Hmm, I actually know where this took place. I have been inside that Carl's Jr. and I eat regularly at Tommy's Restaurant that is mentioned in the news article linked in earlier in the thread. I even go to the college that is behind the Carl's Jr., East Los Angeles College. In fact, I am sitting just down the street, I think it is around four hundred yards away.
Okay, I have read through 11 pages of this, just so I don't miss anything. This is my first post, so please don't tear into me too much.
Right, this shooting looks justified. Armed Suspect is refusing to obey commands, has resisted non-lethal options without visible distress, has shown he is willing to use his weapon, and is preparing to swing at a officer. The vitriol I seen being thrown around seems a bit strange to me, but I will try not to let it bother me too much, we each have our right to say and think whatever we want.
However, as the only person that seems to be in the area where this act took place, I hope I can help the discussion a little in terms of what the police around here are like and some things about what I think I know about use of force in California and why the dog was not used.
Right, most of the police I see in the area, both on campus and on the street, carry non-lethal options. The most common I have seen is pepper spray and baton, but there are a bunch of officers that carry Tasers in thigh holsters. I can't really say if it is standard or not, but if I see two officers at IHOP, at least one of them is carrying a Taser. Also the most common sidearm appears to be Beretta on campus, while on the street I see carry whatever it is there preference it seems. I saw at IHOP once that some carried Glocks while others carried Berettas. Although, I admit there were some California High Patrol guys there too, so I might be getting it wrong on what Monterey Park police carry. So mostly 9MM and .40 I think, I say a plainclothed officer carry what might have been a 1911 variant in .45ACP, but I can't be sure.
As for the police, they are well trained in my opinion. There was a pair of bank robbery a few years ago right on that street. One was just down the block, you just need to cross the parking lot entrances and the other was just one cross walk down. I am right now between the two banks in question. One was a bomb threat and there was a quick and safe deployment of force. We were told to evacuate the area politely after watching them set up for a while, and that was that. Bomb threat was fake, just FYI, and the suspect was arrested without problems. The other, I was walking back from a noodle place and this plainclothed officer jumped out of his unmarked sedan and got out a AR15 and ballistic vest from the trunk and he stacked up at the corner or the bank. He told me to clear out when I stood by and gawked, I don't remember his exact words, but I do believe he was annoyed by my presence, like I did not have to good sense to run away immediately. I got out of there as the cruisers came along. Don't know what happened then. There was no unbecoming conduct in my opinion when they operated when I was witnessing stuff.
As for use of force, well, I think the 10 shots were well within the reasonable standards of what happened. Now I admit, my training in this matter is only whatever classes in firearms use I could get, but my instructors included a LAPD Patrol Sergeant and he taught me a bunch of things over a few 6 hour classes. I was told shoot until they stop, period,no ifs, ands, or buts. If I was ever in a situation where I had to use a firearm and I was sure I was in danger, shoot until there is no longer a threat; then check my surroundings, contact the police somehow, and keep the gun pointed at the downed body until police arrived. Once the police arrived, I was to then follow all instructions and then ask to contact a lawyer.
The Patrol Sergeant said that if I was able to keep a clear head, that I should shoot twice in the chest and then twice at the head. However he said a more realistic situation would be to shoot center mass only and then run if the person attacking me does not drop to the ground. So, I think the 10 shots here are appropriate given that I was told to do the same thing in a life threatening situation.
As for all this talk about it being too much, well, we never did get to see what prompted the additional 5 shots. What to us may look harmless might have appeared to be a serious danger to the officers. I once asked my instructors what if a person I had shot was attempting to get up. They told me to shoot them if I thought they were trying to get to a weapon or were still holding a weapon, but to be safe, they told me to distance myself from them and wait for police. If I believed I was being threatened again, I was to shoot. That is the crux of the use of force rules, if you reasonable believe a life is in imminent danger, then you may act to protect that life or your own. Like that police officer that shot that guy stomping a baby in that field, he was out of harms way, but he acted to protect a life that he believed to be in danger. If it turned out that baby was just a doll, that police officer would probably have not been punished because he reasonably believed a life was in danger.
I then asked if a situation if I ever needed to shoot a man on the ground was even possible, and my instructor said that something like that would always be a possibility. Now that I think about it, the "it was too much" thing is a universal complaint and officers outside the US do stuff like that too, so we should not be too hung up about it. We were not there, we do not see what they see, we are not in danger, our hearts beating at a mile a second. If it turns out excessive force was used, then it will be handled by the system. I remember a Chinese Police Officer in the PRC took out a hostage taker and shot him in the head and to the ground. Let me go check.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIlT5y6baps
In this video, a female police officer shot a man on the ground three additional times after shooting him in the face. Then afterward, I believe that people on Chinese micro blogging sites and stuff said she used excessive force with the last three shots. We never get a good look as to what happens, but there are untold reasons why she thought three more shots were needed. Ranging from training to the hostage taker was appearing to prepare to do harm to the hostage. Same principle here, maybe the guy was looking like he was reaching for a concealed weapon or preparing to get back up. When you shoot a threat, you keep shooting until it is no longer a threat. That is the basic principle of using a firearm. Stop the danger.
As for why the dog was not used, well, I think that has to do with a lot of issues in California. Ranging from civil rights to animal rights and then to force escalation. Because of numerous instances of past police misconduct and political reasoning, I think dogs are no longer used to subdue suspects in the manner in which is suggested in this thread. At least not here in California. I am pretty sure that the situation in the video precluded the use of batons and the dog...I'm pretty sure I have seen that dog in person before. It escalated too quickly when the suspect raised his weapon in a threatening manner and appeared to be threatening a officer's life. Crowing that there out numbered the suspect will not change that we do not fully comprehend the situation nor do we see it the same as the officers. However on the issue of whether or not they acted justifiably, it is my believe that yes, they acted justifiably. That is the point of the word, it is not "did they shoot in a good way", or a evil way, or in the "correct" way; it is if they shot in a justifiably way. Can you justify something by pointing out reasons that make the course of action acceptable.
And I totally believe it was justifiable. The man cocked the weapon back in a threatening way and moved towards a officer in a manner that can be interpreted as being dangerous. I was recently on a jury, and the judge said that we needed to interpret and infer things from actions. Like he used a example from me. When asked if I ever had a family member threatened(the entire jury pool was asked that) or was threatened myself, I told them a story of how my mother was threatened by a business partner. That the partner put a gun on the table when my mother and him were arguing harshly about the business. The judge said that we could then infer that the gun was used as a threat, that we needed to be able to make that connection given what was happening. A man was arguing with someone and put a gun on the table, you could take that as a threat to that other person's life. Same thing here more or less. A man was acting in a dangerous manner, was not responding to the commands of armed police with a police dog, and then decides to move in a way that could be taken as a threat. You take that into consideration with the officer's previous use of verbal commands and a non-lethal option, you show that the police used deadly force in the manner of which deadly force is reserved. When there was imminent danger to life.
So there, my two cents...pretty weighty first post I think. So what do you all think? I am guessing a bunch of people are going to yell at me and tell me I am wrong and stuff... *
