Excessive force or not?

[wilbur]

Unless of course the person is under the influence of intoxicants, or in a motivated or psychotic state. In that case, such people have been known to shrug off multiple gunshots and keep going. For those people, pain compliance isn't a good option. It also requires the cop to be withing 20" to hit him. Thats close.

For you, one size fits all. If he doesn't comply, he must be in a psychotic state, with a weapon and charging even after being shot. None of this was the case in this situation. He didn't show a weapon anb didn't charge, especially after being shot the first time. He dropped right away. If police officers don't have the brainpower to be able to assess situations, then they shouldn't be police officers.

Plus, if you can't hit someone charging at you at a distance of 15 feet while continuously having aimed your handgun at him, you should get another job. He never charged the officers, and he didn't have a weapon.

 

[jackson11]

You mean a felony offense gives the cop the right to carry out an execution?

Non compliance is no justification to shoot someone.


Those cops were wired to the dispatcher's warning that he had a rifle, so they were wired to use lethal force.

And BTW, where could he have hidden his rifle? Not like he was wearing a thench coat?

.

Non compliance may not justify shooting someone but when an officer feels their life is threatened it is

Sure he may not be able to hide a rifle however once it is reported he has a weapon/ firearm it puts the police on high alert because if he has one it is assumed he could have more. And he did reach toward his waistband as if he had a hand gun....and that could be hidden

Plan and simple if someone points a gun at your head and tells you to do something then you should shut the fuck up and do it

I have been in a similar situation. Friends got into an altercation that had nothing to do with me. Report went out there was a weapon involved (there wasn't but it was reported that way to police on route by whoever called them). When the police arrived they had their guns drawn put everyone on the ground including me that had nothing to do with the situation I just happen to be near them. Cops put a gun right to the back of my head as I lay on the face down on the ground. I didn't try to "reason" with them or "argue" with them or try to explain my innocences. I shut the fuck up and did exactly what they said. I went down and waited. Once the cops felt the area was secure they took my report/ listened to my side. They easily determined I was not involved and I went happily on my way. All I had to do is shut the fuck up and do what they said. After the situation is over you can do whatever you want- file a report; piss moan and complain etc etc etc. In my case I just walked away. However at the exact moment you should shut the fuck up and do what you are told.

Moral of the story if someone hasn't gotten it yet is: If someone points a gun at your head (whether it is justified or not) at that moment in time shut the fuck up and do what you are told. After the situation is over you can do whatever you want but you will never beat someone with a gun pointed at your head.

 

[Smallcock]

I'm not saying to take cover. I'm saying position yourself in a position that reduces the potential threat to you while allowing more time to assess the situation: that is to determine if a gun is visible or is being pulled from where it's hidden.

The point is that he didn't have a gun. You don't shoot someone just in case he has a gun. You have to see it first. While pointing your handgun at the suspect with your finger on the trigger, if you can't let go an accurate shot before he has time to pull the gun out, aim it at you and pull the trigger, then I don't think you have the necessary hand eye coordination and motor skills to qualify in the use of handguns.

If we want police to use infantry rules of engagement, then we should pay them like privates in the infantry, and not the 6 figure salaries normally given to professionals who actually use their brains for a living.

In this case, the officers shot the supect, not because he was an immediate threat, but because he didn't comply with their orders to stop moving. The gun became a compliance tool, and not a tool for self defense. Not a justification. The extra shots fired when the suspect was lying wounded on the ground is proof of that.

This is surreal. You actually believe this???

 

[kugel1]

For you, one size fits all. If he doesn't comply, he must be in a psychotic state, with a weapon and charging even after being shot. None of this was the case in this situation. He didn't show a weapon anb didn't charge, especially after being shot the first time. He dropped right away. If police officers don't have the brainpower to be able to assess situations, then they shouldn't be police officers.

Plus, if you can't hit someone charging at you at a distance of 15 feet while continuously having aimed your handgun at him, you should get another job. He never charged the officers, and he didn't have a weapon.

Well, thank you for your diagnostic assessment of my tactical experience. Obviously you have all the facts that you need to make that judgement. A person running at you at 15 feet will cover about 8 feet per second, easily. That leaves less than 2 seconds. Action to reaction time, and firearm dsicharge, will be will over 1 second. The reaction to the round hitting depends on several factors, mainly where it hits, and if it is percieved by the target. SO, rely on a 1 shot kill, you say? What gun should one use for that? Please, tell us about your skills firing under stress. The cops don't train for it. They aren't even allowed to take their guns to private ranges (at least in Ontario).

 

[GPIDEAL]

Even if wrong it is a felony offence and (from most media reports) he was suicidal & pretending to reach for a (fake) handgun
In that case it really is a bye bye kinda moment, better to shoot first and ask questions later

If you know he's suicidal, maybe he doesn't have a gun but is faking it.

I can't see why a cop can't approach more closely with his weapon trained on target just in case he makes a sudden move, which is unlikely because he's bleeding from prior gunshot wounds and is lying flat on his back.

 

[GPIDEAL]

What is the rush to approach him? If he fails to comply and reach in his waistband, why put a cop's life in danger? Action is faster than reaction. One shot from the bad guy and the cop is dead. Why risk approaching while he is still going into his waist area?

Approach so the cop can see better and assess the situation, and possibly restrain him. In this particular case, the cop had the advantage, even if the perp pulled out a gun because he was already in his sights with his gun cocked and ready (not to mention all the other guns pointed at the perp).

The perp was probably mortally wounded.

 

[GPIDEAL]

This is surreal. You actually believe this???

I think Wilbur makes a good point. The cop had the advantage from his vantage point to approach to assess the situation and ultimately restrain him, while having the perp in his sights.

The perp is wounded and on the ground lying in the reverse direction. What's the cop to fear. It's not like he's Quick Draw McGraw FFS.

 

[Celticman]

I think the gunshots when the victim was down on the ground were inexcusable. That said, if I were the cop when the perp was approaching with his hand behind his back, having been clearly told to stop on several occasions, I would have shot him. Sad to say in this current environment it was fortunate that the victim was white.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Well, thank you for your diagnostic assessment of my tactical experience. Obviously you have all the facts that you need to make that judgement. A person running at you at 15 feet will cover about 8 feet per second, easily. That leaves less than 2 seconds. Action to reaction time, and firearm dsicharge, will be will over 1 second. The reaction to the round hitting depends on several factors, mainly where it hits, and if it is percieved by the target. SO, rely on a 1 shot kill, you say? What gun should one use for that? Please, tell us about your skills firing under stress. The cops don't train for it. They aren't even allowed to take their guns to private ranges (at least in Ontario).

I know you're replying to Wilbur's example, but the perp in this case was not charging anyone, was lying flat on his back, IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION, and already wounded, perhaps even mortally.

This case is almost like the Sammy Yatim case.

 

[wilbur]

Well, thank you for your diagnostic assessment of my tactical experience. Obviously you have all the facts that you need to make that judgement. A person running at you at 15 feet will cover about 8 feet per second, easily. That leaves less than 2 seconds. Action to reaction time, and firearm dsicharge, will be will over 1 second. The reaction to the round hitting depends on several factors, mainly where it hits, and if it is percieved by the target. SO, rely on a 1 shot kill, you say? What gun should one use for that? Please, tell us about your skills firing under stress. The cops don't train for it. They aren't even allowed to take their guns to private ranges (at least in Ontario).

The facts in the video speak for themselves. Your argument is based on a false premise.

If your gun is holstered and someone lunges at you unexpexted from a distance of 15 feet with a knife, then I agree, you don't stand a chance, except to turn and run.

However, this was not the case. Police guns were already drawn, pointed with fingers on the trigger in Condition 0, and the suspect did not lunge, and didn't have a weapon.

Your shooting skills depend on your training. I could (when I had the practice) draw a pistol from a holster, rack the slide and shoot it from the hip in less than 2 seconds, and hit my target at 10 feet; I know since we used an IPSC timer. If I'm already aiming the gun, with a round in the chamber, my reaction time is about .5 seconds. I should have enough time in this circumstance, to wait until he pulls out whatever weapon he has, and shoot before he can either lunge at me with a knife, or draw and aim.

 

[kugel1]

The facts in the video speak for themselves. Your argument is based on a false premise.

If your gun is holstered and someone lunges at you unexpexted from a distance of 15 feet with a knife, then I agree, you don't stand a chance, except to turn and run.

However, this was not the case. Police guns were already drawn, pointed with fingers on the trigger in Condition 0, and the suspect did not lunge, and didn't have a weapon.

Your shooting skills depend on your training. I could (when I had the practice) draw a pistol from a holster, rack the slide and shoot it from the hip in less than 2 seconds, and hit my target at 10 feet; I know since we used an IPSC timer. If I'm already aiming the gun, with a round in the chamber, my reaction time is about .5 seconds. I should have enough time in this circumstance, to wait until he pulls out whatever weapon he has, and shoot before he can either lunge at me with a knife, or draw and aim.

And here you are, when you could be out showing them how it's done. Use of force training, especially those new paradigms that could change the way things are done, can result in huge dividends. By the way, when you were doing IPSC, was it in live open public conditions, under stress, without warning of the scenario, with the real possibility of innocent bystanders getting hurt?

 

[wilbur]

This is surreal. You actually believe this???

So what's your point... or do you actually have one?

 

[wilbur]

And here you are, when you could be out showing them how it's done. Use of force training, especially those new paradigms that could change the way things are done, can result in huge dividends. By the way, when you were doing IPSC, was it in live open public conditions, under stress, without warning of the scenario, with the real possibility of innocent bystanders getting hurt?

I wasn't doing IPSC. We just had an IPSC timer. I wasn't even in Canada. IPSC is certainly not representative of real world situations. IDPA is more realistic. There is a pucker factor, and that is the possibility of screwing up and getting DQ'd in front of everybody watching you. Unlike IPSC, you don't get to survey the stages in advance in IDPA, and you get marked down for shooting friendlies (white targets).

Use of force methods have to do with applying the required amout of force depending of the threat. De-escalation may be just as appropriate in certain cases as escalation. These guys escalated, period.

There was plenty of warning in this case. I'm saying that if I, as a realtively inexperienced shooter then, and with a little bit of professional coaching, could draw, rack the slide and shoot from the hip with one hand and hit the target at 10 feet in 2 seconds (my buddy could do it in less than 1.5), then your reaction time when you're already drawn and aimed in condition 0 should be well less than .5 seconds, plenty of time to shoot if he does pull out a weapon, and/or lunges. BTW, where I learned this stuff, you go for a headshot in case he's got explosives strapped to his body; but we're not over there, and we don't have suicide bombers here.

Yes, cops don't get a whole lot of range time. That's enough reason for them to think twice before shooting because the risk of collateral damage downrange is high, like the 2 NY cops that shot 6 bystanders while aiming for a suspect on a busy sidewalk. These cops in the video didn't care about collateral damage. In their minds, they're at war (them vs us) and there's always collateral damage in war.

 

[kugel1]

Well I think your biggest advantage would be your psychic abilities. "In their minds, they're at war "...You can read minds of people you don't know at great distances !!!

 

[wilbur]

Well I think your biggest advantage would be your psychic abilities. "In their minds, they're at war "...You can read minds of people you don't know at great distances !!!

Very cute. Unless you're totally blind, the video shows it all. You don't need psychic abilities; only normal deduction abilities.

You seem to be justifying their actions based on what the suspect could have done, instead of what he actually did. I think we have an example here of robocops, and not cops who apply the appropriate use of force for the situation at hand.

Anyway, this is a forum of opinions. That's my opinion and I stand by it. Constructive arguments are welcome, ad hominem attacks no.

 

[Smallcock]

I think Wilbur makes a good point. The cop had the advantage from his vantage point to approach to assess the situation and ultimately restrain him, while having the perp in his sights.

The perp is wounded and on the ground lying in the reverse direction. What's the cop to fear. It's not like he's Quick Draw McGraw FFS.

Wilbur says that a cop cannot shoot unless he knows with certainty that a suspect is armed, which is a recipe for disaster.

When a cop tells you to put your hands where he can see them, it's done for a very important and simple reason. I'll leave it to Wilbur to figure out why.

The procedure works very well.

 

[TeeJay]

If you know he's suicidal, maybe he doesn't have a gun but is faking it.

If someone is suicidal you face extreme danger trying to take them down

 

[derrick76]

I have to agree with you, guy was down, it was unnecessary, but that's apparently the way they rolled on that one. But in a twisted way, I'm glad this guy wasn't black, to hopefully give a glimmer of light on the issue that cops aren't out there simply wanting to kill "all black" people.
This guy didn't listen, hid his hand, talked a bit, did not comply and this is the result.


Just comply, that's it.

You think a handful of cases prove that?