PDA

View Full Version : When Non-lethal can become lethal for the user.


TheGoldenState
January 27, 2012, 11:06 PM
I didn't see this posted thus far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8GWFqE1Als

When authorities arrived they saw several patrons run out of the restaurant and a man armed with a 3-foot-long metal bar.

Officers say they ordered the suspect to drop the bar but when he did not comply they used a stun gun to subdue him.

When that failed to stop him and the suspect allegedly began swinging the bar at police, an officer shot the suspect.

He was later pronounced dead at a local hospital.

Los Angeles Sheriff's homicide detectives are investigating the shooting.

While a "good" shooting it appears, this video brings up a valid tactics & training scenario that could have ended much worse for the officer.

Officer 1 deploys a taser that is rendered ineffective by, most probably, the thick jacket of the suspect. The suspect then turns and makes a move with his 3foot bar toward the officer. The officer does NOT have out his gun and is rendered defenseless as he seems to struggle to pull out his gun in place of his non-lethal taser.

Luckily for officer 1, officer 2 has his lethal arm out and fires the initial shots rendering the suspect incapacitated and thus protecting the officer.

Tactics/training.

What if Officer 1 did not have immediate back up when arriving on the scene?

Should officer 1 have had his gun out and ready alongside his non-lethal taser, in case WHAT HAPPENED actually happened?

This became an instance where lethal was necessary over non-lethal and had officer 2 not been right there, it could have been potentially very bad for officer 1.

MLeake
January 27, 2012, 11:10 PM
Well, back when I had to study up on Navy security protocols, a security patrolman would NOT attempt to use LTL vs a 3' iron bar. The protocol was to use a level of force one step above the force being used by the suspect.

Since the 3' iron bar qualifies as a deadly weapon, that means go directly to the firearm.

I would guess most LE agencies would look at it in a similar way. I would also guess that this officer decided he'd risk trying to use LTL specifically because he did have other officers there.

TheGoldenState
January 27, 2012, 11:13 PM
Mleake,

The protocol was to use a level of force one step above the force being used by the suspect.


That is what I think should be implemented at all times.

Also, thanks for using the correct term. LTL > NL:o

Ruthless4christ
January 27, 2012, 11:16 PM
thank God the cops were not hurt. I saw the video and felt the police acted well. From an observers view, it would be easy to say they MAY have been better to stop firing after the first volley. However said people most likely have never been in a Life or death situation, which is why I do not assume this position. I say they did a good job, by making it home that day.

dev_null
January 27, 2012, 11:19 PM
Doesn't look like an "iron bar" but more like a mountainclimber's ice axe. Definitely a deadly weapon.

TheGoldenState
January 27, 2012, 11:19 PM
Ruth,

I wan't to be careful, as I know the shutdown possibility on this thread is high. I wan't this to remain primarily about the tactical side regarding proper response and technique to levels of threat. However I will say the first thing I thought of is the necessity of the second volley. Then next thing I thought of was that the video shows the suspect is still up and moving after the initial onslaught (which could be made into a seperate thread all together). Final thought was that it was a good shooting.

Dev,

I thought it was an axe as well.

MLeake
January 27, 2012, 11:26 PM
I'm not on my own computer, so can't view the video, and was going by the OP's description.

An ice ax is a serious weapon, but technically I don't know of any places that distinguish between "deadly weapons" as far as level of force goes.

A particular type of weapon may be on a prohibited list (WMD, explosive devices, firearms of certain types or used by certain persons, etc), and therefore bring with it additional charges, but deadly is deadly.

Baseball bat, tire iron, axe, knife... all considered deadly.

Ruthless4christ
January 27, 2012, 11:30 PM
It was not an axe it was a pipe bender. these are very light, and very hard. they have semi pointy tips and can be swung very easily. You could very easily kill someone with one.

I was not judging the cops for the second round of shots. I feel it was acceptable. However on youtube alot of people were saying differently and I know that the victims families etc, will be saying the same thing. those people have never been attacked and had to defend their lives either.

Slopemeno
January 27, 2012, 11:32 PM
Well, my guess is they deploy as a team when using non-lethals, they'd team up *anyway* before moving in on someone like that. Wouldn't you?

And let's think about it: They started low on the continuum of force. Probably voice commands, then taser, no success- then deadly force. I don't see a problem.

A piece of rebar, a baseball bat, a machete...don't see too much of a difference.

TheGoldenState
January 27, 2012, 11:41 PM
"Wouldn't you"
"I don't see a problem"

Neither do I, as my previous comments show.

A piece of rebar, a baseball bat, a machete...don't see too much of a difference.

I agree, listing of deadly force weapons wasn't the point here.

Tactical disadvatage of not having your lethal weapon out and it turning deadly in a split second, and having your hide tanned if not for another officer is the topic. Primarily the assertion that protocol should be to use a level of force one step above the force being used by the suspect.

WyMark
January 28, 2012, 09:41 AM
I can't comment on the cops' actions, I wasn't there and didn't see the guy's face or look in his eyes. Obviously they felt it necessary to put a lot of rounds into him.

It's the douchebags in the car that need a serious beatdown.

Pond, James Pond
January 28, 2012, 10:31 AM
Firstly, I must say I'm not impressed by the video-filmers laughing at a fatal shooting... Some people need to get some perspective: after all that ws someone's son...

Secondly, I am a bit confused by why shooting was deemed necessary.

They were in a wide open car park, there were no other civilians around the guy at that time.
There were, what looked to be 3 or 4 officers with more on the way, judging by the sirens more on the way.
He had an effective range of 4-5 feet.
The officer shot because his partner was too close when he needn't have been.
They had a dog: aren't dogs trained to disarm an assailant with weapon in hand?
Surely tazer training teaches them about thick clothing impairing the stunner?

Why did they get so close?
Why not wait for more guys, or get shields?
Why not shoot him in the leg, first, instead of 8-9 shots?
Why did they get close close when they had fire arms and could afford to act with letahl force from 20 feet, if needed?

There may be parts I have over looked, but for me these questions make it seem like some guy got killed when he needn't have been.
Yes, he was acting like a nutter, but he only had a blunt force instrument, in an area where the officers had almost unlimited mobility, and he was walking, not running around swing at people

KC Rob
January 28, 2012, 10:39 AM
It was not an axe it was a pipe bender.

That's what it was, it looked familiar but I couldn't quite place it. I could definitely see it had a "head" of some sort on it, so it was more than a metal bar.

Also, the Taser hits the guy in the face, his jacket didn't stop anything. You can see him pull the prongs out of his face. He didn't react to it at all, I wonder if the officer who deployed it, who looked inexperienced by his mannerisms, was using it properly, the BG did look like he took any voltage to me, but maybe he was so hopped up it didn't phase him.

A couple of training points I took from the video:

1) The officer with the Taser, looks down at his belt, I think he is trying to get a reload for his Taser because he isn't reaching for his gun. That is when the BG cocks back the pipe bender and advances aggressively, the officer wasn't even looking at him. If not for his partner, he would have gotten clocked without ever drawing his gun.

My takeaway is Always look at the threat!

2) The K9 officer is holding the dog with one hand and his weapon with the other. He has no option for a two-handed grip, which is what I am most comfortable shooting with.

My takeaway is Practice more with one hand or off hand shooting because you may not have the option for a comfortable two-handed grip

3) The BG is hit with approx. 5 rounds from close distance, less than 10 feet I would guess. I am assuming those are 9mm or .40 cal rounds. That does not immediately drop him. I bet they would be fatal eventually, but at that moment he turns and starts to move away at which point he is shot again several times before dropping. If he had chosen instead to move towards the officers he would have been able to take a swing at them.

My takeaway is Keep shooting until the threat is down, a quick two to the chest is probably not going to instantly incapacitate the threat.

It is sad that the man had to lose his life, but he put himself in that position. I am glad the responding officers were not hurt and I think that was a 100% justified shoot and hopefully the public will see it that way and not try and turn this into a witch hunt.

hangglider
January 28, 2012, 10:42 AM
I agree with WyMark--the laughing of the videographers at a person's demise made me sick. Not enough info on the vid. While the shoot appears to be justified--I wonder if there might not have been a reasonable way out of this without loss of life.

Ruthless4christ
January 28, 2012, 10:43 AM
He had an effective range of 4-5 feet.

The officer shot because his partner was too close when he needn't have been.

How far away should they have been? 20 feet? 45 feet? How close should they have let him get before they started running away from him to maintain said distance? Perhaps roadblocks should have been setup in all directions to give them the opportunity to leave the parking lot and run down the street away from the attacker to maintain the safe distance

Why not wait for more guys, or get shields?

do you suggest turtle formation?

but he only had a blunt force instrument

You have obviously never seen someone permanently injured or killed with a blunt object. I assure you it is much easier than you would think. And if you watch the video again you will see that the culprit CLEARLY began to rear up his arm to strike one of the officers.

Double Naught Spy
January 28, 2012, 11:08 AM
While a "good" shooting it appears, this video brings up a valid tactics & training scenario that could have ended much worse for the officer.

All such violent encounters experienced by officers could have ended much worse for the officers.

Officer 1 deploys a taser that is rendered ineffective by, most probably, the thick jacket of the suspect. The suspect then turns and makes a move with his 3foot bar toward the officer. The officer does NOT have out his gun and is rendered defenseless as he seems to struggle to pull out his gun in place of his non-lethal taser.

The officer is not rendered defenseless. Just because you cannot inflict immediate harm on another does not make you defenseless, though this is definitely a mindset oft repeated on gun forums.

While the officer struggles with his gun (as you noted), what is he doing? He is retreating, keeping space between himself and the suspect. That is an active defense an impact weapon wielded in such a manner. He may not be able to stop the weapon, but where you see the officer as rendered defenseless, by keeping himself away from the suspect, he has rendered the suspect's weapon ineffective.

What if Officer 1 did not have immediate back up when arriving on the scene?

Then he would not have opted for less lethal weapons.

Should officer 1 have had his gun out and ready alongside his non-lethal taser, in case WHAT HAPPENED actually happened?

NO! First of all, he was protected by his fellow officer. Secondly, having a non-lethal stun gun or pepper stray in one hand and a firearm in the other hand can result in unintentional discharges from the weapon not intending to be used due to sympathetic bilateral reflex.

This became an instance where lethal was necessary over non-lethal and had officer 2 not been right there, it could have been potentially very bad for officer 1.

Yes, but officer 2 was there which made possible the attempts at less lethal methods first. It could well be claimed that in any situation where one officer renders assistance to another officer that the encountered could have turned out much worse for the first officer without help, but the officers were using team tactics because they were both there. Officers usually don't employ team tactics when they are alone.

damford
January 28, 2012, 11:10 AM
hes wearing a hockey mask from the looks of it. you can see him pull the probes out of it

i also dont understand all the onlookers mixed in with the cops. just standing there like its a video shoot. i wonder if its staged?

Double Naught Spy
January 28, 2012, 01:02 PM
i also dont understand all the onlookers mixed in with the cops. just standing there like its a video shoot. i wonder if its staged?

Staged? No.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19838852

It is not uncommon for there to be onlookers to such events in higher traffic parking lots such as in strip centers or at convenience stores.

manta49
January 28, 2012, 01:17 PM
Having the right to shoot one and doing it are to different things. I have seen police here in much more dangerous situations. And they would have being justified in using lethal force but diffused the situation without shooting the offender.

Shooting should be a last resort. It didn't look to be in this case. Maybe the police are better trained here.

What the police here come up against without resorting to lethal force in link below.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3UwgtrsqGo

Ruthless4christ
January 28, 2012, 01:23 PM
having the ability to swing metal objects at the heads of Police officers,a nd having the self control to not do so are two different things. THE culprit in the video lacked the latter methinks.

Pond, James Pond
January 28, 2012, 03:36 PM
How far away should they have been? 20 feet? 45 feet? How close should they have let him get before they started running away from him to maintain said distance? Perhaps roadblocks should have been setup in all directions to give them the opportunity to leave the parking lot and run down the street away from the attacker to maintain the safe distance


I see that the only way you can address my point is by opting for the extreme.

If you are seriously suggesting that, in a car park of approximately 400 sq metres, the officers could not move about freely and had no alternative to but to get within his striking distance, get a fright and shoot him with anything up to 8 or 9 shots then I can only guess at your logic.

do you suggest turtle formation?

Actually, I was thinking a re-enactment of the Battle of Thermopylae would have been ideal...:rolleyes:... because one police man ramming him with a shield is just plain unrealistic....

If US police training is what it is said to be, I don't see why 4 officers, and a police dog, could only disarm a guy with a length of metal in an open area by shooting him.

Furthermore, a riot shield would make such a manoeuvre even less of a risk to the officers.

You have obviously never seen someone permanently injured or killed with a blunt object. I assure you it is much easier than you would think.

I haven't seen this, and hope I never do. However, I am certain never to see someone killed or injured by a blunt force instrument if they are out of range of said intrument.

None of this explains why they had to get that close to him.

And if you watch the video again you will see that the culprit CLEARLY began to rear up his arm to strike one of the officers.

As far as the video is concerned, I saw what the guy did. He turned with the implement toward the officer.

One hand appears to be at one end and the other hand at the other end. Not a swinging pose, but a thrusting one and not as powerful.

Once more: If they hadn't been so close they would not have been at risk.

Personally, I feel shooting was excessive, at that stage and premature in that situation. The guy was full of holes within 14 seconds of him walking quite slowly from the building.

I feel that the polices' approach escalated things by limiting their own options.

Frank Ettin
January 28, 2012, 04:17 PM
...I don't see why 4 officers, and a police dog, could only disarm a guy with a length of metal in an open area by shooting him......None of this explains why they had to get that close to him....Kind of contradicting yourself. They couldn't really disarm the guy without getting close to him.

In any case, pretty standard modern police procedure is --

to deploy less lethal force against a potentially lethal threat only when there is immediate lethal force back-up present;


if less lethal force doesn't stop the aggressor who is wielding a potentially deadly weapon and has by his actions manifest the apparent intention to hurt someone with it, lethal force is appropriate to immediately end the threat; and


to avoid closing and grappling with someone wielding a potentially deadly weapon and has by his actions manifest the apparent intention to hurt someone with it because, among other things, you don't know what other weapons he may have.

raimius
January 28, 2012, 04:18 PM
They used ranged, less-lethal force against an individual with what amounts to a melee weapon. That makes sense. When that failed, the suspect turned and advanced toward an officer in an aggressive fashion.

My point--where do you reasonably go on the force continuum after you deploy less-lethal force and the suspect is still advancing on you or your partner? The vast majority would say to move up the force continuum, which is exactly what happened.


As to the proximity to the suspect. First, the officers were using the building to screen themselves from view until the suspect exited. That put them relatively close. (Which also makes sense if they plan on entering if the suspect starts killing people inside.) Next, they use a Tazer--a weapon with limited range. When that fails, the suspect turns and closes with the officer.

What do you expect to happen when you turn and advance on an officer who just deployed less-lethal force against you, while you have a 3ft long chunk of metal in your hand?!

KC Rob
January 28, 2012, 04:22 PM
JP, you and I have differing opinions on this and that is fine, but I think part of your opinion is being formed by not understanding what you are seeing in the video or you are only seeing what you want to see because you have a preconceived bias against the police. I am going to assume the former.

One hand appears to be at one end and the other hand at the other end. Not a swinging pose, but a thrusting one and not as powerful.

This is incorrect, he has both hands at the bottom of the handle like a baseball bat as he turns towards the officer, takes a couple hop-steps like he is winding up and has the implement cocked back, he is set to swing. Whether he intended to or not, I don't know, he may have been feinting, but either way he was in range of striking an officer.

Which leads to another point I think you are not seeing correctly:

in a car park of approximately 400 sq metres, the officers could not move about freely and had no alternative to but to get within his striking distance

The BG is in the building, the police are approaching the door, from the side so as to not expose themselves if he has a gun, when the suspect pops out of the door right in front of the police. Suddenly, he is in striking distance of the police with his club. I guess at this point you think the police should have retreated, but they choose to use a LTL device, a Taser, which necessitates a fairly close range. This is ineffective, then the subject makes an aggressive move towards an officer and is shot.

I am curious when, or even if, you felt they were justified in using deadly force. You seem to discount the danger to the police officer when he cocked back to swing the club, do you think even then they should not have fired?

I feel that the police's approach escalated things by limiting their options.

I see where you are coming from here, and in a perfect world I agree with you as far as limiting their options, but I think the way things unfolded the police were justified in shooting a man who was armed, behaving irrationally, and made threatening moves towards a police officer.

cambeul41
January 28, 2012, 04:38 PM
They had a dog: aren't dogs trained to disarm an assailant with weapon in hand?

There was too great a chance that the dog would be killed.

Pond, James Pond
January 28, 2012, 04:55 PM
You're right. I have no patrticular bias against the police.
It's a tough job, and not one that I 'd expect to do better, by any means.

However, what I see is a guy who walks, let's face it, in quite a leisurely gait, from a building.

They seem to issue a single verbal command: he has a hoody on.. Do they know if he can hear them?

They taze him: he visibly has only a bar in his hand, no other weapons in his hands. They have a dog they do not use. They seem to mess up the stun. Did it even work?

They then shoot. He visibly starts to go down, before disappearing behind the car after which they shoot again.

All this in 12-15 seconds on a guy visibly holding only a bar.

You're right:
I probably do only see parts of the bigger picture, but I still feel that stakes were raised way too fast, IMO.

They did not really try to properly engage verbally with him, get a dialogue going. I heard one shout and then, bam, in with the stun gun. As you could see both his hands, I think the stun was too early

When he walked out of that building there was nothing in his demeanour toward the police that suggest he was going to go for them. He looked left and right and continued walking past.

He may have held a deadly weapon, but at that time his body language was not "I'm gonna **** you all up". That changed with the stun attempt.

I see what you mean about the hands on the bar, but with the 20-20 sight of seperation: That is when the dog should have been let loose.

There was too great a chance that the dog would be killed.

Are you saying that shooting the suspect is OK, but risking a dog is not?

I've no wish to see a dog harmed, but if not for locating and disarming assailants, perhaps you can tell me what a K-9 unit is for?
And the locating part was already done...

Ruthless4christ
January 28, 2012, 05:50 PM
in some states they charge the assault of a police dog the same as assault of an officer.

manta49
January 28, 2012, 06:05 PM
The officer might be able to justify the shooting time will tell. In my opinion at that stage the shooting wasn't justified. The police could of backed of out of reach reach of the weapon he was carrying a taser could of being tried again. Lethal force should always be a last option.

One thing i do know if that happened here the american politicians would be the first to be protesting to the British government about the wrongful shooting. Next would be amnesty international. Double standards i think.
For those that are saying that the shooting was justifiable the guy could have had mental problems, if it was their son or brother would they have the same opinion.

Dose anyone disagree that lethal force should be a last resort. And do they think it was the last resort in this shooting.

Ruthless4christ
January 28, 2012, 06:14 PM
At the time the officer was justified shooting the driver but was criticised for putting him in the position that lethal force was necessary

God bless the Police Officers in your country for putting up with that level of abusive micro management.

Ruthless4christ
January 28, 2012, 06:19 PM
I love how whenever a Police officer shoots a criminal, liberals always talk about how there need to be measures put in place to reduce the use of “excessive force” against criminals. However whenever a criminal murders a cop, no one ever talks about how criminals should seek out ways to reduce “excessive force” against cops.

TheGoldenState
January 28, 2012, 06:52 PM
Remember, no matter the situation in any facet of life, people will find a way to complain. Sometimes those complaints are warranted, some times theyre not. This, imo, falls into the latter category.

EDIT: Suspect identified as 22-year-old Steven Rodriguez of Chino Hills.

Double Naught Spy
January 28, 2012, 07:06 PM
They seem to issue a single verbal command: he has a hoody on.. Do they know if he can hear them?

They seem to issue a single verbal command? What are you basing this on? The video is unclear and you cannot hear the goings on well through the glass with any consistency. You can hear a lot of shouting that does appear to be from the officers. However to answer your question, the did issue multiple commands and he could hear them and responded to the officers. And even if he could not hear them, he most certainly felt the tazer barbs that he pulled out and saw the officers. He had awareness that the cops were there and were directing their attention on him.

I don't know of any such situations where the officers come in and only issue a single command. Usually the opposite is more true. There are too many officers issuing too many commands. Issuing behavior control commands is the first step in such a process and they did it.

They taze him: he visibly has only a bar in his hand, no other weapons in his hands. They have a dog they do not use. They seem to mess up the stun. Did it even work?

Gee, I don't know. Did you see the suspect fall to the ground when the tazer was being used? Was the suspect rendered harmless by the tazer? Did the suspect stop his aggressive actions after being tazed? :rolleyes: No, the attempt to taze did not work.

All this in 12-15 seconds on a guy visibly holding only a bar.

The amount of time isn't any issue here. The suspect attempted to strike an officer with the bar. Such a strike may have resulted in significant injury or death. At that point, immediate action is required and that is what was applied.

They did not really try to properly engage verbally with him, get a dialogue going. I heard one shout and then, bam, in with the stun gun. As you could see both his hands, I think the stun was too early

Just what video are you watching where you explicitly can hear what was going on between the officers and the suspect? What dialog was needed? You do realize that to get a dialog going, you have to have input and response from from both parties, right?

I see what you mean about the hands on the bar, but with the 20-20 sight of seperation: That is when the dog should have been let loose.

Had the dog been let loose before the suspect tried to hit the officer with the tool, people would be crying about the use of violent force against a suspect who was not threatening anyone. Once the suspect started his swing, the dog was not an option. The dog probably could not have gotten to the suspect before he completed his swing. Bullets could.


Quote:
There was too great a chance that the dog would be killed.

Are you saying that shooting the suspect is OK, but risking a dog is not?

Given that the suspect was actively using lethal force against a police officer, the dog would have been an inappropriate to use and the result likely would have been an injured or dead officer and then the police dog would have been in the way for using lethal force by the officers and the dog may have been injured as a result as well. So to answer your question, in this case, shooting the suspect was the prudent thing to do and so there was no reason to risk injury to the dog when at that point the dog was not the appropriate response.

I've no wish to see a dog harmed, but if not for locating and disarming assailants, perhaps you can tell me what a K-9 unit is for?

I can't say that I have ever seen a police dog disarm somebody, not as a matter of completing the particular task. I have watch police dogs work on several people, armed and not, and sometimes the armed people did drop their weapons and sometimes not. Once the weapon was dropped, the police dog did not do anything different. They charged in and atttemted to bite, hold, and shake the suspects until the suspects go down where they continue to bite and hold and sometimes shake the suspects. They would bite the arm with the weapon if indeed that was the arm of opportunity. Sometimes they got the weapon arm, sometimes the other arm, sometimes a leg, and in a couple of cases, the butt of the suspect.

Ruthless4christ
January 28, 2012, 07:40 PM
The amount of time isn't any issue here. The suspect attempted to strike an officer with the bar. Such a strike may have resulted in significant injury or death. At that point, immediate action is required and that is what was applied.

what he said.

MLeake
January 28, 2012, 09:54 PM
I still can't view the video... limited online access and bandwidth here.

However, in response to the hypothetical posed by Pond a little while back, about placement of hands on a 3ft bar...

1) It seems like those who can see the video now agree he has a baseball bat type grip, but -

2) In training with the Jo staff, which is approximately 3ft long, there are several techniques which start with a hand at either end of the staff. That position actually lets the wielder attack with either hand, by releasing or shifting the grip of the secondary hand. Musashi, of Japanese swordsmanship fame, feared jo practitioners more than swordsmen, because they could attack from either side, and required more of his attention.

3) Having not seen the video, I don't know why the police were interested in the suspect in the first place. If I had to guess, I'd think they were responding to reports of threatening behavior, and I would not think they'd be willing to just give the guy a long leash until he decided to calm down.

KC Rob
January 29, 2012, 12:23 AM
Just to give MLeake a recap since he is in the dark: 20 something male with a bandana over his face goes into a Carls Jr. with a pipe bender (3 foot metal shaft with a small metal head on the end) and breaks every single window in the joint. Patrons scattered. Police respond. Poor cell phone video is taken by some low lifes (they joke and laugh while the guy is shot and dies in front of them) from inside a vehicle, and it appears to be raining because the window is covered in water droplets, further degrading the video. Police approach restaurant, taking an angle that provides cover from any gun fire, but effectively keeps them in the blind about the subjects location. Subject exits building right on top of two officers, catching them a little off guard I think. Because the video is taken from inside a car, audio is muffled at best, so what and how many commands the police issue the subject can not be heard. Subject strolls casually into parking lot. Cop Tazers him directly in the face, which has zero effect (almost looks like it didn't work, he does not react at all). Subject pulls barbs from face then cocks his weapon back and moves quickly and aggresively towards officer who Tazed him (this officer has made an egregious error and is fumbling on his duty belt NOT looking at the subject for over two seconds, when he looks up and sees he is being rushed, he almost trips over backwards). K9 officer who is supporting the Taser cop quickly pumps 5 rounds into subject center mass from essentially point blank range. Subject staggers back but does not go to ground, he turns away from the officers and the same cop pops another 4-5 rounds into him and he goes down.

There you go, clear as mud!

BlackFeather
January 29, 2012, 12:43 AM
Mleake, it was a typical two handed grip, hands closer together. Musashi himself used a Jo or Bokken instead of a real sword. I'd also like to believe Musashi wasn't afraid of anything, and most Jo schools started after his win over Muso Gonnosuke. As far as I know. That aside...

The key point is that the less than lethal option failed, just after the threat decided to attack the police. He knew they were armed, they had a dog, and had already shot the tazer.

So, when your initial LTL tool fails, is deadly force the next option or do you try LTL again? I'd like to think I'd go for LTL but it may not always be that easy.

Are the police justified in shooting him? Well, they could have let him walk off, he seemed like that's all he wanted until he turned around on them. His furtive movements warranted an immediate response and the pistol was the only right choice to preserve the Officers safety. Unless someone thinks the Officer should have let the dog get hurt, let the other officer take the hit, or sword fight the guy with his baton..? (I'd have rather seen that, but I'm off.)

Frank Ettin
January 29, 2012, 01:11 AM
...For those that are saying that the shooting was justifiable the guy could have had mental problems, ....The guy might well have had mental problems. But that doesn't make the threat to the officers any less or any less real or immediate.

The attacker had set the terms of the engagement. If someone is wielding a lethal weapon and putting an innocent, whether a police officer or a private citizen, in jeopardy of imminent death or grave bodily injury, lethal force is justified in self defense.

kinggabby
January 29, 2012, 01:49 AM
One thing we don't know is how long it was actually going on before the the video started. And even if they were to back up and wait there would be the possibility that he would take off and possibly hurt or kill someone one as he tried to get away. Also people tend to forget how quickly a person can advance granted he had a solid object and not a gun. But even a hand can be very dangerous. Here in Oklahoma we had an officer attacked and paralyzed from an attack with just hands. And seeing he was advancing on the officers I feel they did right in their actions . My $.02 worth

hangglider
January 29, 2012, 04:06 AM
I still think way too much information is missing to draw definitive conclusions--except that a guy got shot and killed who was carrying a weapon. My initial reaction is that the threat was there and the possibility of imminent harm to an officer was a possibility as well. May this have possibly been a "death by police" suicide or attention-grab event done on purpose--in other words the intended outcome the "BG" wanted was to be shot? Was there a "reasonable" way out without a loss of life given the situation and resources at hand? (I'm not suggesting the shoot was not justified--for all we know the BG may have had other weapons and intended to carry out other crimes).

Pond, James Pond
January 29, 2012, 05:01 AM
They seem to issue a single verbal command? What are you basing this on?

That is what I hear over the video: one garbled shout. Yes could have been more, hence the word "seem". However, as you point point three officers all shouting at once may not always be better

Gee, I don't know. Did you see the suspect fall to the ground when the tazer was being used? Was the suspect rendered harmless by the tazer? Did the suspect stop his aggressive actions after being tazed? No, the attempt to taze did not work.


Well, thank you for the sarcasm. Really appreciated. It was a rhetorical question...

The amount of time isn't any issue here. The suspect attempted to strike an officer with the bar. Such a strike may have resulted in significant injury or death.

I disagree. I counted 8 or so seconds. 8 seconds to attempt communication. That is all they decided to try. Before upping the stakes. And it was upping the stakes that elicitied a reaction from him.

Just what video are you watching where you explicitly can hear what was going on between the officers and the suspect? What dialog was needed? You do realize that to get a dialog going, you have to have input and response from from both parties, right?


Once again, loving the sarcasm...
What if he'd just said "Leave me alone!". Not beyond possibility is it? (Rhetorical question). Would that be reason enough to move to stun?
My point is and was that when he came out of that building he was not walking aggressively, apart from what was in his hand. He looked at them and yet walked straight on past: there was no officer I could see that was directly in his path: an objective, so to speak.

Perhaps you have good control of your emotions, but for many, when their "blood is up" and they're **ssed off, they will not automatically, instantly react to someone else's vebal command

I see little reason, given his demeanour at that time for a) deploying the tazer and , b) getting close enough to use it.

But they did, they didn't succeed (as you kindly pointed out), and they then only had grappling or shooting as the only options, if indeed the dog was of no use then.

Here's a scenario.
I am going to work on the assumption that we agree that he was not using body language of attack when he walked out and walked past the police.

What if they had tried to calm him down for more than 8 or so seconds: they had space to move, they could have shadowed him from a greater distance. He was not running around, screaming and swinging.

Even if he was not responding, verbally, and it was mostly one sided.

As long as his body language did not go from "I'm angry right now" to "I'm angry right now and I'm gonna swing at one of you", would trying to talk him down for 30 seconds, a minute, 10 minutes be such a bad idea?

Would that have been out of the question?
Would that not have been worth the attempt, given the outcome we've seen?
It's not like they didn't have their guns drawn in case, or were cornered by him. On top of that more police would have arrived too.

I put this out for consideration as an alternative outcome, don't feel you have to asnwer those questions. They are simply the questions I asked myself.

At the end of it all, I am not saying that the guy was not a threat.
I am not saying that using a firearm was never an option in that situation. And I am not saying that I have all the facts at my disposal, but based on what I saw in that video he became direct threat when they tazered him, not before.

That is when I see the situation going from tense, to dangerous, and that to my mind is what triggered it. After that, it seems a shooting was inevitable should the tazer fail.

I don't feel that hanging back and talking for longer would have put the officers at any greater risk.
Quite the opposite: further out of his strike range and a greater chance that he would engage in dialogue, rather than combat.
So, needless to say, you may well disagree with me, but I don't feel any of my points are unreasonable, nor my hypotheses beyond imagination.

PS: liberally using sarcasm in your responses is pretty condescending, and I certainly don't see why I merited it.

MLeake
January 29, 2012, 05:13 AM
Pond, from the way people have described the events in the video, the officers were slightly surprised by the initial approach of the subject. They may not have felt he was "contained" in those circumstances.

A really good example of containment working, and LTL means subduing a deadly weapon armed man, was the video shot in Seattle several years ago. A man was acting odd on a downtown street, menacing people with a katana.

Seattle police were able to contain him, but there were several officers on the scene, and the guy had his back to a wall. The officers kept him at an impasse, until a Seattle fire truck was able to come into play, and a water cannon disarmed the guy and knocked him flat.

There are major differences, though.

In the Seattle case, there were a lot more officers; the suspect never made a convincing, threatening move toward the officers (I'll tell you right now that if somebody advances on me with a katana, and I think he's serious, the gun is no longer the last option); the suspect was effectively contained, so there were no concerns about bystanders; and the availability of the fire truck was the clincher.

You seem to be worrying about "eight seconds." On the one hand, it's not a lot of time. On the other hand, it's plenty of time for somebody to harm or kill another.

I have an acquaintance who was involved in a hot refueling accident with an A-6 on a carrier. He was seriously burned, but managed to get out of the plane. Crash crew ran into the fire and pulled him away from the aircraft.

He saw the flight deck video recording later, and realized he'd only been on fire for thirteen seconds. He says that was the longest thirteen seconds of his life.

manta49
January 29, 2012, 06:38 AM
The guy went down after the first shot. After that if they could not contain him with the dog and tazers then they need further training. With the number of shots fired it looked like excessive force.

By the way i am far form being a liberal. The police have to follow the law just like the rest of us.

I would suggest that if a civilian shot someone that many times in similar circumstances they would be in jail waiting on their trial.

Pond, James Pond
January 29, 2012, 07:37 AM
Mleake:

What you say makes sense, but doesn't really address my point:
He may not have been contained, but nor were officers rooted to the spot. They could move and regardless, at the time he was tazed, he was NOT acting in an overtly threatening manner toward any particular officer.
I do not see the overwhelming motive for tazing at that time.

But tazing meant proximity, proximity meant striking distance, which meant shots fired due to the tazer being ineffectively used.

I don't see how I can make this point any differently.
Some may disagree, but that is the way I see it.

Double Naught Spy
January 29, 2012, 07:55 AM
That is what I hear over the video: one garbled shout. Yes could have been more, hence the word "seem". However, as you point point three officers all shouting at once may not always be better

Turn up the volume on your computer and on the Youtube video controls. You will hear several shouts. Your contention that the officers only seem to have shouted commands once is wrong.

There are witness accounts that indicate the officers issued multiple commands.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/01/23/deadly-monterey-park-officer-involved-shooting-caught-on-camera/

I disagree. I counted 8 or so seconds. 8 seconds to attempt communication. That is all they decided to try. Before upping the stakes. And it was upping the stakes that elicitied a reaction from him.

Tazing is considered an appropriate response to use on a person that represents a danger to the public, officers, or himself, especially given that the suspect failed to comply with the officer's instructions.

The reaction of the suspect to the officers was illegal.

Once again, loving the sarcasm...
The queries were not sarcastic. Your post did not indicate you understood what you were saying. You said the officers needed to establish a dialog, but no dialog is established if the suspect doesn't reply.

What if he'd just said "Leave me alone!". Not beyond possibility is it? (Rhetorical question).
That would be refusal of the dialog you said the officers needed to establish.

Would that be reason enough to move to stun
Yep, already answered. The suspect was a danger. A response of "Leave me alone!" would be a verbal indicator of the intentions not to comply.

Your fixation on 8 seconds is interesting, but those are only the seconds that elapse after the suspect exits Carl's Jr. When the video starts, the door to the Carl's Jr. is being held open and officers are already yelling commands to the suspect inside. Then the suspect exits and your 8 seconds occur. However, the lapsed time is 40 seconds of commands, not 8 seconds. You wanted officers to try talking to him for at least 30 seconds? You got 40. The suspect failed to comply, posed a danger, was not stopped by the tazer, then turned lethally hostile.

Pond, James Pond
January 29, 2012, 08:37 AM
You got 40.

And all that the suspect did in that time was walk out of the building, until being tazed.
Personally, if there is scope, and I believe there was, I think a person's life is worth more than 40 seconds of commands.

The suspect failed to comply, posed a danger, was not stopped by the tazer, then turned lethally hostile.

You've said it yourself. He turned lethally hostile after the taze. Not before. So he did not comply. Big deal. Not complying to "drop the bar", is not the same as threatening with the bar.

There was a risk of threatening behaviour, granted, but there was none directed at a particular officer, dog or member of the public, at the time of the tazer being deployed.

Trying to talk him down from 10 yards with sites on target would not have put the officers at greater risk than tazing him unsuccessfully at 2 yards.

Once more: Please tell me what actions by the suspect required a taze, at that time, as opposed to any other action possible.

Please tell me what prevented them from standing further back, easily out of range, just waiting to see what he might do.

On second thoughts don't bother: I've made this comment several times and no-one has addressed this point.

The queries were not sarcastic.

Queries or not, to me your tone and remarks in those sections were clearly sarcastic:

Gee, I don't know. ...
:rolleyes:... No, the attempt to taze did not work....
You do realize that to get a dialog going, you have to have input and response from from both parties, right?...


Feel free to use this tone with others you disagree with, but I'd rather you didn't with me: it does not add weight to your arguement, and makes me less inclined to discuss issues with you. Mutual respect should be a given.

Ruthless4christ
January 29, 2012, 09:19 AM
The guy went down after the first shot. After that if they could not contain him with the dog and tazers then they need further training. With the number of shots fired it looked like excessive force.

Did you see him hit pavement after the first round of shots? I did not.

And all that the suspect did in that time was walk out of the building, until being tazed.

So I am curious. At what point should an officer try and detain/ stop a criminal? If a Bank rubber walks out of a bank with an RPG, can we taze him? Or do we have to sit down and talk with him about it to ensure that he really means others harm? Ok how about a mac 10 in his hand now. is that two big of a downgrade from an RPG r does that now warrant a tazing? Howabout a samurai sword? At what point does the object in the fellas hand become dangerous enough that a cop should be allowed to engage him? Or do you feel they should let all of these fellas walk?

Pond, James Pond
January 29, 2012, 09:30 AM
So I am curious. At what point should an officer try and detain/ stop a criminal? If a Bank rubber walks out of a bank with an RPG, can we taze him? Or do we have to sit down and talk with him about it to ensure that he really means others harm? Ok how about a mac 10 in his hand now. is that two big of a downgrade from an RPG r does that now warrant a tazing? Howabout a samurai sword? At what point does the object in the fellas hand become dangerous enough that a cop should be allowed to engage him? Or do you feel they should let all of these fellas walk?

Stop, stop, stop.

Why are you putting a guy with an RPG, or a Mac 10 in the same category as the item in the video? :confused:
Why are you even bringing other fabricated scenarios into this discussion?
The video is what we are discussing, not your rampant imagination.
Stop cooking up extreme examples to support your views on this incident.

Back your views with facts from the case in hand, or please don't bother posting in response to my comments.

As for the samurai sword: same as the bar. If he can't easily reach you with the blade, you are not in immediate danger, are you?

Ruthless4christ
January 29, 2012, 09:50 AM
IF he had had a gun, would you suggest the police stay out of gun range, thus eliminating the need to shoot the suspect in self defense as he would never have a chance of harming them in the first place? The reason I am asking these questions is because this idea of walking around on eggshells around armed criminals, is very new to me, so I am trying to figure out the rules.

as far as cooking up extreme examples. A man hitting me in the face as hard as he possibly can with a pipe bender is about is pretty extreme for me.

Pond, James Pond
January 29, 2012, 10:01 AM
IF he had had a gun, would you suggest the police stay out of gun range, thus eliminating the need to shoot the suspect in self defense as he would never have a chance of harming them in the first place? as far as cooking up extreme examples.

There was no gun in that man's grasp during this video. So.. irrelevant.
If you cannot grasp that each situation should be judged on its own characteristics, I can't explain it to you.
Are you just trolling?

The reason I am asking these questions is because this idea of walking around on eggshells around armed criminals, is very new to me, so I am trying to figure out the rules.

No.
The reason you ask is because you have no answer to the issues in this situation. Hence, instead, you make up examples to suit your point of view, even if they are entirely make-believe.
Troll looking more and more likely

A man hitting me in the face as hard as he possibly can with a pipe bender is about is pretty extreme for me.

Not even going to bother with that one.....
Definitely time to stop feeding the Troll....

stephen426
January 29, 2012, 10:08 AM
Pond, James Pond,

Based on the video, we have no clue of what occured before the video began or why the police were there in the first place. What if the suspect had just bashed someone's skull in? The police are supposed to apprehend him and prevent him from threatening others. The amount of thime they gave him is irrelavent. The suspect's actions led to his own demise. The fact that the police officers even attempted to use a less than lethal weapon is a testament to their "sanctity" for life.

I'm sure the officers ordered the suspect to put down the weapon. The man clearly failed to comply. Less than lethal force was used to apprehend him. The officer that tazed the suspect made a tactical mistake by not retreating after the tazer failed to stop the suspect. At that point, there was no other option than for the other officer to shoot the suspect to prevent him from bashing in his partner's skull. It was a split second decision and in my opinion, the correct decision. The dog may or may not have been able to stop the suspect in time. I can assure you that a pipe bender can cause serious injury or death with a single blow, especially a two-handed swing.

If suspects don't want to be shot, comply with police officers. A good way to get shot is attack a police officer when multiple officers already have their weapons drawn on you.

Ruthless4christ
January 29, 2012, 10:24 AM
Careful stephen426, that deductive logic you are using there is known as troll talk to some in these parts! ;)

Pond, James Pond
January 29, 2012, 10:32 AM
we have no clue of what occured before the video began

Absolutely true.

I don't question the common sense in your comments, but they in themselves are also making suppositions about what happened.

I have put forward some suppositions: they postulate an alternative to how some have interpreted or justified the events, but ultimately can't be the basis for my point of view.

That is why I am doing my best to confine my conclusions based on what I have seen.

I see a guy walking, only walking, when he is tazered by a policeman at his 9 or 8 o'clock.

If we later find out that he had already assaulted someone in the restaurant, then that would be a relevant point to be taken into account.
Until then, though....

Double Naught Spy
January 29, 2012, 11:30 AM
And all that the suspect did in that time was walk out of the building, until being tazed.
Personally, if there is scope, and I believe there was, I think a person's life is worth more than 40 seconds of commands.

Ah, I now see your confusion. You think that the officers should not have done anything that would result in the suspect turning violent such that they were put in a position to defend their lives. You think it is the officer's fault that he attempted to do serious bodily harm to the officer.

It was the suspect that decided to go lethal when he did, not the officers. You seem to repeatedly miss this point. If you are going to argue that the suspect's life is worth more than 40 seconds, then argue with the suspect. He picked the time and place, not the officers.

You've said it yourself. He turned lethally hostile after the taze. Not before. So he did not comply. Big deal. Not complying to "drop the bar", is not the same as threatening with the bar.

I have put forward some suppositions: they postulate an alternative to how some have interpreted or justified the events, but ultimately can't be the basis for my point of view.

That is why I am doing my best to confine my conclusions based on what I have seen.


So your goal here is to repeatedly argue from a position of ignorance. You did that with the audio information and now you are doing it with the visual information. You have decided that the only factors relevant to what occurred are what you have or have not seen and heard in the video clip despite witness accounts and other information available to you.

I see a guy walking, only walking, when he is tazered by a policeman at his 9 or 8 o'clock.
So just out of the blue you think the officers just decided to taze a guy walking? You don't see and hear a guy who has already exhibited violent behavior and who fails to comply with officer demands?

Tazing a violent suspect who refuses to comply with officer demands is appropriate.

Why are you putting a guy with an RPG, or a Mac 10 in the same category as the item in the video?
Why are you even bringing other fabricated scenarios into this discussion?

LOL, you find it okay when you bring fabricated scenarios into the discussion (post 40), but not when others do.

Ruthless4christ
January 29, 2012, 11:36 AM
The signature Doubt: ...it's the only thing I'm sure of... may put things into perspective as to why this argument is even taking place. :rolleyes:

Pond, James Pond
January 29, 2012, 01:10 PM
Ah, I now see your confusion. You think that the officers should not have done anything that would result in the suspect turning violent such that they were put in a position to defend their lives.

Actually, put like that, it sounds like an excellent advice.
Yes, making a suspect turn violent would be very unwise.

So your goal here is to repeatedly argue from a position of ignorance. You did that with the audio information and now you are doing it with the visual information. You have decided that the only factors relevant to what occurred are what you have or have not seen and heard in the video clip despite witness accounts and other information available to you.


You suggest that basing my views on the evidence at hand is bad thing...
You are as ignorant as I since, like me, you were not there.
I'll happily accept that the police had shouted several commands at him, but....

...I have not seen any links to other witnesses saying that he made any aggressive moves in the moments prior to being tazed.

All I've seen is your news link that says he smashed windows and ignored police commands.
Antisocial: yes. Stupid: yes.
Immediate threat to the public: No.

Since you have all the answers: tell me what he did or what you know he was about to do in the middle of that carpark to make tazing the only option.

If you think that he deserved to get shot: good for you.

If you think that there was absolutely no advantage in just hanging back from the guy and letting him rant for a bit, gauging his intent; good for you.

As trained professionals, yes, I would expect the police where I live to work by procedure, but also use judgment to assess each case by its own merits.

Aside from the obvious destruction of property, not obeying the police was his mistake.
Approaching the guy here, I think was their mistake.
That was the tipping point: and there was no indication that he would otherwise have lunged at anyone. His actions had been up till then directed at property and he was isolated from the public.

Difference here being the police had the advantage in training, in space, in numbers, in weaponry. I believe they were premature in using the tazer: it lead to a death that I think could have been avoided.
And they injured a member of the public due to stray fire, which is more than the suspect did throughout.

Bottom line is: I know what I think on this. I've cited why.
I'd be more than happy to review that opinion if new evidence came to light.

I've not really seen any specifics to address that point so I'm not particularly bothered if you agree or not.
However, I certainly haven't changed my degree of courtesy to you in order to bolster my point.
Unfortunately, you seem unable to disagree without opting for condescension.

LOL, you find it okay when you bring fabricated scenarios into the discussion (post 40), but not when others do.

At least I admitted it was hypothesis.
I offered a different possible take on what we saw for the purposes of challenging some people's immediate interpretations on the situation. Not some ludicrous reference to RPGs

You seem to think bringing military ordinance into the equation is on a par.
LOL indeed....

Ruthless4christ
January 29, 2012, 01:19 PM
If you think that there was absolutely no advantage in just hanging back from the guy and letting him rant for a bit, gauging his intent; good for you.


and he was isolated from the public.

how would letting him walk out into the street, have been advantageous, and how would it have kept him isolated from the public?

You seem to think bringing military ordinance into the equation is on a par.
LOL indeed....

once you have witnessed people killed in front of you, you start to realize the types of weapons that people use are not as significant as the intent behind their use. One reason why I never get involved in the 9mm vs .45 discussions.

Capt Charlie
January 29, 2012, 02:55 PM
This has become a bit too personal. It's a shame too, because the subject had potential. (Stress on past tense.)

Oh well, hopefully the subject will come up again sometime, without the incivility. The fate of this one, however, is sealed.

Closed.