| Forum Index > General Forum |
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING: The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. If you feel the need to post a reaction to the news, post a comment on the youtube video. Don't bring it here. This thread is for a discussion on the topic, and your post better have substance to it. Low content posts will be met with moderator action. Here is a good post by someone with experience in escalation of force training. Read that too. This post might change your opinion of in the incident. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:50 Tanukki wrote: The shooting was completely justified. Just unfortunate some cops are such pussies. That's right, you would have dodged that swing then proceed to do a wake up shoryuken fadc into ultra on the suspect, perfectly knocking him out. | ||
|
uiCk
Canada1925 Posts
[B]On January 25 2012 05:45 GeorgeForeman wrote: The first shots were entirely justified. I don't understand how that's even controversial to some people. After the guy was down, I'm not sure. Maybe he thought he saw him reach into his jacket or something. Probably wasn't necessary, but I'm not going to second-guess at that point. Probably because we don't live in a country where guns are not well percived? not to mention there are people here probably don't even see cops carrying guns. Let alone shoot someone do DEATH because he was holding a crowbar or whatever metal object that can be avoided by taking a step back. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:52 Swaddled wrote: He wasn't taunting him. He was attempting to taser him. Which was ineffective. That seems like proper protocol to me. There aren't a bunch of other options past that. My point is. If a police officer tells me to put down a weapon. I damn well better put it down. After tasering the guy he then moved closed, dropped his vision, and fumbled for something in his belt. If you watch the video you can see how suprised the taser cop is when the guy turns around to swing the crowbar. How the fuck can a police officer do something like that, feels like common survival instinct to back away if you need to reach for something or look away. | ||
|
UmiNotsuki
United States633 Posts
Better him than the officer, that's for sure. In the heat of the moment it's easy to kill someone with a gun rather than just disable them, and the officer was scared for the lives of his fellow officer so he kept shooting. What's done is done, glad it worked out this way rather than not shooting him. | ||
|
Rice
United States1332 Posts
| ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:51 DeepElemBlues wrote: Not sure if this bit of nonsense is serious... Shooting someone once unless you get a head shot or a direct hit to the heart or spine is generally not enough to immobilize them. Unless you're shooting them with a round large enough to kill instantly via shock (like, say, a .50 cal round). Handgun rounds are not powerful enough to do that. Guess that cop is lucky that isn't what happened then. Who the fuck do you hang out with? Unless you're jacked up on cocaine or something, one shot to the chest is enough to immobilize someone. And it might be hard to see, but it seems to me that he had his back turned and was heading to the ground when the next set of shots were fired. | ||
|
Calm
Canada380 Posts
There's no question about what amount of ammunition is necessary. There's no accounting for the extra adrenaline resulting from the situation that the crowbar dude put the officer in. I'm sure he doesn't even remember how many bullets he used. The crowbar guy had every opportunity to resolve this peacefully but chose to take a swing at the cop. From that point, the police were simply acting to eliminate the threat to themselves and the public at large. What happens if you shoot two bullets at his baggy pants and miss his legs? He follows through with the hammer and a cop has a split skull. You shoot until he stops. | ||
|
sLiMpoweR
United States430 Posts
| ||
|
Imbajoe
United States857 Posts
| ||
|
FireS
Romania415 Posts
| ||
|
Symbiote
United States49 Posts
Also the reason they did not unleash the dog is because the man had a weapon, the police dogs are more of an intimidation factor in these kinds of scenarios. You must always consider the k-9 unit a member of the police force, so if the man were to have attacked or injured the dog they also could have used lethal force. K-9's are generally 'released' on un-armed suspects, or suspects who are in hiding/running. So please do not say they should have allowed the dog to be released, because its no different than a human officer just charging at a man with a lethal weapon. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32129 Posts
That already poor accuracy on a small target gets even worse in a high pressure situation with a moving target that is coming to beat your skull in with a bar. Aiming for the body to kill increases accuracy, is more likely to completely disable a target since a leg shot isn't gonna stop that dude from breaking your skull as you go to subdue him, and very much reduces the chances of a stray bullet killing an innocent. Anyone arguing otherwise is just showing their ignorance about the situation and has likelyt never seen or fired a gun. | ||
|
FaZe
Canada472 Posts
Most officers never fire their weapons outside of the range, it looks like this guy just panicked and unloaded an unnecessary number of shots into the assailant. Points where I feel like they were incompetent : 1) The officer who fired the taser had trouble drawing his weapon, he looked down at his belt for close to 5 seconds while continuing to walk towards the suspect, directly into "crowbar range", when he tried to create distance between himself and the suspect, he clumsily stumbled away. 2) The suspect was possibly stopped by the first, and most definitely stopped by the second shot that the officer with the dog fired. After staggering him, and enough distance had been created to ensure the safety of the second officer, he proceeds to shoot him 8 more times. Admittedly firing the first shot probably caused by an adrenaline dump, but there's no excuse that I can see for being unable to handle this as a person who is supposed to protect the public. There was absolutely more force used than was needed to subdue the guy with the crowbar, but I think it's each person's opinion to whether or not it was truly "excessive" in the situation. | ||
|
attwell
United States220 Posts
| ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:53 semantics wrote: That's right, you would have dodged that swing then proceed to do a wake up shoryuken fadc into ultra on the suspect, perfectly knocking him out. Actually, the cop was already far away from the range of the guy when the other cop shot him. And to me it doesnt seem like he had the intention to swing it completely, you can see him hesitate, like he was trying to scare the cops. | ||
|
Swaddled
12 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:54 karpo wrote: After tasering the guy he then moved closed, dropped his vision, and fumbled for something in his belt. If you watch the video you can see how suprised the taser cop is when the guy turns around to swing the crowbar. How the fuck can a police officer do something like that, feels like common survival instinct to back away if you need to reach for something or look away. The police officer could be shining his shoe right there for all I care. The criminal was still told multiple times to put the weapon down. Ineffectively tasered. Then swung at a police officer. End of story. | ||
|
Sgonzo
Canada202 Posts
| ||
|
ComusLoM
Norway3547 Posts
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. Exactly this, better some nutjob actually dead than having the government spend 30k (jail) or more (crippled) on him every year for the rest of his life. People like to complain about everything. If a policeman feels threatened enough or feels like there is a threat to others around him to start firing he better make sure the perp goes down and stays down. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Who the fuck do you hang out with? Unless you're jacked up on cocaine or something, one shot to the chest is enough to immobilize someone. Well sorry but that simply isn't true with a handgun, unless it's a direct hit on the heart or the aorta. | ||
|
UNeeK
United States237 Posts
On January 25 2012 05:49 wunsun wrote: Never really thought of it that way. So typically dogs are used as a show of force and/or to take down unarmed suspects? I do understand that cops respond to the adrendaline, and we get to comb over everything when we are not in the situation and are relatively calm. However, should the cop have released the dog after the first set of shots (i.e. is he trained to) or is he trained to make sure the suspect is down on the ground before the dog can be released? I once was in an almost-fight when my buddy was getting harassed all the way home by a gang of kids. His neighbour bought a pitbull out and I felt some what good after that. Employment of the dog would have only been useful if he ran, in this exact scenario the dog was more or less to put fear in the suspect's mind that running isn't an option and surrendering is about his only choice. After the first set of shots, he could have unleashed but that point there really isn't a point as deadly force has already been employed. The dog would have simply been another reason why people would scream excessive ("omg look they put a dog on him to bite him while he layed there and suffered"). You know? In a perfect world, a dog is a show of force, used on unarmed suspects, and depending on the threat/intent of the individual he will chase armed suspects. In the military, we have a lot of very important resources to protect, some important enough that we will put ourselves and our dogs in between us and the resource. ie: it's more valuable than our lives. but other then that, yes dogs are show of force and employed on unarmed suspects. | ||
| ||
|
|
CasterMuse Showmatch
Light vs Queen
WardiTV Winter Champion…
OSC
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo Complete
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
