In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
It looked like a pipe bender to me. The second cop shot his load while the perp was turned around and walking away from him. Using the car as support, he had no fight left. The punky kid looked more like he was throwing a tantrum than going for blood. If the cops were too chicken to take the guy down they had a dog that was not afraid. They wanted to shoot the guy and kept shooting to make sure he was dead. This is probably less expensive than the costs of court and stuff, but having cops that want to kill people causes its own problems. I don't feel much for the dead guy, he was probably aspiring to be a scum. The world would be a lonely place if everyone was killed for making bad choices though. The people filming it had an adrenaline shot when they saw someone killed right in front of them. Realizing they were not harmed it is expected that they will laugh or do something out of the norm.
quote:Originally posted by buckstar
The second cop shot his load while the perp was turned around and walking away from him. Using the car as support, he had no fight left.Dang...You sure were able to tell a LOT from only being able catch a glimpse of the guy's head/shoulders over the top of that car. [:D]
Did you also have a vision of where his hands were and what moves was he was making with them?
A couple of points to keep in mind...
What you're seeing in that guy's hands is a weapon, but it's a big mistake to assume it's the only weapon he has. Logically, you have to keep an eye on his hands for movements indicating other potential threats.
It's where most people's knowledge of this sort of stuff comes from, but shootings rarely work the way Hollywood shows them. In the real world there are no big blood splatters suddenly appearing where bullets strike people. In the HUGE majority of cases you'll never know if rounds being fired are even hitting the person. Any turning, quick movements, etc. observed may simply be reflexive due to the possibility of being hit.
This is why all training you've ever heard of for such situations - whether directed at cops OR John Q. Citizen - says to continue firing until the threat is down.
Stopping when the threat looks like it may cease is a VERY bad plan.
quote:This is why all training you've ever heard of for such situations - whether directed at cops OR John Q. Citizen - says to continue firing until the threat is down.
I don't have a problem with that, but I was always taught, and read the same thing in numerous articles by Ayoob and others, that if you empty your mag on the guy a jury might find you were overly-aggressive.
True, it's better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6, but in all reality the video didn't seem like it would have been very hard to double-tap the guy as you're backing away to gain some separation. Which brings up a strategic question: Why in the hell were the cops that close to begin with? Had they confronted the guy from 30' away rather than being so close, more options might have been available.
quote:Originally posted by Wyatt Earp
quote:This is why all training you've ever heard of for such situations - whether directed at cops OR John Q. Citizen - says to continue firing until the threat is down.
I don't have a problem with that, but I was always taught, and read the same thing in numerous articles by Ayoob and others, that if you empty your mag on the guy a jury might find you were overly-aggressive.
True, it's better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6, but in all reality the video didn't seem like it would have been very hard to double-tap the guy as you're backing away to gain some separation. Which brings up a strategic question: Why in the hell were the cops that close to begin with? Had they confronted the guy from 30' away rather than being so close, more options might have been available.
That was the issue I tried to raise. A shooting solution was selected while the guy was still inside.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
That was the issue I tried to raise. A shooting solution was selected while the guy was still inside.[/black]
It's quite a stretch to refer to this as them 'selecting' a shooting situation.
Where does it show them dragging him out the front door?
It's also not as if the first 2-3 cops there barged inside and forced the situation.
Those cops appeared to act prudently by setting up to keep the guy contained until a trained negotiator, possibly someone still enroute with a bean bag round type weapon, etc. could do their thing.
Instead this numbnuts dealt the hand and then played it out by his own timetable.
Once he came out they couldn't allow him to wander off toward innocents - such as the numbnuts videoing this - or possibly even get in a car and drive away. They tried using the best tool available at the moment from the maximum distance it allowed, but this failed to do the trick and the guy suddenly went after someone with a deadly weapon...all in a matter of a few seconds.
I have a good bit of experience with bo staffs and even though they don't have blades on the end, they're not that hard to get out of the way of if you're reasonable fit and mildly athletic...which cops should be, imo.
I can imagine that the threat seemed a lot more lethal to the portly cop than it would to one who is fairly agile.
That there is just down right funny!![:0]
quote:Originally posted by Wyatt Earp
I have a good bit of experience with bo staffs and even though they don't have blades on the end, they're not that hard to get out of the way of if you're reasonable fit and mildly athletic...which cops should be, imo.
I can imagine that the threat seemed a lot more lethal to the portly cop than it would to one who is fairly agile.
quote:Originally posted by Txs
quote:Originally posted by skicat
That was the issue I tried to raise. A shooting solution was selected while the guy was still inside.[/black]
It's quite a stretch to refer to this as them 'selecting' a shooting situation.
Where does it show them dragging him out the front door?
It's also not as if the first 2-3 cops there barged inside and forced the situation.
Those cops appeared to act prudently by setting up to keep the guy contained until a trained negotiator, possibly someone still enroute with a bean bag round type weapon, etc. could do their thing.
Instead this numbnuts dealt the hand and then played it out by his own timetable.
Once he came out they couldn't allow him to wander off toward innocents - such as the numbnuts videoing this - or possibly even get in a car and drive away. They tried using the best tool available at the moment from the maximum distance it allowed, but this failed to do the trick and the guy suddenly went after someone with a deadly weapon...all in a matter of a few seconds.
Before the man exited the bldg the officers were waiting with taser and pistol drawn. That is what I mean by selected. They could have elected to be on the opposite side of the car, out of arms reach where they made use of their voices and brains to stall for time and allow the man time for his adrenaline level to subside.
As far as not allowing him to wander toward innocents, that isn't the only option. It is just the only option which strengthens the case for what the officers chose to do. I have witnessed more than once in my drinking days, officers letting a violent drunk storm around a parking lot until he calmed down enough to listen to reason. Amazingly they seemed able to keep them from re-entering the bar or getting behind the wheel. Another amazing thing I also observed is that these innocents who need protecting do a real good job of avoiding the angry person all on their own.
Since the guy died, only a psychopath would insist this wasn't a failure at several levels and deserving of examination.
If instead of turning out to be a drug crazed gang banging felon with outstanding warrants for white slavery and arson for hire he turns out to be the big brother of a sixteen year old girl who took a beating from her boyfriend the assistant manager the night before. After sending a message to stay away from his sister he leaves and gets shot in the face with a taser followed by ten gunshots because he made the mistake of scaring a police officer. Would that scenario change anyones answer I wonder?
Another question to ask yourself...Can you apply the zero tolerance for threatening actions in both directions?
quote:Originally posted by UNIVERSITY50
That there is just down right funny!![:0]
quote:Originally posted by Wyatt Earp
I have a good bit of experience with bo staffs and even though they don't have blades on the end, they're not that hard to get out of the way of if you're reasonable fit and mildly athletic...which cops should be, imo.
I can imagine that the threat seemed a lot more lethal to the portly cop than it would to one who is fairly agile.
quote:Originally posted by nunn
"Bo staff!" I got a giggle out of that too! Thanks!
Actually the bo staff is the most practical of all the martial arts weapons, imo. It is legal, for starters. Any mop handle or other stick is a makeshift substitute for the bo staff in an emergency.
All that said, my point had nothing to do with the bo staff - it was only a way of pointing out that a man carrying a long pole is not very agile with said pole. Any cop who can't get inside sickguy's pole from the distance the cops were at, is really really slow...especially given that he had pepperspray in his eyes.
Giving commands from one human to another human is one thing. Give commands to a man as if he's a dog and it does not help anything.
Watch the video again the man did not raise his weapon till the cop invaded his safty cushion of personal space. He was walking away from the police.
Now I am not saying the cop was not within his rights but he escalated the situation with an armed man. If you want to taunt someone who's flipping out into a position to legally kill him it's not that hard and I think the cops there knew it.
It is possible that the police moved in close to try and disarm the guy, without having to use deadly force.
Also while police often expose themselves to unnecessary risks to keep from having to use deadly force, does not necessarily mean that they have to, or that they will act the same even if presented with similar circumstances.
Police are people too, having both good and bad days and some days they may be willing to put up with more active aggression than on other days. Bottom line is that police are given some leeway as long as the force they use is reasonable for the situation and they are given it because things happen very quickly and they often have to make split second decisions that could result in serious * harm or death to an officer.
If you are in the mood to swing a long metal object in a threatening manner and do some property damage, when the po-po arrives with guns drawn, the safest thing for you do do is to drop the object when they tell you to.[;)]
quote:
If you are in the mood to swing a long metal object in a threatening manner and do some property damage, when the po-po arrives with guns drawn, the safest thing for you do do is to drop the object when they tell you to.[;)]
I agree with that. On the other hand, often it seems like there is a mentality among "some" cops that says "You have disobeyed my 'command' and now you have met the legal threshold required by me to escalate this situation."
I have personally known a lot of cops - dozens and dozens of them - and without exception the really good ones were the ones who did not react in a physical way to every situation where they had a legal justification for doing so. They tended to stay just close enough to keep the perp from harming others, but allowing a little more time and space to pass so the guy might calm down some. The bad ones were quick to launch with overwhelming force the second legal justification was there to allow them to do it.
I can remember my stepdad explaining to his officers the importance of repeatedly saying "Sir, stop resisting," so that witnesses would recount that at trial. Lo & behold when you watch COPS on TV, you see cops chanting "Sir, stop resisting" long after the dude is out of it.
No no no, those aren't the kind of commands I'm talking about. I don't really see those as unreasonable commands.
Maybe I used the wrong word. What I'm talking about is when a cop is dealing with a person who is suspected of nothing but for whatever the reason a cop starts handing out orders to make the point that he is in charge of a non-situation where nobody needs to be in charge. I've seen it many times, a cop asserts his authority for no reason other than to let you know he has the authority to assert his authority.
I'm sure you don't see it, because cops don't act that way around other cops, but I'd bet that 50% of people reading this have seen a cop step in and start taking charge for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Comments
Sometimes a polite request is all that is necessary; sometimes a command is warranted, like it or not.
Warranted being the operative word.
The second cop shot his load while the perp was turned around and walking away from him. Using the car as support, he had no fight left.Dang...You sure were able to tell a LOT from only being able catch a glimpse of the guy's head/shoulders over the top of that car. [:D]
Did you also have a vision of where his hands were and what moves was he was making with them?
A couple of points to keep in mind...
What you're seeing in that guy's hands is a weapon, but it's a big mistake to assume it's the only weapon he has. Logically, you have to keep an eye on his hands for movements indicating other potential threats.
It's where most people's knowledge of this sort of stuff comes from, but shootings rarely work the way Hollywood shows them. In the real world there are no big blood splatters suddenly appearing where bullets strike people. In the HUGE majority of cases you'll never know if rounds being fired are even hitting the person. Any turning, quick movements, etc. observed may simply be reflexive due to the possibility of being hit.
This is why all training you've ever heard of for such situations - whether directed at cops OR John Q. Citizen - says to continue firing until the threat is down.
Stopping when the threat looks like it may cease is a VERY bad plan.
I don't have a problem with that, but I was always taught, and read the same thing in numerous articles by Ayoob and others, that if you empty your mag on the guy a jury might find you were overly-aggressive.
True, it's better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6, but in all reality the video didn't seem like it would have been very hard to double-tap the guy as you're backing away to gain some separation. Which brings up a strategic question: Why in the hell were the cops that close to begin with? Had they confronted the guy from 30' away rather than being so close, more options might have been available.
quote:This is why all training you've ever heard of for such situations - whether directed at cops OR John Q. Citizen - says to continue firing until the threat is down.
I don't have a problem with that, but I was always taught, and read the same thing in numerous articles by Ayoob and others, that if you empty your mag on the guy a jury might find you were overly-aggressive.
True, it's better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6, but in all reality the video didn't seem like it would have been very hard to double-tap the guy as you're backing away to gain some separation. Which brings up a strategic question: Why in the hell were the cops that close to begin with? Had they confronted the guy from 30' away rather than being so close, more options might have been available.
That was the issue I tried to raise. A shooting solution was selected while the guy was still inside.
That was the issue I tried to raise. A shooting solution was selected while the guy was still inside.[/black]
It's quite a stretch to refer to this as them 'selecting' a shooting situation.
Where does it show them dragging him out the front door?
It's also not as if the first 2-3 cops there barged inside and forced the situation.
Those cops appeared to act prudently by setting up to keep the guy contained until a trained negotiator, possibly someone still enroute with a bean bag round type weapon, etc. could do their thing.
Instead this numbnuts dealt the hand and then played it out by his own timetable.
Once he came out they couldn't allow him to wander off toward innocents - such as the numbnuts videoing this - or possibly even get in a car and drive away. They tried using the best tool available at the moment from the maximum distance it allowed, but this failed to do the trick and the guy suddenly went after someone with a deadly weapon...all in a matter of a few seconds.
I can imagine that the threat seemed a lot more lethal to the portly cop than it would to one who is fairly agile.
quote:Originally posted by Wyatt Earp
I have a good bit of experience with bo staffs and even though they don't have blades on the end, they're not that hard to get out of the way of if you're reasonable fit and mildly athletic...which cops should be, imo.
I can imagine that the threat seemed a lot more lethal to the portly cop than it would to one who is fairly agile.
quote:Originally posted by skicat
That was the issue I tried to raise. A shooting solution was selected while the guy was still inside.[/black]
It's quite a stretch to refer to this as them 'selecting' a shooting situation.
Where does it show them dragging him out the front door?
It's also not as if the first 2-3 cops there barged inside and forced the situation.
Those cops appeared to act prudently by setting up to keep the guy contained until a trained negotiator, possibly someone still enroute with a bean bag round type weapon, etc. could do their thing.
Instead this numbnuts dealt the hand and then played it out by his own timetable.
Once he came out they couldn't allow him to wander off toward innocents - such as the numbnuts videoing this - or possibly even get in a car and drive away. They tried using the best tool available at the moment from the maximum distance it allowed, but this failed to do the trick and the guy suddenly went after someone with a deadly weapon...all in a matter of a few seconds.
Before the man exited the bldg the officers were waiting with taser and pistol drawn. That is what I mean by selected. They could have elected to be on the opposite side of the car, out of arms reach where they made use of their voices and brains to stall for time and allow the man time for his adrenaline level to subside.
As far as not allowing him to wander toward innocents, that isn't the only option. It is just the only option which strengthens the case for what the officers chose to do. I have witnessed more than once in my drinking days, officers letting a violent drunk storm around a parking lot until he calmed down enough to listen to reason. Amazingly they seemed able to keep them from re-entering the bar or getting behind the wheel. Another amazing thing I also observed is that these innocents who need protecting do a real good job of avoiding the angry person all on their own.
Since the guy died, only a psychopath would insist this wasn't a failure at several levels and deserving of examination.
If instead of turning out to be a drug crazed gang banging felon with outstanding warrants for white slavery and arson for hire he turns out to be the big brother of a sixteen year old girl who took a beating from her boyfriend the assistant manager the night before. After sending a message to stay away from his sister he leaves and gets shot in the face with a taser followed by ten gunshots because he made the mistake of scaring a police officer. Would that scenario change anyones answer I wonder?
Another question to ask yourself...Can you apply the zero tolerance for threatening actions in both directions?
That there is just down right funny!![:0]
quote:Originally posted by Wyatt Earp
I have a good bit of experience with bo staffs and even though they don't have blades on the end, they're not that hard to get out of the way of if you're reasonable fit and mildly athletic...which cops should be, imo.
I can imagine that the threat seemed a lot more lethal to the portly cop than it would to one who is fairly agile.
I apologize if I offended any portly cops. [:D]
"Bo staff!" I got a giggle out of that too! Thanks!
Actually the bo staff is the most practical of all the martial arts weapons, imo. It is legal, for starters. Any mop handle or other stick is a makeshift substitute for the bo staff in an emergency.
All that said, my point had nothing to do with the bo staff - it was only a way of pointing out that a man carrying a long pole is not very agile with said pole. Any cop who can't get inside sickguy's pole from the distance the cops were at, is really really slow...especially given that he had pepperspray in his eyes.
Never having been assaulted with an axe, I can't say for sure how I would react, but I expect it would be in a similar fashion.
Watch the video again the man did not raise his weapon till the cop invaded his safty cushion of personal space. He was walking away from the police.
Now I am not saying the cop was not within his rights but he escalated the situation with an armed man. If you want to taunt someone who's flipping out into a position to legally kill him it's not that hard and I think the cops there knew it.
Also while police often expose themselves to unnecessary risks to keep from having to use deadly force, does not necessarily mean that they have to, or that they will act the same even if presented with similar circumstances.
Police are people too, having both good and bad days and some days they may be willing to put up with more active aggression than on other days. Bottom line is that police are given some leeway as long as the force they use is reasonable for the situation and they are given it because things happen very quickly and they often have to make split second decisions that could result in serious * harm or death to an officer.
If you are in the mood to swing a long metal object in a threatening manner and do some property damage, when the po-po arrives with guns drawn, the safest thing for you do do is to drop the object when they tell you to.[;)]
If you are in the mood to swing a long metal object in a threatening manner and do some property damage, when the po-po arrives with guns drawn, the safest thing for you do do is to drop the object when they tell you to.[;)]
I agree with that. On the other hand, often it seems like there is a mentality among "some" cops that says "You have disobeyed my 'command' and now you have met the legal threshold required by me to escalate this situation."
I have personally known a lot of cops - dozens and dozens of them - and without exception the really good ones were the ones who did not react in a physical way to every situation where they had a legal justification for doing so. They tended to stay just close enough to keep the perp from harming others, but allowing a little more time and space to pass so the guy might calm down some. The bad ones were quick to launch with overwhelming force the second legal justification was there to allow them to do it.
I can remember my stepdad explaining to his officers the importance of repeatedly saying "Sir, stop resisting," so that witnesses would recount that at trial. Lo & behold when you watch COPS on TV, you see cops chanting "Sir, stop resisting" long after the dude is out of it.
"Sit!"
"Down!"
"Stay!"
"Here!"
"No!"
Human commands:
"Pull over!"
"Stop resisting!"
"Drop the weapon!"
"Show me your hands!"
"Get on the ground!"
See the difference?
Dog commands:
"Sit!"
"Down!"
"Stay!"
"Here!"
"No!"
Human commands:
"Pull over!"
"Stop resisting!"
"Drop the weapon!"
"Show me your hands!"
"Get on the ground!"
See the difference?
No no no, those aren't the kind of commands I'm talking about. I don't really see those as unreasonable commands.
Maybe I used the wrong word. What I'm talking about is when a cop is dealing with a person who is suspected of nothing but for whatever the reason a cop starts handing out orders to make the point that he is in charge of a non-situation where nobody needs to be in charge. I've seen it many times, a cop asserts his authority for no reason other than to let you know he has the authority to assert his authority.
I'm sure you don't see it, because cops don't act that way around other cops, but I'd bet that 50% of people reading this have seen a cop step in and start taking charge for absolutely no reason whatsoever.