EPTNow, when you first hear the story -- you think, "The guy came at the officer with a weapon, he had every justification to shoot him." However, watch the video -- the officer unloads what seems to be a completely unnecessary amount of ammunition into the suspect.
Potentially NSFW and vulgar language
At :42 does the event occur.
For the sake of discussion, and not to turn this into mindless "Cops are pigs" idiocy -- was the officer using far too excessive force? Do note, that the suspect was approaching the officer with potentially lethal force. However, did it justify the response? He shot him multiple times, and as he was falling down, shot even further at him.
Personally, I find this situation rather neutral. The man with the weapon is an idiot for coming at an officer with a weapon. Simple as. However, I will not commend the officer who shot him for anything. What he did was straight up over excessive. The news report does state they tried to taze him at first, but still.
MONTEREY PARK, Calif. (KABC) -- A suspect armed with a crowbar was shot outside of a Carl's Jr. restaurant in Monterey Park on Monday morning.
Authorities say the incident began with the suspect breaking windows at Carl's Jr. in the 1200 block of Avenida Cesar Chavez just before 9:30 a.m. The suspect then walked inside, while workers and customers ran outside.
Police arrived as the suspect was exiting the fast-food restaurant. After repeatedly telling the suspect to drop the weapon, the suspect was Tasered.
Police said the Taser was ineffective, and the suspect swung the three-foot metal bar at officers twice. At least one officer opened fire on the suspect.
The suspect was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
No one else was injured in the incident. The officer-involved shooting is under investigation.
(Copyright ©2012 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
Authorities say the incident began with the suspect breaking windows at Carl's Jr. in the 1200 block of Avenida Cesar Chavez just before 9:30 a.m. The suspect then walked inside, while workers and customers ran outside.
Police arrived as the suspect was exiting the fast-food restaurant. After repeatedly telling the suspect to drop the weapon, the suspect was Tasered.
Police said the Taser was ineffective, and the suspect swung the three-foot metal bar at officers twice. At least one officer opened fire on the suspect.
The suspect was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
No one else was injured in the incident. The officer-involved shooting is under investigation.
(Copyright ©2012 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
And the views of the man who shot it all.
After people were running out side of the Carls Jr. a man holding what looked like to be a metal pipe bender was walking very slowly and calmly toward the side of Carls Jr. very nonchalantly smashing in the windows with his weapon, he then walked into the fast food restaurant. while the suspect was inside the police arrived and set up to the right of the enterance. the police told the suspect, some command i was unable to hear, the suspect then walked out side and well the rest can be seen from the video, at the time it was believed that he was shot with rubber pellets and sadly that wasn't case. The suspect seemed to be shot 5 times while facing the officer and then shot at 5 times again while his back was turned to the officer, allegedly of course
As per popular request, some well thought out posts on the subject:
+ Show Spoiler +
On January 25 2012 06:25 sMi.EternaL wrote:
I very rarely post in these types of threads. Emotions usually run high and opinions are always fickle beasts. That being said, since this is actually an area in which I am very familiar I will try to shed some light on the situation for those saying this is an unjustified shoot.
A little background first. I am a former Marine weapons instructor and am now a private sector weapons instructor. As someone that teaches officers what to do in this situation I can say that this is an absolutely justifiable shoot.
In the Law Enforcement/Military world you are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Stop the threat means exactly that. There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a "Body Alarm Response," your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don't even realize what was happening until after the fact. This officer did exactly what he should have done and fell back on his training and by doing so potentially saved the life of his partner. His initial burst did not drop the suspect, as you can see he's still standing, they have no way of knowing what kind of weapons systems he is carrying on his person other than the object in his hand. You either put the threat down and know you're safe or gamble with your life and the lives of those around you. How horrible would you feel if you were this officer, you shot your initial rounds and then stopped giving the suspect time to pull his pistol from his waistband and kill your partner? It happens, and so we train to make sure that does NOT happen.
I personally teach every student I've ever trained that his main priority is to make it home safe. Your wife/kids/husband/partner are expecting you & counting on you. If someone is coming at you/friend/family, you drop them absolutely. You never shoot to kill but you always shoot to stop the threat, in most cases this will kill the individual but that is never our intention. Hindsight and outside perspective is extremely skewed in these types of situations.
As far as being able to justify a shooting you have to be able to say to yourself, DAM! DAM is Desire, Ability and Means. This suspect displayed desire, he was well within range/had the capability to end that officers life and he definitely had the means.
Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense. If a person walks into a bank and tries to rob it in this manner he still gets assault with a deadly weapon/armed robbery etc charges. And those cases happen more frequently than you might think. In this case the suspect very obviously had a weapon and displayed an attempt to use it. Training kicked in and that was all she wrote.
I very rarely post in these types of threads. Emotions usually run high and opinions are always fickle beasts. That being said, since this is actually an area in which I am very familiar I will try to shed some light on the situation for those saying this is an unjustified shoot.
A little background first. I am a former Marine weapons instructor and am now a private sector weapons instructor. As someone that teaches officers what to do in this situation I can say that this is an absolutely justifiable shoot.
In the Law Enforcement/Military world you are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Stop the threat means exactly that. There is no sugar coating a threat engagement, in high intensity situations like this your brain stops and your training takes over. This is called a "Body Alarm Response," your previous highest level of training literally takes over and often times you don't even realize what was happening until after the fact. This officer did exactly what he should have done and fell back on his training and by doing so potentially saved the life of his partner. His initial burst did not drop the suspect, as you can see he's still standing, they have no way of knowing what kind of weapons systems he is carrying on his person other than the object in his hand. You either put the threat down and know you're safe or gamble with your life and the lives of those around you. How horrible would you feel if you were this officer, you shot your initial rounds and then stopped giving the suspect time to pull his pistol from his waistband and kill your partner? It happens, and so we train to make sure that does NOT happen.
I personally teach every student I've ever trained that his main priority is to make it home safe. Your wife/kids/husband/partner are expecting you & counting on you. If someone is coming at you/friend/family, you drop them absolutely. You never shoot to kill but you always shoot to stop the threat, in most cases this will kill the individual but that is never our intention. Hindsight and outside perspective is extremely skewed in these types of situations.
As far as being able to justify a shooting you have to be able to say to yourself, DAM! DAM is Desire, Ability and Means. This suspect displayed desire, he was well within range/had the capability to end that officers life and he definitely had the means.
Food for thought: In most states if a person puts their bare hand into their pocket/paper bag/anything and even IMPLIES that he has a gun, you are well within your rights to shoot that person in self defense. If a person walks into a bank and tries to rob it in this manner he still gets assault with a deadly weapon/armed robbery etc charges. And those cases happen more frequently than you might think. In this case the suspect very obviously had a weapon and displayed an attempt to use it. Training kicked in and that was all she wrote.
And on the opposite side of the spectrum.
On January 25 2012 11:39 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
I'd like to update an earlier post I made, this time with the benefit of a discussion from my professor in Behavioral Psychology and who serves as a consultant and clinical psychology for the FBI.
First, a berakdown of the event as it can be seen on YT:
00:00 - 00:29 : there is slight commotion outside the restaurant, as 2 police officers position themselves near the exit and point their guns towards the door
00:30 : Suspect exits the restaurant
00:30 - 00:36 - Suspect walks towards the car in front, walking nonchalantly, even with arms swaying, crowbar in right hand
00:36 - 00:39 - Suspect turns to Cops. Cops yell something to him (inaudible) as he continues walking and the cops follow his direction
00:39 - Cop 1 tasers him in the face
00:39 - 00:44 - Still he continues walking while removing the taser, while Cop 1 looks at his waist to return the taser or reach for something, still walking towards Suspect. Police 2 keeps an eye on suspect, also walking forward, with dog on his left hand.
00:44 - 00:45 - Suspect turns to Cop 1, Suspect holds crowbar in two hands, makes 1 semi hope with his left leg, his body perpendicular to Cop 1, and lands with a small hop towards Cop 1, reaches as close as 3 to 2 feet away from him, but momentarily stops never completing the motion of swinging, while Police 1 fumbles backwards awkwardly, reaching again for his right side, perhaps gun
00:45 - 00:47 - Cop 2 shoots 5 times
00:47 - Suspect falls back turning about 3 feet from where he stood when the first shot was fired, and is now at least 8-10 feet away from them. His body is hidden by the car, but he is obviously turned to the other direction, his back towards the 2 Cops, as he is slightly bent. Audience has no sight on his hands. Cops may or may not have sight on what he was doing with his hands. Both Cops now have guns pointed at him. 5 more shots.
00:48 - Cop 1 radios, Cop 3 appears out of nowhere. Siren clearly audible
00:58 - Cop 1 moves in and kneels down to Suspect. Car blocks view. Cop 3 joins him
The rest irrelevant to the incident
Now the significant points of discussion:
1. Was there a threat from the suspect? YES.
2. Was the initial five shots justified? Yes. But Cop 2 had clear shot all the time to shoulders or the legs to momentarily neutralize him and proceed with nonkethal containment. Whatever training the cop had, he did not observe optimum discretion. Killing is a harsh reality in the profession, sometimes even necessary. But Standard Police procedure is to neutralize threat while ensuring no kill if there is opportunity to do so. In this case, there was ample opportunity to save life.
3. Many claim that in real life, you can't aim for the arms or legs and simply disarm. Don't forget these are official law enforcers with ample training. If they are not trained to do that, they are getting the wrong training. In short, Cop 2's reaction was more on adrenaline and surprise, rather than informed by his training
4. Many also claim that you risk not completely disabling the suspect if you don't shoot for the core or to kill. This is wrong. A properly trained police officer knows all the strategic areas to stun and disable movement, even if only momentarily, to buy time and gain advantageous position so they ca proceed with nonlethal methods. To demonstrate, imagine a person about to swing a bat. Now, imagine hitting this person, not even with maximum force, but with just enough force to the rib or arm or thigh. This will completely stun him, and stop him from swinging and bring his attention to the pain. Imagine what a hot bullet can do. THis was an option that was fully avaible to Cop 2 that he did not take. This is one serious breach of protocol. [And where was Cop 3 all this time?]
4. Let us backtrack a bit and go back to how the suspect was even able to get within striking range. After shooting the suspect with taser on the FACE, Cop 1 simply carelessly took away his vision from the Suspect and even continued walking forward blind, not considering: a. Standard police procedure require that you stop when you dont have full perspective of the environment and the suspect; b. he just tasered a guy in the face and the guy might be upset or something and the cop is even still walking straight towards him. Police officers are trained to maintain safe and controllable distance, especially from armed suspects (that is why cops often seek cover if there is any situation where lethal exchange could occur) and proceed only once the suspect is disarmed and possesses no threat. Imagine what could have happened if the Cops were 10 - 12 feet away, ground established, and guns pointed at the suspect to deter any attacks or attempts to attack. Being so far away, it will be enough of a deterent (though not guaranteed as there are a lot of variables) that the suspect will not entertain any thoughts of attacking simply because it is impossible to do so. AND it is the police officers DUTY to ensure that these protocols are observed specifically to avoid unnecessary deaths, both of the officers and the suspect. Another breach of protocol [Again, where was Cop 3 all this time?]
5. This is closely related to 4. More than the regular physical training to neutralizing threat and killing people, cops are trained to take major account the psychological state of the suspect. The mere fact that the suspect is commiting crime is proof that he is not in his regular law abiding, pencil pushing, tax paying, church going self. It is the police officers DUTY to ensure that no controllable variables are present to provoke and escalate the situation. Walking blindly eyes down towards a guy you just tasered on the face is exactly this escalating condition.
6. After the first 5 shots, where the next 2 shots necessary. The video did not give the audience a clear point of view on where the suspect's hands were, whether he was reaching for a gun or preparing to spear the cops with the crowbar. But consider the following: a. he is facing in the opposite direction. b. he already took 5 shots and is apparently curling in pain. IF he is indeed still a threat, then the additional 5 shots might be justified. If not, the cops had a lot of options: a. they are safely at least 10 feet away to be within swining range from a man who just took 5 bullets to the body. 2. they were close enough to subdue him physically (like pounce on him and grab his arms, another standard procedure).
Conclusion.
The Suspect presented sufficient thread to warrant forceful, even lethal, response. BUT, the cops were in an advantageous position to contain the situation and prevent it from excalating, and save lives, but they breached too may protocols (even assuming Cop 3 just arrived at the 1 minute mark) that the condition worsened and someone had to die.
I'd like to update an earlier post I made, this time with the benefit of a discussion from my professor in Behavioral Psychology and who serves as a consultant and clinical psychology for the FBI.
First, a berakdown of the event as it can be seen on YT:
00:00 - 00:29 : there is slight commotion outside the restaurant, as 2 police officers position themselves near the exit and point their guns towards the door
00:30 : Suspect exits the restaurant
00:30 - 00:36 - Suspect walks towards the car in front, walking nonchalantly, even with arms swaying, crowbar in right hand
00:36 - 00:39 - Suspect turns to Cops. Cops yell something to him (inaudible) as he continues walking and the cops follow his direction
00:39 - Cop 1 tasers him in the face
00:39 - 00:44 - Still he continues walking while removing the taser, while Cop 1 looks at his waist to return the taser or reach for something, still walking towards Suspect. Police 2 keeps an eye on suspect, also walking forward, with dog on his left hand.
00:44 - 00:45 - Suspect turns to Cop 1, Suspect holds crowbar in two hands, makes 1 semi hope with his left leg, his body perpendicular to Cop 1, and lands with a small hop towards Cop 1, reaches as close as 3 to 2 feet away from him, but momentarily stops never completing the motion of swinging, while Police 1 fumbles backwards awkwardly, reaching again for his right side, perhaps gun
00:45 - 00:47 - Cop 2 shoots 5 times
00:47 - Suspect falls back turning about 3 feet from where he stood when the first shot was fired, and is now at least 8-10 feet away from them. His body is hidden by the car, but he is obviously turned to the other direction, his back towards the 2 Cops, as he is slightly bent. Audience has no sight on his hands. Cops may or may not have sight on what he was doing with his hands. Both Cops now have guns pointed at him. 5 more shots.
00:48 - Cop 1 radios, Cop 3 appears out of nowhere. Siren clearly audible
00:58 - Cop 1 moves in and kneels down to Suspect. Car blocks view. Cop 3 joins him
The rest irrelevant to the incident
Now the significant points of discussion:
1. Was there a threat from the suspect? YES.
2. Was the initial five shots justified? Yes. But Cop 2 had clear shot all the time to shoulders or the legs to momentarily neutralize him and proceed with nonkethal containment. Whatever training the cop had, he did not observe optimum discretion. Killing is a harsh reality in the profession, sometimes even necessary. But Standard Police procedure is to neutralize threat while ensuring no kill if there is opportunity to do so. In this case, there was ample opportunity to save life.
3. Many claim that in real life, you can't aim for the arms or legs and simply disarm. Don't forget these are official law enforcers with ample training. If they are not trained to do that, they are getting the wrong training. In short, Cop 2's reaction was more on adrenaline and surprise, rather than informed by his training
4. Many also claim that you risk not completely disabling the suspect if you don't shoot for the core or to kill. This is wrong. A properly trained police officer knows all the strategic areas to stun and disable movement, even if only momentarily, to buy time and gain advantageous position so they ca proceed with nonlethal methods. To demonstrate, imagine a person about to swing a bat. Now, imagine hitting this person, not even with maximum force, but with just enough force to the rib or arm or thigh. This will completely stun him, and stop him from swinging and bring his attention to the pain. Imagine what a hot bullet can do. THis was an option that was fully avaible to Cop 2 that he did not take. This is one serious breach of protocol. [And where was Cop 3 all this time?]
4. Let us backtrack a bit and go back to how the suspect was even able to get within striking range. After shooting the suspect with taser on the FACE, Cop 1 simply carelessly took away his vision from the Suspect and even continued walking forward blind, not considering: a. Standard police procedure require that you stop when you dont have full perspective of the environment and the suspect; b. he just tasered a guy in the face and the guy might be upset or something and the cop is even still walking straight towards him. Police officers are trained to maintain safe and controllable distance, especially from armed suspects (that is why cops often seek cover if there is any situation where lethal exchange could occur) and proceed only once the suspect is disarmed and possesses no threat. Imagine what could have happened if the Cops were 10 - 12 feet away, ground established, and guns pointed at the suspect to deter any attacks or attempts to attack. Being so far away, it will be enough of a deterent (though not guaranteed as there are a lot of variables) that the suspect will not entertain any thoughts of attacking simply because it is impossible to do so. AND it is the police officers DUTY to ensure that these protocols are observed specifically to avoid unnecessary deaths, both of the officers and the suspect. Another breach of protocol [Again, where was Cop 3 all this time?]
5. This is closely related to 4. More than the regular physical training to neutralizing threat and killing people, cops are trained to take major account the psychological state of the suspect. The mere fact that the suspect is commiting crime is proof that he is not in his regular law abiding, pencil pushing, tax paying, church going self. It is the police officers DUTY to ensure that no controllable variables are present to provoke and escalate the situation. Walking blindly eyes down towards a guy you just tasered on the face is exactly this escalating condition.
6. After the first 5 shots, where the next 2 shots necessary. The video did not give the audience a clear point of view on where the suspect's hands were, whether he was reaching for a gun or preparing to spear the cops with the crowbar. But consider the following: a. he is facing in the opposite direction. b. he already took 5 shots and is apparently curling in pain. IF he is indeed still a threat, then the additional 5 shots might be justified. If not, the cops had a lot of options: a. they are safely at least 10 feet away to be within swining range from a man who just took 5 bullets to the body. 2. they were close enough to subdue him physically (like pounce on him and grab his arms, another standard procedure).
Conclusion.
The Suspect presented sufficient thread to warrant forceful, even lethal, response. BUT, the cops were in an advantageous position to contain the situation and prevent it from excalating, and save lives, but they breached too may protocols (even assuming Cop 3 just arrived at the 1 minute mark) that the condition worsened and someone had to die.
