|
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING:The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. If you feel the need to post a reaction to the news, post a comment on the youtube video. Don't bring it here. This thread is for a discussion on the topic, and your post better have substance to it. Low content posts will be met with moderator action. Here is a good post by someone with experience in escalation of force training. Read that too. This post might change your opinion of in the incident. |
On January 25 2012 08:42 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:40 aksfjh wrote:On January 25 2012 08:34 Endymion wrote:On January 25 2012 08:31 aksfjh wrote:On January 25 2012 07:19 sMi.EternaL wrote: Also, I am unable to speak for the dog as a certainty, so take this as an opinion.
K9's are generally not employed in a weapons hot situation. There are very strict guidelines and protocols each unit and division of police have for their K9 units. Releasing the dog in this situation would A) put him in direct harms way and B) put him in the line of fire if/when shots are fired. And, it's entirely possible that they were simply not allowed to use the dog in this case due to whatever restriction applied. Not only that, but many K9 units are minimally trained in combat. As a last resort to disarm a suspect. They are much more valuable as a deterrent and used for searching for suspects than as a "weapon" against threats. Also most officers place their lives over the K9 units, because that's just the sense of brotherhood that they have (I don't have any police training, but I've spoken at length to a lot of local K9 units because german shepards are really cute). My sister has 2 K9 trained German shepherds. She used to work at a facility that raised them for people all over the globe. Apparently, one of her dogs flips out and will disarm her when she pulls out her airsoft pistol on the other side of the house. Which works well against a woman holding an airsoft gun loaded with not-ammunition which is not being utilized to kill said dog. Indeed. I was just giving a personal anecdote loosely related to the story. In the topic at hand, the dog was not the correct tool. The officers acted in the proper way.
|
On January 25 2012 08:44 Tula wrote: ...
That is pretty much standard procedure to a certain extent.
They take position so that the suspect cannot see them when he exits the building (mostly to avoid the suspect taking hostages) and then challenge them and give verbal warnings from a certain range (5-10m optimal range in Austria, not sure what they train for in the USA).
They need to be close enough to be clearly understood, and also to reduce the chance of bystanders to become involved. The video is not good enough to accuratly judge the distance, but it seems to be about 5m.
Anything beyond that range makes it almost impossible to tazer someone (unless he is in swim shorts). Even at the range he used the tazer failed because he did not hit correctly.
If they stand away more than that they cannot stop him from drawing a gun in many situations, it also becomes difficult to shoot accuratly with a handgun beyond 10m range.
... If I understand you correctly they got as close as they did to get within warning distance and the effective range of tasers, and they did it as fast as they did to minimize the risk to bystanders?
Seems reasonable to me.
|
On January 25 2012 08:46 Powerpill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 25 2012 08:39 Powerpill wrote: No taser? No remote attempts at leg shots? The guy looked like he was all bark and no bite, just pulling the hammer back in threat and trying to walk away... and the insane amount of shots fired... should get manslaughter at least imo, but he'll probably just get a paid day off, as most cops do.
Edit: And why are the officers walking right up to the guy? Almost like they want any little excuse to shoot him and provoke him. they did try to taser him. please watch the video with your eyes open this time. Oh missed the failed 1 attempt in the beginning, no need to be rude sir. Still, I'm sure they had more than 1 taser between the bunch of them, or at least shoot the knee caps. you are ready to send him to prison for manslaughter when you didnt even carefully review the video (or read the thread). i guess i am the rude one though for calling you out though....
|
If you are ok with that because it is "standard procedure" then you have been successfully brain-washed, congrats.
User was banned for this post.
|
Well, the situation is completely clear to everybody. In many states in the USA the police are trained to shoot to kill. In some European countries the police are trained to give a warning shot first and then to try to disable a suspect with a minimum amount of harm. I think both systems are fully justified, no nation bashing intended here. Countries have their differences, and I don't understand why posters should get warnings for pointing this obvious thing out. Again, I'm ok with both systems, and I don't have any principles against moving either to USA or to Europe.
|
On January 25 2012 08:46 Calm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:40 aksfjh wrote:On January 25 2012 08:34 Endymion wrote:On January 25 2012 08:31 aksfjh wrote:On January 25 2012 07:19 sMi.EternaL wrote: Also, I am unable to speak for the dog as a certainty, so take this as an opinion.
K9's are generally not employed in a weapons hot situation. There are very strict guidelines and protocols each unit and division of police have for their K9 units. Releasing the dog in this situation would A) put him in direct harms way and B) put him in the line of fire if/when shots are fired. And, it's entirely possible that they were simply not allowed to use the dog in this case due to whatever restriction applied. Not only that, but many K9 units are minimally trained in combat. As a last resort to disarm a suspect. They are much more valuable as a deterrent and used for searching for suspects than as a "weapon" against threats. Also most officers place their lives over the K9 units, because that's just the sense of brotherhood that they have (I don't have any police training, but I've spoken at length to a lot of local K9 units because german shepards are really cute). My sister has 2 K9 trained German shepherds. She used to work at a facility that raised them for people all over the globe. Apparently, one of her dogs flips out and will disarm her when she pulls out her airsoft pistol on the other side of the house. Interesting insight. I'm actually kind of surprised by this. But it's also up to the police to deploy it. Well, the idea is that the training is enough to protect the dog and it's partner in a threatening scenario. Much like officers ARE trained in some form of hand-to-hand combat for worst case scenarios. In this way, if they use the dog to track down somebody running, the dog isn't at the sole mercy of somebody with a weapon if the person chooses to turn and defend itself.
|
On January 25 2012 08:46 Powerpill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 25 2012 08:39 Powerpill wrote: No taser? No remote attempts at leg shots? The guy looked like he was all bark and no bite, just pulling the hammer back in threat and trying to walk away... and the insane amount of shots fired... should get manslaughter at least imo, but he'll probably just get a paid day off, as most cops do.
Edit: And why are the officers walking right up to the guy? Almost like they want any little excuse to shoot him and provoke him. they did try to taser him. please watch the video with your eyes open this time. Oh missed the failed 1 attempt in the beginning, no need to be rude sir. Still, I'm sure they had more than 1 taser between the bunch of them, or at least shoot the knee caps. Give me one example of a police shooting someone in the knee cap on purpose.
|
On January 25 2012 08:48 azdzaazfaz wrote: If you are ok with that because it is "standard procedure" then you have been successfully brain-washed, congrats. Justification of actions and justification of opinions are two different things. "Standard Operating Procedure" is the justification of his actions. "If someone was swinging a large melee weapon at my partner that could, and probably would, kill him, I would shoot him dead too" is my justification of opinion.
|
On January 25 2012 08:48 azdzaazfaz wrote: If you are ok with that because it is "standard procedure" then you have been successfully brain-washed, congrats. experts determine what is the best way to handle situations (i.e., standard procedures). police officers are trained to react with standard procedures. so, yes, i think it is okay for the police officer to use standard procedure. i am curious why you think you are more qualified to determine what standard procedure should be.
|
It was probably excessive to shoot him that many times but from the perspective in the video it looks like he was about to swing at the one cop when the other shot him trying to protect his partner and the cops did apparently try to taze him first they really were either left with the option of trying to fight a man who was swinging a crow bar at them in hand to hand combat or shooting him the later seems to be the safer choice. They are given the powers to make these decisions and have to make them split second it's easy for us to sit here and second guess their decision but it's a completely different feeling when you are actually there and the suspect is swinging a crowbar at your partner/friend and no amount of training in a controlled environment can mentally prepare you for the actual threat of someone with the power and potential mentality to kill you coming at you.
|
On January 25 2012 08:48 azdzaazfaz wrote: If you are ok with that because it is "standard procedure" then you have been successfully brain-washed, congrats. Judging whether the police officers acted according to their training is an entirely different matter than evaluating the procedures they are taught to follow. I'm simply trying to understand why the officers handled the situation the way they did.
EDIT: typo.
|
On January 25 2012 08:48 azdzaazfaz wrote: If you are ok with that because it is "standard procedure" then you have been successfully brain-washed, congrats. Yup, I've been brain washed to prefer the officer live over the criminal, but that's just me. Maybe you love criminals, I dunno.
|
On January 25 2012 08:50 Alex1Sun wrote: Well, the situation is completely clear to everybody. In many states in the USA the police are trained to shoot to kill. In some European countries the police are trained to give a warning shot first and then to try to disable a suspect with a minimum amount of harm. I think both systems are fully justified, no nation bashing intended here. Countries have their differences, and I don't understand why posters should get warnings for pointing this obvious thing out. Again, I'm ok with both systems, and I don't have any principles against moving either to USA or to Europe. firing warning shots where? in the air, into the ground, into buildings? you know that stray bullets kill people, right?
|
Watch the freaking video, the guy was in the process of swinging at the other cop, who was scrambling backwards to avoid the attack. Yes, shoot the guy.
|
On January 25 2012 08:47 Nawyria wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:44 Tula wrote: ...
That is pretty much standard procedure to a certain extent.
They take position so that the suspect cannot see them when he exits the building (mostly to avoid the suspect taking hostages) and then challenge them and give verbal warnings from a certain range (5-10m optimal range in Austria, not sure what they train for in the USA).
They need to be close enough to be clearly understood, and also to reduce the chance of bystanders to become involved. The video is not good enough to accuratly judge the distance, but it seems to be about 5m.
Anything beyond that range makes it almost impossible to tazer someone (unless he is in swim shorts). Even at the range he used the tazer failed because he did not hit correctly.
If they stand away more than that they cannot stop him from drawing a gun in many situations, it also becomes difficult to shoot accuratly with a handgun beyond 10m range.
... If I understand you correctly they got as close as they did to get within warning distance and the effective range of tasers, and they did it as fast as they did to minimize the risk to bystanders? Seems reasonable to me.
Yes, those are the basic arguments explained to me in my training. If you are shouting from 20m away you personally might be fairly safe, but there might be (and often are) quite a few bystanders far closer to the suspect.
I am not quite sure if the word can be used in English for this context, but in German it's called "Wirkungsraum", i guess the closest translation would area of intervention (instead of effect which would be literal). You need to be close enough to restrict the options for the suspect (run away, take hostage, take cover behind something before shooting etc.) without unduly exposing yourselve to risks (meaning definitly outside of meele range).
|
On January 25 2012 08:52 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:50 Alex1Sun wrote: Well, the situation is completely clear to everybody. In many states in the USA the police are trained to shoot to kill. In some European countries the police are trained to give a warning shot first and then to try to disable a suspect with a minimum amount of harm. I think both systems are fully justified, no nation bashing intended here. Countries have their differences, and I don't understand why posters should get warnings for pointing this obvious thing out. Again, I'm ok with both systems, and I don't have any principles against moving either to USA or to Europe. firing warning shots where? in the air, into the ground, into buildings? you know that stray bullets kill people, right? into his feet I guess
|
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.
This is completely true, once a situation occurs in which a police officer feels the need to shoot, they are trained to fire all of their bullets into the biggest area of mass, which is the targets chest. If it's a life or death situation, they shoot and keep shooting, the idea of shooting in the leg etc. is just for the movies. This is also pretty standard internationally too, certainly here in Australia at least.
I think the only point of debate is obviously if there was justification in the shooting itself, but I can imagine that being hit by a metal bar in the head is going to be potentially lethal.
Pretty sad situation for all involved, it must be incredibly traumatic for the police involved as well as the victim and their families.
|
On January 25 2012 08:52 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:50 Alex1Sun wrote: Well, the situation is completely clear to everybody. In many states in the USA the police are trained to shoot to kill. In some European countries the police are trained to give a warning shot first and then to try to disable a suspect with a minimum amount of harm. I think both systems are fully justified, no nation bashing intended here. Countries have their differences, and I don't understand why posters should get warnings for pointing this obvious thing out. Again, I'm ok with both systems, and I don't have any principles against moving either to USA or to Europe. firing warning shots where? in the air, into the ground, into buildings? you know that stray bullets kill people, right? The first round may be a blank, but I am unfamiliar with European police agency regulations. That idea itself seems dangerous, because sometimes the first shot needs to count.
|
On January 25 2012 08:53 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 25 2012 08:50 Alex1Sun wrote: Well, the situation is completely clear to everybody. In many states in the USA the police are trained to shoot to kill. In some European countries the police are trained to give a warning shot first and then to try to disable a suspect with a minimum amount of harm. I think both systems are fully justified, no nation bashing intended here. Countries have their differences, and I don't understand why posters should get warnings for pointing this obvious thing out. Again, I'm ok with both systems, and I don't have any principles against moving either to USA or to Europe. firing warning shots where? in the air, into the ground, into buildings? you know that stray bullets kill people, right? into his feet I guess ;-) please don't miss. a BART police officer killed someone in the San Francisco Bay Area recently when a bullet ricocheted off the ground.
|
On January 25 2012 08:53 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 08:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 25 2012 08:50 Alex1Sun wrote: Well, the situation is completely clear to everybody. In many states in the USA the police are trained to shoot to kill. In some European countries the police are trained to give a warning shot first and then to try to disable a suspect with a minimum amount of harm. I think both systems are fully justified, no nation bashing intended here. Countries have their differences, and I don't understand why posters should get warnings for pointing this obvious thing out. Again, I'm ok with both systems, and I don't have any principles against moving either to USA or to Europe. firing warning shots where? in the air, into the ground, into buildings? you know that stray bullets kill people, right? into his feet I guess Ricochet bullets kill too. In any situation where you are firing a weapon with non-hostiles around, you want to do so to minimize the possibility of missing.
|
|
|
|