Poll: Was this police shooting justified in your opinion? (Graphic)

[ckam]

Like the JFK assassination, the car/sign was blocking the shot. Something important might have been missed because of that. Oh, well. The guy was still going to attack someone.

 

[Thyunda]

Rewatching the video...I see that he turns to the officer with the crowbar (It doesn't even look like a crowbar) ready to swing. At this point, there is still enough distance between him and the officer for the dog to be useful, given that both the guy's arms are in the dog's direction.

I agree with one thing, it doesn't look like a crowbar. It looks more like a long handle ball peen hammer from the video. I just don't think that the weapon should have to be an inch from the other officers face for him to justify opening fire.

If the officer hadn't already drawn his gun, he could have taken the hammer by the shaft when the vandal started his little sideways jaunt towards the first officer. Or, again, he could have let go of the dog. Why would you restrain a dog to shoot the suspect? That's the bit I can't understand. Putting physical effort into holding a dog back...I mean, the dog's clearly there to bring down a violent criminal. It's not a sniffer dog. It's an attack dog. So why bring it to the scene and then hold it back?

 

[Thyunda]

I'm sorry, but a Spec-ops soldier would have to have a pretty bad off-day for a drug-addled vandal with a crowbar to kill him.

I see that you've chosen to ignore the more salient point that Police are not SpecOps, and that even trained men can be caught off guard (like, say, the officer distracted with his tools).

When weapons are involved, shit can go wrong double quick. And when someone can shrug off a taser, that doesn't inspire much confidence in fisticuffs.

Finally, if someone comes at a cop with a crowbar and said cop has a gun; what happens to the perp is his fault for not only being violent, but stupid too.

Good. Shoot them for stupidity. That's the way to an enlightened culture.

I'm of course being sarcastic. How anybody can claim moral high ground while standing over a corpse is beyond me.

 

[RastaBadger]

The first shot was justified. The rest were not. 1 shot to the arm or leg would have been enough to incapacitate him and the rest were just unnecessary.

 

[Riki Darnell]

He had a deadly weapon, refused to disarm, the Police both tried diplomatic reasoning and a non-lethal takedown (I'm guessing that the taser either failed to penetrate his clothes, or he simply shrugged it off) to which the perp responded with an act of aggression towards that officer. The other officer, who had his gun drawn, defended the unarmed officer by shooting the perp.

Now, whilst I think that shooting someone 10 times is overkill the amount of bullets used IMO is largely irrelevant - The officer was justified in shooting the perp with the intention of removing the threat. When you're talking about guns that is an implicit intention to kill, You can't "Shoot to injure" someone for various reasons.

The Moral of the story is, besides not going on a violent rampage, when someone has a gun pointed at you, don't be so fucking cocky that you think they won't use it. Certainly don't threaten a cop with a pipe when there's a gun pointed at your chest.

I agree 100% about him being dumb and trying to swing at a cop. I had a friend who spit at a cop and he got pepper sprayed. He obviously wasn't in his right mind. I'm not sure if anyone else brought this up but if he was on PCP or some other type of drug he might not have been able to be taken down safely. I watched an episode of COPS where it took 4 officers just to take down a man who was on PCP and Vicodin. Or what if he WANTED them to shoot him? I think there is a term for that, but basically aided suicide.

 

[JonnWood]

Then the US police training is improper.

So it's "improper" to train cops to use deadly force to protect a fellow officer from a suspect using deadly force, in the absence of any other feasible options.

The funny thing is, even the London police disagree with you.
http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/NR/rdonlyres/75CFD4FE-5E4F-4A53-AEB4-A4E02DBAE6C5/0/Firearms.pdf

Firearms are to be issued to AFOs (following authorisation by the appropriate
authorising officer):
a) Where the authorising officer has reason to suppose that the AFOs, in the course
of their duty, may have to protect themselves or others from a person who:
i) Is in possession of a firearm, or
ii) has immediate access to a firearm, or
iii) is otherwise so dangerous that the officers use of a firearm may be necessary
+++
A police officer is deemed to have used the firearm when the weapon is:
b) fired at another person in self defence or in defence of another whether or not
injury or death results.

You are wrong.

Good day, sir.

 

[Thyunda]

If you think the best training can't defend you from a heavy melee weapon...then I don't think you know the meaning of training.

Bruce Lee once said he would prefer to use a gun in a fight if it were available. Yes, martial arts training could have helped the cop. But it would've put him at more risk than using a gun, which he was actively trying to do. I continue to assert that literally any other option would not have been able to intervene in time, and deadly force is an appropriate response to deadly force.

But dude, Bruce Lee wasn't a police officer in the UK with 'proper training'!

In other news, I don't think it's possible to get through to him, He's going to say training ad nauseum without giving any reason to think that different training would have helped the situation.

Well it would. Because pulling a gun on a guy with a crowbar is not how to handle the situation. If England can keep the streets safe without relying on firearms, then I don't see why America's so special.

Thanks for proving my point by not giving a reason to think that it would have helped the situation. Pointing at the UK doesn't show that their training would have been better or successful in said situation.

Also who said it was special? America and England aren't the same. That isn't being special. It's called having more criminals with firearms.

I'm not arguing that armed cops are bad - I'm saying that they were unnecessary for this particular situation. America has a lot of guns in circulation. Therefore officers need to be prepared at all times to deal with guns. This was not a gun. This exact situation could have occurred in the UK and it wouldn't have been unique - the only difference would be that nobody shot him.

I think you mean 'repeating ad nauseum without proof'.

In this particular situation guns were fine. You're naive if you think that all situations without guns can be easily dealt with without them.

Yes, the UK would have dealt with it perfectly! Just like that evidence says. Oh wait a minute, we still don't have evidence the UK would have dealt with it better. We have some guy that repeats things ad nauseum.

Yo're still proving my point btw.

So...why exactly don't they call in the armed police for crowbar incidents?

 

[JonnWood]

The first shot was justified. The rest were not. 1 shot to the arm or leg would have been enough to incapacitate him and the rest were just unnecessary.

Not if he was on drugs, as he apparently was. In fact, the first few didn't even take him down; you can see him behind the car. Arm and leg shots are likely to kill suspects, due to all the arteries and stuff. Barring certain extremely specific circumstances, a cop who shoots is shooting to kill.

 

[Thyunda]

Then the US police training is improper.

So it's "improper" to train cops to use deadly force to protect a fellow officer from a suspect using deadly force, in the absence of any other feasible options.

The funny thing is, even the London police disagree with you.
http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/NR/rdonlyres/75CFD4FE-5E4F-4A53-AEB4-A4E02DBAE6C5/0/Firearms.pdf

Firearms are to be issued to AFOs (following authorisation by the appropriate
authorising officer):
a) Where the authorising officer has reason to suppose that the AFOs, in the course
of their duty, may have to protect themselves or others from a person who:
i) Is in possession of a firearm, or
ii) has immediate access to a firearm, or
iii) is otherwise so dangerous that the officers use of a firearm may be necessary
+++
A police officer is deemed to have used the firearm when the weapon is:
b) fired at another person in self defence or in defence of another whether or not
injury or death results.

You are wrong.

Good day, sir.

Your highlighted sections prove nothing. Your first highlight relies on the assumption that the firearm was necessary, and your second...your second just tells you that the firearm has been used. Try reading your proof before you highlight your favourite bits.

 

[roostuf]

he did not need to die, and the officers could of released the dog.

The people recording are sick.

 

[Thyunda]

The first shot was justified. The rest were not. 1 shot to the arm or leg would have been enough to incapacitate him and the rest were just unnecessary.

Not if he was on drugs, as he apparently was. In fact, the first few didn't even take him down; you can see him behind the car. Arm and leg shots are likely to kill suspects, due to all the arteries and stuff. Barring certain extremely specific circumstances, a cop who shoots is shooting to kill.

I think this may be the one thing we agree on - the number of shots used. I don't see the difference, personally, between shooting a suspect once and shooting him ten times. Especially since the first five shots appeared to only annoy him.

 

[Thyunda]

Rewatching the video...I see that he turns to the officer with the crowbar (It doesn't even look like a crowbar) ready to swing. At this point, there is still enough distance between him and the officer for the dog to be useful, given that both the guy's arms are in the dog's direction.

It doesn't look like a crowbar because it's a conduit bender ,

What on Earth is a conduit bender?

EDIT: It looks like a type of freakin' warhammer

 

[JonnWood]

But, but but...they could have shot him enough to get him to drop the thingy, but not hurt him...like in the movies!

Or, they could try wrestling with the guy with the bit hitty thing and totally not get injured...like in the movies!

But the Cops didn't need to shoot and kill the person to stop him.

They could have easily dived away in slow motion whilst dual wielding their guns and firing at the gas tank of the car next to the assailant, causing a minor explosive fireball which would have knocked him off his feet but otherwise leaving him unharmed.

Then they would have cracked a joke about him being a "hot customer" whilst sharing stories about the fishing boat they're going to buy when they retire in 2 days time.

Basically, an innocent man was needlessly murdered because a couple of 'by-the-book' Cops haven't watch enough movies and don't have the balls to be wisecracking maverick loose cannons.

I hope their Angry Black Captain tears them a new one and sends them back to Police Academy (and Police Academy 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7).

ok that was my favorite post ever.

anyhoo... yeah. totally justified. the dude was gonna attack and possibly murder a cop. the cops responded in kind by murdering him first. i don't get the controversy.

Correction. The cops would've killed him, not murdered him. If the perp had a good lawyer and was high, he might be able to get Manslaughter.

 

[Thyunda]

It doesn't look like a crowbar because it's a conduit bender ,

What on Earth is a conduit bender?

If somneone hadn't pointed it out earlier in the thread this would've been my exact thought.

It's a tool used to bend pipes and, when swung, has about the same effect as an dull axe:

Easier to avoid than a crowbar, I suppose, except I don't think you'd survive a hit from that. But that's only if the head hits you...which is rarer than you'd expect.

 

[JonnWood]

he did not need to die,

He also did not need to break the restauraunt windows (which is why the cops were there, as clearly stated in the video description the OP left out), ignore the cops, ignore the pepper spray, and try to attack an officer.

and the officers could of released the dog.

Which would not have made it before he could swing. Bullets are faster than a dog.

The people recording are sick.

They thought the cop was using rubber bullets, at first.

 

[senordesol]

I'm sorry, but a Spec-ops soldier would have to have a pretty bad off-day for a drug-addled vandal with a crowbar to kill him.

I see that you've chosen to ignore the more salient point that Police are not SpecOps, and that even trained men can be caught off guard (like, say, the officer distracted with his tools).

When weapons are involved, shit can go wrong double quick. And when someone can shrug off a taser, that doesn't inspire much confidence in fisticuffs.

Finally, if someone comes at a cop with a crowbar and said cop has a gun; what happens to the perp is his fault for not only being violent, but stupid too.

Good. Shoot them for stupidity. That's the way to an enlightened culture.

I'm of course being sarcastic. How anybody can claim moral high ground while standing over a corpse is beyond me.

He was shot for attacking a police officer, he just happened to be stupid about his choice of weapon. How can I claim the moral high ground? I wasn't the one smashing windows and threatening police with a deadly weapon that's how.

The man could have ended this peaceably and WITHOUT INJURY any time he wanted (up until the point he was shot, of course).

I remember when I was one mistake away from going home in a body bag courtesy of the Martinez PD.

My friends and I were having ourselves a good old time shooting each other with Airsoft rifles. We were playing on public land, but could be seen from homes (not that we were doing anything wrong). These pellet weapons were modeled to look damn near authentic (and a few of my friends had painted the tips black).

Suddenly, we saw a squad of police officers armed with shotguns approach. How did we ever survive such an encounter? We DROPPED OUR WEAPONS AND PUT OUR HANDS UP. We allowed the police to feel safe and secure, calmly answered their questions, allowed them to inspect our weapons; and then they let us continue playing.

Shocking that even 13-15 year old kids were able to grasp that when the shotguns are out, you don't fuck around.