Was this police shooting justified in your opinion?
Yes
53.7% (302)
53.7% (302)
No
36.7% (206)
36.7% (206)
Not sure
8.7% (49)
8.7% (49)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Was this police shooting justified in your opinion? (Graphic)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT
 

Buretsu:
'Shot way too many times' would be if the officer had reloaded his weapon and continued to fire on a downed suspect. When the decision to use lethal force is made, there is no stopping. You don't fire twice, go "okay that's good enough" and risk that it isn't actually good enough. You do not pause. You do not give a person perceived as an imminent threat to life and limb a chance to continue their assault. You take them down with the totality of force available to you. That is how you are trained, that is how you survive and protect your fellows.

Yes, exactly. Police officers are specifically trained to disregard their own safety, public safety and good practice with firearms.

senordesol:

blindthrall:
Should've released the hound on him. Even if he does kill the dog-it's a dog. Happens in traffic all the time. At the same time, if the dog killed him, I wouldn't be shedding any tears. Wasn't a fair fight, only problem I have with it. Gun=/=crowbar, crowbar=attack dog.

Why should police be obligated to fight 'fair'?

If the cop didn't have the dog, I'd wouldn't have a problem with this. I just don't get why the cop had a gun in one hand and a dog in the other, and chose to use the gun. Oh well, the perp isn't worth all the posthumous attention anyway. Guy was asking for whatever he got.

senordesol:

Thyunda:

I'm sorry, but I saw a perfect opportunity to use the police dog the second the vandal turned around to face the first officer. Dog goes for the arm, the suspect, no matter how drugged, could not physically swing the conduit bender without removing the dog first. That leaves him wide open to being grounded by a pair of police officers.

You do realize the dogs are considered fellow officers, right? If the dude can take a tazer to the face, he just might not register the requisite amount of pain to be disabled before caving in the dogs head (provided, of course, the dog was able to reach him in time before he killed or injured the distracted officer).

Besides, bullets are faster than dogs. They ended the threat as quickly as possible.

The situation was under control. There were no civilians in the danger zone, only trained officers. Time was not of the essence. It does not require the suspect to feel pain - but if you can swing a conduit bender with a police dog hanging off your arm, you should be out fighting supervillains, not wrecking restaurants.
Oh, and the officer wasn't distracted. He could have turned and ran, he could avoid an incoming strike. It was under control. If the targeted officer was on the floor and unable to move, I would be with you 100%. But he wasn't. So I'm not.

educatedfool:

senordesol:
They're 'supposed to deal' with nearly being brained? Look the issue wasn't that the man had a weapon, it was that he was putting an officer in immediate mortal peril.

And my issue is that whatever training these officers had made the situation worse and eventually ended in an unnecessary death.

The best way to avoid the mortal peril caused by the crowbar (or whatever it is) is to stay out of the way. The second police officer distracted by the taser continues to walk toward the suspect, and as a result is caught off guard by the raised weapon. There is no need to be that close, the taser has a longer range than that. They let their guard down. Look at the way the police officer is holding his firearm walking alongside the suspect, does that look like procedure to you?

He is shocked at the raised weapon and acts accordingly. The actions of the police officers led to the situation were the discharge of a firearm was inevitable. Any good police officer will not let that happen, especially on such a minor incident.

I have been arguing this point for two days now. Trust me, they're not going to get it.

I'd say that was justified. It looks like the guy was coming at the policeman. In that scenario... you either deal with him or you leave open the chance to get beat up yourself.

I'd say this was pretty straight-forward.

Mortai Gravesend:
So? Is there some sort of standard HP system that tells how many shots it takes before someone is down?

No, and you missed the point entirely so i'm not even going to bother explaining the morals behind hindering someone's ability to injure/kill another to taking their life.

No, it's ignorant. Easier to miss in a public location, can still kill him as many people have pointed out, and police have been trained to shoot for the center of mass because it helps stop them. Get out of the movie theatre, kid, they don't shoot specific limbs like that.

There were enough people there that it wasn't likely for a shot (or 10) to the leg would kill him. And even if he did find it best to shoot for the chest then why does he have to shoot till he's like a grid for 'Connect 4'?

I'm sure we can all agree it is even more stupid to talk about saying that it was his only option when I hadn't said that at all.

So then why are you arguing and saying that he couldn't do anything BUT riddle the guy with bullets? And while i'm asking why you're doing stuff, why are you insulting and patronizing people purely because they're disagreeing with you? I mean seriously... It's kind of pathetic...

One would have been enough? You're basing this on what exactly? Naivety?

I'm basing this on the fact that he's shooting him at point blank range right in the chest.

educatedfool:

senordesol:
They're 'supposed to deal' with nearly being brained? Look the issue wasn't that the man had a weapon, it was that he was putting an officer in immediate mortal peril.

And my issue is that whatever training these officers had made the situation worse and eventually ended in an unnecessary death.

The best way to avoid the mortal peril caused by the crowbar (or whatever it is) is to stay out of the way. The second police officer distracted by the taser continues to walk toward the suspect, and as a result is caught off guard by the raised weapon. There is no need to be that close, the taser has a longer range than that. They let their guard down. Look at the way the police officer is holding his firearm walking alongside the suspect, does that look like procedure to you?

He is shocked at the raised weapon and acts accordingly. The actions of the police officers led to the situation were the discharge of a firearm was inevitable. Any good police officer will not let that happen, especially on such a minor incident.

You speak as if the subject has no control over his actions. He raised a deadly weapon to attack a police officer. Whatever direction the officer happened to be walking is no excuse.

Was walking forward careless? Sure. Doesn't mean he should get his head cracked open.

Thyunda:

senordesol:

Thyunda:

I'm sorry, but I saw a perfect opportunity to use the police dog the second the vandal turned around to face the first officer. Dog goes for the arm, the suspect, no matter how drugged, could not physically swing the conduit bender without removing the dog first. That leaves him wide open to being grounded by a pair of police officers.

You do realize the dogs are considered fellow officers, right? If the dude can take a tazer to the face, he just might not register the requisite amount of pain to be disabled before caving in the dogs head (provided, of course, the dog was able to reach him in time before he killed or injured the distracted officer).

Besides, bullets are faster than dogs. They ended the threat as quickly as possible.

The situation was under control. There were no civilians in the danger zone, only trained officers. Time was not of the essence. It does not require the suspect to feel pain - but if you can swing a conduit bender with a police dog hanging off your arm, you should be out fighting supervillains, not wrecking restaurants.
Oh, and the officer wasn't distracted. He could have turned and ran, he could avoid an incoming strike. It was under control. If the targeted officer was on the floor and unable to move, I would be with you 100%. But he wasn't. So I'm not.

The situation was 'under control' until it wasn't. The sequence of events was not 'Taze suspect, shoot suspect.'

The Sequence of events was 'Taze suspect. Stop to adjust equipment when tazer is ineffective. Suspect turns. Suspect raises weapon and charges.'

You argue that the dog should have been released when the suspect turned, which might have been the right call in hindsight, but at that particular moment; they were still considering a method to subdue him with a minimal risk of injury both officers and suspect. It was the moment after -when the suspect charged the officer with weapon raised- that it was decided to put him down.

You do not expect an officer to 'turn and run' (exposing his back to a threat) nor attempt to dodge a bludgeon (which may still result in injury even if it's not to the head). You END the threat, you don't enable it.

And the man was able to take a tazer to the face and no less than five bullets to the chest (a few more, actually, watching the video again) before even falling down. What feats of strength he is and is not capable of would not be something I'd want to test.

Angry Juju:

Mortai Gravesend:
So? Is there some sort of standard HP system that tells how many shots it takes before someone is down?

No, and you missed the point entirely so i'm not even going to bother explaining the morals behind hindering someone's ability to injure/kill another to taking their life.

This isn't about morals right here, this is about whether your suggestion was realistic.

No, it's ignorant. Easier to miss in a public location, can still kill him as many people have pointed out, and police have been trained to shoot for the center of mass because it helps stop them. Get out of the movie theatre, kid, they don't shoot specific limbs like that.

There were enough people there that it wasn't likely for a shot (or 10) to the leg would kill him. And even if he did find it best to shoot for the chest then why does he have to shoot till he's like a grid for 'Connect 4'?

You do know how far a bullet can go, right? And not likely to? You are basing this on the fact that there are arteries in the leg that would cause him to bleed to death? Oh wait, that would lead to the opposite conclusion, that 10 bullets to the leg probably would kill him.

And I assume he shot him until he went down.

I'm sure we can all agree it is even more stupid to talk about saying that it was his only option when I hadn't said that at all.

So then why are you arguing and saying that he couldn't do anything BUT riddle the guy with bullets? And while i'm asking why you're doing stuff, why are you insulting and patronizing people purely because they're disagreeing with you? I mean seriously... It's kind of pathetic...

What is pathetic is that you just claimed that I said he couldn't do anything but riddle the guy with bullets when I didn't actually say that. I'm going to be patronizing, not because people disagree, but because there are people like you who make such pathetic mistakes.

One would have been enough? You're basing this on what exactly? Naivety?

I'm basing this on the fact that he's shooting him at point blank range right in the chest.

And that proves what? He was still standing after the first volley. Staggering, but the top of his head was visible over the car. How the hell can you continue to argue that when in reality he DID stay up after more than one?

Angry Juju:

One would have been enough? You're basing this on what exactly? Naivety?

I'm basing this on the fact that he's shooting him at point blank range right in the chest.

Ah, I hope you also base it on the fact that 5 shots from point blank range resulted in this guy STILL STANDING!

I assume the guy was on some drugs that resulted in him ignoring any kind of damage that was not lethal. One shot would've done jack.

JonnWood:

kazeryu:
There are a lot of reactions what say it is completely justified but I don't know what you are talking about he emptied his WHOLE clip and suspect fell down afther the first 3 til 5 shots and he agent stopped a second and than started shooting again so I don't think this is justified and I beleive the He should at least get a dishonorable discharge.

P.S. sorry if there are any grammar or spelling mistakes.

Look again. The suspect is still up, behind the car. Cops shoot to neutralize. If they are shooting, they have employed deadly force in the eyes of the law, even if their target does not die.

Yea you are right indeed when I wrote this I was a little harsh and didn't think about the situation he was in it was indeed justified because in the split second he had to deside he did the right think to pretect his partner. because if he didn't he would be worse than the criminal

Eternal Taros:
I'll say it again because it seems I wasn't clear enough the first several times.
I think the first volley was justified, though tragic.
What I have a problem with is that the officer was trigger happy enough to apparently empty his gun into an already dying man.

secretsantaone:
What would you have preferred him to do exactly? Wrestled the weapon out of his hands?

The man was clearly violent and had no intention of submitting peacefully. He swung a dangerous weapon at a police officer and was probably on drugs based on how easily he shrugged off that tazer.

The police officer who shot had less than a second to respond. If he hadn't have shot, he risked the life of his fellow officer. In that situation he's trained to put the target down and neutralise the threat. He shot the first few times and when the target was still standing he shot again to put him down.

At no point did he panic. He simply did what he was trained to do.

I wish people would stop putting words I never said into my mouth.
All I'm asking is for the police officer to shoot with the aim of incapacitating the individual, not emptying his gun.
Of course he was justified in pulling the trigger.
And what the hell do you mean "the target was still standing?"
Well, no shit. What did you expect? Did you think he would get blown off his feet?
If you fire a gun until the suspect falls, you could empty just about any magazine before the enemy actually hits the ground.

I was not 'putting words in your mouth', I was merely wondering what practical alternative you thought the police officer had in this situation.

You cannot 'shoot to incapacitate'. That's simply not how guns work. As you said, the pure force alone isn't enough to incapacitate a target, so once the decision had been made to open fire, the police officer was right in firing until he no longer posed a threat.

You can see clearly that the officer fires his first burst of around 5 shots, waits for a moment to see if the target was neutralised, and upon seeing that he wasn't fired 5 more.

Eternal Taros:
The point of the gun is to stop the target from causing harm, not to kill the fucker.

Really?

I mean... really?

TheKasp:

Angry Juju:

One would have been enough? You're basing this on what exactly? Naivety?

I'm basing this on the fact that he's shooting him at point blank range right in the chest.

Ah, I hope you also base it on the fact that 5 shots from point blank range resulted in this guy STILL STANDING!

I assume the guy was on some drugs that resulted in him ignoring any kind of damage that was not lethal. One shot would've done jack.

he shot 5 bullets in the space of about 2 seconds. People don't automatically get thrown to the floor after being shot. One/two bullets (if you are going to be safe and make sure he isn't going to attack his partner) would hinder him enough that they could overpower him. You and Mortai Gravesend are calling it unrealistic but it's exactly the opposite..

And like an above poster said, it wasn't justified anyway seeming as they put themselves in the situation where they HAD to shoot him.

Mortai Gravesend:
-Snip-

Instead of having this pointless war with you i'm just going to go ahead and stop here. Especially since I can't be bothered to argue with someone who can't make a single post without having to make it insulting.

And I wasn't making mistakes in my arguments, You just changed yours at every turn. HOWEVER because i'm too lazy to quote your earlier posts you get away with it.

senordesol:

Thyunda:

senordesol:

You do realize the dogs are considered fellow officers, right? If the dude can take a tazer to the face, he just might not register the requisite amount of pain to be disabled before caving in the dogs head (provided, of course, the dog was able to reach him in time before he killed or injured the distracted officer).

Besides, bullets are faster than dogs. They ended the threat as quickly as possible.

The situation was under control. There were no civilians in the danger zone, only trained officers. Time was not of the essence. It does not require the suspect to feel pain - but if you can swing a conduit bender with a police dog hanging off your arm, you should be out fighting supervillains, not wrecking restaurants.
Oh, and the officer wasn't distracted. He could have turned and ran, he could avoid an incoming strike. It was under control. If the targeted officer was on the floor and unable to move, I would be with you 100%. But he wasn't. So I'm not.

The situation was 'under control' until it wasn't. The sequence of events was not 'Taze suspect, shoot suspect.'

The Sequence of events was 'Taze suspect. Stop to adjust equipment when tazer is ineffective. Suspect turns. Suspect raises weapon and charges.'

You argue that the dog should have been released when the suspect turned, which might have been the right call in hindsight, but at that particular moment; they were still considering a method to subdue him with a minimal risk of injury both officers and suspect. It was the moment after -when the suspect charged the officer with weapon raised- that it was decided to put him down.

You do not expect an officer to 'turn and run' (exposing his back to a threat) nor attempt to dodge a bludgeon (which may still result in injury even if it's not to the head). You END the threat, you don't enable it.

And the man was able to take a tazer to the face and no less than five bullets to the chest (a few more, actually, watching the video again) before even falling down. What feats of strength he is and is not capable of would not be something I'd want to test.

Feats of strength? He was high - all it did was alter his pain threshold. He didn't have superhuman strength, merely a ridiculously high pain tolerance.
As for the right call in hindsight? I'm sorry, but law enforcement officers are supposed to be able to make that call at that moment. That's what they're trained to do. The suspect didn't charge - if he DID charge, the officer would be dead by now. He edged towards him almost cautiously, like he was preparing for the officer to react to the advance.
Look at the officer with the gun. He pulled his gun very early on, holding back the dog and pushing the gun towards the suspect's face. That gun came out before the suspect showed any hint of aggression towards the officers.

He was clearly intending to shoot. Come on - a dog in one hand, a gun in the other? He's not trying to arrest the subject.

senordesol:

educatedfool:

senordesol:
They're 'supposed to deal' with nearly being brained? Look the issue wasn't that the man had a weapon, it was that he was putting an officer in immediate mortal peril.

And my issue is that whatever training these officers had made the situation worse and eventually ended in an unnecessary death.

The best way to avoid the mortal peril caused by the crowbar (or whatever it is) is to stay out of the way. The second police officer distracted by the taser continues to walk toward the suspect, and as a result is caught off guard by the raised weapon. There is no need to be that close, the taser has a longer range than that. They let their guard down. Look at the way the police officer is holding his firearm walking alongside the suspect, does that look like procedure to you?

He is shocked at the raised weapon and acts accordingly. The actions of the police officers led to the situation were the discharge of a firearm was inevitable. Any good police officer will not let that happen, especially on such a minor incident.

You speak as if the subject has no control over his actions. He raised a deadly weapon to attack a police officer. Whatever direction the officer happened to be walking is no excuse.

Was walking forward careless? Sure. Doesn't mean he should get his head cracked open.

And you speak as though we're dealing with children. We're not. We're dealing with trained officers who are supposed to handle a situation like this. Was it handled? No it bloody well wasn't. An incident of vandalism ended with a corpse. That's not handling a situation. The first officer put himself in that position. That was wrong.

senordesol:
You speak as if the subject has no control over his actions. He raised a deadly weapon to attack a police officer. Whatever direction the officer happened to be walking is no excuse.

Was walking forward careless? Sure. Doesn't mean he should get his head cracked open.

Police officers should never assume the actions of a suspect. I am not condoning what that idiot did, but the police should have treated him as dangerous and unpredictable. By the look of their actions it almost seems casual up until the moment the suspect raises his weapon.

If there is one thing you do not do to an unstable individual wielding some form of pipe, it is stand near him.

Thyunda:

senordesol:

Thyunda:

The situation was under control. There were no civilians in the danger zone, only trained officers. Time was not of the essence. It does not require the suspect to feel pain - but if you can swing a conduit bender with a police dog hanging off your arm, you should be out fighting supervillains, not wrecking restaurants.
Oh, and the officer wasn't distracted. He could have turned and ran, he could avoid an incoming strike. It was under control. If the targeted officer was on the floor and unable to move, I would be with you 100%. But he wasn't. So I'm not.

The situation was 'under control' until it wasn't. The sequence of events was not 'Taze suspect, shoot suspect.'

The Sequence of events was 'Taze suspect. Stop to adjust equipment when tazer is ineffective. Suspect turns. Suspect raises weapon and charges.'

You argue that the dog should have been released when the suspect turned, which might have been the right call in hindsight, but at that particular moment; they were still considering a method to subdue him with a minimal risk of injury both officers and suspect. It was the moment after -when the suspect charged the officer with weapon raised- that it was decided to put him down.

You do not expect an officer to 'turn and run' (exposing his back to a threat) nor attempt to dodge a bludgeon (which may still result in injury even if it's not to the head). You END the threat, you don't enable it.

And the man was able to take a tazer to the face and no less than five bullets to the chest (a few more, actually, watching the video again) before even falling down. What feats of strength he is and is not capable of would not be something I'd want to test.

Feats of strength? He was high - all it did was alter his pain threshold. He didn't have superhuman strength, merely a ridiculously high pain tolerance.
As for the right call in hindsight? I'm sorry, but law enforcement officers are supposed to be able to make that call at that moment. That's what they're trained to do. The suspect didn't charge - if he DID charge, the officer would be dead by now. He edged towards him almost cautiously, like he was preparing for the officer to react to the advance.
Look at the officer with the gun. He pulled his gun very early on, holding back the dog and pushing the gun towards the suspect's face. That gun came out before the suspect showed any hint of aggression towards the officers.

He was clearly intending to shoot. Come on - a dog in one hand, a gun in the other? He's not trying to arrest the subject.

Strength as tied into the feeling of pain are actually closely associated. I'm not saying the man would have been able to toss a car, but feeling pain is often what stops one from over-exerting themselves. You'd be surprised what someone can accomplish when he doesn't feel pain.

As for your hindsight comment, the officers didn't know he was going to attack one of them -they're not trained to be psychic. Again, they were likely trying to resort to a less-lethal option before the suspect attacked them. We can debate all day whether this constituted a 'charge' or whatever, but the fact remains that he raised his weapon at an officer.

As for the gun; the guns ALWAYS come out when an armed suspect is involved or a potentially armed suspect is involved, they even pull 'em out at the end of a chase. It has nothing to do with intention to shoot, just having the option available should the need arise (lucky thing in this case, too).

educatedfool:

senordesol:
You speak as if the subject has no control over his actions. He raised a deadly weapon to attack a police officer. Whatever direction the officer happened to be walking is no excuse.

Was walking forward careless? Sure. Doesn't mean he should get his head cracked open.

Police officers should never assume the actions of a suspect. I am not condoning what that idiot did, but the police should have treated him as dangerous and unpredictable. By the look of their actions it almost seems casual up until the moment the suspect raises his weapon.

If there is one thing you do not do to an unstable individual wielding some form of pipe, it is stand near him.

I agree on that much, walking towards him was careless. However, that does not change the fact that the suspect advanced toward the officer as well and raised a weapon.

The officer made a mistake, the suspect made a bigger one. The first could have been fatal, the second was. I'm just glad the officer with the K9 was more on-the-ball than his compatriot.

Thyunda:

And you speak as though we're dealing with children. We're not. We're dealing with trained officers who are supposed to handle a situation like this. Was it handled? No it bloody well wasn't. An incident of vandalism ended with a corpse. That's not handling a situation. The first officer put himself in that position. That was wrong.

It bloody well was handled, I'd argue. He wasn't shot for vandalism, he was shot for attacking a police officer. They really don't like it when you do that.

Utterly justified. Anyone who disagrees should be put in that position and will most likely be killed through their lack of wanting to take the necessary action to protect their life. I call this natural selection.
The guy was clearly meth'd or PCP'd up to his eyeballs as he brushed off a tazer to the face. The force used was completely justified.

Thyunda:
He edged towards him almost cautiously, like he was preparing for the officer to react to the advance.

You are joking right? Re-watch it; the PCP crackhead was obviously getting ready to swing into the officer. To use such incorrect language is just insulting to the viewers of the video.

senordesol:
The officer made a mistake, the suspect made a bigger one. The first could have been fatal, the second was. I'm just glad the officer with the K9 was more on-the-ball than his compatriot.

He may have been more aware of the suspects actions, but he was certainly not 'on the ball'. Walking alongside pointing a gun (held sideways) at someone is not how you deal with that situation. As has already been mentioned, these people are supposed to be trained professionals, meant to deal with these exact situations. Not put themselves in harms way of an obviously irrational man, which they both did.

The whole reason they are supposed to do this is because of the 'innocent until proven guilty' stance. Instead you get this shoddy police work which ends with one officer almost getting brained and the assailant shot dead. Good result? A better result than the suspect getting arrested and no one else harmed?

And please do not neglect what I said about the risk of stray bullets. Firing that many rounds at such close range is fucking stupid in an area were there are bystanders watching from all angles.

educatedfool:

senordesol:
The officer made a mistake, the suspect made a bigger one. The first could have been fatal, the second was. I'm just glad the officer with the K9 was more on-the-ball than his compatriot.

He may have been more aware of the suspects actions, but he was certainly not 'on the ball'. Walking alongside pointing a gun (held sideways) at someone is not how you deal with that situation. As has already been mentioned, these people are supposed to be trained professionals, meant to deal with these exact situations. Not put themselves in harms way of an obviously irrational man, which they both did.

The whole reason they are supposed to do this is because of the 'innocent until proven guilty' stance. Instead you get this shoddy police work which ends with one officer almost getting brained and the assailant shot dead. Good result? A better result than the suspect getting arrested and no one else harmed?

And please do not neglect what I said about the risk of stray bullets. Firing that many rounds at such close range is fucking stupid in an area were there are bystanders watching from all angles.

I don't see how they both did, I only saw one guy walk toward the suspect. And the training for this exact situation is to put this guy down if he goes on the attack. So they did as they were trained there. Again, I'll readily admit that tazer cop did make a mistake. But when the suspect raises a weapon to attack, they are TRAINED to respond in kind.

Innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecution has to prove that you did what you were accused of doing, it has nothing to do with creating a dangerous situation for police. Would the ideal result be everyone walking away unharmed? Yeah. No fucking shit. What's at issue here isn't whether the situation was ideal; it's whether the police were justified in capping his ass. And justified they were. Regardless of the mistakes made, you DO NOT raise a weapon to attack a police officer if you want to keep breathing.

And as for stray bullets, I've not addressed that because it's frankly not all that relevant. Police training dictates that you keep firing until the threat is down. Stray rounds are an inherent risk in all cases. If 1 round downs the suspect, you fire one round. If 10 rounds are required, you fire 10 rounds.

I've mentioned before that the situation gets iffy after the first volley. Though the suspect is not 'down' down, he's clearly on his way. So, I'd be willing to concede that the second volley may not have been wholly necessary (but I can't see what exactly is going on behind the car, just the top of the suspect's head); but the shooting itself? Simple cause and effect. Man attacks men with 9mms. Man is shot by men with 9mms. Done. Good night. Case Closed.

Hmm, I sort of feel disappointed that no body is using my post on the bottom of page 11.

I mean, I still seem to be the only person that lives/works/goes to school in the area in question and I was hoping my input would be discussed.

I am wondering though, the sideways gun thing, when the officer with K9 fires, we can see the slide over his fist. So he was firing right side up.

Could it be that because he was controlling the dog, moving with it, and had a thick ballistic/stab vest that the gun got twisted to the side? Plus the rain?

I mean, he did switch back to standard one handed grip(sights up) and leaned forward towards the suspect when firing, and I know for a fact the police around here are trained.

secretsantaone:
I was not 'putting words in your mouth', I was merely wondering what practical alternative you thought the police officer had in this situation.

You cannot 'shoot to incapacitate'. That's simply not how guns work. As you said, the pure force alone isn't enough to incapacitate a target, so once the decision had been made to open fire, the police officer was right in firing until he no longer posed a threat.

You can see clearly that the officer fires his first burst of around 5 shots, waits for a moment to see if the target was neutralised, and upon seeing that he wasn't fired 5 more.

Eternal Taros:
The point of the gun is to stop the target from causing harm, not to kill the fucker.

Really?

I mean... really?

The practical alternative is not emptying the gun.
I already made it abundantly clear that shooting was justified.
Shooting the second volley shows a disturbing lack of regard for the suspect's life.

Again, I disagree with your premise.
"You can't shoot to incapacitate?"
Really? You think I can bludgeon you to death with five hollow points inside me?
It's hard to bludgeon someone to death when you're filled with lead.
Hell, it's hard to bludgeon someone to death after you've been kicked really hard in the gut.
You think bullets won't do the job?

Your entire argument revolves around "well he wasn't on the ground dead so you have to keep firing!"
I disagree with that idea completely. Again, it's hard to bludgeon someone to death when you've been shot five times.
I don't really see what's so difficult to understand about that.

secretsantaone:
Really?

I mean... really?

Yeah, really. I don't know where you're from, but in the civilized world, police officers aren't death squads.
They aren't given guns so they can perform summary executions.
They have them so the perpetrator doesn't kill people.
It's intended to protect the public.
If the perpetrator does die as a result of it, that's a price they are willing to pay.
Death of the suspect, however, isn't the goal. Preventing the loss of innocent life is.

senordesol:
I don't see how they both did, I only saw one guy walk toward the suspect. And the training for this exact situation is to put this guy down if he goes on the attack. So they did as they were trained there. Again, I'll readily admit that tazer cop did make a mistake. But when the suspect raises a weapon to attack, they are TRAINED to respond in kind.

Innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecution has to prove that you did what you were accused of doing, it has nothing to do with creating a dangerous situation for police. Would the ideal result be everyone walking away unharmed? Yeah. No fucking shit. What's at issue here isn't whether the situation was ideal; it's whether the police were justified in capping his ass. And justified they were. Regardless of the mistakes made, you DO NOT raise a weapon to attack a police officer if you want to keep breathing.

And as for stray bullets, I've not addressed that because it's frankly not all that relevant. Police training dictates that you keep firing until the threat is down. Stray rounds are an inherent risk in all cases. If 1 round downs the suspect, you fire one round. If 10 rounds are required, you fire 10 rounds.

I've mentioned before that the situation gets iffy after the first volley. Though the suspect is not 'down' down, he's clearly on his way. So, I'd be willing to concede that the second volley may not have been wholly necessary (but I can't see what exactly is going on behind the car, just the top of the suspect's head); but the shooting itself? Simple cause and effect. Man attacks men with 9mms. Man is shot by men with 9mms. Done. Good night. Case Closed.

Did you read anything I wrote? You probably just didn't comprehend it. In that situation, the police officer had very few feasible options but to shoot the man. My problem is how they handled the entire situation up until that moment (and the amount of shots fired, which by the way is excessive due to the second volley). Almost everything about it is poor police work. I showed the footage to my dad, who is now retired from the police. He worked in Northern Ireland in the late 70's to 90's, if you don't know what that means, look it up. He was shocked at how they managed to turn a relatively minor incident in to a shooting. Why were they so close? Both of the officers were within range to an obviously unpredictable person when they had no need to be, they showed no patience.

The fact that you even think that simple cause and effect is enough to draw a conclusion from this situation makes me believe I no longer need to continue this discussion. Good night.

educatedfool:

senordesol:
I don't see how they both did, I only saw one guy walk toward the suspect. And the training for this exact situation is to put this guy down if he goes on the attack. So they did as they were trained there. Again, I'll readily admit that tazer cop did make a mistake. But when the suspect raises a weapon to attack, they are TRAINED to respond in kind.

Innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecution has to prove that you did what you were accused of doing, it has nothing to do with creating a dangerous situation for police. Would the ideal result be everyone walking away unharmed? Yeah. No fucking shit. What's at issue here isn't whether the situation was ideal; it's whether the police were justified in capping his ass. And justified they were. Regardless of the mistakes made, you DO NOT raise a weapon to attack a police officer if you want to keep breathing.

And as for stray bullets, I've not addressed that because it's frankly not all that relevant. Police training dictates that you keep firing until the threat is down. Stray rounds are an inherent risk in all cases. If 1 round downs the suspect, you fire one round. If 10 rounds are required, you fire 10 rounds.

I've mentioned before that the situation gets iffy after the first volley. Though the suspect is not 'down' down, he's clearly on his way. So, I'd be willing to concede that the second volley may not have been wholly necessary (but I can't see what exactly is going on behind the car, just the top of the suspect's head); but the shooting itself? Simple cause and effect. Man attacks men with 9mms. Man is shot by men with 9mms. Done. Good night. Case Closed.

Did you read anything I wrote? You probably just didn't comprehend it. In that situation, the police officer had very few feasible options but to shoot the man. My problem is how they handled the entire situation up until that moment (and the amount of shots fired, which by the way is excessive due to the second volley). Almost everything about it is poor police work. I showed the footage to my dad, who is now retired from the police. He worked in Northern Ireland in the late 70's to 90's, if you don't know what that means, look it up. He was shocked at how they managed to turn a relatively minor incident in to a shooting. Why were they so close? Both of the officers were within range to an obviously unpredictable person when they had no need to be, they showed no patience.

The fact that you even think that simple cause and effect is enough to draw a conclusion from this situation makes me believe I no longer need to continue this discussion. Good night.

Interesting. We both agree with each other, yet we seem to hate that we do.

We both agree that when the situation deteriorated, the right course was to open fire.

We both agree that sloppiness on behalf of the police precipitated the situation.

Where we seem to disagree is whether this is at all shocking. Perhaps this is a cultural difference. Perhaps our police could learn a thing or two from other departments around the world.

I approach any interaction with American police thusly: you are one mistake away from having a very bad day. They may not be out to hurt you, but they are often more scared of you than you are of them. Many an officer has met his death on a lonely roadside because he assumed it would be a 'routine' traffic stop. Perhaps it is that perspective that allows me to recognize that whatever outcome you have with American police will be more of your doing than their doing.

They are less interested in keeping you alive as they are going home. Seen through that filter, and the vast majority of officer involved shootings are utterly predictable and unsurprising.

So if he lands a good hit on the officer a few feet away and crushes his skull it would be some poor man with a crowbar still?

Screw him. Tool vs. Gun. You lose. Give up easy. He didn't.

And spare me the hand wringing about a human being hurt. This was an aggressive situation. That dude did this to an armed cop? How, pray tell, do you think he was towards everyone else? Just what did he have that inside a fast food place for? Take a guess. I'm not saying killing is shrug worthy. I'm not saying it isn't hard. I'm not saying his family won't miss him. It is what it is, people fight. People die. Blood guts and screaming. If I were god I'd make him bleed cotton candy.

Shoot for the leg? Clearly someone who thinks movies = truth. Sure I hit his leg. Maybe an artery. Maybe he dies waiting for the ambulance. Maybe he's on PCP and he didn't even feel it, he's walking on his ruined leg swinging a crowbar. Maybe the bullet misses and hits one of those people by the parked cars. Gee that's swell. Maybe, probably, the officer is shaking a bit from the adrenaline, not really in the best shooting stance.

They tried to taze him and it didn't work.

You must know nothing of the very first rule of firing a weapon. You AlWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS shoot to kill, there's no such thing as shooting to intentionally wound. Other than that, the man tried to attack a police officer with a potentially deadly object, the shooting was justified.

EDIT: and to anyone that thinks the cops fired too many rounds into the man, do you know how easy it is to pull the trigger 6 times like that when you or a buddy's life is in danger? Unbelievably easy.

maninhat:
That man, how ever stupid he may have been was a human being, a life, a person with emotions, thought, speech, and in one instant one person with a gun emptied his clip killing him... Yes he may have had a weapon but ummm, does it really look that deadly with at least 5 cops, pepperspray, and a dog, no. Life isn't some cheap trivial thing. I don't know about any one else but in my opinion if you die you are dead no heaven no hell no reincarnation or new life. He is dead forever, I don't think that police should have authorisation to use lethal force unless their lives are in immediate danger.

You know who else is a human being? that police officer that could very well have been brained by the beast of a man that just got tazed in the face. If he could still be standing after a taze, don't you think he could easily have enough power to kill a man with one swing to the head?

senordesol:
Where we seem to disagree is whether this is at all shocking. Perhaps this is a cultural difference. Perhaps our police could learn a thing or two from other departments around the world.

I said I wouldn't continue, but I have to commend this point. My dad spent a good part of his career checking under his car every morning for bombs, so it is understandable he was shocked at the lack of caution shown by the police officers. In terms of me, police shootings are incredibly rare here, and would never happen in a scenario like that. Any shooting that does happen will easily make the regional news.

Regnes:
It's probably unjustified, a crowbar is a short tange weapon, while a taser is a medium-short. They should have had their guns at the ready in case he tried to pull something out, while another officer made to stun him.

That being said, the police will probably not have to answer for this, internal investigations almost always conclude the officers made the correct decision. A lot is given to the standard defense that the officers felt afraid for their lives.

For reference, in at Vancouver airport, RCMP officers approached an irate stranded man. The man had previously thrown a chair at the floor in frustration, he had been stranded for like 8 hours and nobody spoke his language. When the officers approached him, he turned to walk away. Without warning they tasered him, and again, and again, then they asphyxiated him by putting their full weight on him(to suppress him some more). They handcuffed him, and they refused him medical attention. He died, and they all walked free because it was deemed they acted appropriately.

Tasers aren't standard issue for officers, guns are. :)

educatedfool:

senordesol:
They're 'supposed to deal' with nearly being brained? Look the issue wasn't that the man had a weapon, it was that he was putting an officer in immediate mortal peril.

And my issue is that whatever training these officers had made the situation worse and eventually ended in an unnecessary death.

The best way to avoid the mortal peril caused by the crowbar (or whatever it is) is to stay out of the way. The second police officer distracted by the taser continues to walk toward the suspect, and as a result is caught off guard by the raised weapon. There is no need to be that close, the taser has a longer range than that.

Not in the rain. Given that it was aimed at the face, it was probably pepper spray.

They let their guard down. Look at the way the police officer is holding his firearm walking alongside the suspect, does that look like procedure to you?

No, but I do know there are situations where there might actually be a benefit to a sideways weapon. Even if it was not, so what? The cop held his gun funny. Not really relevant. They tried verbal commands, then a taser/pepper spray, (per procedure) then the suspect decided to escalate the situation to the level of deadly force. At which point, police are allowed to use, guess what? Deadly force.

He is shocked at the raised weapon and acts accordingly.

Except that the weapon was raised before the pepper spray was used, or even drawn. The nearer cop puts away his gun to use the pepper spray, while the K9 officer continues to cover his partner. When the nearer officer, distracted for about a second putting the spray back into his belt, realizes the suspect is attempting to attack him, he attempts to get out of range and draw his pistol. In other words, both men have their guard up. That's standard procedure, a precaution against exactly this sort of thing happening.

The actions of the police officers led to the situation were the discharge of a firearm was inevitable.

Are you saying they forced the guy to attack them? The shooting was not inevitable until the perp decided to try and take a swing at the cops.

Any good police officer

Poisoning the well.

will not let that happen, especially on such a minor incident.

I love how you're completely denying any responsibility on the perp's part for ignoring the police, then actively trying to smash one's head in while he was occupied, which turned it from "a minor incident" to "attempted assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer".

Enslave_All_Elves:
So if he lands a good hit on the officer a few feet away and crushes his skull it would be some poor man with a crowbar still?

Screw him. Tool vs. Gun. You lose. Give up easy. He didn't.

And spare me the hand wringing about a human being hurt.
...

For some reason, the people making these complaints rarely seem to consider the officer or officers under threat "humans". In fact, they often try to make events entirely the police's fault. Several of the comments on this video, for example, argue that the crowd had the legal right to threaten and obstruct the officers. While do have the right to resist an unlawful action by police, threatening them is right out.

educatedfool:
Did you read anything I wrote? You probably just didn't comprehend it. In that situation, the police officer had very few feasible options but to shoot the man. My problem is how they handled the entire situation up until that moment (and the amount of shots fired, which by the way is excessive due to the second volley).

Wrong. Once you fire at someone, you have employed Deadly Force, and you keep doing so as long as the target is still a threat. This is Firearms 101. The suspect was still standing, so the officer continued to fire until he went down. If the suspect was no longer a threat, whether from being incapacitated or dying, then the second volley would be excessive. But people have ignored gunfire before to strike at their attacker, especially if they were on drugs or mentally unstable. The police were there in the first place, BTW, because the suspect was smashing up the restaurant.

Almost everything about it is poor police work. I showed the footage to my dad, who is now retired from the police. He worked in Northern Ireland in the late 70's to 90's, if you don't know what that means, look it up. He was shocked at how they managed to turn a relatively minor incident in to a shooting. Why were they so close? Both of the officers were within range to an obviously unpredictable person when they had no need to be, they showed no patience.

Which means that he's judging from Irish cultural standards from over ten years ago. UK police generally don't even have guns in the first place.

The fact that you even think that simple cause and effect is enough to draw a conclusion from this situation makes me believe I no longer need to continue this discussion. Good night.

You've been doing precisely that when you blamed the cops for this situation, while actively ignoring the suspect's responsibility, as you do even in this post. Yet when someone else does it and disagrees with you, it's wrong.

Hm.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked