|
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 08:44 Playguuu wrote:
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".
They probably didn't "have" to shoot ~10 times, that's true. But if you are willing take an even 5% chance against your own life and your partner's vs a clearly unstable armed suspect....
Then I hope you are never my partner
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 08:28 Eisregen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:03 DreamChaser wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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
On January 27 2012 08:38 stokes17 wrote:
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
Whats the use of a police dog then? I cant imagine those dogs are trained to look nice and catch the ball. Here dogs are trained either to search for illegal materials or to stop suspects (those go onto patrol), even when they are armed (may they be running away or not).
The 2nd point is more of an issue. The time you gain to react compared to the target getting smaller is clearly in favor of the time gained to react. when you are 2m away and get another 2-3m away, this wont make much difference for being able to hit the target, but you gain the possibility to actually aim at spots. You still wont miss, hell on this distance you would even hit with a MG3 in rambo style.
Concerning those bystanders. I dont have much sympathy with them. I experienced it alot, when those ppl stand there watching ppl getting beaten up and dont do anything, not even calling the police. But where could he have run to? backwards or into the direction of the fence. Not many options for the guy, in both scenarios, he would be in a direct line of fire.
The suspect having a gun, is the only good point I see so far. But, think about it. at least one officer got his gun ready to shoot. Do you believe he would draw faster than the officer would shoot? That's my conclusion.
One last question: 10 Rounds to stop a suspect isnt an excessive use of a pistol? This isnt hollywood where ppl get hit by 5 bullets and still draw out guns while falling backwards.
|
german police dogs are the scariest fucking things I've ever seen.
|
On January 27 2012 08:48 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:24 stokes17 wrote:On January 27 2012 07:55 Quotidian wrote:On January 27 2012 07:44 Chargelot wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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. http://youtu.be/QUGlH46cpWc 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. Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:24 stokes17 wrote:On January 27 2012 07:55 Quotidian wrote:On January 27 2012 07:44 Chargelot wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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. http://youtu.be/QUGlH46cpWc 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. and 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 life. But whatever.. let your overseers take away your liberties. Have fun with that.
Bro get off your high horse will you? You clearly have not even a cursory knowledge of US police training and protocol.
Stop trying to derail talking about "my overseers"and "liberties", like wtf. I have the liberty to not get killed by some crazy armed man while I'm eating lunch at Carl's Jr. and the officers put their lives on the line to protect that liberty.
Yes the officer could have fired twice and sent in the dog, at the minimum he would lose his job for willingly putting his dog in the line of fire.
at the maximum the suspect could have a concealed weapon and have killed any number of civilians and officers.
It is completely reasonable assumption in america to assume an armed suspect has a concealed weapon. I am highly offended that you call this "fantasy run rampant".
If " you're living in a fantasy life. But whatever.. let your overseers take away your liberties. Have fun with that" is not nation bashing.... then idn... it is certainly offensive.
|
On January 27 2012 08:50 Eisregen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 08:28 Eisregen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:03 DreamChaser wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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. http://youtu.be/QUGlH46cpWc 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 Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:38 stokes17 wrote:
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
Whats the use of a police dog then? I cant imagine those dogs are trained to look nice and catch the ball. Here dogs are trained either to search for illegal materials or to stop suspects (those go onto patrol), even when they are armed (may they be running away or not). The 2nd point is more of an issue. The time you gain to react compared to the target getting smaller is clearly in favor of the time gained to react. when you are 2m away and get another 2-3m away, this wont make much difference for being able to hit the target, but you gain the possibility to actually aim at spots. You still wont miss, hell on this distance you would even hit with a MG3 in rambo style. Concerning those bystanders. I dont have much sympathy with them. I experienced it alot, when those ppl stand there watching ppl getting beaten up and dont do anything, not even calling the police. The suspect having a gun, is the only good point I see so far. But, think about it. at least one officer got his gun ready to shoot. Do you believe he would draw faster than the officer would shoot? That's my conclusion. One last question: 10 Rounds to stop a suspect isnt an excessive use of a pistol? This isnt hollywood where ppl get hit by 5 bullets and still draw out guns while falling backwards
k9 units are used to chase fleeing suspects, go where human officers can't go, and search for drugs/bombs.
They are ABSOLUTELY not to be put in the line of fire.
Don't even try to say its" holly wood" for someone to survive 5 small caliber rounds and still kill you. That's completely bullshit Fucking educate yourself will you. There are TONS of stories of insurgents withstanding multiple medium caliber rounds (read 5x stronger than the rounds used in the video) and continuing to kill and maim US soldiers.
Anyone who has the semblance of a fucking clue would tell you an armed suspect who received 5 small caliber rounds, may be wearing BA or brandishing a concealed weapon, with his back to you, is still a threat; treating him as anything other than a threat is putting the lives of you, your partner and the surrounding public at risk
|
Like I truly understand Europeans live in a completely different society in concerns to the prevalence of firearms, and have been trying my best to be understanding when explaining why the officers had to act the way they did; But we're on fucking day 4 here people.... read!
|
Imagine a guy with an axe walks into your family picnic and starts approaching one of your family members. He starts raising the axe to swing it at them. Assume you have a gun and you shoot him five times before he falls down. Now your most primal instinct will be to eliminate the threat completely so it never happens again. This means shooting the guy more until he's dead, gone, whatever. It's human instinct.
|
Totally justified, never raise a weapon to a cop or prepare for consequences.
|
I feel like this thread has run its course. I'm seeing more ridiculous analogies and subtle nation bashing in the last 10-20 pages than the rest combined.
This was a good thread with a controversial topic that people could debate.
Now it's been reduced to who can get away with insulting the other.
|
Unjustified, common people can use guns, cops are trained not to have to use them.
|
On January 27 2012 09:04 CrazyAsian wrote:
I feel like this thread has run its course. I'm seeing more ridiculous analogies and subtle nation bashing in the last 10-20 pages than the rest combined.
This was a good thread with a controversial topic that people could debate.
Now it's been reduced to who can get away with insulting the other.
said the same thing a few pages back and a mod told me no
So i think the circles will continue >_>
|
On January 27 2012 08:58 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:50 Eisregen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 08:28 Eisregen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:03 DreamChaser wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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. http://youtu.be/QUGlH46cpWc 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 On January 27 2012 08:38 stokes17 wrote:
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
Whats the use of a police dog then? I cant imagine those dogs are trained to look nice and catch the ball. Here dogs are trained either to search for illegal materials or to stop suspects (those go onto patrol), even when they are armed (may they be running away or not). The 2nd point is more of an issue. The time you gain to react compared to the target getting smaller is clearly in favor of the time gained to react. when you are 2m away and get another 2-3m away, this wont make much difference for being able to hit the target, but you gain the possibility to actually aim at spots. You still wont miss, hell on this distance you would even hit with a MG3 in rambo style. Concerning those bystanders. I dont have much sympathy with them. I experienced it alot, when those ppl stand there watching ppl getting beaten up and dont do anything, not even calling the police. The suspect having a gun, is the only good point I see so far. But, think about it. at least one officer got his gun ready to shoot. Do you believe he would draw faster than the officer would shoot? That's my conclusion. One last question: 10 Rounds to stop a suspect isnt an excessive use of a pistol? This isnt hollywood where ppl get hit by 5 bullets and still draw out guns while falling backwards k9 units are used to chase fleeing suspects, go where human officers can't go, and search for drugs/bombs. They are ABSOLUTELY not to be put in the line of fire. Don't even try to say its" holly wood" for someone to survive 5 small caliber rounds and still kill you. That's completely bullshit Fucking educate yourself will you. There are TONS of stories of insurgents withstanding multiple medium caliber rounds (read 5x stronger than the rounds used in the video) and continuing to kill and maim US soldiers. Anyone who has the semblance of a fucking clue would tell you an armed suspect who received 5 small caliber rounds, may be wearing BA or brandishing a concealed weapon, with his back to you, is still a threat; treating him as anything other than a threat is putting the lives of you, your partner and the surrounding public at risk
Than you should start using dogs in that way also, they are pretty effective gainst suspects.
Oh, now we are in Afghanistan?
OK, as you bring up afghanistan, I suppose you are talking about 5.56mm? You know that caliber has one problem? the man stopping effect is pretty bad compared to 7.62 and everyone is complaining about that, I hear it a lot from the german side, I hear it from US site. Get hit by a faster 5.56? often guys keep on running. Get hit by a 7.62 you're most likely knocked down. And now start comparing a 5.56 to a 9mm...seriously.
But yeah, keep the insults up, looks very mature!
As I said, drawing a gun takes time, they would be safer with more distance and could also eliminate that realistic threat.
And now everyone is wearing bulletproof vests,why didnt he aim for the head then? Even 10 bullets wont penetrate a bulletproof vest, he still could draw a gun. But as the officer didnt aim for the head he clearly not assumed he had a bulletproof vest? Seriously, US officers now also have to assume the suspect has a deadman's trigger and bombs around his belly? How paranoid can you get?
|
On January 27 2012 09:07 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 09:04 CrazyAsian wrote:
I feel like this thread has run its course. I'm seeing more ridiculous analogies and subtle nation bashing in the last 10-20 pages than the rest combined.
This was a good thread with a controversial topic that people could debate.
Now it's been reduced to who can get away with insulting the other.
said the same thing a few pages back and a mod told me no So i think the circles will continue >_>
Yeah, we so cool we above it all.
Anyway, although I said it was unjustified, It's understandable. Crowbar scary. Still, the officer should be sanctioned. How big that is, if it includes criminal charges, is something that experts will figure out.
|
On January 27 2012 09:06 Chunhyang wrote:
Unjustified, common people can use guns, cops are trained not to have to use them.
What was his other alternative?
|
It's been 24 hours since I watched that video of the cop that was shot by the war veteran when he was pulled over simply for speeding. I still can't stop thinking about it, and I still feel sick to my stomach when I do. Then to think that he was only 22 (I'm 30), and his wife was pregnant at the time just makes me depressed.
Major respect to the officers that have to deal with that kind of uncertainty in their day to day jobs and then have to put up with this crap.
|
On January 27 2012 08:54 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:48 Quotidian wrote:On January 27 2012 08:24 stokes17 wrote:On January 27 2012 07:55 Quotidian wrote:On January 27 2012 07:44 Chargelot wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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. http://youtu.be/QUGlH46cpWc 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. On January 27 2012 08:24 stokes17 wrote:On January 27 2012 07:55 Quotidian wrote:On January 27 2012 07:44 Chargelot wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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. http://youtu.be/QUGlH46cpWc 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. and 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 life. But whatever.. let your overseers take away your liberties. Have fun with that. Bro get off your high horse will you? You clearly have not even a cursory knowledge of US police training and protocol. Stop trying to derail talking about "my overseers"and "liberties", like wtf. I have the liberty to not get killed by some crazy armed man while I'm eating lunch at Carl's Jr. and the officers put their lives on the line to protect that liberty. Yes the officer could have fired twice and sent in the dog, at the minimum he would lose his job for willingly putting his dog in the line of fire. at the maximum the suspect could have a concealed weapon and have killed any number of civilians and officers. It is completely reasonable assumption in america to assume an armed suspect has a concealed weapon. I am highly offended that you call this "fantasy run rampant". If " you're living in a fantasy life. But whatever.. let your overseers take away your liberties. Have fun with that" is not nation bashing.... then idn... it is certainly offensive.
I'm certainly not your "bro." Why are you so worried about being offended? Like being offended is ever a good counterargument. Why are you even on the internet if you get offended so easily? Get some thicker skin.
I was going to add something more to my original point, but I see that this thread has become so entrenched that there really is no point.
|
On January 27 2012 09:10 Eisregen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:58 stokes17 wrote:On January 27 2012 08:50 Eisregen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 08:28 Eisregen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:03 DreamChaser wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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. http://youtu.be/QUGlH46cpWc 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 On January 27 2012 08:38 stokes17 wrote:
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
Whats the use of a police dog then? I cant imagine those dogs are trained to look nice and catch the ball. Here dogs are trained either to search for illegal materials or to stop suspects (those go onto patrol), even when they are armed (may they be running away or not). The 2nd point is more of an issue. The time you gain to react compared to the target getting smaller is clearly in favor of the time gained to react. when you are 2m away and get another 2-3m away, this wont make much difference for being able to hit the target, but you gain the possibility to actually aim at spots. You still wont miss, hell on this distance you would even hit with a MG3 in rambo style. Concerning those bystanders. I dont have much sympathy with them. I experienced it alot, when those ppl stand there watching ppl getting beaten up and dont do anything, not even calling the police. The suspect having a gun, is the only good point I see so far. But, think about it. at least one officer got his gun ready to shoot. Do you believe he would draw faster than the officer would shoot? That's my conclusion. One last question: 10 Rounds to stop a suspect isnt an excessive use of a pistol? This isnt hollywood where ppl get hit by 5 bullets and still draw out guns while falling backwards k9 units are used to chase fleeing suspects, go where human officers can't go, and search for drugs/bombs. They are ABSOLUTELY not to be put in the line of fire. Don't even try to say its" holly wood" for someone to survive 5 small caliber rounds and still kill you. That's completely bullshit Fucking educate yourself will you. There are TONS of stories of insurgents withstanding multiple medium caliber rounds (read 5x stronger than the rounds used in the video) and continuing to kill and maim US soldiers. Anyone who has the semblance of a fucking clue would tell you an armed suspect who received 5 small caliber rounds, may be wearing BA or brandishing a concealed weapon, with his back to you, is still a threat; treating him as anything other than a threat is putting the lives of you, your partner and the surrounding public at risk Than you should start using dogs in that way also, they are pretty effective gainst suspects. Oh, now we are in Afghanistan? OK, as you bring up afghanistan, I suppose you are talking about 5.56mm? You know that caliber has one problem? the man stopping effect is pretty bad compared to 7.62 and everyone is complaining about that, I hear it a lot from the german side, I hear it from US site. Get hit by a faster 5.56? often guys keep on running. Get hit by a 7.62 xou're most like knocked down. But yeah, keep the insults up, looks very mature! As I said, drawing a gun takes time, they would be safer with mroe distance and could also eliminate that realistic threat. And now everyone is wearing bulletproof vests,why didnt he aim for the head then? Even 10 bullets wont penetrate a bulletproof vest, he still could draw a gun. But as the officer didnt aim for the head he clearly not assumed he had a bulletproof vest? Seriously, US officers now also have to assume the suspect has a deadman's trigger and bombs around his belly? How paranoid can you get?
pretty sure a bullet does not care where it is ? Yes a 5.56 round is quite ineffective as far as stopping power is concerned. It is also about 3-5x more effective than a 9mm parrabellum. Which was my point. I'm only insulting your insistence on posting w/o proper knowledge. And people can withstand 7.62 and continue fighting as well its not unheard of. 1 shot 1 kill really only applies to the 50 caliber round in the real world.
You can't Assume he DOESNT have ba, you may lose your life. So yes, assuming every armed suspect in heavy clothing has BA underneath will extend your life span... so I'll continue to do so.
You are trained to aim center mass, so that's why they did so. You are right standard type 2 BA does protect from 9mm rounds, which is why they fired until he was on the ground. to give you reference you need to go class 4 to be protected from NATO rounds. So you basically say the NATO round sucks vs people while it is 2x faster and slightly heavier than the rounds used in the video. So how bad must 9mm rounds be? EXACTLY
Like i've said multiple times I understand to a eurpoean the thought of random people having BA and concealed guns is almost as silly as saying they have bombs on their waist. But in America, It is a very real danger. So you better recognize it as such, or you can end up dead.
|
On January 27 2012 09:16 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:54 stokes17 wrote:On January 27 2012 08:48 Quotidian wrote:On January 27 2012 08:24 stokes17 wrote:On January 27 2012 07:55 Quotidian wrote:On January 27 2012 07:44 Chargelot wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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. http://youtu.be/QUGlH46cpWc 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. On January 27 2012 08:24 stokes17 wrote:On January 27 2012 07:55 Quotidian wrote:On January 27 2012 07:44 Chargelot wrote:On January 27 2012 07:28 Quotidian 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. 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. http://youtu.be/QUGlH46cpWc 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. and 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 life. But whatever.. let your overseers take away your liberties. Have fun with that. Bro get off your high horse will you? You clearly have not even a cursory knowledge of US police training and protocol. Stop trying to derail talking about "my overseers"and "liberties", like wtf. I have the liberty to not get killed by some crazy armed man while I'm eating lunch at Carl's Jr. and the officers put their lives on the line to protect that liberty. Yes the officer could have fired twice and sent in the dog, at the minimum he would lose his job for willingly putting his dog in the line of fire. at the maximum the suspect could have a concealed weapon and have killed any number of civilians and officers. It is completely reasonable assumption in america to assume an armed suspect has a concealed weapon. I am highly offended that you call this "fantasy run rampant". If " you're living in a fantasy life. But whatever.. let your overseers take away your liberties. Have fun with that" is not nation bashing.... then idn... it is certainly offensive. I'm certainly not your "bro." Why are you so worried about being offended? Like being offended is ever a good counterargument. Why are you even on the internet if you get offended so easily? Get some thicker skin. I was going to add something more to my original point, but I see that this thread has become so entrenched that there really is no point.
Yea you could address the actual counter arguments i gave you, but w/e. And yea you saying the reality that i live in is a fantasy is offensive. Don't belittle me for that.
You say he should have shot 2 times and sent in the dog, I explained to you why this is a ridiculous idea. response?
|
I'd like to point out that the x3 or the x26 (tasers) for less equipped forces all boast a range of 15-35 ft. With various cartridges this range can be increased. No taser requires the user to be within 3 ft of a suspect.
Edit. No police issued taser.
|
If you look closely at the video, the guy walks away from the police, stops, turns around and making a threatening gesture with his weapon towards the police. HOWEVER, the guy actually put down his weapon and turns away from the police. Thats when the cop shoots him. It wasnt necessary at all. Why didn't they use a teaser instead? And the cop fucking shot him 4 times! 1 is enough, in the leg. And the guy falls down and the cop shoots him in the back 4 more times. I'm feeling sick in my stomache after watching that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
