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 09:23 Naugrim wrote: 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.
I hate to say it, but I don't think you have read through any of this thread.
On January 27 2012 09:22 Rebel_lion wrote: 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.
finally a reasonable point!
I think you need to consider the amount of clothing the suspect was wearing, the officer wanted to connect with his 1st try because 1. they take forever to reload (relatively speaking) 2. the officer did not want him to pose a threat to the surrounding civilians.
Also, I know those are the advertised distances but I've never seen an accurate taser discharge over ~10-15 feet. Sort of like the distance between range and effective range
On January 27 2012 09:06 Chunhyang wrote: Unjustified, common people can use guns, cops are trained not to have to use them.
Seriously, you come in here with a one liner, then insult my observation that this thread is walking in circles?
Do you have familiarity with US police training so that you can state "cops are trained not to have to use them[firearms]" Because I don't think I've ever seen that piece of information before.
Clothing is kind of mute, I got tased as a volunteer at a US army weapon convention. The electrodes were attached to my BDU top, at the lapels. It didn't keep me from crumpling like a bag of bricks. There wasn't even skin contact. These are the most powerful tasers available.
I think the officer failed to trigger the electricity before the barbs were ripped out, or the weather caused a malfunction, they are not known for their reliability in adverse conditions.
On January 27 2012 09:30 Rebel_lion wrote: Clothing is kind of mute, I got tased as a volunteer at a US army weapon convention. The electrodes were attached to my BDU top, at the lapels. It didn't keep me from crumpling like a bag of bricks. There wasn't even skin contact. These are the most powerful tasers available.
I think the officer failed to trigger the electricity before the barbs were ripped out, or the weather caused a malfunction, they are not known for their reliability in adverse conditions.
Yea that's properly true. there's the standard exercise where you all hold hands and 1 gets taser and you all feel it.
Your explanation that the officer didn't activate in time is probably the most accurate guess that can be made based on what we see.
I think enough clothing would give the electricity a more ready path to the ground than through you though, especially in damp conditions which is what it appeared to be.
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.
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.
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?
yes, but why are you so worried about going through life "unoffended?" Getting offended is a part of life. Learn to live with it.
And yes, thinking that every time a person is shot and killed by a police office - every single time - is justified... thinking that errors never occur.. that is the definition of being out of touch with reality.
I disagree that releasing the dog would be a ridiculous idea. The dog wouldn't be in the line of fire if no one fired. There was no evidence of a concealed weapon - and always assuming that there is a concealed weapon leads to other things, like persons "armed" with hairbrushes getting shot and killed, etc, even when surrendering their "weapon." The only reason a police dog is a "sworn officer" is to equate an attack on a police dog with an attack on an officer - for legal reasons. That does not mean a police dog is not a tool to be used to save lives. If police protocol states otherwise, then that is just another point where american law enforcement is messed up.
edit: after re-reading the "thread warning" it's obvious in what direction the bias here goes. It's like there's a want for posts that argue in favor of the police in this instance and it even provides evidence to change your mind in case you think differently. Any further discussion is pretty much pointless.. so why is the thread still open?
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. 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.
Ok if it is really THAT bad in the US my bad. (sure know about the threat of weapons and excessive violence US officers have to face, but not about often used BA)
Offtopic: Concerning man stop effect, dont confuse it with penetration ability (kinetic energy). The higher the penetration ability is, the lower the ability to deliver the energy onto the target (a human in this case). Thats why a 5.56 with a high kinetic energy doesnt have a good man stopping ability. the 7.62 is better for that purpose, a 9mm is even better than a 7.62 as it may deliver 80-100% of its energy into the body. (Modern police should use deformation projectiles and no FMJ projectiles). But yeah, penetration ability and man stopping effect are inverse correlated. ^^
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.
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.
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?
yes, but why are you so worried about going through life "unoffended?" Getting offended is a part of life. Learn to live with it.
And yes, thinking that every time a person is shot and killed by a police office - every single time - is justified. Thinking that errors never occur is the definition of being out of touch with reality.
I disagree that releasing the dog would be a ridiculous idea. The dog wouldn't be in the line of fire if no one fired. There was no evidence of a concealed weapon - and always assuming that there is a concealed weapon leads to other things, like persons "armed" with hairbrushes getting shot and killed, etc, even when surrendering their "weapon." The only reason a police dog is a "sworn officer" is to equate an attack on a police dog with an attack on an officer - for legal reasons. That does not mean a police dog is not a tool to be used to save lives. If police protocol states otherwise, then that is just another point where american law enforcement is messed up.
Just because i stated i was offended does not mean im not use to being offended, or was in anyway distraught other than being offended. Just don't call my reality a fantasy....
I clearly said IF police follow procedure, AND people respond to police correctly (not attacking them) there would be very few unjustified deaths. And I stand by that treatment, we don't train our officers to be killers.
You can't assume someone doesn't have concealed weapon, sorry, end of story. That's why you don't put your hands in your pockets when a cop is talking to you. Because A cop has a family to go home to, and the 1% chance that you have a gun is 1% too many. If you listen to the officer's instructions, and he is giving instructions that properly follow his training, neither of you will be in the position where the officer has to make a judgment call as to whether your reaching for nothing (comb, wallet, pear, st. Christopher statue, etc) or a weapon.
While it is true that there have been tragic situations where Officers do have to make this call and they make the choice to use deadly force when it was in fact not a weapon, there have also been situations where Officers give the benefit of the doubt and get killed. That's why officers always ask you to keep your hands in plain view and make no sudden movements. If you FAIL to do this, then you really can't hold the officer responsible for whether or not you failed his instructions maliciously or accidentally. That is NOT to say that anyone who makes a sudden movement at a traffic stop will get shot. You likely will get pulled out and put against the side of your vehicle. But that is the principle of the matter. If you disobey the police officers instructions you are putting his safety and your safety at risk.
And yes US police Dogs are not combat animals or anything of that sort, sorry again, that's just factually not true. I'd like a source of German K9s being used in a situation where firearm discharge is distinct possibility, because its been said more than once and I still have no info on it. Not to say its not true, I have no idea, so I won't assume.
I don't see what is messed up about not letting unarmed officers (k9s) directly into the line of fire. The dog wasn't trained for those situations so he's not put in them.
On January 27 2012 09:30 Rebel_lion wrote: Clothing is kind of mute, I got tased as a volunteer at a US army weapon convention. The electrodes were attached to my BDU top, at the lapels. It didn't keep me from crumpling like a bag of bricks. There wasn't even skin contact. These are the most powerful tasers available.
I think the officer failed to trigger the electricity before the barbs were ripped out, or the weather caused a malfunction, they are not known for their reliability in adverse conditions.
not sure what tasers the officers had, or what taser was used on you but the one I tested on at the military did not work after a certain density of clothing was achieved. It either couldn't create a current, or the current was grounded too fast.
If we had full uniform including jackets on it was pretty hit or miss, with the flak vests it didn't work at all.
Again, not really sure, but it doesn't really matter the tazer did not work for some reason (which we definitly can't make out on the video). Hell it could be one of the barbs missed the perpetrator completly...
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. 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.
Ok if it is really THAT bad in the US my bad. (sure know about the threat of weapons and excessive violence US officers have to face, but not about often used BA)
Offtopic: Concerning man stop effect, dont confuse it with penetration ability (kinetic energy). The higher the penetration ability is, the lower the ability to deliver the energy onto the target (a human in this case). Thats why a 5.56 with a high kinetic energy doesnt have a good man stopping ability. the 7.62 is better for that purpose, a 9mm is even better than a 7.62 as it may deliver 80-100% of its energy into the body. (Modern police should use deformation projectiles and no FMJ projectiles). But yeah, penetration ability and man stopping effect are inverse correlated. ^^
I mean if 1/10000 of suspects have body armor, its enough to consider it a distinct possibility. And failure to consider this could cost you your life. Obviously where you are in the US plays a significant factor as well.
And as far as munitions go. A 9mm is closer to a .22 in human stopping power than the 5.56 NATO round. That's all I was saying. I don't know a ton of physics beyond this. I've just seen people withstand quite a few parrabellum rounds and still be a threat.
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.
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: [quote]
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.
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?
yes, but why are you so worried about going through life "unoffended?" Getting offended is a part of life. Learn to live with it.
And yes, thinking that every time a person is shot and killed by a police office - every single time - is justified. Thinking that errors never occur is the definition of being out of touch with reality.
I disagree that releasing the dog would be a ridiculous idea. The dog wouldn't be in the line of fire if no one fired. There was no evidence of a concealed weapon - and always assuming that there is a concealed weapon leads to other things, like persons "armed" with hairbrushes getting shot and killed, etc, even when surrendering their "weapon." The only reason a police dog is a "sworn officer" is to equate an attack on a police dog with an attack on an officer - for legal reasons. That does not mean a police dog is not a tool to be used to save lives. If police protocol states otherwise, then that is just another point where american law enforcement is messed up.
Just because i stated i was offended does not mean im not use to being offended, or was in anyway distraught other than being offended. Just don't call my reality a fantasy....
I clearly said IF police follow procedure, AND people respond to police correctly (not attacking them) there would be very few unjustified deaths. And I stand by that treatment, we don't train our officers to be killers.
You can't assume someone doesn't have concealed weapon, sorry, end of story. That's why you don't put your hands in your pockets when a cop is talking to you. Because A cop has a family to go home to, and the 1% chance that you have a gun is 1% too many. If you listen to the officer's instructions, and he is giving instructions that properly follow his training, neither of you will be in the position where the officer has to make a judgment call as to whether your reaching for nothing (comb, wallet, pear, st. Christopher statue, etc) or a weapon.
While it is true that there have been tragic situations where Officers do have to make this call and they make the choice to use deadly force when it was in fact not a weapon, there have also been situations where Officers give the benefit of the doubt and get killed. That's why officers always ask you to keep your hands in plain view and make no sudden movements. If you FAIL to do this, then you really can't hold the officer responsible for whether or not you failed his instructions maliciously or accidentally. That is NOT to say that anyone who makes a sudden movement at a traffic stop will get shot. You likely will get pulled out and put against the side of your vehicle. But that is the principle of the matter. If you disobey the police officers instructions you are putting his safety and your safety at risk.
And yes US police Dogs are not combat animals or anything of that sort, sorry again, that's just factually not true. I'd like a source of German K9s being used in a situation where firearm discharge is distinct possibility, because its been said more than once and I still have no info on it. Not to say its not true, I have no idea, so I won't assume.
I don't see what is messed up about not letting unarmed officers (k9s) directly into the line of fire. The dog wasn't trained for those situations so he's not put in them.
Why did you even bring up the fact that you were "offended" ? As if that is grounds for anyone to modify their behavior. Being offended isn't something to even take into consideration when all you're doing is exchanging ideas.
And I stand by my statement - your ideas about following protocol will always prevent unjustified killings IS a fantasy. You can't even guarantee that officers will follow protocol - or that protocol is always just, or that misunderstandings won't occur. But when you equip and train your officers for lethal force, that is what you're going to get.
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: [quote]
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?
yes, but why are you so worried about going through life "unoffended?" Getting offended is a part of life. Learn to live with it.
And yes, thinking that every time a person is shot and killed by a police office - every single time - is justified. Thinking that errors never occur is the definition of being out of touch with reality.
I disagree that releasing the dog would be a ridiculous idea. The dog wouldn't be in the line of fire if no one fired. There was no evidence of a concealed weapon - and always assuming that there is a concealed weapon leads to other things, like persons "armed" with hairbrushes getting shot and killed, etc, even when surrendering their "weapon." The only reason a police dog is a "sworn officer" is to equate an attack on a police dog with an attack on an officer - for legal reasons. That does not mean a police dog is not a tool to be used to save lives. If police protocol states otherwise, then that is just another point where american law enforcement is messed up.
Just because i stated i was offended does not mean im not use to being offended, or was in anyway distraught other than being offended. Just don't call my reality a fantasy....
I clearly said IF police follow procedure, AND people respond to police correctly (not attacking them) there would be very few unjustified deaths. And I stand by that treatment, we don't train our officers to be killers.
You can't assume someone doesn't have concealed weapon, sorry, end of story. That's why you don't put your hands in your pockets when a cop is talking to you. Because A cop has a family to go home to, and the 1% chance that you have a gun is 1% too many. If you listen to the officer's instructions, and he is giving instructions that properly follow his training, neither of you will be in the position where the officer has to make a judgment call as to whether your reaching for nothing (comb, wallet, pear, st. Christopher statue, etc) or a weapon.
While it is true that there have been tragic situations where Officers do have to make this call and they make the choice to use deadly force when it was in fact not a weapon, there have also been situations where Officers give the benefit of the doubt and get killed. That's why officers always ask you to keep your hands in plain view and make no sudden movements. If you FAIL to do this, then you really can't hold the officer responsible for whether or not you failed his instructions maliciously or accidentally. That is NOT to say that anyone who makes a sudden movement at a traffic stop will get shot. You likely will get pulled out and put against the side of your vehicle. But that is the principle of the matter. If you disobey the police officers instructions you are putting his safety and your safety at risk.
And yes US police Dogs are not combat animals or anything of that sort, sorry again, that's just factually not true. I'd like a source of German K9s being used in a situation where firearm discharge is distinct possibility, because its been said more than once and I still have no info on it. Not to say its not true, I have no idea, so I won't assume.
I don't see what is messed up about not letting unarmed officers (k9s) directly into the line of fire. The dog wasn't trained for those situations so he's not put in them.
Why did you even bring up the fact that you were "offended" ? As if that is grounds for anyone to modify their behavior. Being offended isn't something to even take into consideration when all you're doing is exchanging ideas.
And I stand by my statement. You can't even guarantee that officers will follow protocol - or that protocol is always just, or that misunderstandings won't occur. But when you equip and train your officers for lethal force, that is what you're going to get.
Dood just forget I ever said you offended me X__X . All i meant was you calling the possibility that a suspect had a concealed weapon "fantasy" was offensive, because it objectively is not a fantasy in America.
Yes I completely agree police break rules and suspects act like morons, so less than optimal situations occur. But we as a society have the duty to make sure the people we pay to protect us get to go home at the end of the day. As do you in Norway.
The way America is right now, with the high amount of illegal firearms, it is unreasonable to try and carry over European police training to America. To ensure our officers get to go home at night, we need to train them in the use of deadly force. If there were no illegal firearms in America, then maybe we don't have to. But training for anything other than the realities officers will face in the field is extremely irresponsible imho
Considering American standards, I don't believe that this news should be given that much attention.
Sure the policemen shot 'excessive' amounts of bullets into a suspect. Believe it or not, the suspect was already considered dead the moment he decided to arm himself with a crowbar. Being killed by a single headshot is the same as being killed by 10 bullets, dead = dead, no other way to explain it.
You can argue that the extra 5 bullets used was a waste, but that's just wasting America's tax-payers money and public commotion.
Problem here is not the suspect or the policemen, it's how America has been brought up and it's societal ethics, values and public behaviour that has lead to this accepted treatment of 'force'.
Will it happen again? Yes. Will it be as serious or more serious? Yes Is there anything we can do to 'improve' this situation? Probably No, unless a miracle happens.
On January 27 2012 10:14 Zariel wrote: Considering American standards, I don't believe that this news should be given that much attention.
Sure the policemen shot 'excessive' amounts of bullets into a suspect. Believe it or not, the suspect was already considered dead the moment he decided to arm himself with a crowbar. Being killed by a single headshot is the same as being killed by 10 bullets, dead = dead, no other way to explain it.
You can argue that the extra 5 bullets used was a waste, but that's just wasting America's tax-payers money and public commotion.
Problem here is not the suspect or the policemen, it's how America has been brought up and it's societal ethics, values and public behaviour that has lead to this accepted treatment of 'force'.
Will it happen again? Yes. Will it be as serious or more serious? Yes Is there anything we can do to 'improve' this situation? Probably No, unless a miracle happens.
Yea its gotten 0 media attention
There are actual cases of police brutality and excessive use of force, and random craiglist killers, and everything else that takes up the justice section.
I kinda agree, it does suck that guns are everywhere in America. But I with how liberally the 2nd amendment is interpreted, and the strength of the NRA, its really impossible to create stricter gun laws. And Illegal guns will always be smuggled in from Mexico there is basically no way to fully stop that. People will always get there guns stolen you can't stop that.
In NYC it is literally illegal to have a gun on you and there are still a ton of guns carried by people on the street. A week in Philadelphia that has less than 12 shootings is considered a light week. That's why I wanna move to Norway ^^
I would be ok with this, if it would be acceptable to do exactly the same thing if I was in a state where I could legally bear arms...
A man possibly threatens me with a crowbar? Unload 5 bullets, he's lying down, unload 5 more and kill him. If I wouldn't get convincted of manslaughter or murder for that as a civilian, I'd have no problem with police doing this, unfortunately I don't think that's the case.
I've probably read at least 90% of the posts and it's been a fascinating experience.
I think I posted twice. First that it didn't look like they were well trained for the situation since they basically made the biggest mistakes you can possibly make compared to how I trained for it. I want to say that posting that was a mistake but I don't think it was irrational to assume the standard procedures were similar. It's classified information what you do in the military here but I didn't have any fancy ninja position, I had to pose in photos with politicians(even american ones) now and then, shouldn't be hard to guess what my role for that was.
My second post was an attempt at correcting misconceptions people in the thread seemed to have about shots in for example legs. Some seemed to think leg shots comes from fairy tales and others seemed to think it's viable and a good idea in any situation. I don't know if it was because of my poor english skills or inability to communicate in text or something else but I know it didn't work.
The main thing I'll probably take with me from reading the thread is that the cultural differences between for example americans and europeans when it comes to these things sometimes aren't exactly marginal. Sometimes they are so HUGE I can't even think of a way to describe how large the difference can be. I also got aware of that for example doing what these cops did can make more sense in one environment than another.
Tragic situation, heated discussion, but been a fascinating read.
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.
stop being so high and mighty as a human, those dogs serve along side our officers proudly and deserve a little bit more fucking respect than "oh they're dogs, let them die so that a random human threatening another will live." Give me a break, human life isn't the most important thing in the universe..
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. 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?
Actually theres another post the OP i think it was who set up a link and told how he has heard/seen men and women who have taken the 7.62 rounds and still survived. The link is basically a story of a Sargent who took 10 AK rounds and still managed to save his squad members and kill the guy shooting up the place. So considering the suspect got tazed and didn't feel a thing i don't think it would be to far fetched to believe he could still move.
And really why would they send their dogs at a guy with a melee weapon? K9 dogs are just as valuable as an officer. I wouldn't send my friend in to go fight a guy with a conduit barehanded.
Paranoid? Its caution the moment you start taking things for granted in a line of duty that is life threatning is the moment people will die.
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.
stop being so high and mighty as a human, those dogs serve along side our officers proudly and deserve a little bit more fucking respect than "oh they're dogs, let them die so that a random human threatening another will live." Give me a break, human life isn't the most important thing in the universe..
is this a troll?
I've been a vegetarian since I was 16 (I'm 31) because of animal rights issues, and I still think that the life of a dog is less valuable than the life of a human, even if that human is armed and acting criminally. The dogs are there because they're viewed as tools - either to instill fear and respect, chase down perpetrators, or with the case of schutzhund trained dogs, to pin and disarm. The dog isn't there because it's serving "proudly" on its own accord. It's been put there because it has an utilitarian purpose. Saying that sending a dog into the line of fire is wrong is an arbitrary place to draw a line.
Does this look like a dog that is not trained to put itself in harms way to you?
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.blacknecks.com/Huvud_Xa.jpg)
