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 25 2012 15:27 Curu wrote: Dunno if it's been posted already but this immediately came to mind:
Justified IMO. If you blatantly disregard multiple warnings and make any indication you are going for a weapon you deserve to be shot.
(Warning the video will make you feel like shit afterwards)
Very powerful footage. It's no pleasure watching this but I respectfully incite those who believe that American policeman are trigger happy to watch this. It helps understand why they somehow act the way they do.
Agreed. Literally the next person they pull over or see on the street could be the guy that goes apeshit maniac and starts unloading shots into them like they are the devil incarnate. Theres way too many whackos out there to approach people with good intention sadly and they have to take every precaution neccesary as if every suspect is willing to kill them.
How would you implement your rules for police officers, given what the law says, and that in your video, everything the attacker did up until raising his weapon was perfectly legal. Do people have a right to do things that are legal, until a police officer tells them otherwise?
People in the US are allowed to carry guns in public in some situations, so the laws aren't exactly the same, but the man in this video broke some laws before he even touched his weapon. As one poster pointed out, disobeying a direct lawful order of an officer is a crime (usually a misdemeanor), but more importantly carrying a loaded weapon in your car is illegal in most states. I am most familiar with the law in South Carolina: ammunition can not even be kept in the passenger compartment of the vehicle; in most situations it must be kept in the trunk. Further, grabbing a weapon and then pointing it at the officer might be illegal, even if the weapon is not used. Again, it depends on the state, but things like pulling a knife on an officer are illegal in many states so I can imagine pointed a gun (loaded or unloaded) might have the same penalties.
I think something big everyone is forgetting is that a cop takes these risks as part of his OATH to be a police officer. I'm not saying there policemen and women are not supposed to use guns, but I believe they only should at the most extreme of measures. If every time they feel they are in a threatening situation they pull out a gun and pump lead into the suspect, what does that mean to us civilians? I understand that carrying a metal bar is dangerous and people could get hurt, I get that. But the suspect in this case neither injured anyone uninvolved or tried to go out of his way to hurt someone, until he was pushed to the point of no return by the cop tasering and pepper spraying him. It may be just me, but if I were to become a cop, I would take a broken leg or arm in return for a man who could be given a second chance at life after rehab. I'm not saying this to put me on a high pedestal or anything but it's just what I feel. It's just that I feel other people matter as much as I do, even if they are drugged or drunk. About the incident with the crazy man and Deputy Dinkheller, it's very unfortunate that the man was killed in the line of duty. But at the same time, the situation seemed very different and cannot be comparable to a large extent to this incident.
On January 30 2012 13:50 EienShinwa wrote: I think something big everyone is forgetting is that a cop takes these risks as part of his OATH to be a police officer. I'm not saying there policemen and women are not supposed to use guns, but I believe they only should at the most extreme of measures. If every time they feel they are in a threatening situation they pull out a gun and pump lead into the suspect, what does that mean to us civilians? I understand that carrying a metal bar is dangerous and people could get hurt, I get that. But the suspect in this case neither injured anyone uninvolved or tried to go out of his way to hurt someone, until he was pushed to the point of no return by the cop tasering and pepper spraying him. It may be just me, but if I were to become a cop, I would take a broken leg or arm in return for a man who could be given a second chance at life after rehab. I'm not saying this to put me on a high pedestal or anything but it's just what I feel. It's just that I feel other people matter as much as I do, even if they are drugged or drunk. About the incident with the crazy man and Deputy Dinkheller, it's very unfortunate that the man was killed in the line of duty. But at the same time, the situation seemed very different and cannot be comparable to a large extent to this incident.
I don't understand how you can start your response the way you do.
" If every time they feel they are in a threatening situation they pull out a gun and pump lead into the suspect, what does that mean to us civilians?"
The police do not shoot a suspect every time they feel threatened. However, when someone points a gun at them, or charges at them with a deadly weapon at the ready, yes they will protect their lives. It would be idiotic and a disservice to themselves, their families, and their community to do otherwise. Death and violence are horrible things, but to say you would never do either in self defense makes you a fool, or someone blind to history and reality.
The suspect had been using the deadly weapon earlier to destroy property. He ignored and refused their orders to drop the weapon so they could arrest him, so they used nonlethal force to try to bring him down. These had no effect, most likely due to the suspect being on some sort of drug that renders them highly tolerant to pain, and as their training demands in an open area full of civilians, they moved in close to the suspect, so minimize any chance of an innocent being harmed if it came to a worst case scenario. At this point the suspect made movements that are made when one is going to swing a blunt weapon, and advanced on the officers. Looking at a scenario where in less than a second the suspect could swing his deadly weapon with enough force to kill one of the officers, they chose to defend their lives from the threat.
You can say 'oh i would have taken a broken leg or arm to save his life' but how about taking a broken skull, with your brain leaking out? Would you sacrifice your life to potentially save the life of a crazed madman? What happens if he bashes in the skulls of the officers, if they refuse to fire on him, and he goes on to kill a few more people?
The video of the traffic stop shows an officer who hesitated at responding to a dangerous and deadly threat with appropriate force, and it cost him his life. This is very relevant, more so when you realize it is a video that was most likely shown to the two officers in the OP, as it is used for training purposes.
The problem here is America's ridiculous gun laws. Because everyone is allowed to carry a gun, situations can go from mundane every day situations to life threatening situations in seconds.
The shooting by the cop is justified, given the situation he was in. Suspect could have carried a gun and killed the officers in moments.
However, given the same situation in the UK for example, shooting would not be justified. The chance that the suspect would carry a gun would be small enough to allow for a non-lethal approach to diffusing the situation.
On January 31 2012 01:30 Khenra wrote: The problem here is America's ridiculous gun laws. Because everyone is allowed to carry a gun, situations can go from mundane every day situations to life threatening situations in seconds.
The shooting by the cop is justified, given the situation he was in. Suspect could have carried a gun and killed the officers in moments.
However, given the same situation in the UK for example, shooting would not be justified. The chance that the suspect would carry a gun would be small enough to allow for a non-lethal approach to diffusing the situation.
The problem isn't gun laws, it's gun culture. For some reason, a long time ago, we institutionalized the right to bear arms as sacred. So even if we completely turned gun law on its head, people would still go out of their way to obtain firearms through illegal channels, because dammit, we want the right to bear arms!
Similar parallels can be drawn to the drug trade. By keeping it illegal, you just present more opportunities for organized crime to make a profit from it. Or as many of our rednecks' shirts say: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
Yes, everyone in the U.S. is allowed to carry a gun if they go through the proper paperwork, waiting period, and spend the $$$. 9 times out of 10, the people in situations like this (gangbangers and thugs) got their weapon illegally anyways, so it's a moot point.
On January 31 2012 01:30 Khenra wrote: The problem here is America's ridiculous gun laws. Because everyone is allowed to carry a gun, situations can go from mundane every day situations to life threatening situations in seconds.
The shooting by the cop is justified, given the situation he was in. Suspect could have carried a gun and killed the officers in moments.
However, given the same situation in the UK for example, shooting would not be justified. The chance that the suspect would carry a gun would be small enough to allow for a non-lethal approach to diffusing the situation.
The problem isn't gun laws, it's gun culture. For some reason, a long time ago, we institutionalized the right to bear arms as sacred. So even if we completely turned gun law on its head, people would still go out of their way to obtain firearms through illegal channels, because dammit, we want the right to bear arms!
Similar parallels can be drawn to the drug trade. By keeping it illegal, you just present more opportunities for organized crime to make a profit from it. Or as many of our rednecks' shirts say: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."
Yes, everyone in the U.S. is allowed to carry a gun if they go through the proper paperwork, waiting period, and spend the $$$. 9 times out of 10, the people in situations like this (gangbangers and thugs) got their weapon illegally anyways, so it's a moot point.
I remember in the 2000 election one of Al Gore's campaign points was to make gun owners have to get picture ID licenses. As if the gang members in the streets are would get their picture IDs to be able to carry their guns. It's already illegal to shoot people, why would making guns illegal deter people? If the US government can't stop the flow of hundreds of tons of cocain into the country every year, why should we be able to think they be able to stop illegal gun shipments?
Most gun crimes are committed by illegally sold guns (don't have the specific statistic on hand, but it is a very large percentage). IMO greater enforcement of existing gun sale laws would do a lot to reduce gun violence in this country. The gun collector and enthusiest is not the guy killing gang members in the street.
Also gun law rights in this country were enshirned because the American Revolution was primarily fought by back country hicks with guns. In the aftermath of British rule, people were also very weary of a strong central government (probably not unrealistic given what almost happened at newburgh). Individual ownership of weapons was (and still is by many) seen as a way to protect the people from the tyrrany of a government should revolution become necessary.
Whether that right includes assalt rifles and heavy weapons is a debate in itself....
EPT
