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.
It is very possible to die from one swing from that weapon that the suspect had, and he could swing it faster than the dog would get there. Shooting was justified.
The amount of shots may have been excessive, however. Two five-round bursts simply seems overkill, given the situation. I have a feeling that the officer may get 'punishment' in the form of additional training and therapy (in addition to time off duty) but he shouldn't get fired or jailed.
On January 25 2012 14:43 AllHailTheDead wrote: After watching this once more It looks like the victim had no real intention of swinging at the cop
as you can see he doesnt bring his arms up for a full swing he only raises it slightly and taunts the cop like he is going to
look where his elbows were, they were tucked into his side making it near impossible to get a real swing in, I mean stand up and try to swing how he was, it just doesnt work
which I guess wasnt a very smart move since it led to his demise.
Does anyone else notice this? he didnt even start to swing really
Hopefully the police force will look into this more because this loss of life definately could have been avoided
Dood, it totally looked like he was gonna swing at the cop, like unless you have some sort of telepathy I not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he was faking or bluffing based on how his elbows are tucked.(If I may make a guess, I'd guess the officers were looking mainly at the suspect's face and his weapon, not at the positioning of his elbows.)
It's really easy for those sitting at home watching the youtube video repeatedly without adrenaline coursing through their veins to hand out unprofessional advice.
Why did the cop shoot soo many bullets at him... and why did he shoot 5 bullets to his back... he was probably dead with the first 5 bullets.... What happen to MERCY??
On January 25 2012 15:01 pyrogenetix wrote: It's really easy for those sitting at home watching the youtube video repeatedly without adrenaline coursing through their veins to hand out unprofessional advice.
Even more than that, the points of view are completely different. Calculating distance and the speed of movement is completely different from a first person perspective.
The most obvious example I can give is that watching football or basketball, it looks much, much, much easier to steal a pass than it actually is from the players' perspective.
I love how we don't ask the people who we give guns and special privileges to, to not actually have to make judgments, or use discretion or some form of critical thinking. Just follow some basic guidelines, and everything is okay, no matter who you hurt or how badly.
It's all about the police officer and his safety, and since he's such a simple-minded idiot, we don't question it when he shoots someone ten times in the chest from less than ten yards away.
That situation could have been handled so much better, as is blatantly apparent. Bad cop is a bad cop, and while I may not assault them with a crowbar, it does bother me deeply that someone like the cop in this video is given a gun.
Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill -- any research, Mr. Starcraft "Pro", would tell you that cops are only supposed to use enough force to keep the peace. What the hell are you reading that makes you think cops are supposed to "shoot to kill"?
Comic books?
This officer used excessive force, and judging by the last five shots he fired, he seemed more concerned with killing somebody than protecting the public. I hope he loses his badge, disgracefully.
People like you disgust me. People sit safely in their chairs at home and say the police shouldn't fire until after the suspect has bashed their skull in; they feel that police are below everyone else, some people like you even cheer death.
This is a person who had a deadly weapon, had been destroying property, refused to follow orders given to him, and brushed off a taser to the face(suggesting he was under the influence of illegal drugs). He then raised his deadly weapon that he had been using at close range toward an armed police officer.
Use your brain man, please, please.
Okay, Mr. Hyperbole.
I never once argued, if you read my post, that the cop shouldn't have fired his gun. The only thing anyone is arguing is that maybe we should hold cops to higher standards than "shoot to kill". Maybe he could have shot the guy three times, instead of ten.
Thanks.
"You disgust me". "Sitting in your chair". Yeah, yeah. I forgot I'm not allowed to have an opinion (unless I'm standing, of course).
No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I suppose it is just too much to ask that you have an intelligent one though.
Guns are designed to kill, and that is what they are used for. They tried to taser him, it had no effect. They tried the non-lethal method first, and when you realize that a taser to the face didn't even faze him, you have to consider him to be under the influence of drugs, and thus even more dangerous.
They shot him five times, and he was still standing, so his partner then fired. This is the real world, when you fire your gun, you do so to kill, not some trick shot to shoot the weapon out of his hand, or to get a shot on his knee. He charged at the officer while raising a deadly weapon to strike, what do you expect?
He was shot five times and still standing? No, he wasn't.
Your definition of "standing" differs from mine, greatly.
Perhaps you should view the video before posting in this thread. After the first officer fired the suspect took a step so that the car was between the camera and suspect, but his head is still clearly visible above the roof of the vehicle. Hard for that to be possible if he was on the ground.
Edit: Even more important, the suspect turned his back to the officers between the first five shots and the second officer firing. With his back toward them, they have no idea what he is doing, only knowing that he is someone that is acting irrational, has a deadly weapon, and has been using it in the last few minutes.
Was he on the ground, or standing?
Maybe he was neither.
Maybe he was somewhere in between, having been shot five times, and probably in his death-throes.
He was also no where near the cops, when the second rally of shots were fired.
I don't know and don't really need to know his body position. Maybe he was kneeling in prayer? Doesn't matter -- point is there is nothing that shows he was a threat at the point when the officer fired the last five shots.
OK: 1. He was clearly standing, watch the video. 2. You are assuming he is on death throes, if you are willing to give a crazy armed suspect the benefit of the doubt when your life is on the line that's one thing: but the officer was completely within his right to not give the suspect that consideration. 3. He was within 10-20 feet of the officers, you can close that distance quite quickly. In my opinion your use of "no where near" is inaccurate. 4. His body position was upright with his back to the officers. Its objectively viewable in the video.
1. Watch the video again. 10 shots in 3 seconds. The suspect barely had time to fall to the ground. 2. 5 bullets usually means death. 3. You can't close that kind of distance with, again, 5 rounds in you against perfectly healthy officers. Officers are not going to sit there while a wounded guy approaches them. 4. Yes, he was in no position to harm the officers with his crowbar.
5 bullets means death? since when? assuming the officer had a glock 18 side arm they are firing relatively "weak" 9mm rounds. 5 center mass shots from a low caliber side arm certainly would not drop someone 100% of the time. Furthermore the suspect already attempted to attack an officer, so the possibility of him being on a narcotic is already there.
Yes someone full of drugs and adrenaline can quickly close that distance. 3 seconds is certainly enough time to travel 20 feet. (pretty sure most people could travel 120 feet in ~6 seconds) The officers had no reason to believe the suspect was neutralized.
If I got shot 5 times i would immediately drop what was in my hands and collapse cause it would hurt like fucking hell. The fact that this guy simply took a step back and turned around demonstrated to the officer that he was still posing a threat. I would be absolutely shocked if he is found of using excessive force in this situation.
5 center mass shots from glock 18s at that range. I mean, you do know that distance makes a big difference right?
So if a suspect is aggressive, that points to narcotics?
You ignored point # 1. The rate of fire from the cops. 10 shots in 3 seconds while the guy was trying to retreat. The officers had no reason to believe the suspect was still a threat.
And are you telling me that officers have a reaction time less than 3 seconds (the time required, as you allege, for the suspect to reach the officer). And you ignore that he would be running towards trained officers who won't be standing like deers caught in headlights.
Finally, have you ever been injured severely? I have. The body goes into shock and doesn't register the wound for a few seconds. Anyone here who has taken a bullet would testify to that. You would collapse because it would hurt? Yes, but not in 3 seconds.
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.
Thank God you're not a cop.
I love how we don't ask the people who we give guns and special privileges to, to not actually have to make judgments, or use discretion or some form of critical thinking. Just follow some basic guidelines, and everything is okay, no matter who you hurt or how badly.
It's all about the police officer and his safety, and since he's such a simple-minded idiot, we don't question it when he shoots someone ten times in the chest from less than ten yards away.
That situation could have been handled so much better, as is blatantly apparent. Bad cop is a bad cop, and while I may not assault them with a crowbar, it does bother me deeply that someone like the cop in this video is given a gun.
Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill -- any research, Mr. InControl, would tell you that cops are only supposed to use enough force to keep the peace. What the hell are you reading that makes you think cops are supposed to "shoot to kill"?
Comic books?
This officer used excessive force, and judging by the last five shots he fired, he seemed more concerned with killing somebody than protecting the public. I hope he loses his badge, disgracefully.
Maybe some of us expect our officers to be smart and capable people. Not "Chuck Norris", but at least capable of stopping someone with a crowbar without splattering their flesh all over a parking lot by unloading their pistol at them, even when they're down, ten times. That's all I ask.
Cops are supposed to shoot to kill... When pull a gun it isn't just because it's to stop a threat to peoples lives. They don't gamble with life and death if you make a threatening move you are well within your rights to shoot. It doesn't mean shit how many times he shot him at what point do you draw the line? 3 shots is okay but 4 means your a bad human being...
You can't even see what happens for the second burst how do you know he didn't grab at something by his waist when he was on the ground?
Like you said he was less than 10 yards away do you know how much damage a crow bar can do to someone? What do you suggest the cop do as he postures to swing at his partners head? Anything he could do would be too late and his partner could be dead, a vegetable, crippled or seriously wounded. If you seriously think someone who brandishes a weapon at a person with a gun pointed at them doesn't give up their right to safety your living in a fantasy world.
Sure the tazer cop made a mistake taking his eyes off the guy but because he did should he just let the guy crack his head open?
I notice you removed your "pro" comment too... classy
The "Pro" comment was out of line and personal, so I removed it. Although, I'm reading some personal attacks against me, so, meh, fair's fair.
Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill.
It's a matter of discretion.
This cop had bad discretion, and maybe should be given a baton instead of a gun. Maybe traffic duty would suit him better.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Officers are trained to use their firearm to end the threat as quickly as possible. That typically means 3-5 shots to the center mass. When the first rounds did not drop the suspect a second round was fired and the situation was secured.
The officers properly escalated force- verbal, then a less than lethal taser. The suspect clearly attempted to swing at an officer and his partner protected him w/ his firearm. How you can watch that video and think the officer had time to draw a baton, not even mentioning how suicidal attempting to subdue an armed suspect with a baton would be, is beyond me.
The officer exercised perfect discretion: he protected his partner's life and ceased fire immediately once the suspect was no longer a threat.
If you want to criticize the training the officers received that is 1 thing, but to suggest that those officers did anything other than properly follow their training is incorrect.
I'm not one of the people saying the cop should have "shot him in the leg". People seem to be trying to pigeon-hole my statements and kind of put words in my mouth.
Yes, cops are definitely told to shoot center mass. That does NOT mean "shoot to kill". No cop is ever told "Shoot to kill", and if any department told their cops that, then that entire department needs to be torn down and rebuilt, because it's unconstitutional.
I understand the cop's initial reaction. But in my opinion, the cop went beyond his station and beyond his training, continuing to shoot, repeatedly, at a perp that was clearly out of commission and probably in need of an ambulance.
First five shoots were fine. The next five shots -- not so much.
I'm going to go adjust my skirt now. Goodbye ladies.
Except he wasn't "clearly out of commission." He turned his back to them and was still standing, and wielding a deadly weapon.
He turned his back AND WAS FALLING when the shooting was continued. This is something you are neglecting to mention. I fail to see how someone who is still hold a pipe or whatever blunt instrument and falling is going to be able to use it in ANY way. The last five shots were clearly unnecessary, and put anyone in the direct vicinity at risk because of the potential for ricochet off of the instrument the perp had.
A similar incident happened in 1997, however the man had a Katana he approached police the same way and it resulted in this video. They never shot him with any lead, they used bean bag rounds which didn't work, then gassed him which didn't work, they then used a fire hose which barely worked and then pinned him with a ladder to finally take him down. THIS IS WHAT POLICE SHOULD DO. They completely handled the situation wrong, they shouldn't have gone in as a duo they should have waited for backup, then boxed him in with their cruisers and kept him on the other side so he is no longer able to attack the police and employ a non lethal method to take him out. So what if he breaks more windows they are fucking windows a person is worth more than an infinite amount of windows.
Video link:
the video is lagging on my computer so i didn't watch all of it but it looks like the guy didn't advance on the officers and just stood there. so different situation if he had advanced i feel confident any one of the police would of shot him dead unless the nonlethal methods were already set up. thats the main thing here that seperates the two instances. in one the fellow clearly closed the nonlethal method had been used up not available and he left the police with no choice. in the other from what i can tell the person never closed and never actually threatened any one while each non lethal method was used.
um no. the way the situations were handled in both the vids were completly diffrent. in that 1997 vid the cops never advanced the suspect and they were behind baracades and such. they were making absolute sure that distance between them and the suspect was a safe distance and proceeded to fire non lethal projectiles at him untill finnally he was subdued but still alive.
the crowbar footage tho? the cops advanced on the suspect and never once tried to distance themselves from him. why? what was the point on getting THAT close to a armed suspect? they liiteraly put themselves in range of the crow bar when they obviously had ranged weapons. they didnt even attempt to play it safe. then when they get close to the suspect and the suspect takes a swing they fire point blank range for there own safety when infact they did nothing to keep themselves safe in the first place judging from the vid.
what was the point of getting THAT close to someone that is "wielding a deadly weapon"? if they simply kept there distance and waited for back up to OUT NUMBER the suspect then the situation might have ended diffrently. at the end of the day 1 man with a crowbar having 10+ ppl with guns pointed at him (while keeping there distance from the suspect) is no threat. if he had a gun or something then ya it would be diffrent, but he had a crowbar which u need to get CLOSE in order to use.
but that didnt happen. u had only 2 cops getting in melee range of a suspect wielding a deadly weapon. no action was ever taken to ensure the safety of the suspect and the cops. infact it was the opposite. and because of that the situation ended up the way it did.
also to the ppl that are ssaying "well he was still standing so he was still a threat". no.... the dude was FALLING. after the first set of shots he turned around and was starting to FALL to te ground but they continued to shot anyway. watch the vid more closely and u will see that the guy turned and was starting to fall over.
People like you disgust me. People sit safely in their chairs at home and say the police shouldn't fire until after the suspect has bashed their skull in; they feel that police are below everyone else, some people like you even cheer death.
This is a person who had a deadly weapon, had been destroying property, refused to follow orders given to him, and brushed off a taser to the face(suggesting he was under the influence of illegal drugs). He then raised his deadly weapon that he had been using at close range toward an armed police officer.
Use your brain man, please, please.
Okay, Mr. Hyperbole.
I never once argued, if you read my post, that the cop shouldn't have fired his gun. The only thing anyone is arguing is that maybe we should hold cops to higher standards than "shoot to kill". Maybe he could have shot the guy three times, instead of ten.
Thanks.
"You disgust me". "Sitting in your chair". Yeah, yeah. I forgot I'm not allowed to have an opinion (unless I'm standing, of course).
No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I suppose it is just too much to ask that you have an intelligent one though.
Guns are designed to kill, and that is what they are used for. They tried to taser him, it had no effect. They tried the non-lethal method first, and when you realize that a taser to the face didn't even faze him, you have to consider him to be under the influence of drugs, and thus even more dangerous.
They shot him five times, and he was still standing, so his partner then fired. This is the real world, when you fire your gun, you do so to kill, not some trick shot to shoot the weapon out of his hand, or to get a shot on his knee. He charged at the officer while raising a deadly weapon to strike, what do you expect?
He was shot five times and still standing? No, he wasn't.
Your definition of "standing" differs from mine, greatly.
Perhaps you should view the video before posting in this thread. After the first officer fired the suspect took a step so that the car was between the camera and suspect, but his head is still clearly visible above the roof of the vehicle. Hard for that to be possible if he was on the ground.
Edit: Even more important, the suspect turned his back to the officers between the first five shots and the second officer firing. With his back toward them, they have no idea what he is doing, only knowing that he is someone that is acting irrational, has a deadly weapon, and has been using it in the last few minutes.
Was he on the ground, or standing?
Maybe he was neither.
Maybe he was somewhere in between, having been shot five times, and probably in his death-throes.
He was also no where near the cops, when the second rally of shots were fired.
I don't know and don't really need to know his body position. Maybe he was kneeling in prayer? Doesn't matter -- point is there is nothing that shows he was a threat at the point when the officer fired the last five shots.
OK: 1. He was clearly standing, watch the video. 2. You are assuming he is on death throes, if you are willing to give a crazy armed suspect the benefit of the doubt when your life is on the line that's one thing: but the officer was completely within his right to not give the suspect that consideration. 3. He was within 10-20 feet of the officers, you can close that distance quite quickly. In my opinion your use of "no where near" is inaccurate. 4. His body position was upright with his back to the officers. Its objectively viewable in the video.
1. Watch the video again. 10 shots in 3 seconds. The suspect barely had time to fall to the ground. 2. 5 bullets usually means death. 3. You can't close that kind of distance with, again, 5 rounds in you against perfectly healthy officers. Officers are not going to sit there while a wounded guy approaches them. 4. Yes, he was in no position to harm the officers with his crowbar.
5 bullets means death? since when? assuming the officer had a glock 18 side arm they are firing relatively "weak" 9mm rounds. 5 center mass shots from a low caliber side arm certainly would not drop someone 100% of the time. Furthermore the suspect already attempted to attack an officer, so the possibility of him being on a narcotic is already there.
Yes someone full of drugs and adrenaline can quickly close that distance. 3 seconds is certainly enough time to travel 20 feet. (pretty sure most people could travel 120 feet in ~6 seconds) The officers had no reason to believe the suspect was neutralized.
If I got shot 5 times i would immediately drop what was in my hands and collapse cause it would hurt like fucking hell. The fact that this guy simply took a step back and turned around demonstrated to the officer that he was still posing a threat. I would be absolutely shocked if he is found of using excessive force in this situation.
5 center mass shots from glock 18s at that range. I mean, you do know that distance makes a big difference right?
So if a suspect is aggressive, that points to narcotics?
You ignored point # 1. The rate of fire from the cops. 10 shots in 3 seconds while the guy was trying to retreat. The officers had no reason to believe the suspect was still a threat.
And are you telling me that officers have a reaction time less than 3 seconds (the time required, as you allege, for the suspect to reach the officer). And you ignore that he would be running towards trained officers who won't be standing like deers caught in headlights.
Finally, have you ever been injured severely? I have. The body goes into shock and doesn't register the wound for a few seconds. Anyone here who has taken a bullet would testify to that. You would collapse because it would hurt? Yes, but not in 3 seconds.
Idn man, You seem pretty convinced it was excessive force. We are just going in circles at this point. The officer was trained to shoot until the target is no longer a threat. So he shot until he was on the ground and no longer a threat. That's how I see it and that's how he was trained to see it. Idn what else can be said.
People clearly don't know how to agree to disagree. 45 pages of this stuff lol.
Police acted within the rules but I just wish we as a society could value human life more. It's someone's son, brother, father, whatever... Not a justifiable shooting target. Using military terms only serves to distance a persons humanity and makes it seem more ok to kill that person.
What fear me the most is that this could happen to any of us... I mean we don't know the guy and we don't know the situation but maybe what he needed was mental treatement like, he had a mental breakdown or whatever and he felt ultra powerfull and he was dillusional at that time. If this happens and the guy have a machine gun then yes you shoot him no hesitation but a crowbar?...
On January 25 2012 14:43 AllHailTheDead wrote: After watching this once more It looks like the victim had no real intention of swinging at the cop
as you can see he doesnt bring his arms up for a full swing he only raises it slightly and taunts the cop like he is going to
look where his elbows were, they were tucked into his side making it near impossible to get a real swing in, I mean stand up and try to swing how he was, it just doesnt work
which I guess wasnt a very smart move since it led to his demise.
Does anyone else notice this? he didnt even start to swing really
Hopefully the police force will look into this more because this loss of life definately could have been avoided
Dood, it totally looked like he was gonna swing at the cop, like unless you have some sort of telepathy I not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he was faking or bluffing based on how his elbows are tucked.(If I may make a guess, I'd guess the officers were looking mainly at the suspect's face and his weapon, not at the positioning of his elbows.)
Would you take that chance with a loved one?
look at how he shuffles tho. Just watch that part a few times. I'm not trying to say the cop was in the wrong, he had to do what he thought needed to be done.
Edit but if you watch the guys body and how he moves and everything It looks like he wasnt trying to swing at the cop just wanting him to back away after being tazered in the face.
And actually lets look at how the cops confronted the criminal at first from what we can tell, The man comes out of the building and two cops jump out and one shoots him in the face with a tazer. Now I have somewhat of an idea of what he was doing prior to the situation but not exactly what happened, but i dont think this was right. It would make more sense to create a perimeter and wait for back up like they did to that guy with the sword in that other video. But maybe times are changing the value of life back in 1997 meant more back then
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.
Thank God you're not a cop.
I love how we don't ask the people who we give guns and special privileges to, to not actually have to make judgments, or use discretion or some form of critical thinking. Just follow some basic guidelines, and everything is okay, no matter who you hurt or how badly.
It's all about the police officer and his safety, and since he's such a simple-minded idiot, we don't question it when he shoots someone ten times in the chest from less than ten yards away.
That situation could have been handled so much better, as is blatantly apparent. Bad cop is a bad cop, and while I may not assault them with a crowbar, it does bother me deeply that someone like the cop in this video is given a gun.
Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill -- any research, Mr. InControl, would tell you that cops are only supposed to use enough force to keep the peace. What the hell are you reading that makes you think cops are supposed to "shoot to kill"?
Comic books?
This officer used excessive force, and judging by the last five shots he fired, he seemed more concerned with killing somebody than protecting the public. I hope he loses his badge, disgracefully.
Maybe some of us expect our officers to be smart and capable people. Not "Chuck Norris", but at least capable of stopping someone with a crowbar without splattering their flesh all over a parking lot by unloading their pistol at them, even when they're down, ten times. That's all I ask.
Cops are supposed to shoot to kill... When pull a gun it isn't just because it's to stop a threat to peoples lives. They don't gamble with life and death if you make a threatening move you are well within your rights to shoot. It doesn't mean shit how many times he shot him at what point do you draw the line? 3 shots is okay but 4 means your a bad human being...
You can't even see what happens for the second burst how do you know he didn't grab at something by his waist when he was on the ground?
Like you said he was less than 10 yards away do you know how much damage a crow bar can do to someone? What do you suggest the cop do as he postures to swing at his partners head? Anything he could do would be too late and his partner could be dead, a vegetable, crippled or seriously wounded. If you seriously think someone who brandishes a weapon at a person with a gun pointed at them doesn't give up their right to safety your living in a fantasy world.
Sure the tazer cop made a mistake taking his eyes off the guy but because he did should he just let the guy crack his head open?
I notice you removed your "pro" comment too... classy
The "Pro" comment was out of line and personal, so I removed it. Although, I'm reading some personal attacks against me, so, meh, fair's fair.
Cops are not supposed to shoot to kill.
It's a matter of discretion.
This cop had bad discretion, and maybe should be given a baton instead of a gun. Maybe traffic duty would suit him better.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Officers are trained to use their firearm to end the threat as quickly as possible. That typically means 3-5 shots to the center mass. When the first rounds did not drop the suspect a second round was fired and the situation was secured.
The officers properly escalated force- verbal, then a less than lethal taser. The suspect clearly attempted to swing at an officer and his partner protected him w/ his firearm. How you can watch that video and think the officer had time to draw a baton, not even mentioning how suicidal attempting to subdue an armed suspect with a baton would be, is beyond me.
The officer exercised perfect discretion: he protected his partner's life and ceased fire immediately once the suspect was no longer a threat.
If you want to criticize the training the officers received that is 1 thing, but to suggest that those officers did anything other than properly follow their training is incorrect.
I'm not one of the people saying the cop should have "shot him in the leg". People seem to be trying to pigeon-hole my statements and kind of put words in my mouth.
Yes, cops are definitely told to shoot center mass. That does NOT mean "shoot to kill". No cop is ever told "Shoot to kill", and if any department told their cops that, then that entire department needs to be torn down and rebuilt, because it's unconstitutional.
I understand the cop's initial reaction. But in my opinion, the cop went beyond his station and beyond his training, continuing to shoot, repeatedly, at a perp that was clearly out of commission and probably in need of an ambulance.
First five shoots were fine. The next five shots -- not so much.
I'm going to go adjust my skirt now. Goodbye ladies.
Except he wasn't "clearly out of commission." He turned his back to them and was still standing, and wielding a deadly weapon.
He turned his back AND WAS FALLING when the shooting was continued. This is something you are neglecting to mention. I fail to see how someone who is still hold a pipe or whatever blunt instrument and falling is going to be able to use it in ANY way. The last five shots were clearly unnecessary, and put anyone in the direct vicinity at risk because of the potential for ricochet off of the instrument the perp had.
A similar incident happened in 1997, however the man had a Katana he approached police the same way and it resulted in this video. They never shot him with any lead, they used bean bag rounds which didn't work, then gassed him which didn't work, they then used a fire hose which barely worked and then pinned him with a ladder to finally take him down. THIS IS WHAT POLICE SHOULD DO. They completely handled the situation wrong, they shouldn't have gone in as a duo they should have waited for backup, then boxed him in with their cruisers and kept him on the other side so he is no longer able to attack the police and employ a non lethal method to take him out. So what if he breaks more windows they are fucking windows a person is worth more than an infinite amount of windows.
the video is lagging on my computer so i didn't watch all of it but it looks like the guy didn't advance on the officers and just stood there. so different situation if he had advanced i feel confident any one of the police would of shot him dead unless the nonlethal methods were already set up. thats the main thing here that seperates the two instances. in one the fellow clearly closed the nonlethal method had been used up not available and he left the police with no choice. in the other from what i can tell the person never closed and never actually threatened any one while each non lethal method was used.
but that didnt happen. u had only 2 cops getting in melee range of a suspect wielding a deadly weapon. no action was ever taken to ensure the safety of the suspect and the cops. infact it was the opposite. and because of that the situation ended up the way it did.
Dude.....they gave him verbal commands and also tased him in the face. They gave him every opportunity to walk away from that situation with his life. What are they supposed to do? Let him just walk away with a lethal weapon where he can harm others? Let him bash a police officer's head in? Are the cops supposed to run away? I don't understand where you're going with this.
The written description makes this sound immensely worse than the video. The entire shooting period is maybe half a second where he unloads most of his clip. What really happens is the suspect abruptly turns and starts a swing at one of the officers at very close range. That officer immediately stumbles back as the other officer opens fire.
Entire incident is justified. If you ever take a swing at an officer with a potentially lethal weapon, it is not going to end well for you.
On January 25 2012 14:55 Crisium wrote: It is very possible to die from one swing from that weapon that the suspect had, and he could swing it faster than the dog would get there. Shooting was justified.
The amount of shots may have been excessive, however. Two five-round bursts simply seems overkill, given the situation. I have a feeling that the officer may get 'punishment' in the form of additional training and therapy (in addition to time off duty) but he shouldn't get fired or jailed.
Even if it didn't kill (it probably wouldn't), it would definitely severely injure.
On January 25 2012 14:43 AllHailTheDead wrote: After watching this once more It looks like the victim had no real intention of swinging at the cop
as you can see he doesnt bring his arms up for a full swing he only raises it slightly and taunts the cop like he is going to
look where his elbows were, they were tucked into his side making it near impossible to get a real swing in, I mean stand up and try to swing how he was, it just doesnt work
which I guess wasnt a very smart move since it led to his demise.
Does anyone else notice this? he didnt even start to swing really
Hopefully the police force will look into this more because this loss of life definately could have been avoided
Dood, it totally looked like he was gonna swing at the cop, like unless you have some sort of telepathy I not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he was faking or bluffing based on how his elbows are tucked.(If I may make a guess, I'd guess the officers were looking mainly at the suspect's face and his weapon, not at the positioning of his elbows.)
Would you take that chance with a loved one?
look at how he shuffles tho. Just watch that part a few times. I'm not trying to say the cop was in the wrong, he had to do what he thought needed to be done.
Edit but if you watch the guys body and how he moves and everything It looks like he wasnt trying to swing at the cop just wanting him to back away after being tazered in the face.
And actually lets look at how the cops confronted the criminal at first from what we can tell, The man comes out of the building and two cops jump out and one shoots him in the face with a tazer. Now I have somewhat of an idea of what he was doing prior to the situation but not exactly what happened, but i dont think this was right. It would make more sense to create a perimeter and wait for back up like they did to that guy with the sword in that other video. But maybe times are changing the value of life back in 1997 meant more back then
Hindsight is always 20/20. You can't tell if the guy was kidding about wanting to swing at the cop, or whether he had really wanted to smash that cop's head in. The shooter had under a second to decide. It's unfortunate but the training kicked in, and thankfully so.
On January 25 2012 15:23 ScaryOlive wrote: What fear me the most is that this could happen to any of us... I mean we don't know the guy and we don't know the situation but maybe what he needed was mental treatement like, he had a mental breakdown or whatever and he felt ultra powerfull and he was dillusional at that time. If this happens and the guy have a machine gun then yes you shoot him no hesitation but a crowbar?...
Life has no value anymore it seems...
No it could not happen to any of us. Unless you're the type of person who brandishes deadly weapons in public, vandalized public businesses, ignores police commands, and then attempts to attack those same police officers.
A normal person has a mental breakdown and they go to a bar, or *gasp* seek help. If he felt "ultra powerful" or was delusional, it was because he was on PCP, in which case he is a danger to society. If he wouldn't have attacked the cop, it could have just as easily been someone who looked at him the wrong way.
I don't know what people are so afraid of. If you don't want to be shot dead by police officers, don't attack them? Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
And no, his life had no value. Just another gangbanger in L.A.
On January 25 2012 09:21 CecilSunkure wrote: He didn't deserve to die. I see no reason for a lethal firearm to be used against a melee weapon in a wide open area. Even riots are controlled with non-lethal weapons a lot of the time. Use rubber bullets, tasers, pepper spray. Jesus christ that officer was a trigger happy bastard.
You don't bring rubber bullets on patrol the cop was absolutely right. This isn't a game this is real life no such thing as a fair fight the guy didn't follow direct orders by a policeman in a arrest situation. not only that proceeded to move towards a police officer with a weapon.
It isn't about a "fair fight". He didn't deserve to die. The military when in action in other countries will not fire at civilians, or often even organised and dangerous groups unless fired at first. He didn't deserve to die. How about if every time a police officer pointed a gun at someone they'd be shot ten times? Oh wait, this guy didn't point a gun, he raised a metal pole object.
I never once argued, if you read my post, that the cop shouldn't have fired his gun. The only thing anyone is arguing is that maybe we should hold cops to higher standards than "shoot to kill". Maybe he could have shot the guy three times, instead of ten.
Thanks.
"You disgust me". "Sitting in your chair". Yeah, yeah. I forgot I'm not allowed to have an opinion (unless I'm standing, of course).
No one said you couldn't have an opinion, I suppose it is just too much to ask that you have an intelligent one though.
Guns are designed to kill, and that is what they are used for. They tried to taser him, it had no effect. They tried the non-lethal method first, and when you realize that a taser to the face didn't even faze him, you have to consider him to be under the influence of drugs, and thus even more dangerous.
They shot him five times, and he was still standing, so his partner then fired. This is the real world, when you fire your gun, you do so to kill, not some trick shot to shoot the weapon out of his hand, or to get a shot on his knee. He charged at the officer while raising a deadly weapon to strike, what do you expect?
He was shot five times and still standing? No, he wasn't.
Your definition of "standing" differs from mine, greatly.
Perhaps you should view the video before posting in this thread. After the first officer fired the suspect took a step so that the car was between the camera and suspect, but his head is still clearly visible above the roof of the vehicle. Hard for that to be possible if he was on the ground.
Edit: Even more important, the suspect turned his back to the officers between the first five shots and the second officer firing. With his back toward them, they have no idea what he is doing, only knowing that he is someone that is acting irrational, has a deadly weapon, and has been using it in the last few minutes.
Was he on the ground, or standing?
Maybe he was neither.
Maybe he was somewhere in between, having been shot five times, and probably in his death-throes.
He was also no where near the cops, when the second rally of shots were fired.
I don't know and don't really need to know his body position. Maybe he was kneeling in prayer? Doesn't matter -- point is there is nothing that shows he was a threat at the point when the officer fired the last five shots.
OK: 1. He was clearly standing, watch the video. 2. You are assuming he is on death throes, if you are willing to give a crazy armed suspect the benefit of the doubt when your life is on the line that's one thing: but the officer was completely within his right to not give the suspect that consideration. 3. He was within 10-20 feet of the officers, you can close that distance quite quickly. In my opinion your use of "no where near" is inaccurate. 4. His body position was upright with his back to the officers. Its objectively viewable in the video.
1. Watch the video again. 10 shots in 3 seconds. The suspect barely had time to fall to the ground. 2. 5 bullets usually means death. 3. You can't close that kind of distance with, again, 5 rounds in you against perfectly healthy officers. Officers are not going to sit there while a wounded guy approaches them. 4. Yes, he was in no position to harm the officers with his crowbar.
5 bullets means death? since when? assuming the officer had a glock 18 side arm they are firing relatively "weak" 9mm rounds. 5 center mass shots from a low caliber side arm certainly would not drop someone 100% of the time. Furthermore the suspect already attempted to attack an officer, so the possibility of him being on a narcotic is already there.
Yes someone full of drugs and adrenaline can quickly close that distance. 3 seconds is certainly enough time to travel 20 feet. (pretty sure most people could travel 120 feet in ~6 seconds) The officers had no reason to believe the suspect was neutralized.
If I got shot 5 times i would immediately drop what was in my hands and collapse cause it would hurt like fucking hell. The fact that this guy simply took a step back and turned around demonstrated to the officer that he was still posing a threat. I would be absolutely shocked if he is found of using excessive force in this situation.
5 center mass shots from glock 18s at that range. I mean, you do know that distance makes a big difference right?
So if a suspect is aggressive, that points to narcotics?
You ignored point # 1. The rate of fire from the cops. 10 shots in 3 seconds while the guy was trying to retreat. The officers had no reason to believe the suspect was still a threat.
And are you telling me that officers have a reaction time less than 3 seconds (the time required, as you allege, for the suspect to reach the officer). And you ignore that he would be running towards trained officers who won't be standing like deers caught in headlights.
Finally, have you ever been injured severely? I have. The body goes into shock and doesn't register the wound for a few seconds. Anyone here who has taken a bullet would testify to that. You would collapse because it would hurt? Yes, but not in 3 seconds.
Idn man, You seem pretty convinced it was excessive force. We are just going in circles at this point. The officer was trained to shoot until the target is no longer a threat. So he shot until he was on the ground and no longer a threat. That's how I see it and that's how he was trained to see it. Idn what else can be said.
And you seem to be convinced it isn't. 3 seconds isn't enough time for a suspect to be on the ground after being shot. More importantly, your definition of "threat" is to simply stand. Threat has to mean more than that. What about distance, what about the type of weapon, what about the other circumstances (like if someone has already been shot 5 times).
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)
These two situations are completely different tho
The one today the criminal gets caught by suprise as he is ambushed by two cops coming out of a carls jr
this one the guy goes fucking nuts(I mean I would have tazer'd him at the start considering what he is doing.
Next thing you know he has a gun and the officer is still telling him to put it down
What this guy did was dance around crazily then go into his truck. That's less threatening to watch than someone coming at you with a crowbar ready to swing.
If the officer in my video (Kyle Dinkheller) had shot and killed the man when he was trying to go into the truck all the bleeding hearts would probably scream on about "he shouldn't have shot to kill! He didn't know if he had anything in the car!" Same deal here. Kyle Dinkheller didn't know if he had a gun in the truck and acted like many of you are clamouring for the cops to have done and it cost him his life. These cops don't know if the guy has a gun in his pocket, a knife, whatever.
It's bullshit. You blatantly disregard warnings, you deserve to be shot. Was it excessive? Probably with the amount of times he was shot. Was opening fire justified? Absolutely.
EPT
