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

[JonnWood]

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.

That wasn't panicked fire. That was exactly what you are supposed to do in that situation; neutralize the threat to cops or the public, even if it means killing the suspect. Given that he shrugged off the taser and was still standing after the first few shots, he was likely on drugs, meaning that he could easily get up and fight back unless they were sure he was down.

 

[Thyunda]

-snip-

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

You're wrong about the dog - and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs? Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards. Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified. But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

 

[Shock and Awe]

This is one of those cases where the shooting itself was justified. When the assailant is obviously about to use deadly force against an officer he is liable to be killed on the spot. Could it have been handled better? Maybe, but hindsight is always clearer than the moment.

To those of you saying that they shouldn't have continued shooting, I just gotta ask, who here has killed a man? I doubt anyone has, and the officer probably hadn't either. When that adrenaline is flowing you tend to keep going. And go for the leg shot? Sorry but this isn't a movie, when you shoot someone you shoot center mass, every officer is trained to do exactly that.

 

[JonnWood]

-snip-

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

Slight errors like saying a dog can move better than a meter a second from a dead stop, or saying UK police, or even the gun units, never kill people, or cutting out most of my posts? Slight errors which I don't think you've ever admitted to making, and are not even doing so now? I've already presented a lot of evidence for my claims.

You're wrong about the dog

Again, unsupported assertion.

- and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs?

Usually on fleeing suspects. You're doing that straw man thing again. My argument is that it would be physically impossible for the dog to intervene in time to hinder the suspect. Not inappropriate. Not inappropriate in all situations. Physically impossible, in this particular situation.

Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards.

As I already pointed out, someone moving backwards moves slower than someone moving forwards. In addition to that, the tool extends his range by several feet. In order to grapple with him, the officer needs to actually get within the perp's range. Without a weapon of his own out, the nearer cop is at a significant disadvantage against someone, possibly on drugs, who is attempting to use the tool with deadly force. Or do you think that it only becomes "deadly force" when the person with the weapon reaches effective range?

Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified.

Why? He could've gotten in range at any second.

But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

They tried that, then the suspect tried to bring lethal force into the equation. They are under no obligation to use less-lethal force on someone using lethal force. You've been trying to conflate "could" with "should" this entire argument, and claim that he wasn't really going to attack based on watching a Youtube video, a belief which was not apparent to the two trained officers on the scene, in person, a few feet away.

In fact, I don't think you've ever actually acknowledged that even if the suspect was "merely" attempting to intimidate the cops, he did such a good job that they thought he was actually trying to attack them. You've made the claim, but not followed through.

I looked it up [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill?ref=dictionary&word=intimidate#]. "To compel or deter by or as if by threats". So even by your own argument, he was threatening the police officer. Unless he was trying to scare the cop without actually trying to be threatening, which would be difficult in the absence of a closet to jump out of and yell "boo!"

 

[Conza]

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.

That wasn't panicked fire. That was exactly what you are supposed to do in that situation; neutralize the threat to cops or the public, even if it means killing the suspect. Given that he shrugged off the taser and was still standing after the first few shots, he was likely on drugs, meaning that he could easily get up and fight back unless they were sure he was down.

Listen, I'm all for arming law enforcement, we do so in my country, and I think its a policy that should continue for instances where appropriate.

This was not one of those instances.

I'll rewatch it, but from the terrible water covered window video I saw, a man walked out of a fast food restaurant, several cops (3 I could see) walked backward slightly, no taser was used, the man with the hammer didn't approach any person, and was then subjected to an excessive amount of force in the form of a pistol firearm.

I say again, for instances where a suspect is imminently likely to harm another person or other people, the use of force is highly necessary, this did not appear to be warranted. If he had simply raised the hammer above his head, I'd be all for the shooting (not that many times, but enough to ground him certainly) - that did not happen.

EDIT: Ok, on a larger screen, its evident that the hammer was raised, this was an appropriate use of force.

 

[JonnWood]

-snip-

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

You're wrong about the dog - and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs? Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards. Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified. But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

You have no idea what people can do on PCP.
The dog wouldn't have stopped shit, would have probably ended up dead, and the officers injured. And that's the best out come.

I don't get why you are arguing for the violent addict? He went to attack an officer, he got shot. We all know that will be the outcome so why cry when it happens?

I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him. He has denied any responsibility on the part of the victim for his actions, even so far as arguing the police "created the situation" where they would have to shoot by getting close enough.

 

[snake4769]

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.

Holy shit, i would LOVE, no NO, i would PAY to see how you would act in a situation like that. You being the one with the gun. I wonder if you would feel guilty after being the main reason your partner who now suffers from brain damage and lives in a nursing home.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

That wasn't panicked fire. That was exactly what you are supposed to do in that situation; neutralize the threat to cops or the public, even if it means killing the suspect. Given that he shrugged off the taser and was still standing after the first few shots, he was likely on drugs, meaning that he could easily get up and fight back unless they were sure he was down.

Listen, I'm all for arming law enforcement, we do so in my country, and I think its a policy that should continue for instances where appropriate.

This was not one of those instances.

I'll rewatch it, but from the terrible water covered window video I saw, a man walked out of a fast food restaurant, several cops (3 I could see) walked backward slightly, no taser was used, the man with the hammer didn't approach any person, and was then subjected to an excessive amount of force in the form of a pistol firearm.

I am not sure what video you saw.

The man with the tool, incidentally, had been vandalizing the restauraunt. He was ignoring armed police commands to stop, as you can see. The nearer cop holsters his weapon then draws what is a taser or pepper spray. The suspect ignores it, possibly due to drugs, and as the officer attempts to holster whatever he just used, the suspect turns and raises his weapon, heedless of the second cop nearby covering his partner. As the nearer officer attempts to back away and draw his pistol, the suspect advances on him. The K9 cop opens fire, pauses when the suspect is staggered but not down or neutralized, and continues to fire.

I say again, for instances where a suspect is imminently likely to harm another person or other people, the use of force is highly necessary, this did not appear to be warranted. If he had simply raised the hammer above his head, I'd be all for the shooting (not that many times, but enough to ground him certainly) - that did not happen.

He did raise his tool in the beginnings of a strike, and police shoot until the threat is neutralized.

 

[Conza]

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.

That wasn't panicked fire. That was exactly what you are supposed to do in that situation; neutralize the threat to cops or the public, even if it means killing the suspect. Given that he shrugged off the taser and was still standing after the first few shots, he was likely on drugs, meaning that he could easily get up and fight back unless they were sure he was down.

Listen, I'm all for arming law enforcement, we do so in my country, and I think its a policy that should continue for instances where appropriate.

This was not one of those instances.

I'll rewatch it, but from the terrible water covered window video I saw, a man walked out of a fast food restaurant, several cops (3 I could see) walked backward slightly, no taser was used, the man with the hammer didn't approach any person, and was then subjected to an excessive amount of force in the form of a pistol firearm.

I am not sure what video you saw.

The man with the tool, incidentally, had been vandalizing the restauraunt. He was ignoring armed police commands to stop, as you can see. The nearer cop holsters his weapon then draws what is a taser or pepper spray. The suspect ignores it, possibly due to drugs, and as the officer attempts to holster whatever he just used, the suspect turns and raises his weapon, heedless of the second cop nearby covering his partner. As the nearer officer attempts to back away and draw his pistol, the suspect advances on him. The K9 cop opens fire, pauses when the suspect is staggered but not down or neutralized, and continues to fire.

I say again, for instances where a suspect is imminently likely to harm another person or other people, the use of force is highly necessary, this did not appear to be warranted. If he had simply raised the hammer above his head, I'd be all for the shooting (not that many times, but enough to ground him certainly) - that did not happen.

He did raise his tool in the beginnings of a strike, and police shoot until the threat is neutralized.

Yes, I edited my post, so I haven't bothered to read your rebuttle, as the point is moot now considering the larger image (on the Youtube site, not watching it here on the forum) reveals a completely different circumstance to the one I 'thought' I saw.

Objection withdrawn, satisfied?

 

[JonnWood]

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.

That wasn't panicked fire. That was exactly what you are supposed to do in that situation; neutralize the threat to cops or the public, even if it means killing the suspect. Given that he shrugged off the taser and was still standing after the first few shots, he was likely on drugs, meaning that he could easily get up and fight back unless they were sure he was down.

Listen, I'm all for arming law enforcement, we do so in my country, and I think its a policy that should continue for instances where appropriate.

This was not one of those instances.

I'll rewatch it, but from the terrible water covered window video I saw, a man walked out of a fast food restaurant, several cops (3 I could see) walked backward slightly, no taser was used, the man with the hammer didn't approach any person, and was then subjected to an excessive amount of force in the form of a pistol firearm.

I am not sure what video you saw.

The man with the tool, incidentally, had been vandalizing the restauraunt. He was ignoring armed police commands to stop, as you can see. The nearer cop holsters his weapon then draws what is a taser or pepper spray. The suspect ignores it, possibly due to drugs, and as the officer attempts to holster whatever he just used, the suspect turns and raises his weapon, heedless of the second cop nearby covering his partner. As the nearer officer attempts to back away and draw his pistol, the suspect advances on him. The K9 cop opens fire, pauses when the suspect is staggered but not down or neutralized, and continues to fire.

I say again, for instances where a suspect is imminently likely to harm another person or other people, the use of force is highly necessary, this did not appear to be warranted. If he had simply raised the hammer above his head, I'd be all for the shooting (not that many times, but enough to ground him certainly) - that did not happen.

He did raise his tool in the beginnings of a strike, and police shoot until the threat is neutralized.

Yes, I edited my post, so I haven't bothered to read your rebuttle, as the point is moot now considering the larger image (on the Youtube site, not watching it here on the forum) reveals a completely different circumstance to the one I 'thought' I saw.

Objection withdrawn, satisfied?

Yes. Now if only you could teach Thy how to admit they are wrong about something. Anything. I've caught him saying something that was flat-out incorrect, and their response was to switch to another claim that was also flat-out incorrect.

 

[JonnWood]

-snip-

Sometimes I wonder if you're actually capable of holding your own in an argument, or if you just look for slight errors on your opponent's part to try and validate your own points.

You're wrong about the dog - and if they're considered fellow officers too and kept out of harm's way, then when exactly do they use the dogs? Yes it's risky, but it's still a dog situation. There was no bloody way the thug could have hit the policeman without lunging forward. He wasn't within range and the cop was moving backwards at the same speed he was moving forwards. Had he broken his sideways hop and lunged, the gun would have been justified. But he didn't, and the dog was in a perfect position to hold onto his wrist and prevent him from swinging long enough for the two cops to do what they're trained to do and neutralise the suspect non-lethally.

You have no idea what people can do on PCP.
The dog wouldn't have stopped shit, would have probably ended up dead, and the officers injured. And that's the best out come.

I don't get why you are arguing for the violent addict? He went to attack an officer, he got shot. We all know that will be the outcome so why cry when it happens?

I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him. He has denied any responsibility on the part of the victim for his actions, even so far as arguing the police "created the situation" where they would have to shoot by getting close enough.

What the hell?

"I told you, he's not saying it's wrong the guy got shot, he's saying the police were wrong for shooting him."

That makes no sense. Are you saying it would be better if a local with his .45 came out and shot him instead?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying Thyunda is biased against US police--and to a certain extent the US in general--so in his mind, this was 100% The cops Fault, and 0% Anyone Else's Fault, and the shooting wasn't justified, even when the only other measures available have been shown to be physically impossible. Note how they're arguing the dog could've intervened in time, and how they keep equating something the cops "could" do (even if they couldn't) to things they "should" do. Note how none of their posts give any responsibility to the perp; even when they claim he was just attempting to "intimidate" the police, it's implied to be the cops' fault for falling for it.

Personally, I think it was justified.

 

[JonnWood]

Ah now I get what you mean.
Yeah does sound like liberal nonsense. Frankly anyone who thinks this was not justified simply does not have the means to defend themselves. I think what we should take away is that we must live in a pretty good world where people can get away with such dangerous attitudes.

now now. Someone doesn't have to be particularly liberal to be a biased idiot.

 

[Eight88]

Thyunda, I believe I gave some local reasons as to why the dog was not used. I go to the college right behind the Carl's Jr. in the video.

I admit it is mostly second hand and even third hand knowledge with what I think is what is the policy.

In California the dog is not used to subdue suspects like people are trying suggest. I'm pretty sure even if a guy did get attacked by a police dog justifiably, the city would be sued either by the guy or maybe a animal rights group.

Dogs are for bombs, drugs, tracking, but I don't think the police are allowed to use them for subduing people. As for why the officer brought the dog out, well, the K9 units get their own patrol cars. One officer and a dog. I see them a lot, so I don't think they are allowed to leave the dog unattended in the car du to a verity of reasons.

In the summer during lunch, I once saw a cop and his dog out of the car eating lunch inside a Mexican place. It was like 106F that day.

Okay, I really am curious, did anyone even read my last two posts? I mean I am still pretty sure I am the only person that is within five minute walking distance from the shooting site.

Is anyone else from the area? Monterey Park or neighboring areas?

Also, just a thought, the 70s through the 90s policing might as well be from the 19th century given the immense social and political changes that have past in regard to policing. In California there was the CRASH Rampart, and King scandals in the 90s which brought lots of policy changes. That and bringing up police policy from Ireland from over a decade(soon to be 2 decades) and trying to say it is comparable to 2012 California is pretty weak and out of context.

 

[JonnWood]

This is one of those cases where the shooting itself was justified. When the assailant is obviously about to use deadly force against an officer he is liable to be killed on the spot. Could it have been handled better? Maybe, but hindsight is always clearer than the moment.

To those of you saying that they shouldn't have continued shooting, I just gotta ask, who here has killed a man? I doubt anyone has, and the officer probably hadn't either. When that adrenaline is flowing you tend to keep going. And go for the leg shot? Sorry but this isn't a movie, when you shoot someone you shoot center mass, every officer is trained to do exactly that.

I'm pretty sure the only thing the cop could've done differently was step out of range before holstering his taser, or keeping his gun in his other hand, which would've made it difficult to holster the taser, since the holster was apparently on the right of his belt and he was wielding the taser with his left. The second the perp realized the nearer cop was basically unarmed, he chose to attack, even with a gun pointed right at him.

 

[Eight88]

Cops around here carry their Tasers in a bunch of different ways, but the always carry them away from their sidearms so they don't accidently go for the wrong weapon.

Campus police prefer it on their belts, but patrol officers I see carry them in different ways. It does seem cumbersome though in person, and one campus officer(who are armed with Berettas and have shotguns available) say it is just so no one goes for a Taser and instead shoots someone with a firearm.

One officer I asked when I was younger, carried it on his left thigh, he said it was so he would be sure that if he went for it, it would be a Taser.