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
 

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.

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.

I already pointed out that the dog could not have gotten to the suspect before he had time to swing. The nearer officer did attempt to get out of range and draw his pistol, and as you yourself admitted earlier, the suspect was advancing in an attempt to keep him in range. You're saying the cop "should have" done something he actually did.

The only mistake he made is not stepping back to put the pepper spray back in his belt, but I guess he, reasonably, figured it was unlikely he would be attacked with his partner pointing his gun directly at the suspect. The suspect made the decision to attack. Up until that point, lethal force was not on the table. The perp introduced it, not the officers.

Say, did you ever see how long it would take to swing, like I asked? A golf club, a broomstick, anything comparable? Because I asserted that a swing could be completed in a fraction of a second, which is substantially more time the dog would take. You want the dog to move a meter, diagonally, from a standing position, to clamp on the suspect's arm on the first try, in less than a second. And that's ignoring the time it takes to issue the command and let go simultaneously. That's not Krypto the Superdog there.

I want you to find your local K9 unit, show them the video, and ask them if the dog could've made it in time. I know you won't, because you've been studiously avoiding all the times you've been proved wrong(e.g. UK police/UK firearms units don't kill), and will no doubt be unable to actively seek out information that might contradict you.

Angry Juju:
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..

Considering that he was still standing after being shot 5 times, indicating drug use and or mental instability, why should they risk themselves doing so? You shoot to end the threat, whether killing or incapacitating.

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.

They didn't "have to shoot him" until he tried to attack them. He chose to do so, so he has at least some responsibility. What is it with you lot and ignoring that?

The Cool Kid:

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.

Thyunda has argued, over the course of this thread, that the perp was just trying to intimidate the officer, that he was not a threat because he was not in range, that he would need to be in mid-swing before the cops were justified in shooting him, and that the UK police are better because they wouldn't have shot him and they never kill anyone. On that last one, I pointed out that most UK cops don't have guns, and shooting a suspect led to the London Riots, whereupon Thy tried to say they were only referring to "the gun unit", despite them clearly not saying so earlier, and ignoring the fact that "the gun unit" still kills people.

snake4769:
Wtf is wrong with you people, why are you standing up for a thug. This is obviously justified,as many point out with plenty of facts. What if the guy connected with the crowbar hit to the head. That doesn't just give you a headache people... This thug is probably one of those guys that picked on you when you were in school and made you suicidal. So, why you being his bitch jury and standing up for him. Kill the scum. Less welfare.

It's not so much standing up for the thug as anti-police and/or anti-American bias, it seems, as well as some ignorance.

JonnWood:
I already pointed out that the dog could not have gotten to the suspect before he had time to swing.

Well you were wrong.

Mortai Gravesend:

No, after the first volley you can see his goddamn head over the top of the car. Then he drops. He staggered back, the cop shot him more then he went down. Just look at the amount of people here who mentioned that he didn't immediately go down. Or maybe just watch the video this time?

Yes, for a moment while he stumbled backwards he was still standing. You realise that bullets don't throw you back like in the movies yes? Withing 2 seconds from the first bullet he was dead on the ground. And it's clear that he was shot on the way down too.

Mortai Gravesend:

Let's be super clear, you're now reading things I never said at all?

You're defending the actions of 5+ cops and 1 attack dog intentionally killing a man instead of -sufficiently- attempting to restrain him so it follows that you would think it unreasonable that they could have restrained/incapacitated him without unacceptable risk to themselves (risk they chose and are payed to take).

Either you think they could or couldn't have, if you think they could then why defend them? If not then refer to my bouncer example.

Mortai Gravesend:

And there are never situations where they get hurt or have to hurt the other person!

Of course there are, but what they don't do is shoot a guy with a big 'crowbar' 8 times when there are 5 of them plus an trained attack dog. Bouncers are payed to take personal risks, and even more is expected of the police. One taser attempt that clearly didn't connect properly isn't enough. There are 5 cops, that's 5 tasers. Try again.

Mortai Gravesend:

Note: Why are you stuck on unrealistic ideas like shooting him in the leg? Or are you some kind of expert that has determined against all the police that you know better than them about shooting at the center of mass?

If I'm wrong and a shot to the leg is totally unfeasible and not even worth trying before shooting a man 8 times, then OK I'm wrong. What about only shooting once to the chest and seeing if the target stops instead of 4 times to the chest? The man with the 'crowbar' can be clearly seen to stop approaching the cop after the first bullet. Yet he is fired upon 8 times.
Shouldn't the police have enough self restraint to stop when a target has been subdued?

Mortai Gravesend:

So would watching the video to see the goddamn taser fail.

If you miss with the taser (or fail to connect properly) as is clearly what happened in the video and you have 5 cops, that's at least 4 more tasers. Why not try again? Why not rubber bullets? Why didn't the other close-by cop have his taser out?

Eternal Taros:

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.

Many violent criminals use drugs that numb pain. In these cases it's impossible to incapacitate them as they can literally just keep coming at you until you hit something vital.

secretsantaone:
Really?

Eternal Taros:

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.

The entire point of a gun is to kill the fucker. That's what they exist to do, and they work pretty well.

When you've got to the point where you have to use a gun, you've gone past the point of no return. You've made a choice that this person is too much of a danger alive and needs to be put down. Once you've fired that first bullet, that life is forfeit. It is literally impossible to 'shoot to incapacitate', as handgun bullets usually don't have much stopping power, so you're forced to fire at least 4 times. If they're not down by then then you keep firing.

A gun isn't some sort of magic wand, it's a lethal weapon that is only used in a last resort.

Khada:
[

Mortai Gravesend:

Note: Why are you stuck on unrealistic ideas like shooting him in the leg? Or are you some kind of expert that has determined against all the police that you know better than them about shooting at the center of mass?

If I'm wrong and a shot to the leg is totally unfeasible and not even worth trying before shooting a man 8 times, then OK I'm wrong. What about only shooting once to the chest and seeing if the target stops instead of 4 times to the chest? The man with the 'crowbar' can be clearly seen to stop approaching the cop after the first bullet. Yet he is fired upon 8 times.
Shouldn't the police have enough self restraint to stop when a target has been subdued?

Because bullets don't work the same way they do in films. It's designed to pierce, not to stop, basically meaning one bullet on it's own has very little stopping power unless it hits somewhere vital.

There have been several reports of people not even realising they'd been shot until after the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxzrErec8U

A suspect gets shot and continues to attack the officer.
Imagine if he had a deadly weapon.

Thyunda:

JonnWood:
I already pointed out that the dog could not have gotten to the suspect before he had time to swing.

Well you were wrong.

I love how that's the only part of my post you can respond to, and all you can do is say "Nuh-uh!" without any proof.

Keep in mind that dogs are considered officers. Their partners are very close to them. You're asking that the cops risk another officer's life to save someone trying to use deadly force on another officer. The second he did so, his life was forfeit. Since the dog can't move a meter in less than a second from a standing position, he would not make it.

Seriously, go by your local K-9 unit tomorrow and ask 'em.

JonnWood:

Thyunda:
...have you ever SEEN a dog attack somebody?

Yes.

There's no gathering itself - the run and lunge are in one movement.

When the dog has sufficient room to build up speed, yes, which was not available in this case. This dog is going to have to stop and gather itself.

He goes for the arm, the weight is at least enough to pull the conduit bender out of the danger zone. Even if it's only for a couple of seconds.

Assuming the dog actually manages to get the arm. This also does not prevent the suspect from striking at the dog with his free hand, simply by letting go of the implement with his attacked one.

That's usually enough for both officers to take him.

At which point they'd probably shoot him.

I don't suppose you ever checked yourself how long it takes to swing from the perp's position. Because you can't do anything that you think might prove you wrong, and when you are proven wrong anyway, like that "gun unit" backpedal, it doesn't register. Considering that your position has boiled down to "they shouldn't have shot him unless he had a gun or there was no chance whatsoever of subduing him, no matter the risk to themselves", I find it laughable.

Khada:

Mortai Gravesend:

No, after the first volley you can see his goddamn head over the top of the car. Then he drops. He staggered back, the cop shot him more then he went down. Just look at the amount of people here who mentioned that he didn't immediately go down. Or maybe just watch the video this time?

Yes, for a moment while he stumbled backwards he was still standing. You realise that bullets don't throw you back like in the movies yes? Withing 2 seconds from the first bullet he was dead on the ground. And it's clear that he was shot on the way down too.

No it's not. He stumbles back, is still standing, then the second volley. That's more than two seconds.

Mortai Gravesend:

Let's be super clear, you're now reading things I never said at all?

You're defending the actions of 5+ cops and 1 attack dog intentionally killing a man instead of -sufficiently- attempting to restrain him so it follows that you would think it unreasonable that they could have restrained/incapacitated him without unacceptable risk to themselves (risk they chose and are payed to take).

You have not proved the risk was "acceptable". They attempted to subdue him, until he decided to involve deadly force, at which point they responded in kind. They were not under any sort of obligation to attempt to use lesser force.

Either you think they could or couldn't have, if you think they could then why defend them? If not then refer to my bouncer example.

Bouncers are shot and stabbed, on occasion.

Mortai Gravesend:

And there are never situations where they get hurt or have to hurt the other person!

Of course there are, but what they don't do is shoot a guy with a big 'crowbar' 8 times when there are 5 of them plus an trained attack dog. Bouncers are payed to take personal risks, and even more is expected of the police. One taser attempt that clearly didn't connect properly isn't enough. There are 5 cops, that's 5 tasers. Try again.

They didn't have time, on account of the perp trying to cave the nearest cop's head in. The next nearest cop in taser range would've had to holster his gun or drop the dog, then draw the taser, to use less-lethal force on someone on whom that force has already proven ineffective, someone who is themselves employing deadly force.

Mortai Gravesend:

Note: Why are you stuck on unrealistic ideas like shooting him in the leg? Or are you some kind of expert that has determined against all the police that you know better than them about shooting at the center of mass?

If I'm wrong and a shot to the leg is totally unfeasible and not even worth trying before shooting a man 8 times, then OK I'm wrong.

Aren't we passive-aggressive.

What about only shooting once to the chest and seeing if the target stops instead of 4 times to the chest? The man with the 'crowbar' can be clearly seen to stop approaching the cop after the first bullet. Yet he is fired upon 8 times.
Shouldn't the police have enough self restraint to stop when a target has been subdued?

If he was on drugs, which was a strong possibility, then those bullets might not have been enough. Police don't shoot to restrain or subdue, they shoot to kill. If they happen to incapacitate, fair play to them.

Incidentally, here's a man who gets shot once by a cop, then murders the cop who shot him.

If you miss with the taser (or fail to connect properly) as is clearly what happened in the video and you have 5 cops, that's at least 4 more tasers. Why not try again?

That was exactly what he was trying to do when he was attacked.

Why not rubber bullets?

From whose gun? And why use less-lethal force on someone trying to use deadly force? Cops were under no obligation to capture the suspect alive once he became an immediate, deadly threat, unless they were absolutely certain he was not. And they weren't even sure of that when he hit the ground, hence the guns out.

Why didn't the other close-by cop have his taser out?

Because he was covering the first guy, in case something exactly like this happened. This is exactly what officers are supposed to do.

Brawndo:
News story under the video, shooting occurs at 0:42.

Is a human life really worth so little that a half a dozen police officers will not try to overpower and disarm one man with a crowbar? I mean what is event the point of spending thousands of dollars equipping and training police with batons, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and police dogs if the cops aren't going to use them? The officer who shot the suspect didn't even go for the leg shot, it just looked like he panicked and unloaded.

On another note, the guys recording the shooting really disgust me. I can't believe their reactions at seeing another person get shot to death 30 feet away. Their comments ("They merc-ed that mothafucker!") make it sound like they are watching someone play Xbox Live or something. Absolutely vile. One or two of them show a little humanity later on in the video once they come to their senses.

Worst part is, the other cops will all cover for the loser who panicked and killed the guy.

Its sort of the universes way of removing the stupid from society unfortunately, he could've been drunk, but if he were sober and in his right mind, holding a hammer like that with X police officers standing there with guns and a guard dog, he virtually brought his death upon himself - not that he deserved it necessary, but if he were in his rational mind, it would take a miracle to save him in that situation, if you get what I mean. Its so stupid to do what he did IF he were being rational, but we can't know that for sure.

Conza:
Worst part is, the other cops will all cover for the loser who panicked and killed the guy.

Its sort of the universes way of removing the stupid from society unfortunately, he could've been drunk, but if he were sober and in his right mind, holding a hammer like that with X police officers standing there with guns and a guard dog, he virtually brought his death upon himself - not that he deserved it necessary, but if he were in his rational mind, it would take a miracle to save him in that situation, if you get what I mean. Its so stupid to do what he did IF he were being rational, but we can't know that for sure.

That wasn't panicked fire. That was exactly what you are supposed to do in that situation; neutralize the threat to cops or the public, even if it means killing the suspect. Given that he shrugged off the taser and was still standing after the first few shots, he was likely on drugs, meaning that he could easily get up and fight back unless they were sure he was down.

JonnWood:
-snip-

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

You're wrong about the dog - and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs? Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards. Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified. But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

JonnWood:

The Cool Kid:

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.

Thyunda has argued, over the course of this thread, that the perp was just trying to intimidate the officer, that he was not a threat because he was not in range, that he would need to be in mid-swing before the cops were justified in shooting him, and that the UK police are better because they wouldn't have shot him and they never kill anyone. On that last one, I pointed out that most UK cops don't have guns, and shooting a suspect led to the London Riots, whereupon Thy tried to say they were only referring to "the gun unit", despite them clearly not saying so earlier, and ignoring the fact that "the gun unit" still kills people.

Sorry am I on a forum with a psychic?

If he was not a threat, guess what, he would have dropped his weapon when asked. The UK police are terrible; did you not see them getting overrun in August?
The London riots had nothing to do with the shooting; that was merely an excuse. It actually occurred because of the lack of power the police have. With such a relaxed benefit system and lack of prison spaces, people didn't care about what would happen if they went on a looting spree, hence why it occurred in so many UK cities.

I'm guessing you are not of an age where you know much about drugs. They can make people incredibly unpredictable, paranoid and violent. The suspect looked like he was probably on PCP hence his pain levels and when under the influence of it people are almost always violent. And unfortunately the only way to usually take PCP users down is with either sheer force, or more often then not, a gun. Considering this guy was armed, the latter was used after the tazer and pepper spray failed.

It is worrying that so many people are too scared to admit what happened was the right course of action but would rather see an officer injured.

Thyunda:

JonnWood:
-snip-

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

You're wrong about the dog - and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs? Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards. Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified. But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

You have no idea what people can do on PCP.
The dog wouldn't have stopped shit, would have probably ended up dead, and the officers injured. And that's the best out come.

I don't get why you are arguing for the violent addict? He went to attack an officer, he got shot. We all know that will be the outcome so why cry when it happens?

This is one of those cases where the shooting itself was justified. When the assailant is obviously about to use deadly force against an officer he is liable to be killed on the spot. Could it have been handled better? Maybe, but hindsight is always clearer than the moment.

To those of you saying that they shouldn't have continued shooting, I just gotta ask, who here has killed a man? I doubt anyone has, and the officer probably hadn't either. When that adrenaline is flowing you tend to keep going. And go for the leg shot? Sorry but this isn't a movie, when you shoot someone you shoot center mass, every officer is trained to do exactly that.

Thyunda:

JonnWood:
-snip-

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

Slight errors like saying a dog can move better than a meter a second from a dead stop, or saying UK police, or even the gun units, never kill people, or cutting out most of my posts? Slight errors which I don't think you've ever admitted to making, and are not even doing so now? I've already presented a lot of evidence for my claims.

You're wrong about the dog

Again, unsupported assertion.

- and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs?

Usually on fleeing suspects. You're doing that straw man thing again. My argument is that it would be physically impossible for the dog to intervene in time to hinder the suspect. Not inappropriate. Not inappropriate in all situations. Physically impossible, in this particular situation.

Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards.

As I already pointed out, someone moving backwards moves slower than someone moving forwards. In addition to that, the tool extends his range by several feet. In order to grapple with him, the officer needs to actually get within the perp's range. Without a weapon of his own out, the nearer cop is at a significant disadvantage against someone, possibly on drugs, who is attempting to use the tool with deadly force. Or do you think that it only becomes "deadly force" when the person with the weapon reaches effective range?

Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified.

Why? He could've gotten in range at any second.

But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

They tried that, then the suspect tried to bring lethal force into the equation. They are under no obligation to use less-lethal force on someone using lethal force. You've been trying to conflate "could" with "should" this entire argument, and claim that he wasn't really going to attack based on watching a Youtube video, a belief which was not apparent to the two trained officers on the scene, in person, a few feet away.

In fact, I don't think you've ever actually acknowledged that even if the suspect was "merely" attempting to intimidate the cops, he did such a good job that they thought he was actually trying to attack them. You've made the claim, but not followed through.

I looked it up. "To compel or deter by or as if by threats". So even by your own argument, he was threatening the police officer. Unless he was trying to scare the cop without actually trying to be threatening, which would be difficult in the absence of a closet to jump out of and yell "boo!"

JonnWood:

Conza:
Worst part is, the other cops will all cover for the loser who panicked and killed the guy.

Its sort of the universes way of removing the stupid from society unfortunately, he could've been drunk, but if he were sober and in his right mind, holding a hammer like that with X police officers standing there with guns and a guard dog, he virtually brought his death upon himself - not that he deserved it necessary, but if he were in his rational mind, it would take a miracle to save him in that situation, if you get what I mean. Its so stupid to do what he did IF he were being rational, but we can't know that for sure.

That wasn't panicked fire. That was exactly what you are supposed to do in that situation; neutralize the threat to cops or the public, even if it means killing the suspect. Given that he shrugged off the taser and was still standing after the first few shots, he was likely on drugs, meaning that he could easily get up and fight back unless they were sure he was down.

Listen, I'm all for arming law enforcement, we do so in my country, and I think its a policy that should continue for instances where appropriate.

This was not one of those instances.

I'll rewatch it, but from the terrible water covered window video I saw, a man walked out of a fast food restaurant, several cops (3 I could see) walked backward slightly, no taser was used, the man with the hammer didn't approach any person, and was then subjected to an excessive amount of force in the form of a pistol firearm.

I say again, for instances where a suspect is imminently likely to harm another person or other people, the use of force is highly necessary, this did not appear to be warranted. If he had simply raised the hammer above his head, I'd be all for the shooting (not that many times, but enough to ground him certainly) - that did not happen.

EDIT: Ok, on a larger screen, its evident that the hammer was raised, this was an appropriate use of force.

The Cool Kid:

Thyunda:

JonnWood:
-snip-

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

You're wrong about the dog - and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs? Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards. Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified. But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

You have no idea what people can do on PCP.
The dog wouldn't have stopped shit, would have probably ended up dead, and the officers injured. And that's the best out come.

I don't get why you are arguing for the violent addict? He went to attack an officer, he got shot. We all know that will be the outcome so why cry when it happens?

I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him. He has denied any responsibility on the part of the victim for his actions, even so far as arguing the police "created the situation" where they would have to shoot by getting close enough.

Conza:

Brawndo:
News story under the video, shooting occurs at 0:42.

Is a human life really worth so little that a half a dozen police officers will not try to overpower and disarm one man with a crowbar? I mean what is event the point of spending thousands of dollars equipping and training police with batons, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and police dogs if the cops aren't going to use them? The officer who shot the suspect didn't even go for the leg shot, it just looked like he panicked and unloaded.

On another note, the guys recording the shooting really disgust me. I can't believe their reactions at seeing another person get shot to death 30 feet away. Their comments ("They merc-ed that mothafucker!") make it sound like they are watching someone play Xbox Live or something. Absolutely vile. One or two of them show a little humanity later on in the video once they come to their senses.

Worst part is, the other cops will all cover for the loser who panicked and killed the guy.

Its sort of the universes way of removing the stupid from society unfortunately, he could've been drunk, but if he were sober and in his right mind, holding a hammer like that with X police officers standing there with guns and a guard dog, he virtually brought his death upon himself - not that he deserved it necessary, but if he were in his rational mind, it would take a miracle to save him in that situation, if you get what I mean. Its so stupid to do what he did IF he were being rational, but we can't know that for sure.

Holy shit, i would LOVE, no NO, i would PAY to see how you would act in a situation like that. You being the one with the gun. I wonder if you would feel guilty after being the main reason your partner who now suffers from brain damage and lives in a nursing home.

Conza:

JonnWood:

Conza:
Worst part is, the other cops will all cover for the loser who panicked and killed the guy.

Its sort of the universes way of removing the stupid from society unfortunately, he could've been drunk, but if he were sober and in his right mind, holding a hammer like that with X police officers standing there with guns and a guard dog, he virtually brought his death upon himself - not that he deserved it necessary, but if he were in his rational mind, it would take a miracle to save him in that situation, if you get what I mean. Its so stupid to do what he did IF he were being rational, but we can't know that for sure.

That wasn't panicked fire. That was exactly what you are supposed to do in that situation; neutralize the threat to cops or the public, even if it means killing the suspect. Given that he shrugged off the taser and was still standing after the first few shots, he was likely on drugs, meaning that he could easily get up and fight back unless they were sure he was down.

Listen, I'm all for arming law enforcement, we do so in my country, and I think its a policy that should continue for instances where appropriate.

This was not one of those instances.

I'll rewatch it, but from the terrible water covered window video I saw, a man walked out of a fast food restaurant, several cops (3 I could see) walked backward slightly, no taser was used, the man with the hammer didn't approach any person, and was then subjected to an excessive amount of force in the form of a pistol firearm.

I am not sure what video you saw.

The man with the tool, incidentally, had been vandalizing the restauraunt. He was ignoring armed police commands to stop, as you can see. The nearer cop holsters his weapon then draws what is a taser or pepper spray. The suspect ignores it, possibly due to drugs, and as the officer attempts to holster whatever he just used, the suspect turns and raises his weapon, heedless of the second cop nearby covering his partner. As the nearer officer attempts to back away and draw his pistol, the suspect advances on him. The K9 cop opens fire, pauses when the suspect is staggered but not down or neutralized, and continues to fire.

I say again, for instances where a suspect is imminently likely to harm another person or other people, the use of force is highly necessary, this did not appear to be warranted. If he had simply raised the hammer above his head, I'd be all for the shooting (not that many times, but enough to ground him certainly) - that did not happen.

He did raise his tool in the beginnings of a strike, and police shoot until the threat is neutralized.

JonnWood:

Conza:

JonnWood:
That wasn't panicked fire. That was exactly what you are supposed to do in that situation; neutralize the threat to cops or the public, even if it means killing the suspect. Given that he shrugged off the taser and was still standing after the first few shots, he was likely on drugs, meaning that he could easily get up and fight back unless they were sure he was down.

Listen, I'm all for arming law enforcement, we do so in my country, and I think its a policy that should continue for instances where appropriate.

This was not one of those instances.

I'll rewatch it, but from the terrible water covered window video I saw, a man walked out of a fast food restaurant, several cops (3 I could see) walked backward slightly, no taser was used, the man with the hammer didn't approach any person, and was then subjected to an excessive amount of force in the form of a pistol firearm.

I am not sure what video you saw.

The man with the tool, incidentally, had been vandalizing the restauraunt. He was ignoring armed police commands to stop, as you can see. The nearer cop holsters his weapon then draws what is a taser or pepper spray. The suspect ignores it, possibly due to drugs, and as the officer attempts to holster whatever he just used, the suspect turns and raises his weapon, heedless of the second cop nearby covering his partner. As the nearer officer attempts to back away and draw his pistol, the suspect advances on him. The K9 cop opens fire, pauses when the suspect is staggered but not down or neutralized, and continues to fire.

I say again, for instances where a suspect is imminently likely to harm another person or other people, the use of force is highly necessary, this did not appear to be warranted. If he had simply raised the hammer above his head, I'd be all for the shooting (not that many times, but enough to ground him certainly) - that did not happen.

He did raise his tool in the beginnings of a strike, and police shoot until the threat is neutralized.

Yes, I edited my post, so I haven't bothered to read your rebuttle, as the point is moot now considering the larger image (on the Youtube site, not watching it here on the forum) reveals a completely different circumstance to the one I 'thought' I saw.

Objection withdrawn, satisfied?

Conza:

JonnWood:

Conza:

Listen, I'm all for arming law enforcement, we do so in my country, and I think its a policy that should continue for instances where appropriate.

This was not one of those instances.

I'll rewatch it, but from the terrible water covered window video I saw, a man walked out of a fast food restaurant, several cops (3 I could see) walked backward slightly, no taser was used, the man with the hammer didn't approach any person, and was then subjected to an excessive amount of force in the form of a pistol firearm.

I am not sure what video you saw.

The man with the tool, incidentally, had been vandalizing the restauraunt. He was ignoring armed police commands to stop, as you can see. The nearer cop holsters his weapon then draws what is a taser or pepper spray. The suspect ignores it, possibly due to drugs, and as the officer attempts to holster whatever he just used, the suspect turns and raises his weapon, heedless of the second cop nearby covering his partner. As the nearer officer attempts to back away and draw his pistol, the suspect advances on him. The K9 cop opens fire, pauses when the suspect is staggered but not down or neutralized, and continues to fire.

I say again, for instances where a suspect is imminently likely to harm another person or other people, the use of force is highly necessary, this did not appear to be warranted. If he had simply raised the hammer above his head, I'd be all for the shooting (not that many times, but enough to ground him certainly) - that did not happen.

He did raise his tool in the beginnings of a strike, and police shoot until the threat is neutralized.

Yes, I edited my post, so I haven't bothered to read your rebuttle, as the point is moot now considering the larger image (on the Youtube site, not watching it here on the forum) reveals a completely different circumstance to the one I 'thought' I saw.

Objection withdrawn, satisfied?

Yes. Now if only you could teach Thy how to admit they are wrong about something. Anything. I've caught him saying something that was flat-out incorrect, and their response was to switch to another claim that was also flat-out incorrect.

JonnWood:

The Cool Kid:

Thyunda:

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

You're wrong about the dog - and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs? Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards. Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified. But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

You have no idea what people can do on PCP.
The dog wouldn't have stopped shit, would have probably ended up dead, and the officers injured. And that's the best out come.

I don't get why you are arguing for the violent addict? He went to attack an officer, he got shot. We all know that will be the outcome so why cry when it happens?

I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him. He has denied any responsibility on the part of the victim for his actions, even so far as arguing the police "created the situation" where they would have to shoot by getting close enough.

What the hell?

"I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him."

That makes no sense. Are you saying it would be better if a local with his .45 came out and shot him instead?

The Cool Kid:

JonnWood:

The Cool Kid:

You have no idea what people can do on PCP.
The dog wouldn't have stopped shit, would have probably ended up dead, and the officers injured. And that's the best out come.

I don't get why you are arguing for the violent addict? He went to attack an officer, he got shot. We all know that will be the outcome so why cry when it happens?

I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him. He has denied any responsibility on the part of the victim for his actions, even so far as arguing the police "created the situation" where they would have to shoot by getting close enough.

What the hell?

"I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him."

That makes no sense. Are you saying it would be better if a local with his .45 came out and shot him instead?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying Thyunda is biased against US police--and to a certain extent the US in general--so in his mind, this was 100% The cops Fault, and 0% Anyone Else's Fault, and the shooting wasn't justified, even when the only other measures available have been shown to be physically impossible. Note how they're arguing the dog could've intervened in time, and how they keep equating something the cops "could" do (even if they couldn't) to things they "should" do. Note how none of their posts give any responsibility to the perp; even when they claim he was just attempting to "intimidate" the police, it's implied to be the cops' fault for falling for it.

Personally, I think it was justified.

JonnWood:

The Cool Kid:

JonnWood:
I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him. He has denied any responsibility on the part of the victim for his actions, even so far as arguing the police "created the situation" where they would have to shoot by getting close enough.

What the hell?

"I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him."

That makes no sense. Are you saying it would be better if a local with his .45 came out and shot him instead?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying Thy is biased against US police, so in his mind, this was 100% Their Fault, and 0% Anyone Else's Fault, and the shooting wasn't justified, even when the only other measures available have been shown to be physically impossible. Note how they're arguing the dog could've intervened in time, and how they keep equating something the cops "could" do (even if they couldn't) to things they "should" do.

Personally, I think it was justified.

Ah now I get what you mean.
Yeah does sound like liberal nonsense. Frankly anyone who thinks this was not justified simply does not have the means to defend themselves. I think what we should take away is that we must live in a pretty good world where people can get away with such dangerous attitudes.

The Cool Kid:
Ah now I get what you mean.
Yeah does sound like liberal nonsense. Frankly anyone who thinks this was not justified simply does not have the means to defend themselves. I think what we should take away is that we must live in a pretty good world where people can get away with such dangerous attitudes.

now now. Someone doesn't have to be particularly liberal to be a biased idiot.

Thyunda, I believe I gave some local reasons as to why the dog was not used. I go to the college right behind the Carl's Jr. in the video.

I admit it is mostly second hand and even third hand knowledge with what I think is what is the policy.

In California the dog is not used to subdue suspects like people are trying suggest. I'm pretty sure even if a guy did get attacked by a police dog justifiably, the city would be sued either by the guy or maybe a animal rights group.

Dogs are for bombs, drugs, tracking, but I don't think the police are allowed to use them for subduing people. As for why the officer brought the dog out, well, the K9 units get their own patrol cars. One officer and a dog. I see them a lot, so I don't think they are allowed to leave the dog unattended in the car du to a verity of reasons.

In the summer during lunch, I once saw a cop and his dog out of the car eating lunch inside a Mexican place. It was like 106F that day.

Okay, I really am curious, did anyone even read my last two posts? I mean I am still pretty sure I am the only person that is within five minute walking distance from the shooting site.

Is anyone else from the area? Monterey Park or neighboring areas?

Also, just a thought, the 70s through the 90s policing might as well be from the 19th century given the immense social and political changes that have past in regard to policing. In California there was the CRASH Rampart, and King scandals in the 90s which brought lots of policy changes. That and bringing up police policy from Ireland from over a decade(soon to be 2 decades) and trying to say it is comparable to 2012 California is pretty weak and out of context.

Shock and Awe:
This is one of those cases where the shooting itself was justified. When the assailant is obviously about to use deadly force against an officer he is liable to be killed on the spot. Could it have been handled better? Maybe, but hindsight is always clearer than the moment.

To those of you saying that they shouldn't have continued shooting, I just gotta ask, who here has killed a man? I doubt anyone has, and the officer probably hadn't either. When that adrenaline is flowing you tend to keep going. And go for the leg shot? Sorry but this isn't a movie, when you shoot someone you shoot center mass, every officer is trained to do exactly that.

I'm pretty sure the only thing the cop could've done differently was step out of range before holstering his taser, or keeping his gun in his other hand, which would've made it difficult to holster the taser, since the holster was apparently on the right of his belt and he was wielding the taser with his left. The second the perp realized the nearer cop was basically unarmed, he chose to attack, even with a gun pointed right at him.

Cops around here carry their Tasers in a bunch of different ways, but the always carry them away from their sidearms so they don't accidently go for the wrong weapon.

Campus police prefer it on their belts, but patrol officers I see carry them in different ways. It does seem cumbersome though in person, and one campus officer(who are armed with Berettas and have shotguns available) say it is just so no one goes for a Taser and instead shoots someone with a firearm.

One officer I asked when I was younger, carried it on his left thigh, he said it was so he would be sure that if he went for it, it would be a Taser.

JonnWood:

The Cool Kid:
Ah now I get what you mean.
Yeah does sound like liberal nonsense. Frankly anyone who thinks this was not justified simply does not have the means to defend themselves. I think what we should take away is that we must live in a pretty good world where people can get away with such dangerous attitudes.

now now. Someone doesn't have to be particularly liberal to be a biased idiot.

Experience has taught me bias and liberals (as in the new era breed from the European Union Courts and Human Rights) tend to go hand-in-hand. They will argue against any course of action that can be deemed as "blame worthy" because they are scared that if they agree with said action, they will be judged and have to defend their views if challenged. Fantastic people to argue with; they sometimes cry as well. Always makes me smile.

secretsantaone:

Khada:
[

Mortai Gravesend:

Note: Why are you stuck on unrealistic ideas like shooting him in the leg? Or are you some kind of expert that has determined against all the police that you know better than them about shooting at the center of mass?

If I'm wrong and a shot to the leg is totally unfeasible and not even worth trying before shooting a man 8 times, then OK I'm wrong. What about only shooting once to the chest and seeing if the target stops instead of 4 times to the chest? The man with the 'crowbar' can be clearly seen to stop approaching the cop after the first bullet. Yet he is fired upon 8 times.
Shouldn't the police have enough self restraint to stop when a target has been subdued?

Because bullets don't work the same way they do in films. It's designed to pierce, not to stop, basically meaning one bullet on it's own has very little stopping power unless it hits somewhere vital.

There have been several reports of people not even realising they'd been shot until after the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxzrErec8U

A suspect gets shot and continues to attack the officer.
Imagine if he had a deadly weapon.

I understand this (and reference it in the same post you quoted), I just don't see how it's so hard to take 1-2 shots, back-step a bit and THEN continue firing if the target is still approaching. What about the 4 shots fired as the man with the 'crowbar' was falling down? He was very clearly moving away at that point, how were those 4 shots necessary?

JonnWood:
snip

I can't quote you properly due to there being too many embedded quotes in the post. Instead I'll just try to address each part in order.

1. You're right, my stop watch put the time from the first bullet to the last at 3 seconds. He was however moving away from the police well before the second round was fired, making a mele armed individual somewhat harmless at that point. If he began to move towards the cops again, a second volley would be justified.

2. I'll concede your point to the first volley of 4 bullets, but police are bound by law to not use lethal force unless necessary, and I don't see that the second volley was.

3. Of course, bouncers and police are in a risky business but they choose to be in it. You can't use lethal force in every perceivably dangerous situation and as such both fields will see injury and death to some degree.

4. In the situation as it was, I'll agree with you here. I do wonder why the other police officers were not nearby to help though. An extra taser could have ended the affair without bloodshed.

5. A little, I was genuinely accepting that I may be wrong, but mixing some sarcasm in to also get my point across (a usually fruitless endevour over the internet).

6. That video is horrific. It has to be said though that, that was a much different situation. 1 cop against 1 man with a gun is very different to 1 man with a 'crowbar' and 5 cops + an attack dog. The cop in the video was obviously justified in shooting the other man, it's a real shame he lost the fire-fight. I hope the other guy was caught and put to death (given the undeniable proof of his crime - I'm not huge on the death penalty though).

7. Refer to 4.

8. Refer to 4 but add the desire for one of those extra cops to have been at the ready with a rubber bullet gun. They pack a greater punch due to zero penetration and a sufficient volley could have stopped his approach.

9. Refer to 4.

To be clear, I'm not defending the man with the 'crowbar', I just think greater effort could have been taken to resolve the situation without bloodshed given the available resources that the police have/had. It's so very common to see police overstepping their bounds (in less grey-area ways that in this video) and perhaps that has made me a little more critical of them in this instance.

I think there was only two and the rest arrived after the fact? I mean to me it seems like those two officers were alone when dealing with the guy. Maybe there was one or two more, but the impression I have is that the two guys on the right side of the door were responding before backup arrived.

Rubber bullets are also not allowed in handguns or dashboard locked shotguns. They use bean bags or special 40MM grenades during riots in California...and I think not all cars carry bean bag guns.

I think the rules and policy is much stricter when it comes to those types of non lethal options, plus the launching device of a bean bag is a green painted shotgun that is locked in the trunk.

As for your number 4, there was a budget crisis and stuff. I rarely see a patrol car with two officers in it. It's usually just the one per car in that area...or at least the three streets I regularly frequent

Also, I think the average response time in is like 6+ minutes in LA County. At that intersection, I usually see one patrol car headed down towards the college and a K9 car headed down Atlantic on patrol. So there are two officers usually close by and there is a freeway entrance right near there, up the street.

It's probably that they just got there first, I mean I think if there were more officers then there would of been more shots.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked