PDA

View Full Version : Video#2: Multiple COM hit from several LEO's guns and walking on...


Para Bellum
January 4, 2007, 03:53 PM
Here is one more striking video for the believers in any such thing as stopping power:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKmQFu8xiTM

It is also very interesting for it's different perspectives from different camea angles.

BUT: Most important for this forum. That guy is being hit a dozen times by several LEO's guns from 10ft COM and keeps on walking and walking and turing with his gun. If I see it right, what finally dropped him was a shot to the spine from the left officer's gun from 2ft distance.

Just forget the idea of stopping power.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 4, 2007, 04:43 PM
It said in the video that the guy fired a shot but I've seen that tape before and it was a cell phone or a remote control. Just for info sake - not a criticism.

One might note that the guy hardly moves when hit until he drops.

OBIWAN
January 4, 2007, 04:56 PM
"Just forget the idea of stopping power"

AMEN!

Kentucky Deer Hunter
January 4, 2007, 04:59 PM
Yeah, I have seen that video before on Most Shocking I think. They said that all he had was a cell phone or remote. But that is crazy, especially the restraint of the first officer to fire when he was right up in the guys face. The guy obviously pointed something at the officer and he still hadn't fired yet. Hats off...

Prophet
January 4, 2007, 05:09 PM
Wow that cop firing all the rounds just wasted him and his partner or the other LEO was right there trying to grab the guys weapon. I'd be ****** if I were him and once we got out of public i'd be wipping his ass for firing so damn close to me.

Slugthrower
January 4, 2007, 05:23 PM
I watched this several times. Paused is several times. I believe this man was in fact armed with a small handgun. Looks to be a .22 or 32 caliber pistol.

This guy entered view of camera #2 at 23:33:51 , after 9 seconds. At 23:34:00 he is down. From what I saw , he was possibly shot by 10 to 12 rounds.

I would say after 5 or 6 he was the walking dead anyway.

This man had to be high on something. Appears that the closest officer was the one who hit his CNS. Handguns can be lethal but they aren't great stoppers. Good video to illustrate how effective a handgun really is. Placement is paramount.

OBIWAN
January 4, 2007, 05:56 PM
Personally I think the good Lord planned it that way

Rifles are deadly...but it is harder to shoot yourself

Handguns make it easy to inflict damage on your person but you have to be dilligent in order to actually kill yourself:D

Tokamak
January 4, 2007, 06:13 PM
I saw that video, too on America's Most Shocking or something. It was in fact a cell phone that the guy was pointing like a gun. The officer ducking gives the impression that there was a shot. There was not.

However, they were in fear for their lives and were totally justified. It looks like suicide by cop to me.

M14fan
January 4, 2007, 06:25 PM
I am a firm believer in the theory that 'Stopping power' is 99% shot placement and 1% caliber.

RoyJackson
January 4, 2007, 07:51 PM
"However, they were in fear for their lives and were totally justified."

I'm not buying that.
A cop needs to have enough restraint to refrain from firing until he knows there is a threat
If any civilian (CCW holder or not) shot an unarmed person, mostly likely the "fear for my life" defense wouldn't fly.

I'm a gun owner and love them...but there have been too many cop shootings of unarmed persons or massive overkill (50 or more shots fired at an unarmed individual).

I've no idea what this guy was carying...it looked like a gun to me in that grainy flick. But the cop on the scene was within inches of the man shot. That cop should have been able to determine the real threat, if any.

firechicken
January 4, 2007, 08:57 PM
It was in fact a cell phone that the guy was pointing like a gun. The officer ducking gives the impression that there was a shot. There was not.

20 seconds into the video, you can see the empty casing that was ejected from the BG's "cell phone". It's not hard to see.

Edit: After further review, It could have come from the officer's gun.

KingofAttendance
January 4, 2007, 09:18 PM
i would have just tackled him, there were two of them and at least two more were close by

wayneinFL
January 4, 2007, 09:59 PM
"A cop needs to have enough restraint to refrain from firing until he knows there is a threat"

How does he know for sure? After he gets shot?

I had to watch the video and freeze-frame it to see that wasn't a gun. These guys didn't have time to make that kind of decision. I'd have done the same thing in that officer's shoes. Actually, I might have shot him a lot sooner.

"But the cop on the scene was within inches of the man shot. That cop should have been able to determine the real threat, if any."

It looked like a gun to him. See him duck?

BreacherUp!
January 4, 2007, 10:21 PM
I've no idea what this guy was carying...it looked like a gun to me in that grainy flick
You made the point yourself. And you have the luxury to stop, pause and rewind the video to determine if the guy was armed. As wayne said, the cop ducked and obviously thought so. If you want to tackle the guy, that is YOUR decision. However, that deicion does not find fault witht the cop who decided his life was in danger.
The threshold for the application of deadly force often times is different for any given person.

perpster
January 5, 2007, 01:24 AM
BUT: Most important for this forum. That guy is being hit a dozen times by several LEO's guns from 10ft COM and keeps on walking and walking and turing with his gun. If I see it right, what finally dropped him was a shot to the spine from the left officer's gun from 2ft distance.

Just wondering how we know how many hits there were, and how many were on center mass?

Steve in PA
January 5, 2007, 08:23 AM
"However, they were in fear for their lives and were totally justified."

I'm not buying that.
A cop needs to have enough restraint to refrain from firing until he knows there is a threat
If any civilian (CCW holder or not) shot an unarmed person, mostly likely the "fear for my life" defense wouldn't fly.

I'm a gun owner and love them...but there have been too many cop shootings of unarmed persons or massive overkill (50 or more shots fired at an unarmed individual).

I've no idea what this guy was carying...it looked like a gun to me in that grainy flick. But the cop on the scene was within inches of the man shot. That cop should have been able to determine the real threat, if any."

Spoken by someone who obviuosly has no idea what he is talking about. Please enlighten us to your expertise on dealing with individuals in these type situations.

Tokamak
January 5, 2007, 12:34 PM
I thought they said on the TV show that it was a cell phone. I could be mis-remembering.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 5, 2007, 04:55 PM
They said - cell phone - on the show.

BreacherUp!
January 5, 2007, 06:35 PM
A cop needs to have enough restraint to refrain from firing until he knows there is a threat
Wrong. A cop needs to have PC to believe that his life or another's is in imminant danger of death or serious bodily harm.
And it is based on the totality of the circumstances, and based on those circumstances, would a reasonable person react in the same manner.
Based on that video, a reasonable person would believe that the guy who just led a pursuit, pointed a weapon and not a cell phone, especillay in that split second.

perpster
January 5, 2007, 07:46 PM
I have seen LE bulletins about cell phones and pagers (and other things like belt buckles, brushes, combs, lighters, etc) that have been modified into 1 or 2 shot firearms. I don't have any links, but I have personally seen the bulletins along with color photos of the converted guns.

chemist308
January 5, 2007, 07:57 PM
From the last part of the clip, the officer did not start firing until the suspect swung what appeared to be a weapon around to point at the officer's partner. The officer fired in defense of his partner as his partner ducked. It looked like a clean shoot, but I don't understand why he continued to fire after the suspect lowered what appeared to be a weapon.

JohnKSa
January 5, 2007, 09:03 PM
Pointing a cell-phone (or anything else) at an armed man who is pointing a gun at you is not a survival trait....I don't understand why he continued to fire after the suspect lowered what appeared to be a weapon.I suspect that once the shooting started and the criminal didn't immediately respond or comply, then the officer started getting panicky. The idea of coming up against someone who's apparently impervious to bullets is not a fun one to contemplate. It's got to be much worse to suddenly experience it in person.

Para Bellum
January 6, 2007, 04:53 AM
...I don't understand why he continued to fire after the suspect lowered what appeared to be a weapon.

He didn't drop it, surrender and put his hands behind his back or neck, did he?

In a video, or a fight for life, a cell-phone, a knife or whatever can easily be mistaken for a gun, espacially for a gun with black/blue frame and stainless slide...

If LEOs point guns at you and you do anything else but surrender moving slowly, you do commit suicide and the LEO can't be blamed. They are not obliged to take chances with their lifes or the lifes of innocent bystanders.

tlm225
January 6, 2007, 10:17 AM
If you'll notice, as the suspect is walking away then turns and points the cell phone, the officer he points it at ducks. That is a VERY strong indicator that the officer, at that moment, believed the cell phone to be a gun based upon the actions of the suspect.
Thank God that the actions of the officer are judged based upon what he knew or reasonably believed at the time of the incident, not by a bunch of wannabe experts who make a decision on his actions in hindsight.

Para Bellum
January 6, 2007, 06:37 PM
Thank God that the actions of the officer are judged based upon what he knew or reasonably believed at the time of the incident, not by a bunch of wannabe experts who make a decision on his actions in hindsight.
Well spoken!

foob
January 6, 2007, 09:05 PM
Thank God that the actions of the officer are judged based upon what he knew or reasonably believed at the time of the incident

No his actions are judged by what a reasonable person in such as situation would believe. It's not what he thinks is reasonable, it's what the prosecutor/police commission/his boss/jury thinks is reasonable.

I could be a nutcase and think every person I meet is trying to kill me, doesn't mean I'm legally not at fault when I shoot them.

tlm225
January 6, 2007, 10:45 PM
No his actions are judged by what a reasonable person in such as situation would believe. It's not what he thinks is reasonable, it's what the prosecutor/police commission/his boss/jury thinks is reasonable.



And his belief that he was being threatened by a deadly weapon would be unreasonable in what way? How many watched the video once in real time from the safety of their chair without prior knowledge of the conclusion and were able to determine that there was no deadly threat?

Glenn E. Meyer
January 7, 2007, 12:16 PM
BTW - there are cell phone guns made in Europe.

Reasonable shoot given the actions. Holding the gun down is not safe for you. One can raise it and fire while you are blinking in surprise.

mvpel
January 8, 2007, 11:49 PM
Next time anyone complains about Tasers, I'll suggest they review this video.

Hook686
January 9, 2007, 12:30 AM
01-06-2007, 08:05 PM #26

foob wrote:

Thank God that the actions of the officer are judged based upon what he knew or reasonably believed at the time of the incident

No his actions are judged by what a reasonable person in such as situation would believe. It's not what he thinks is reasonable, it's what the prosecutor/police commission/his boss/jury thinks is reasonable.

I could be a nutcase and think every person I meet is trying to kill me, doesn't mean I'm legally not at fault when I shoot them.



Unfortunately, there are those, who may be the prosecutor/police commission/his boss/jury, who are anti-gun types. A person carrying a firearm may already be considered a 'nutcase' by those types, with the idea that no matter what the factual reality was, anyone carrying a gun was at fault. Hope those types are not on your jury, criminal, or civil side.

Personally I think LEO's are judged different, than mere citizens

mvpel
January 9, 2007, 11:49 AM
Personally I think LEO's are judged different, than mere citizens.

Cops are citizens too, and civilians as well.

It's a good thing they're judged differently, because unlike the rest of us, they have a duty and responsibility to seek out, lay hands on, and use force to subdue and apprehend criminals.

kgpcr
January 9, 2007, 09:27 PM
Another Reason To Not Carry A 9mm. That Would Not Have Been The Case With A .45

threegun
January 10, 2007, 10:11 AM
Kgpcr,

That Would Not Have Been The Case With A .45

Tap your shoes together and say theres no place like home LOL. Understand that the facts indicate that there isn't much difference between the 9mm, 45acp, 40S&W, etc. in stopping power. Shot placement and other variables like drug use are more important.

threegun
January 10, 2007, 10:18 AM
This video should convince all that it is not smart to point a gun, wallet, cell phone, whatever at police. The search for who to blame in this case for the shooting should end with the moron being shot. It is not logical to look past the shooting victim for responsibility. If the cell phone doesn't get pointed at cops the man lives bottom line.

Doug.38PR
January 10, 2007, 10:45 AM
I've seen that video and it's counterpart aboug 4 times on this board. Posted it once myself.

joab
January 10, 2007, 10:59 AM
I have seen LE bulletins about cell phones and pagersIf I remember correctly this happened about the time that these phones were hitting the news, when courthouse guards made you prove that you pager or phone really was a pager or phone.

The most important thing to me here is not the seemingly ineffectiveness of rounds fired into a man who immediately stopped his threatening actions and seemed to be more or less continuing on through base instinct
But more the fact that the first video shows a cop shooting an unarmed retreating man in the back several times.
It takes the second video to put things more into perspective.
Too many people would have shown just the first video if given the choice

firemedic1975
January 10, 2007, 06:35 PM
My wife just finished the police acadamy and her instructors said the officer that shoot the guy was eventually fired for his actions in this shooting.

threegun
January 11, 2007, 10:20 AM
My wife just finished the police acadamy and her instructors said the officer that shoot the guy was eventually fired for his actions in this shooting.


Back in the 80's I had applied for the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Dept. As I waited to be called for an interview a riot in Tampa broke out. It seems that a TPD officer had used a choke hold to subdue a violent suspect and this bad guy kicked the bucket in the holding cell. As the riots ended and the blame game ensued I realized right then and there that police officers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I respectfully turned down the interview with the HCSO weeks later. Stories like that of this cop being fired and others make me happy for making such a wise decision at such a young age.

Mr. James
January 11, 2007, 10:40 AM
How many watched the video once in real time from the safety of their chair without prior knowledge of the conclusion and were able to determine that there was no deadly threat?


From the safety of my chair, I not only thought he was armed, I thought he'd fired a round from his "gun."

. . . her instructors said the officer that shot the guy was eventually fired for his actions in this shooting.

Wow.

BillCA
January 11, 2007, 11:40 AM
Just as the BG enters the camera frame he's shown holding (object) in a two-handed hold in a manner similar to that used to fire a handgun. After a pursuit (we don't know the initiating event and it could have been a minor traffic violation) where the subject attempts to evade officers he exits the vehicle and then uses a two-hand hold to point (object) at one officer as if he has a firearm.

(pause) How many objects in any citizen's daily life would be held in such a manner? Can you think of any "innocent" object that would legitimately be presented to an officer using a 2-hand hold? The only thing that comes to mind, possibly, is a liquid container being squeezed to project liquid (e.g. water bottle, lighter fluid, etc.) but these would have a significantly different shape and size.

The officer coming up behind the BG was unable to get the guy to the ground and probably unable to get a good look at what the object was. If the BG really did have a gun, the cops couldn't just let him walk away after he fought off the cops. The actions of the BG are indicitive of someone who disdains the rules of society, its rules and responsibilities and will, if let go, pose a high degree of danger.

mvpel
January 11, 2007, 03:32 PM
But more the fact that the first video shows a cop shooting an unarmed retreating man in the back several times.

New Hampshire law is pretty clear on this point:

II. A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force only when he reasonably believes such force is necessary:

(b) To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes:
(1) Has committed or is committing a felony involving the use of force or violence, is using a deadly weapon in attempting to escape, or otherwise indicates that he is likely to seriously endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay; and
(2) He had made reasonable efforts to advise the person that he is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest and has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of these facts.

The question then becomes whether it was reasonable for the cops to believe that a small object held in the isosceles stance and pointed at police officers attempting to effect an arrest was a firearm.

joab
January 11, 2007, 09:08 PM
The question then becomes whether it was reasonable for the cops to believe that a small object held in the isosceles stance and pointed at police officers attempting to effect an arrest was a firearm.The first video shows no small object or isosceles the second does hence my comment
But more the fact that the first video shows a cop shooting an unarmed retreating man in the back several times.
It takes the second video to put things more into perspective.

Sarge
January 11, 2007, 09:42 PM
What the video illustrates best is the phenomenon known as the "Dead Man's Five Seconds" and it is not a rare occurrence. People who have sustained massive cardiovascular damage can still stay ambulatory and coherent for at least that long. Given the way the suspect drops straight down on the officer's last couple of shots, I am inclined to believe that he eventually lucked one into the upper spinal column.

Imagine what this guy could have done if he were armed with a serious weapon, and committed to killing the officers who were trying to gain control of him? At that distance he could have fired a shot or two at each of their faces and probably connected.

The "Dead Man's Five" an eventuality you had better plan for, if you carry a defensive handgun in any capacity.

Para Bellum
January 13, 2007, 04:06 AM
Another Reason To Not Carry A 9mm. That Would Not Have Been The Case With A .45
Nonsense.
1.) Maybe they used .40s or .45s in the video.
2.) Read some Fackler.
3.) There is no stopping power. Even a .308 Rifle won't knock anything down. It's always and only placement and penetration.
4.) Compare the calibers you like on the testing tool on winchester's law enforcement website. You will be surprised.
5.) They could have instantly dropped the guy with a .22lr (buy a shot to the brain stem).
6.) Believing in a caliber that way might get you killed one day.

.45? Check this video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwqT2jQhMZo
and that thread: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233276

Deaf Smith
January 13, 2007, 04:12 PM
For all we know, he was starting to collapse while being shot so many times. The time frame was very short from the first shot till he dropped.

This is one of the things about 'shooting them to the ground'. A person can take an easy two seconds to collapse and hit the dirt. In two seconds a good (but not great) shot can put 10 shots into them. And if there is more than one shooter, you can have 20-30 hits in that time frame. Does that mean the weapons/cartridges used were inferior?

You see so few one shot stops cause very few times does ANYONE shoot just one shot! And I won't even go into drugs or other measures that keep people jacked up and thus very hard to stop.

Big Don
January 18, 2007, 03:56 PM
I sent the video link to long-time buddy who has been a copper for 30+ years. (He had sent me video and other info about the cell phone gun several years ago so I know they do exist.) Here's his thoughts on the video in question:
"I've seen it before, but don't remember when or have any details. It looked like a gun to me, and apparently the second cop thought so too as he ducked down when the BG turned on him with it. The first cop should have never been that close in the first place, nor should either of them followed him without cover if they believed him to be armed. As they were so close and without cover it could lead one to think that he didn't have a gun, but I've seen too many cops do too many stupid things ........"

whip1
January 18, 2007, 05:31 PM
The actions of the BG are indicitive of someone who disdains the rules of society, its rules and responsibilities and will, if let go, pose a high degree of danger.

If you don't want the cops to shot you, do as they say. There are way too many unjustifiable police shootings, but when the BG acts likes this I can understand the LEO's actions.

LICCW
January 19, 2007, 01:56 PM
First: I agree with the posts that mention obey officer's commands if you don't want to get shot. I have no sympathy for anyone who behaves as the suspect in the video does and gets shot. If you disagree with an officer's directives, there is a time and place to voice that, which is later and through an attorney or whatever, but then and there do what the officers say.
Second: Relying on a large caliber to be your panacea will be the death of you. Shot placement is key. I'd like to know the ammo type the officer's were using, does anyone know?

WeedWacker
January 20, 2007, 09:00 AM
Watched it and from one angle when the officer ducks I saw what looked like a single casing fly out from the suspects had area. The officer who ducked was facing away and was too low for it to be casing from his weapon. It's from the first angle you can see it. One shot one casing. Then when the officers unload you see the brass flying out of their weapons. Just watch the first part again and tell me i am wrong.

AndrewD
January 21, 2007, 01:39 AM
The LE instructors I had said that the officers were cleared on a good shoot, and the suspect did in fact have a pistol. They said that when the guy turns around, a shot was fired.

I believe it is Tenn. Vs. Garner that defines when LEO's may use deadly force on a fleeing suspect. There are two requirements, that the suspect be involved with a violent felony and that he poses a threat of great bodily injury to the officer or anyone else. Regardless of whether or not the guy has a gun, he behaves as if he does and points it at officers, and he is heading towards the door to a store and a parked car where it is reasonable to believe citizens will be present.

knightkrawler00
January 25, 2007, 10:49 PM
Furtive Movement

Movement consistent with going for or using a weapon, that which can not be construed as anything else.

The man got out of the car and stepped into an isoceles stance with an object in his hands that appeared to be a handgun. The cops had no other choices.

John C
January 28, 2007, 03:20 PM
I think there are two separate videos, this one and a similar one where the suspect had a cell phone. I distinctly remember the one where the suspect was using a phone as a fake weapon. It was a bad move.

I don't know about the department where this was filmed, in my department the fact that the apparently "armed" suspect was fleeing toward a place with innocent bystanders would tilt this situation in favor of a shooting. Of course, it's the totality of the circumstances that determine a valid shooting, but the high potential for an armed, resisting suspect taking hostages and ending up in a standoff would change the matrix for a valid shoot.

-John