Support NeoGAF

[BruiserBear]

How do you think they should've handled it.

Watch the video again. Pay close attention to the guy with the pipe.

The moment the first bullet hits him, ask yourself seriously if he was really going to hit that other officer. I believe the danger was neutralized after a single shot.


Then you've got the police dog, which is another option entirely. He could have fired a shot, and released the dog at the same time. He could have released the dog immediately. Any of these things likely would have worked out. But if they didn't, then you've got the choice of unloading your clip into him. But that should have been the last resort. Unfortunately here it was the second option.

 

[Nappuccino]

Sure, they are designed to kill, but that doesn't mean you have to use it kill someone. Over here it's used pretty well as a restraining weapon.

Sure, but in this case shooting to kill really wasn't neccasairy. Since the non-lethal weapon did nothing to him a few shots to the legs would have worked wonders. This very situation shows how a gun could be used to restrain him with a few bullet to the leg. Of course that would be in a 1v1. How three people couldn't apprehend someone with a crowbar is beyond me. It shows to me your flawed reasoning. The US police are just way too quick to resort to lethal force and when the US police use lethal force it's pretty much shooting to kill.

Did you not see the medical diagram of all the major arteries in the body?

Your limbs are full of them and you can quickly bleed out when they're hit anyway. Shots to the limbs aren't any safer.

Also, what on earth do you think "lethal force" is?

 

[2San]

Did you not see the medical diagram of all the major arteries in the body?

Your limbs are full of them and you can quickly bleed out when they're hit anyway. Shots to the limbs aren't any safer.

Still for some reason it works over here and it doesn't for you. Interesting our police department must be run by idiots, at least they do a good job in keeping the mortality rate and crime rates low I guess.

Also, what on earth do you think "lethal force" is?

Using means to restrain someone that has an increased likelihood to kill someone.

 

[Nappuccino]

Still for some reason it works over here and it doesn't for you. Interesting our police department must be run by idiots, at least they do a good job in keeping the mortality rate and crime rates low I guess.

I'm willing to bet that is partly due to your country's overall lack of violent crime.

Using means to restrain someone that has an increased likelihood to kill someone.

Tasers and beanbag bullets can kill someone, are those lethal force too?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

No need to get so high strung. I just asked you to explain yourself. I meant shooting with a gun with bullets btw.

I guess that explains death toll claimed by the police in the US. The more you know.

Oh, so now every single police shooting in US history is the topic we've been discussing for 12 pages?

Give me a break with that bullshit, lol.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Sure, but in this case shooting to kill really wasn't neccasairy. Since the non-lethal weapon did nothing to him a few shots to the legs would have worked wonders. This very situation shows how a gun could be used to restrain him with a few bullet to the leg. Of course that would be in a 1v1. How three people couldn't apprehend someone with a crowbar is beyond me. It shows to me your flawed reasoning. The US police are just way too quick to resort to lethal force and when the US police use lethal force it's pretty much shooting to kill.

Multiple times in this thread, multiple users have stated something like this. Shoot the legs, that would've stopped him. You didn't have to kill him.

This is wrong and not safe at all. Law enforcement officers are trained to aim for center mass. It is the largest target of the body and hard to miss even when under stress (stress is huge factor in aiming ability). Now, I'm not saying aiming for the legs or arms is ineffective: it can certainly do wonders in stopping somebody. Additionally, I'm going to guess that most law enforcement agencies don't forbid the practice of aiming for extremities in their policies. Sometimes an officer will find that shooting a person in the foot is better than shooting him in the chest.

However, it is always safest for the officer and any bystanders to aim for the chest. The extremities are constantly moving and can be missed easily. Where do you think that bullet will stop?

 

[JJD]

I wish this thread was locked. I can't walk away from it. 2 people close to me have suffered abusive treatment from police officers. One of then was blinded by a rubber bullet shoot at his face in a peaceful protest against a bus ticket raise. The shock trooper was less than 10 meters from him protected by at least a dozen more with shields and batons. We both never had to take a bus ride, we just wanted to support our college friends who were less fortunate because they were not born on rich families. At least he's still alive.

I know there's good officers out there, but every time I see one abusing his authority or making fucking stupid decisions like that it pisses me off. They're trained to handle this stuff, they're supposed to be better, to lead by example.

And I'm an white, upper class guy in a third world country, I'm not supposed to have issues with police officers. I can't understand how minorities or just poor people deal with then.

To the guys defending the officers, I really hope that no one you know or love ever has to face police brutality, but if they do try to be as comprehensive and forgiving as you're being now.

I swear to God I'll try my best to get out of this thread before I get banned.

How do you think they should've handled it.

I have stated previously how I think they should have handled the situation. Please just look on the last pages.

 

[BruiserBear]

Multiple times in this thread, multiple users have stated something like this. Shoot the legs, that would've stopped him. You didn't have to kill him.

This is wrong and not safe at all. Law enforcement officers are trained to aim for center mass. It is the largest target of the body and hard to miss even when under stress (stress is huge factor in aiming ability). Now, I'm not saying aiming for the legs or arms is ineffective: it can certainly do wonders in stopping somebody. Additionally, I'm going to guess that most law enforcement agencies don't forbid the practice of aiming for extremities in their policies. Sometimes an officer will find that shooting a person in the foot is better than shooting him in the chest.

However, it is always safest for the officer and any bystanders to aim for the chest. The extremities are constantly moving and can be missed easily. Where do you think that bullet will stop?

Instead of addressing the "shoot for the legs" comments, why don't you address mine at the top of this page?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I wish this thread was locked. I can't walk away from it. 2 people close to me have suffered abusive treatment from police officers. One of then was blinded by a rubber bullet shoot at his face in a peaceful protest against a bus ticket raise. The shock trooper was less than 10 meters from him protected by at least a dozen more with shields and batons. We both never had to take a bus ride, we just wanted to support our college friends who were less fortunate because they were not born on rich families. At least he's still alive.

I know there's good officers out there, but every time I see one abusing his authority or making fucking stupid decisions like that it pisses me off. They're trained to handle this stuff, they're supposed to be better, to lead by example.

And I'm an white, upper class guy in a third world country, I'm not supposed to have issues with police officers. I can't understand how minorities or just poor people deal with then.

To the guys defending the officers, I really hope that no one you know or love ever has to face police brutality, but if they do try to be as comprehensive and forgiving as you're being now.

I swear to God I'll try my best to get out of this thread before I get banned.

When someone raises a weapon to a cop and takes a stance about to swing and gets shot....that's NOT police brutality.

I'm sorry for what happened to your 2 close friends, but these aren't the same cops that did that to them. You need to realize that.

 

[Nappuccino]

I wish this thread was locked. I can't walk away from it. 2 people close to me have suffered abusive treatment from police officers. One of then was blinded by a rubber bullet shoot at his face in a peaceful protest against a bus ticket raise. The shock trooper was less than 10 meters from him protected by at least a dozen more with shields and batons. We both never had to take a bus ride, we just wanted to support our college friends who were less fortunate because they were not born on rich families. At least he's still alive.

I know there's good officers out there, but every time I see one abusing his authority or making fucking stupid decisions like that it pisses me off. They're trained to handle this stuff, they're supposed to be better, to lead by example.

And I'm an white, upper class guy in a third world country, I'm not supposed to have issues with police officers. I can't understand how minorities or just poor people deal with then.

To the guys defending the officers, I really hope that no one you know or love ever has to face police brutality, but if they do try to be as comprehensive and forgiving as you're being now.

I swear to God I'll try my best to get out of this thread before I get banned.

No, I agree that there is no cause for police brutality. Peaceful protests and other things don't need tasers or rubber bullets. But in a case like this, I feel inclined to defend the police officer because the suspect was violent, non-responsive, and about going for his partner, who at the time was getting out handcuffs and would have been unable to defend himself.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Instead of addressing the "shoot for the legs" comments, why don't you address mine at the top of this page?

Why dont you address the fact that you dont know a damned thing about incapacitation or terminal ballistics, yet for SOME reason know how many shots it takes, something you would only know if you knew anything about said topics?

 

[2San]

I'm willing to bet that is partly due to your country's overall lack of violent crime.

Tasers and beanbag bullets can kill someone, are those lethal force too?

That probably has a lot to do with it.

Depends on where you draw the line I guess.

Oh, so now every single police shooting in US history is the topic we've been discussing for 12 pages?

Give me a break with that bullshit, lol.

I guess I was kinda cheeky with that line, but I honestly didn't know that killing someone was the only way to use a gun.

Multiple times in this thread, multiple users have stated something like this. Shoot the legs, that would've stopped him. You didn't have to kill him.

This is wrong and not safe at all. Law enforcement officers are trained to aim for center mass. It is the largest target of the body and hard to miss even when under stress (stress is huge factor in aiming ability). Now, I'm not saying aiming for the legs or arms is ineffective: it can certainly do wonders in stopping somebody. Additionally, I'm going to guess that most law enforcement agencies don't forbid the practice of aiming for extremities in their policies. Sometimes an officer will find that shooting a person in the foot is better than shooting him in the chest.

However, it is always safest for the officer and any bystanders to aim for the chest. The extremities are constantly moving and can be missed easily. Where do you think that bullet will stop?

Sure it's not safe, but that depends on the situation no? Over here cops are also trained to shoot for center mass, if the situation demands it. It seems no such subtlety is trained in the US. Using a gun=shooting to kill is the safest thing. What about the person that got killed?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Watch the video again. Pay close attention to the guy with the pipe.

The moment the first bullet hits him, ask yourself seriously if he was really going to hit that other officer. I believe the danger was neutralized after a single shot.


Then you've got the police dog, which is another option entirely. He could have fired a shot, and released the dog at the same time. He could have released the dog immediately. Any of these things likely would have worked out. But if they didn't, then you've got the choice of unloading your clip into him. But that should have been the last resort. Unfortunately here it was the second option.

But the cops didn't. Whom I wonder has better experience, knowledge, training and skill to judge that situation? The neogaf poster or the guys that were there?

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta is really easy to do from the safety of a desk long after the danger has past.

Regarding the dog, a split second decision had to be made. He chose the option that had the highest guarantee of dropping the guy right then and there.

 

[JJD]

Why dont you address the fact that you dont know a damned thing about incapacitation or terminal ballistics, yet for SOME reason know how many shots it takes.

And what do you know about it? Why people that are just as ignorant as the other love to point their fingers and try to dismiss other's people opinion?

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

And what do you know about it? Why people that are just as ignorant as the other love to point their fingers and try to dismiss other's people opinion?

What do YOU know of it? It's not opinion based.
Go read my long old posts that went ignored because no one knew anything of it so couldn't speak on it.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Instead of addressing the "shoot for the legs" comments, why don't you address mine at the top of this page?

Because:

1. I was making that previous post.

2. I went to go make me something to eat.

I suggest that you take a step away from your computer or go visit another thread. You seem to be too invested in this.

Anyway...

Watch the video again. Pay close attention to the guy with the pipe.

The moment the first bullet hits him, ask yourself seriously if he was really going to hit that other officer. I believe the danger was neutralized after a single shot.


Then you've got the police dog, which is another option entirely. He could have fired a shot, and released the dog at the same time. He could have released the dog immediately. Any of these things likely would have worked out. But if they didn't, then you've got the choice of unloading your clip into him. But that should have been the last resort. Unfortunately here it was the second option.

Real life isn't like the movies. One bullet isn't always enough to stop someone. There have been many instances where multiple shots are needed. Some people get shot in the head and could still do damage (did you know that a severed head can still function for a few seconds after it had cut off?). Also, notice the speed in which the first officer fires his weapon.

They utilized the taser but it had no affect on the suspect. They could only go one step higher on the use of force continuum and that would be to use deadly force. And remember, the officers didn't open fire immediately after they tazed him: they opened fire after the guy was about to swing. When that happened, they weren't going to risk any injury to themselves or to their dog, so they opened fire.

Really, the only point of contention should be whether the second set of five shots was necessary, but we don't see what was going on behind the car.

 

[JJD]

What do YOU know of it?
Go read my long old posts that went ignored because no one knew anything of it so couldn't speak on it.

I never claimed expertise in any of this.

Again, besides random internet bullshit what do you know about this stuff?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I guess I was kinda cheeky with that line, but I honestly didn't know that killing someone was the only way to use a gun.

You don't use a gun on someone unless you're willing to kill them. Have you ever taken a firearms course? That's guns 101. Don't point the barrel at something you do not want to kill/destroy.

Guns aren't designed to incapacitate without a high risk of death. They're designed to kill. I mean, anti-gun people say that all the time to denote that guns have no OTHER use but to kill.

 

[2San]

You don't use a gun on someone unless you're willing to kill them. Have you ever taken a firearms course? That's guns 101. Don't point the barrel at something you do not want to kill/destroy.

Guns aren't designed to incapacitate without a high risk of death. They're designed to kill. I mean, anti-gun people say that all the time to denote that guns have no OTHER use but to kill.

Just because they have a high risk of killing, doesn't mean you have to use it to kill someone.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

I never claimed expertise in any of this.

Again, besides random internet bullshit what do you know about this stuff?

Care to tell me what's random internet bullshit?

 

[heliosRAzi]

That probably has a lot to do with it.

Depends on where you draw the line I guess.

I guess I was kinda cheeky with that line, but I honestly didn't know that killing someone was the only way to use a gun.

Sure it's not safe, but that depends on the situation no? Over here cops are also trained to shoot for center mass, if the situation demands it. It seems no such subtlety is trained in the US. Using a gun=shooting to kill is the safest thing. What about the person that got killed?

Did you read my post? I'm actually agreeing with you that there are situations where an officer may shoot someone in the leg instead of the chest. It's just not the safest for the officer or any bystanders, which I stated. The person who got shot obviously is going to be safe.

But like I said, that bullet has to stop somewhere and every bullet an officer fires has to be accounted for. I'd rather it get lodged in a violent suspect's chest than an innocent bystander.

 

[2San]

Did you read my post? I'm actually agreeing with you that there are situations where an officer may shoot someone in the leg instead of the chest. It's just not the safest for the officer or any bystanders, which I stated. The person who got shot obviously is going to be safe.

But like I said, that bullet has to stop somewhere and every bullet an officer fires has to be accounted for. I'd rather it get lodged in a violent suspect's chest than an innocent bystander.

No I understand. Yeah and I'm saying the safety of the suspect is more important than the relatively small chance an innocent bystander gets hit. This was no crowded mall and from close range.

 

[heliosRAzi]

I wish this thread was locked. I can't walk away from it. 2 people close to me have suffered abusive treatment from police officers. One of then was blinded by a rubber bullet shoot at his face in a peaceful protest against a bus ticket raise. The shock trooper was less than 10 meters from him protected by at least a dozen more with shields and batons. We both never had to take a bus ride, we just wanted to support our college friends who were less fortunate because they were not born on rich families. At least he's still alive.

I know there's good officers out there, but every time I see one abusing his authority or making fucking stupid decisions like that it pisses me off. They're trained to handle this stuff, they're supposed to be better, to lead by example.

And I'm an white, upper class guy in a third world country, I'm not supposed to have issues with police officers. I can't understand how minorities or just poor people deal with then.

To the guys defending the officers, I really hope that no one you know or love ever has to face police brutality, but if they do try to be as comprehensive and forgiving as you're being now.

I swear to God I'll try my best to get out of this thread before I get banned.

I am a black male living in Texas. The chance that I could go to prison is 16%. The chance of me being stopped by the police is even higher. I work in law enforcement. Despite that, I don't always side with the cops. I criticize them, their policies, and the laws that they enforce.

Last May, a black kid was shot and killed by to bicycle cops. When the cops said that the guys were trying to run them over with a car, I felt that the use of deadly force was justified. However, it has come to light that the cops may have lied about the situation. In that case, they should be fired and dealt with (which I think may be happening.)

Just because we are defending the cops, does not mean we agree with them in every situation. In this situation, we just happen to agree that nothing was wrong.

No I understand. Yeah and I'm saying the safety of the suspect is more important than the relatively small chance an innocent bystander gets hit. This was no crowded mall and from close range.

But there were people standing around. We wouldn't have had video of the incident otherwise. He could've been shot. The patrons of the restaurant could've been shot. Some poor soul walking down the sidewalk completely oblivious to all of this could have been shot. Is that a chance that officers should be willing to take? Not always. Like we said and agree upon, it depends on the situation. But the chances of that happening is lessened if they aim for center mass.

 

[TommyT]

I am a black male living in Texas. The chance that I could go to prison is 16%. The chance of me being stopped by the police is even higher. I work in law enforcement. Despite that, I don't always side with the cops. I criticize them, their policies, and the laws that they enforce.

So if you stop me and I mention NeoGAF you're gonna let me off right... right?!

 

[BruiserBear]

Why dont you address the fact that you dont know a damned thing about incapacitation or terminal ballistics, yet for SOME reason know how many shots it takes, something you would only know if you knew anything about said topics?

See, every time we have someone post something like this, it's just too easy to post a dozen youtube videos of cops in similar, and often worse situations, who didn't fire 5-10 shots. They fired, 1, or 2, or even 3, and the guy still died.

So before you go into expositions on "incapacitation and terminal ballistics", stop with the fancy words and explain to me why other cops in similar situations don't immediately empty 5 rounds into every perp who has ever posed a threat to a cop?

Because:
Real life isn't like the movies. One bullet isn't always enough to stop someone. There have been many instances where multiple shots are needed. Some people get shot in the head and could still do damage (did you know that a severed head can still function for a few seconds after it had cut off?). Also, notice the speed in which the first officer fires his weapon.

They utilized the taser but it had no affect on the suspect. They could only go one step higher on the use of force continuum and that would be to use deadly force. And remember, the officers didn't open fire immediately after they tazed him: they opened fire after the guy was about to swing. When that happened, they weren't going to risk any injury to themselves or to their dog, so they opened fire.

Really, the only point of contention should be whether the second set of five shots was necessary, but we don't see what was going on behind the car.

I'm going to say it again, and I know damn well someone is still going to say what you just said on the next page. That is exactly why I'm done with this thread.

The taser probes may have made contact with his clothing, and maybe even his skin, but they did not deliver a shock to him. It's nearly impossible for a human being to be shocked with a taser and offer no reaction at all. We're not dealing in the world of super heroes here. Human beings all have the same nervous system, and tasers overload their nervous system, so they don't have a choice in reacting, it's like a reflex. This guy didn't react in any way, and thus the only logical conclusion is that voltage was not delivered to him. Maybe the taser malfunctioned, or maybe the two nodes didn't both connect well enough to deliver a shock.


Again, you don't question the first 5 shots in any manner, even though there are numerous videos on youtube alone of officers shooting people once, twice, or three times. 5 shots is over the top in this situation, which is exactly why we had a false story coming from the police department early on that the suspect "swung at them", because they knew they had to justify their over the top lethal decisions.

Then a video comes out showing no swinging.


But then, we have the second round of bullets from the other cop. You say we can't judge that with certainty because we can't really see what's going on behind the car.

The guy had a pipe like weapon in his hands. What could he possibly have done to anyone after having 5 bullets in him with such a weapon? The officers could have simply stood back, and inspected the situation, but again, instead the second officer chose to get closer and follow up with another 5 bullets.

So we have a guy who doesn't get tased, followed by him taking an aggressive stance towards an officer, followed by him getting shot five times, where he falls/scurries backwards falling to the ground, followed by the officers closing in and firing an additional 5 shots. All the while their dog goes unused.

He had a pipe in his hand. If he had a gun, I would not be saying one word of this.


With that, I'm done with this thread.

 

[KHarvey16]

Which claim? Please provide me with a link. I bet it was just the 2 cents from someone who had not informed himself about the issue properly. Big deal. If you're going to keep sticking to that point I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

Besides you're missing the whole point. Regardless if and who lied the argument is that the officers from start to finish handled the situation inadequately, and that is something that most posters, even the ones defending the officers seem to agree.

Neutralgamer made it a couple pages ago and we discussed it, then naturalMWS if I remember right also said it. Bruiser then repeated that the "cops" lied. I can't link them to you on my phone but they exist on page 10 or 11. We certainly cannot establish that there are any lies in the report and we also cannot establish that claims made by a sherriff's official came from a person with complete knowledge of the event. If they were just wrong that isn't a lie and their statement isn't the official report from people on the scene taking part in the action.

If you are having trouble finding people who aren't suggesting the cops handled the situation wrongly, you aren't looking.

 

[2San]

But there were people standing around. We wouldn't have had video of the incident otherwise. He could've been shot. The patrons of the restaurant could've been shot. Some poor soul walking down the sidewalk completely oblivious to all of this could have been shot. Is that a chance that officers should be willing to take? Not always. Like we said and agree upon, it depends on the situation. But the chances of that happening is lessened if they aim for center mass.

I think you are severely underestimating properly trained personnel and from that range when shooting down they chances of hitting innocent bystanders is relatively low.

If innocent bystanders where that important the officers in question wouldn't bother unloading that much bullets on the suspect. Since for innocent bystanders the officers themselves posed a bigger threat then the suspect.

Not to mention the complete disregard of the suspects life, yes he's a person too.

 

[neutralgamer02]

I am a black male living in Texas. The chance that I could go to prison is 16%. The chance of me being stopped by the police is even higher. I work in law enforcement. Despite that, I don't always side with the cops. I criticize them, their policies, and the laws that they enforce.

How do you have a 16% chance of going to prison if you do nothing wrong? Do you mean 16% of blacks males in Texas go to prison or something? The ones that you know, are committing crimes? Just wondering, b/c that statement doesn't make sense. I'm curious b/c I'm a black male living in Texas as well.

 

[KHarvey16]

See, every time we have someone post something like this, it's just too easy to post a dozen youtube videos of cops in similar, and often worse situations, who didn't fire 5-10 shots. They fired, 1, or 2, or even 3, and the guy still died.

So before you go into expositions on "incapacitation and terminal ballistics", stop with the fancy words and explain to me why other cops in similar situations don't immediately empty 5 rounds into every perp who has ever posed a threat to a cop?



I'm going to say it again, and I know damn well someone is still going to say what you just said on the next page. That is exactly why I'm done with this thread.

The taser probes may have made contact with his clothing, and maybe even his skin, but they did not deliver a shock to him. It's nearly impossible for a human being to be shocked with a taser and offer no reaction at all. We're not dealing in the world of super heroes here. Human beings all have the same nervous system, and tasers overload their nervous system, so they don't have a choice in reacting, it's like a reflex. This guy didn't react in any way, and thus the only logical conclusion is that voltage was not delivered to him. Maybe the taser malfunctioned, or maybe the two nodes didn't both connect well enough to deliver a shock.


Again, you don't question the first 5 shots in any manner, even though there are numerous videos on youtube alone of officers shooting people once, twice, or three times. 5 shots is over the top in this situation, which is exactly why we had a false story coming from the police department early on that the suspect "swung at them", because they knew they had to justify their over the top lethal decisions.

Then a video comes out showing no swinging.


But then, we have the second round of bullets from the other cop. You say we can't judge that with certainty because we can't really see what's going on behind the car.

The guy had a pipe like weapon in his hands. What could he possibly have done to anyone after having 5 bullets in him with such a weapon? The officers could have simply stood back, and inspected the situation, but again, instead the second officer chose to get closer and follow up with another 5 bullets.

So we have a guy who doesn't get tased, followed by him taking an aggressive stance towards an officer, followed by him getting shot five times, where he falls/scurries backwards falling to the ground, followed by the officers closing in and firing an additional 5 shots. All the while their dog goes unused.

He had a pipe in his hand. If he had a gun, I would not be saying one word of this.


With that, I'm done with this thread.

You've been done with this thread for pages now. You aren't reading a damn thing. How is it still baffling you as to why these officers shot as many times as they did, and why showing other officers shooting less doesn't somehow contradict any reasons put forward? I dont understand why this is difficult for you. If the guy fell down and stopped after 1 shot or 3 shots or 25 shots it doesn't change the reasoning.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Just because they have a high risk of killing, doesn't mean you have to use it to kill someone.

Have you ever taken a gun course? Ever?

It means, you ONLY use a gun when you're willing to kill what you shoot. If you take out, and use a gun with the intention to incapacitate ONLY...you are doing it fucking wrong. Period. Dot. The End.

If you take out your gun with the willingness to kill your target and end up only disabling them and they live...that's fine. But you can't make the argument that they should have ONLY used a gun to incapacitate.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

See, every time we have someone post something like this, it's just too easy to post a dozen youtube videos of cops in similar, and often worse situations, who didn't fire 5-10 shots. They fired, 1, or 2, or even 3, and the guy still died.

So before you go into expositions on "incapacitation and terminal ballistics", stop with the fancy words and explain to me why other cops in similar situations don't immediately empty 5 rounds into every perp who has ever posed a threat to a cop?

I did, MULTIPLE TIMES, with Long, lengthy posts with references, pictures and information in layman's terms, you just either didn't read it or refused to reply.
And I don't think doing it for the xth time will make any difference to you

Have you ever taken a gun course? Ever?

It means, you ONLY use a gun when you're willing to kill what you shoot. If you take out, and use a gun with the intention to incapacitate ONLY...you are doing it fucking wrong. Period. Dot. The End.

If you take out your gun with the willingness to kill your target and end up only disabling them and they live...that's fine. But you can't make the argument that they should have ONLY used a gun to incapacitate.

If I were to shoot someone who I didn't feel posed an immediate and deadly threat to me, I'd be charged and jailed. It's why I carry pepper spray, you need something for people who don't pose a deadly threat to you

If a drunk started harassing me on the street, I'd spray him and run
If I shot him when there was no risk of immediate and grievous bodily harm, but rather just to stop him, I'd be at fault.

 

[2San]

Have you ever taken a gun course? Ever?

It means, you ONLY use a gun when you're willing to kill what you shoot. If you take out, and use a gun with the intention to incapacitate ONLY...you are doing it fucking wrong. Period. Dot. The End.

If you take out your gun with the willingness to kill your target and end up only disabling them and they live...that's fine. But you can't make the argument that they should have ONLY used a gun to incapacitate.

Because gun courses dictate the moral code guns and decides that guns can only be used to kill someone?

Shooting someone with "the intention to incapacitate ONLY" is entirely possible. It's just that there's a high risk attributed to this.

"But you can't make the argument that they should have ONLY used a gun to incapacitate" Sure I can. The Police code in the Netherlands states you can't shoot to kill, but it's naturally it is understood there's a high risk involved with using guns. Hence the usage is kept to a minimum and every instance where someone does die is investigated.

 

[heliosRAzi]

I'm going to say it again, and I know damn well someone is still going to say what you just said on the next page. That is exactly why I'm done with this thread.

The taser probes may have made contact with his clothing, and maybe even his skin, but they did not deliver a shock to him. It's nearly impossible for a human being to be shocked with a taser and offer no reaction at all. We're not dealing in the world of super heroes here. Human beings all have the same nervous system, and tasers overload their nervous system, so they don't have a choice in reacting, it's like a reflex. This guy didn't react in any way, and thus the only logical conclusion is that voltage was not delivered to him. Maybe the taser malfunctioned, or maybe the two nodes didn't both connect well enough to deliver a shock.


Again, you don't question the first 5 shots in any manner, even though there are numerous videos on youtube alone of officers shooting people once, twice, or three times. 5 shots is over the top in this situation, which is exactly why we had a false story coming from the police department early on that the suspect "swung at them", because they knew they had to justify their over the top lethal decisions.

Then a video comes out showing no swinging.


But then, we have the second round of bullets from the other cop. You say we can't judge that with certainty because we can't really see what's going on behind the car.

The guy had a pipe like weapon in his hands. What could he possibly have done to anyone after having 5 bullets in him with such a weapon? The officers could have simply stood back, and inspected the situation, but again, instead the second officer chose to get closer and follow up with another 5 bullets.

So we have a guy who doesn't get tased, followed by him taking an aggressive stance towards an officer, followed by him getting shot five times, where he falls/scurries backwards falling to the ground, followed by the officers closing in and firing an additional 5 shots. All the while their dog going unused.

He had a pipe in his hand. If he had a gun, I would not being saying one word of this.


With that, I'm done with this thread.

A pipe can still cause serious bodily injury. In such a case, lethal force is permitted on use of force continuums.

As far as we know, the guy got tased. If an autopsy report comes out and it doesn't show that both pins didn't connect, then we know for sure that he did not get tased. Still, some people can get tased and it has no affect. Those kinds of people are on some fucked up shit, like angel dust. And while humans generally have the same nervous system, a few are wired differently. One of my buddies was pepper sprayed and it doesn't affect him at all. Pressure points don't affect him either (but a swift knee to the common peroneal did wonders).

Also, officers do not have to wait to be attacked to utilized any kind of force. The suspect was displaying intention to cause bodily harm to the officer by swinging the pipe at the officer. Because of that display, the first officer fired several shots in the suspect's chest. After that, the guy is still standing, so the second officer fires two shots into him. Before the third shot, the suspect falls down, but the second officer is still firing. Keep in mind that the suspect's lower half is obscured by a vehicle, so we don't know what the second officer was responding to.

You're correct in that I'm not questioning the first officer's firing of five shots. I have no problem with it. And like I've been saying in this thread, every situation is different. What worked for the officers in your videos might not have worked for the officers in this video. You also have to understand that these officers were about to be under attack (even if you don't agree with that, from their perspective, it looked like they were going to be attack). When that happens, their adrenalin begins to pump and it affects their entire body. The speed and number of shots could be attributed to this.

 

[KHarvey16]

Just because they have a high risk of killing, doesn't mean you have to use it to kill someone.

You cannot use a firearm unless you are justified in killing that person. What precisely is the issue with understanding that statement? It isn't complicated or confusing. Any time a weapon is fired by the police that officer has decided the best response is for that person to be killed. Not aiming for the part of the body that gives the best chance to safely achieve this goal is a violation of every weapons safety principle ever conceived. I don't care if you disagree with that, you are wrong.

If an officer aims for a leg or an arm while the suspects body is clearly exposed it means that the officer has decided that person does not need to immediately die. IF THAT IS THE CASE the use of a firearm IS NOT PERMITTED.

 

[ACH1LL3US]

There's a German shepherd in the video. Eager for his chance to bite that ass.

Yes the Dog was there BUT the guy would have done one swing with that bar and killed it and the cops would still have to shoot him.

I dont agree the amount of shots fired it seems excessive BUT this guy took a freakin taser to the face and was unaffected!! Matter of fact a couple of shots to the abs would not bring this guy down.

I dont know why he went there and was bashing stuff up but when the cops tells you to drop the weapon.... you drop it. You get whatever you deserve if you dont drop it....

 

[heliosRAzi]

I think you are severely underestimating properly trained personnel and from that range when shooting down they chances of hitting innocent bystanders is relatively low.

If innocent bystanders where that important the officers in question wouldn't bother unloading that much bullets on the suspect. Since for innocent bystanders the officers themselves posed a bigger threat then the suspect.

Not to mention the complete disregard of the suspects life, yes he's a person too.

I am not underestimating anyone. From that range, however, it would still be easier to hit center mass, especially when they feel that their life is on the line. Adrenalin affects the body in situations like that.

They did not disregard the suspect's life at all. They first used less-lethal force by utilizing the taser. When that didn't work, they didn't immediately fire upon the guy. They waited for him to make a move. Unfortunately, his move was to begin swinging at one of the officers with a weapon that can cause serious bodily injury.

 

[2San]

I am not underestimating anyone. From that range, however, it would still be easier to hit center mass, especially when they feel that their life is on the line. Adrenalin affects the body in situations like that.

They did not disregard the suspect's life at all. They first used less-lethal force by utilizing the taser. When that didn't work, they didn't immediately fire upon the guy. They waited for him to make a move. Unfortunately, his move was to begin swinging at one of the officers with a weapon that can cause serious bodily injury.

So first we where talking about innocent bystanders now it's about the officer safety. Ok moving along I guess.

So what did you expect the man to do lie down after getting tasered? Then stare in awe as he attacks and then shoots him dead with multiple bullets. The suspect was in a disadvantaged situation it was 1 vs 3. With 2 people fully armed and a canine. If you believe this was an ok way to handle the situation. I pity your low standards of law enforcement.

You cannot use a firearm unless you are justified in killing that person. What precisely is the issue with understanding that statement? It isn't complicated or confusing. Any time a weapon is fired by the police that officer has decided the best response is for that person to be killed. Not aiming for the part of the body that gives the best chance to safely achieve this goal is a violation of every weapons safety principle ever conceived. I don't care if you disagree with that, you are wrong.

I'm glad you don't get to dictate what's right or wrong. You know some people care about the suspect as well.

 

[ACH1LL3US]

So first we where talking about innocent bystanders now it's about the officer safety. Ok moving along I guess.

So what did you expect the man to do lie down after getting tasered? Then stare in awe as he attacks and then shoots him dead with multiple bullets. The suspect was in a disadvantaged situation it was 1 vs 3. With 2 people fully armed and a canine. If you believe this was an ok way to handle the situation. I pity your low standards of law enforcement.

First off, I agree the innocent bystanders was the FIRST thing that crossed my mind, if any of the 10 plus shots were missed it could hit all of those people standing around.

Second, I would expect ANYONE that has multiple cops pointing guns at you and tell you to drop the weapon to drop it.

HOW would you wanted this situation to be handled? Let the guy take a swing at the cop? One blow with that weapon to the head is game over for the cop.

Your living in a dream world if you think the outcome in this situation would end any differently. They tased him in the FACE and it didnt even effect him. Then to lounge towards the cop ... the dog had NO time to go after him at that point and besides the guy would have just killed the dog anyway and then they are still left with dealing with the guy.

 

[2San]

First off, I agree the innocent bystanders was the FIRST thing that crossed my mind, if any of the 10 plus shots were missed it could hit all of those people standing around.

Second, I would expect ANYONE that has multiple cops pointing guns at you and tell you to drop the weapon to drop it.

HOW would you wanted this situation to be handled? Let the guy take a swing at the cop? One blow with that weapon to the head is game over for the cop.

Your living in a dream world if you think the outcome in this situation would end any differently. They tased him in the FACE and it didnt even effect him. Then to lounge towards the cop ... the dog had NO time to go after him at that point and besides the guy would have just killed the dog anyway and then they are still left with dealing with the guy.

The one who tased him was way to close for one. After tasing him he took his eyes of the situation. After that the officers instead of shooting. They could have shot him in the legs.

Not to mention they where so close they could take him down. Somehow you think this guy is superman.

Someone was killed here out of self defense, but the negligence of the officers played a huge role in why the guy died.

 

[heliosRAzi]

So first we where talking about innocent bystanders now it's about the officer safety. Ok moving along I guess.

So what did you expect the man to do lie down after getting tasered? Then stare in awe as he attacks and then shoots him dead with multiple bullets. The suspect was in a disadvantaged situation it was 1 vs 3. With 2 people fully armed and a canine. If you believe this was an ok way to handle the situation. I pity your low standards of law enforcement.

I've talked about the safety of innocents and the safety of the officers. I'm getting the feeling that you aren't reading my posts again.

So what if it's 3-on-1. If that one has a weapon that can cause serious bodily injury and he was about to attack one of the three, he'd end up getting shot. The officers have a right to protect themselves. If you attack a cop (or anyone for that matter) with a weapon, prepared to be injured and/or killed.

 

[Jenga]

Care to tell me what's random internet bullshit?

ah shit

shit's gettin real now

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm glad you don't get to dictate what's right or wrong. You know some people care about the suspect as well.

I don't have to dictate it, every sane police force in the world follows it already. I don't buy your line about Dutch police procedure either, everything I can find says they have the right to defend themselves and the public with deadly force if the threat of death or grievous bodily injury exists.

 

[ACH1LL3US]

The one who tased him was way to close for one. After tasing him he took his eyes of the situation. After that the officers instead of shooting. They could have shot him in the legs.

Not to mention they where so close they could take him down. Somehow you think this guy is superman.

Someone was killed here out of self defense, but the negligence of the officers played a huge role in why the guy died.

I dont think you understand, they CANT shoot the legs, they are not allowed to use the gun unless it is determined that the suspect is a lethal threat. Cops are not supposed to shoot to disable, they are to shoot to kill.

Shooting the legs increases the odds of miss fire and potentially innocents getting shot.

Also taking him down, good point BUT as the cops move towards him and he swings the pipe and lands a hit on the head of the cop, it could kill the cop.

Way too many variables here, sadly and you fail to realize this, the outcome was the ONLY option.

You know who really is at fault that he got shot? He is. He should have dropped the weapon, period.

 

[heliosRAzi]

The one who tased him was way to close for one. After tasing him he took his eyes of the situation. After that the officers instead of shooting. They could have shot him in the legs.

Not to mention they where so close they could take him down. Somehow you think this guy is superman.

Someone was killed here out of self defense, but the negligence of the officers played a huge role in why the guy died.

No, it was self-defense as far as the first few shots are concerned. Like I said earlier, we don't know what's going on behind the car that causes the other officer to keep firing (it could even be the heat of the moment, he could've been seriously hurt).

There was no negligence on the officer's part. And they possibly could've taken him down, but that would've been before they used the taser, not after. If the guy can shrug off a taser, he's on some serious shit like meth or angel dust. Besides, the guy has a weapon. Getting too close could have resulted in serious injury to one of the officers and they don't have to get themselves hurt to make sure that their violent suspect is safe.

 

[2San]

I've talked about the safety of innocents and the safety of the officers. I'm getting the feeling that you aren't reading my posts again.

So what if it's 3-on-1. If that one has a weapon that can cause serious bodily injury and he was about to attack one of the three, he'd end up getting shot. The officers have a right to protect themselves. If you attack a cop (or anyone for that matter) with a weapon, prepared to be injured and/or killed.

Here's the point why I mention the 3 on 1. The officers have a lot of means to stop the situation, without having anyone to die. Is there more risk involved? Sure, but aren't they worth it. More risk doesn't instantly mean the officer dying btw. I'm just saying a human being is worth taking a bit more risk for.

Should you be prepared to be killed when you attack someone? Sure, but that doesn't mean that's what should happen.

I don't have to dictate it, every sane police force in the world follows it already. I don't buy your line about Dutch police procedure either, everything I can find says they have the right to defend themselves and the public with deadly force if the threat of death or grievous bodily injury exists.

No that's when they are allowed to shoot. Shooting however is never done with the intent to kill(by the police atleast).

 

[heliosRAzi]

Here's the point why I mention the 3 on 1. The officers have a lot of means to stop the situation, without having anyone to die. Is there more risk involved? Sure, but aren't they worth it. More risk doesn't instantly mean the officer dying btw. I'm just saying a human being is worth taking a bit more risk for.

Should you be prepared to be killed when you attack someone? Sure, but that doesn't mean that's what should happen.

From your posts, and I may be interpreting them wrong, but it seems like you keep forgetting that the cops did try other means to stop the suspect. It was only after they felt that their lives were in danger that they opened fire. Do you agree or not?

 

[Kinyou]

Have you ever taken a gun course? Ever?

It means, you ONLY use a gun when you're willing to kill what you shoot. If you take out, and use a gun with the intention to incapacitate ONLY...you are doing it fucking wrong. Period. Dot. The End.

If you take out your gun with the willingness to kill your target and end up only disabling them and they live...that's fine. But you can't make the argument that they should have ONLY used a gun to incapacitate.

I think what people mean is that you could reevaluate the situation after the first shots.

Suspect = Immediate threat > fire 5 shots meant to kill > Suspect stumbles away, is out of reach and (according to the article) drops the weapon = No threat but still standing.

 

[Azure Dream]

I hated this level in Sonic 3.

 

[2San]

From your posts, and I may be interpreting them wrong, but it seems like you keep forgetting that the cops did try other means to stop the suspect. It was only after they felt that their lives were in danger that they opened fire. Do you agree or not?

All I'm saying they didn't try enough. Do I agree that I think that one officers life was in danger. Yes I do, but that doesn't take away how they handled the situation was bad, even after the suspect took a swing.

 

[ACH1LL3US]

From your posts, and I may be interpreting them wrong, but it seems like you keep forgetting that the cops did try other means to stop the suspect. It was only after they felt that their lives were in danger that they opened fire. Do you agree or not?

I would like to hear his response on this too.

Why would cops try to bring down suspect by their hands when a freaking taser did nothing to him. He clearly was on something... and with him going towards the cop to hit him he clearly was suicidal.

Did he think after he knocked down the one cop he would be able to take down all of the other cops without being shot??