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

[senordesol]

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.

Did you read anything I wrote? You probably just didn't comprehend it. In that situation, the police officer had very few feasible options but to shoot the man. My problem is how they handled the entire situation up until that moment (and the amount of shots fired, which by the way is excessive due to the second volley). Almost everything about it is poor police work. I showed the footage to my dad, who is now retired from the police. He worked in Northern Ireland in the late 70's to 90's, if you don't know what that means, look it up. He was shocked at how they managed to turn a relatively minor incident in to a shooting. Why were they so close? Both of the officers were within range to an obviously unpredictable person when they had no need to be, they showed no patience.


The fact that you even think that simple cause and effect is enough to draw a conclusion from this situation makes me believe I no longer need to continue this discussion. Good night.

Interesting. We both agree with each other, yet we seem to hate that we do.

We both agree that when the situation deteriorated, the right course was to open fire.

We both agree that sloppiness on behalf of the police precipitated the situation.

Where we seem to disagree is whether this is at all shocking. Perhaps this is a cultural difference. Perhaps our police could learn a thing or two from other departments around the world.

I approach any interaction with American police thusly: you are one mistake away from having a very bad day. They may not be out to hurt you, but they are often more scared of you than you are of them. Many an officer has met his death on a lonely roadside because he assumed it would be a 'routine' traffic stop. Perhaps it is that perspective that allows me to recognize that whatever outcome you have with American police will be more of your doing than their doing.

They are less interested in keeping you alive as they are going home. Seen through that filter, and the vast majority of officer involved shootings are utterly predictable and unsurprising.

 

[Enslave_All_Elves]

So if he lands a good hit on the officer a few feet away and crushes his skull it would be some poor man with a crowbar still?

Screw him. Tool vs. Gun. You lose. Give up easy. He didn't.

And spare me the hand wringing about a human being hurt. This was an aggressive situation. That dude did this to an armed cop? How, pray tell, do you think he was towards everyone else? Just what did he have that inside a fast food place for? Take a guess. I'm not saying killing is shrug worthy. I'm not saying it isn't hard. I'm not saying his family won't miss him. It is what it is, people fight. People die. Blood guts and screaming. If I were god I'd make him bleed cotton candy.

Shoot for the leg? Clearly someone who thinks movies = truth. Sure I hit his leg. Maybe an artery. Maybe he dies waiting for the ambulance. Maybe he's on PCP and he didn't even feel it, he's walking on his ruined leg swinging a crowbar. Maybe the bullet misses and hits one of those people by the parked cars. Gee that's swell. Maybe, probably, the officer is shaking a bit from the adrenaline, not really in the best shooting stance.

They tried to taze him and it didn't work.

 

[TheTim]

You must know nothing of the very first rule of firing a weapon. You AlWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS shoot to kill, there's no such thing as shooting to intentionally wound. Other than that, the man tried to attack a police officer with a potentially deadly object, the shooting was justified.

EDIT: and to anyone that thinks the cops fired too many rounds into the man, do you know how easy it is to pull the trigger 6 times like that when you or a buddy's life is in danger? Unbelievably easy.

 

[TheTim]

That man, how ever stupid he may have been was a human being, a life, a person with emotions, thought, speech, and in one instant one person with a gun emptied his clip killing him... Yes he may have had a weapon but ummm, does it really look that deadly with at least 5 cops, pepperspray, and a dog, no. Life isn't some cheap trivial thing. I don't know about any one else but in my opinion if you die you are dead no heaven no hell no reincarnation or new life. He is dead forever, I don't think that police should have authorisation to use lethal force unless their lives are in immediate danger.

You know who else is a human being? that police officer that could very well have been brained by the beast of a man that just got tazed in the face. If he could still be standing after a taze, don't you think he could easily have enough power to kill a man with one swing to the head?

 

[FernandoV]

It's probably unjustified, a crowbar is a short tange weapon, while a taser is a medium-short. They should have had their guns at the ready in case he tried to pull something out, while another officer made to stun him.

That being said, the police will probably not have to answer for this, internal investigations almost always conclude the officers made the correct decision. A lot is given to the standard defense that the officers felt afraid for their lives.

For reference, in at Vancouver airport, RCMP officers approached an irate stranded man. The man had previously thrown a chair at the floor in frustration, he had been stranded for like 8 hours and nobody spoke his language. When the officers approached him, he turned to walk away. Without warning they tasered him, and again, and again, then they asphyxiated him by putting their full weight on him(to suppress him some more). They handcuffed him, and they refused him medical attention. He died, and they all walked free because it was deemed they acted appropriately.

Tasers aren't standard issue for officers, guns are.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

Not in the rain. Given that it was aimed at the face, it was probably pepper spray.

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?

No, but I do know there are situations where there might actually be a benefit to a sideways weapon. Even if it was not, so what? The cop held his gun funny. Not really relevant. They tried verbal commands, then a taser/pepper spray, (per procedure) then the suspect decided to escalate the situation to the level of deadly force. At which point, police are allowed to use, guess what? Deadly force.

He is shocked at the raised weapon and acts accordingly.

Except that the weapon was raised before the pepper spray was used, or even drawn. The nearer cop puts away his gun to use the pepper spray, while the K9 officer continues to cover his partner. When the nearer officer, distracted for about a second putting the spray back into his belt, realizes the suspect is attempting to attack him, he attempts to get out of range and draw his pistol. In other words, both men have their guard up. That's standard procedure, a precaution against exactly this sort of thing happening.

The actions of the police officers led to the situation were the discharge of a firearm was inevitable.

Are you saying they forced the guy to attack them? The shooting was not inevitable until the perp decided to try and take a swing at the cops.

Any good police officer

Poisoning the well.

will not let that happen, especially on such a minor incident.

I love how you're completely denying any responsibility on the perp's part for ignoring the police, then actively trying to smash one's head in while he was occupied, which turned it from "a minor incident" to "attempted assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer".

 

[JonnWood]

So if he lands a good hit on the officer a few feet away and crushes his skull it would be some poor man with a crowbar still?

Screw him. Tool vs. Gun. You lose. Give up easy. He didn't.

And spare me the hand wringing about a human being hurt.
...

For some reason, the people making these complaints rarely seem to consider the officer or officers under threat "humans". In fact, they often try to make events entirely the police's fault. Several of the comments on this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y], for example, argue that the crowd had the legal right to threaten and obstruct the officers. While do have the right to resist an unlawful action by police, threatening them is right out.

 

[JonnWood]

Did you read anything I wrote? You probably just didn't comprehend it. In that situation, the police officer had very few feasible options but to shoot the man. My problem is how they handled the entire situation up until that moment (and the amount of shots fired, which by the way is excessive due to the second volley).

Wrong. Once you fire at someone, you have employed Deadly Force, and you keep doing so as long as the target is still a threat. This is Firearms 101. The suspect was still standing, so the officer continued to fire until he went down. If the suspect was no longer a threat, whether from being incapacitated or dying, then the second volley would be excessive. But people have ignored gunfire before to strike at their attacker, especially if they were on drugs or mentally unstable. The police were there in the first place, BTW, because the suspect was smashing up the restaurant.

Almost everything about it is poor police work. I showed the footage to my dad, who is now retired from the police. He worked in Northern Ireland in the late 70's to 90's, if you don't know what that means, look it up. He was shocked at how they managed to turn a relatively minor incident in to a shooting. Why were they so close? Both of the officers were within range to an obviously unpredictable person when they had no need to be, they showed no patience.

Which means that he's judging from Irish cultural standards from over ten years ago. UK police generally don't even have guns in the first place.

The fact that you even think that simple cause and effect is enough to draw a conclusion from this situation makes me believe I no longer need to continue this discussion. Good night.

You've been doing precisely that when you blamed the cops for this situation, while actively ignoring the suspect's responsibility, as you do even in this post. Yet when someone else does it and disagrees with you, it's wrong.

Hm.

 

[JonnWood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JonnWood]

he shot 5 bullets in the space of about 2 seconds. People don't automatically get thrown to the floor after being shot. One/two bullets (if you are going to be safe and make sure he isn't going to attack his partner) would hinder him enough that they could overpower him. You and Mortai Gravesend are calling it unrealistic but it's exactly the opposite..

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

And like an above poster said, it wasn't justified anyway seeming as they put themselves in the situation where they HAD to shoot him.

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

 

[JonnWood]

He edged towards him almost cautiously, like he was preparing for the officer to react to the advance.

You are joking right? Re-watch it; the PCP crackhead was obviously getting ready to swing into the officer. To use such incorrect language is just insulting to the viewers of the video.

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

 

[JonnWood]

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

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

 

[Thyunda]

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

Well you were wrong.

 

[Khada]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[secretsantaone]

The practical alternative is not emptying the gun.
I already made it abundantly clear that shooting was justified.
Shooting the second volley shows a disturbing lack of regard for the suspect's life.

Again, I disagree with your premise.
"You can't shoot to incapacitate?"
Really? You think I can bludgeon you to death with five hollow points inside me?
It's hard to bludgeon someone to death when you're filled with lead.
Hell, it's hard to bludgeon someone to death after you've been kicked really hard in the gut.
You think bullets won't do the job?

Your entire argument revolves around "well he wasn't on the ground dead so you have to keep firing!"
I disagree with that idea completely. Again, it's hard to bludgeon someone to death when you've been shot five times.
I don't really see what's so difficult to understand about that.

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

Really?

I mean... really?

Yeah, really. I don't know where you're from, but in the civilized world, police officers aren't death squads.
They aren't given guns so they can perform summary executions.
They have them so the perpetrator doesn't kill people.
It's intended to protect the public.
If the perpetrator does die as a result of it, that's a price they are willing to pay.
Death of the suspect, however, isn't the goal. Preventing the loss of innocent life is.

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

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

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

 

[secretsantaone]

[

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JonnWood]

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

Well you were wrong.

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

At which point they'd probably shoot him.

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

 

[JonnWood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bouncers are shot and stabbed, on occasion.

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

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

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

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

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

Aren't we passive-aggressive.

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

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

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

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

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

Why not rubber bullets?

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

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

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

 

[Conza]

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

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



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

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

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