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

[senordesol]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[senordesol]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kazeryu]

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

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

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

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

 

[secretsantaone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

I mean... really?

 

[Thyunda]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Thyunda]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[senordesol]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[senordesol]

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[senordesol]

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

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

 

[senordesol]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Eight88]

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

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

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

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

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