The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 28, 2012, 04:55 PM   #26
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,892
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.

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?

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...
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 05:50 PM   #27
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
in some states they charge the assault of a police dog the same as assault of an officer.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 06:05 PM   #28
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,276
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.

Last edited by manta49; January 28, 2012 at 06:14 PM.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 06:14 PM   #29
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Quote:
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 is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 06:19 PM   #30
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
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.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 06:52 PM   #31
TheGoldenState
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2010
Posts: 1,191
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.
__________________
The Day You Get Comfortable Is The Day You Get Careless...
TheGoldenState is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 07:06 PM   #32
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,444
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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? No, the attempt to taze did not work.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old January 28, 2012, 07:40 PM   #33
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Quote:
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.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 28, 2012, 09:54 PM   #34
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 12:23 AM   #35
KC Rob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2009
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 321
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!
__________________
KC Rob
KC Rob is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 12:43 AM   #36
BlackFeather
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 450
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.)
__________________
"Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men." - Miyamoto Musashi

[Insert random irrelevant religious quote here]
BlackFeather is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 01:11 AM   #37
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by manta49
...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.

Last edited by Frank Ettin; January 29, 2012 at 01:56 AM.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 01:49 AM   #38
kinggabby
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 473
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
kinggabby is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 04:06 AM   #39
hangglider
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2011
Posts: 212
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).
hangglider is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 05:01 AM   #40
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,892
Quote:
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

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 05:13 AM   #41
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 06:38 AM   #42
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,276
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.
manta49 is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 07:37 AM   #43
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,892
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.
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 07:55 AM   #44
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,444
Quote:
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/...ght-on-camera/

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old January 29, 2012, 08:37 AM   #45
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,892
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
Gee, I don't know. ...
... 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.
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 09:19 AM   #46
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 09:30 AM   #47
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,892
Quote:
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?
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?
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.

Last edited by Pond, James Pond; January 29, 2012 at 09:41 AM.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 09:50 AM   #48
Ruthless4christ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
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.
Ruthless4christ is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 10:01 AM   #49
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,892
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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

Quote:
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....
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old January 29, 2012, 10:08 AM   #50
stephen426
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Posts: 2,884
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.
__________________
The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!
stephen426 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14445 seconds with 7 queries