behind their computers and make clueless remarks about other countries while knowing really nothing at all about American society.
Which may lead us to the discussion why the heck you got the problems which other countries dont? Nah, that would totally burst the topic.
I mean, to summarize it in short:
What was the situation? - A criminal with a weapon facing 2 police officers, of whose one has a dog.
What was the basic problem in this scenario? - Both were too close to the suspect, which made it impossible to have more options. - Freakin bystanders watching and endangering themselves, reducing the options even more - the suspect doin a tauntattack (dunno if that is the correct word)
Was the desicion to shoot correct? In this situation they brought themselves: Yes, it was! There was no chance to tell if he carried on charging in or not. Sure, they could have made a gamble if the guy would be crazy enough, but as I mentioned earlier, with the short distance, no way. Also: no way to try to safe the life with an aimed shot, on this short distance and short reaction time, even holding a dog while shopting.
What should still be looked at? It has very likely to be discussed why you shoot 10 rounds into the suspect AND also (and this is where I really think the biggest problem was), why they were too close to the suspect so they reduced their options to effectively only 2 (tazer (which failed) and to use their handgun). 2-3m more distance, may eliminate the tazer use, but gives you bigger zone of safety, more time to react, more time to make use of the dog, which can overwhelm a suspect or buy even more time (and no! An animal's live is never valued more than a human's live, as much you may love animals), and even to aim for torso(most likely shoulder area) which is possible on this bigger distance with the weapon in an aiming position.
Sure the criminal rate and the use of firearms in the US is much much higher as e.g. in Germany, and US officers may be much more sensitive to weapons, which also may play a role in why it turned out in such an excessive use of his pistol. But that is only a possibility, which only the US officers can actually answer
You make 2 huge errors in your criticisms. 1st- a police dog is a sworn in officer and is NEVER to be put in the line of fire, sorry. 2nd- not closing in the suspect would have basically given him free reign of the parking lot full of civilians while disabling the use of the only less than lethal option the officers had. The officers had no idea if the suspect had a firearm so increasing their distance from him would only increase the danger to the civilians in the area. Furthermore accuracy decreases exponentially with distance so a weapon discharge by an officer at a greater distance would also have increased the danger to the civilians.
It is not clear how much time the police had to secure the perimeter of the Carl's Jr, but from what i can glean it was not an excessive amount of time. It is possible the Police broke procedure in securing the area, but that absolutely cannot be determined from the video.
You calling this "such an excessive use of his pistol" is completely inaccurate
I will agree they probably didn't need to shoot him so many times, or even kill him, but they were completely justified in shooting. The real headline should be "stupid guy with weapon ignores orders to stop and takes a swing at police and gets shot".
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.
that makes me really glad I'm not american. No wonder american citizens get shot and killed by police for being "armed" with things like wallets and mobile phones.
Being OK with police consistently using lethal force is one of the first steps to a police state.
I suppose we could have a nearly completely impotent police force, and let killers run rampant on all our islands full of teens. But it's cute how you think that wielding a large metal melee weapon capable of bashing your skull in isn't considered "armed".
you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The police who arrived at Utøya were armed - but just like thousands of other islands in Norway, there wasn't a police presence there 24/7. You have armed police in the states, and yet you're still unable to prevent massacres when they first happen - it's obvious that arming your police isn't actually fixing or deterring anything.
And I never said that the person in the video in the OP wasn't armed - I'm saying that conditioning your police to always shoot to kill will obviously result in many unjustified deaths.
for what has to be the billionith time, police officers are not trained to shoot to kill. The gun is the last resort of force and like any other level of force it is used to neutralize a threat not to kill. While it is likely that you will die in the process of being neutralized its not the officer's intention.
Its lovely that norway has a significantly lower rate of illegal firearms than the US, but treating these US officers as though they were doing anything but protecting themselves and falling back on training is ridiculous.
If the police officer and any potential suspect both follow protocol- meaning you listen to the officers and the officers follow their training there should be no "unjustifiable" deaths from firearm discharge.
If police didn't respond to lethal force (a hammer being swung at you is deadly force) with lethal force there would be a lot more dead cops and a lot fewer people volunteering to be officers. What this objective fact has to do with a police state is simply beyond my comprehension.
I was originally responding to Incontrol's post, which is pretty explicit about how US police officers are supposedly always trained to shoot to kill.
When you let your fantasy run rampant, escalating a threat waaay beyond reason, you get police officers killing people for no good reason. The officer could've fired twice and let his dog incapacitate the prep. Maybe the dog would've gotten killed, if the guy had a concealed weapon, but no matter how you cut it a person's life is worth more than a dog's.
If you think there are no "unjustifiable deaths" in situations like this, you're living in a fantasy world. But whatever.. let your overseers take away your liberties. Have fun with that.
EPT
