Police Officers unloads bullets right into the K-9 Dog

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee
If he had fired at the cops, there is a possibility of him striking someone behind them. Bullets can travel a significant distance. The officers ended the situation after failed negotiation.

No he would not have gotten a shot off, they had thier guns pointed at him and ready to fire. It certainly doesn't look like he could have gotten a shot off from what happened in the video. They made sure of that.

You did not answer my question.

If I didnt answer your question its because I didnt understand your question, can you clarify it please. If it was what my suggestion was, then yes my suggestion was inaction, and more negotiation, instead of sending in the dog and forcing a confrontation.

And after your negotiation fails and you remain deadlocked, what is your course of action? You cannot negotiate forever, and was the individual not becoming increasingly agitated, and as such, more prone to violent action?

Either the suspect pulls his gun and gets gunned down, or he gives up. at least in this situation you wouldnt have done anything unnecessary to force a firefight. the suspect would have gotten impatient and finally pulled his "gun" on the officers, or they would have succeeded in convincing him into giving up peacefully.

It appears you are focused on only YOUR interpretation of how YOU WANT all these situations to end, rather than acknowledging all possible outcomes. In reality it is the criminal who determines the ultimate outcome, not the police, not you.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Desturel

Originally posted by: CadetLee
Possibly avoidable? He stated if they even tried to take him with a less-lethal weapon (beanbag), that he would open fire.

He also stated that if they let him speak with "Fonda" (the woman holding his baby), he would go peacefully. Seems like a reasonable request to me. It was also obvious that he was much more afraid of the dogs than he was of the police officers.

This person was in a threatening position and in no position to make demands. The job of the police is to end the confrontation and make it safe, not to bargain or appease. You cannot force another individual to talk to you if they don't wish to do so. They may make an effort to meet reasonable requests if they feel it will end things peacefully, but if she didn't wish to talk, there is nothing the police can do.

So what happen anyway, she didn't want to talk to him, so he threatens her to force her against her will, she calls police, police come in, so he threatens police? It doesnt work that way. You cannot use threat of force to force others into complying with your wishes against their will. And police have no obligation to force anyone outside the immediate threat situation to do anything. Was he requesting to talk to her in person? Then you have the risk of a civilian getting injured or a hostage situation ensuing. So we give him a phone, he doesn't like what he hears, becomes more desperate and agitated, and starts shooting anyway? Simply complying with demands does not ensure a peaceful ending. Thus police focus on the immediate threat itself: a suicidal guy with a gun, get the gun away from him. Nothing else matters. You tunnel vision on the suspect with the gun, and you really don't give a flying fvck why or how or what his motivations are. You can figure that out after he surrenders or after the coroner gets there.

Yeah just do what he says and he'll put the gun down. So what if he just killed a bunch of people and is holed up aiming a gun at police and his only request is 'mind your own business and let me go and we'll forget this ever happened, I'll be good from now on I promise'. And the police should comply so the confrontation ends peacefully?

It doesn't work that way.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: exdeath
It appears you are focused on only YOUR interpretation of how YOU WANT all these situations to end, rather than acknowledging all possible outcomes. In reality it is the criminal who determines the ultimate outcome, not the police, not you.

So the police are never in control? lol. you're funny. The criminal determined that he wanted to be shot 81 times then left to die there on the porch, while the dog was airlifted away. sure. uh huh. right. rofl.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: exdeath
It appears you are focused on only YOUR interpretation of how YOU WANT all these situations to end, rather than acknowledging all possible outcomes. In reality it is the criminal who determines the ultimate outcome, not the police, not you.

So the police are never in control? lol. you're funny. The criminal determined that he wanted to be shot 81 times then left to die there on the porch, while the dog was airlifted away. sure. uh huh. right. rofl.

Enough with the overdramatic BS. The police are in control, but not ABSOLUTE control. If they were, there never would have been a standoff in the first place.

The bolded part is EXACTLY what he told them.

Everything after that is all hyperbole. You're so determined to argue for the sake of arguing, that you've resorted to tossing logic and analysis away, instead relying on emotional pleas to make your point. Give me a break.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: exdeath
It appears you are focused on only YOUR interpretation of how YOU WANT all these situations to end, rather than acknowledging all possible outcomes. In reality it is the criminal who determines the ultimate outcome, not the police, not you.

So the police are never in control? lol. you're funny. The criminal determined that he wanted to be shot 81 times then left to die there on the porch, while the dog was airlifted away. sure. uh huh. right. rofl.

Enough with the overdramatic BS. The police are in control, but not ABSOLUTE control. If they were, there never would have been a standoff in the first place.

The bolded part is EXACTLY what he told them.

Everything after that is all hyperbole. You're so determined to argue for the sake of arguing, that you've resorted to tossing logic and analysis away, instead relying on emotional pleas to make your point.

Oh really? is that why I havent replied to you for a while, yet you still continue to reply to me? All I did was restate what exdeath said himself, and seeing as how you arent him, can you just keep your fingers away from my post? hm? kthxbye.

Give me a break.

I am, you just wont take it.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: exdeath
It appears you are focused on only YOUR interpretation of how YOU WANT all these situations to end, rather than acknowledging all possible outcomes. In reality it is the criminal who determines the ultimate outcome, not the police, not you.

So the police are never in control? lol. you're funny. The criminal determined that he wanted to be shot 81 times then left to die there on the porch, while the dog was airlifted away. sure. uh huh. right. rofl.

Enough with the overdramatic BS. The police are in control, but not ABSOLUTE control. If they were, there never would have been a standoff in the first place.

The bolded part is EXACTLY what he told them.

Everything after that is all hyperbole. You're so determined to argue for the sake of arguing, that you've resorted to tossing logic and analysis away, instead relying on emotional pleas to make your point.

Oh really? is that why I havent replied to you for a while, yet you still continue to reply to me? All I did was restate what exdeath said himself, and seeing as how you arent him, can you just keep your fingers away from my post? hm? kthxbye.

Give me a break.

I am, you just wont take it.

Don't flatter yourself. You are nothing more than a source of entertainment. I made my point days ago, and now it's just for fun. If you say stupid things, you get flamed. You think it's personal towards you, but it's not. You just happen to say a disproportionately large amount of stupid things, in the least intelligent way possible.

You truely are like a retard child, that thinks winning is more important than being right. Every time you reply, I can't help but picture you bobbling your big head around, screaming "RAN-DAAAAY! HAAAAAAHHH!"

So forgive me if I just can't help but reply, because it's like squeezing an empty ketchup bottle. I know there's always just a bit more left, as long as I give the thick sauce-o-stupidity a little while to coalesce at the bottom, and check back the next day.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: exdeath
It appears you are focused on only YOUR interpretation of how YOU WANT all these situations to end, rather than acknowledging all possible outcomes. In reality it is the criminal who determines the ultimate outcome, not the police, not you.

So the police are never in control? lol. you're funny. The criminal determined that he wanted to be shot 81 times then left to die there on the porch, while the dog was airlifted away. sure. uh huh. right. rofl.

Enough with the overdramatic BS. The police are in control, but not ABSOLUTE control. If they were, there never would have been a standoff in the first place.

The bolded part is EXACTLY what he told them.

Everything after that is all hyperbole. You're so determined to argue for the sake of arguing, that you've resorted to tossing logic and analysis away, instead relying on emotional pleas to make your point.

Oh really? is that why I havent replied to you for a while, yet you still continue to reply to me? All I did was restate what exdeath said himself, and seeing as how you arent him, can you just keep your fingers away from my post? hm? kthxbye.

Give me a break.

I am, you just wont take it.

Don't flatter yourself. You are nothing more than a source of entertainment. I made my point days ago, and now it's just for fun. If you say stupid things, you get flamed. You think it's personal towards you, but it's not. You just happen to say a disproportionately large amount of stupid things, in the least intelligent way possible.

You truely are like a retard child, that thinks winning is more important than being right. Every time you reply, I can't help but picture you bobbling your big head around, screaming "RAN-DAAAAY! HAAAAAAHHH!"

So forgive me if I just can't help but reply, because it's like squeezing an empty ketchup bottle. I know there's always just a bit more left, as long as I give the thick sauce-o-stupidity a little while to coalesce at the bottom, and check back the next day.

I forgive you.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: exdeath
It appears you are focused on only YOUR interpretation of how YOU WANT all these situations to end, rather than acknowledging all possible outcomes. In reality it is the criminal who determines the ultimate outcome, not the police, not you.

So the police are never in control? lol. you're funny. The criminal determined that he wanted to be shot 81 times then left to die there on the porch, while the dog was airlifted away. sure. uh huh. right. rofl.

Uhm the police don't give a flying fvck. All they want is for the guy who instigated the problem to begin with to stop being aggressive, be apprehended with minimal effort so they can go home and eat dinner. The criminal is the one who takes the initiative and starts the confrontation, thus it is reasonable that the confrontation end with the criminal in custody, and let the court system sort it out.

I state again, the police are NOT in control. We can all agree that in this situation, this guy was the aggressor, and there are only two choices: either he is apprehended peacefully or he is put down like a rabid animal. Those are the only acceptable outcome regardless of how much the suspect wants to talk or negotiate. It is up to the perpetrator which choice he takes, and with this video it is clear what that choice is. Police are mostly normal people like you and I who don't appreciate being shot at or even being threatened to be shot. What happened was unfortuneate and didn't have to happen since he may have in fact thrown down the gun. But given the circumstances, it is no fault of the police here. Had he communicated his intent to put down his weapon and do so clearly and deliberately, maybe they wouldn't have been so quick to fire on him.

If some random guy walks up on the street with his hands in his pockets and says he?s going to shoot me, I'm going to draw my weapon on him while getting out of his line of fire and demand that he show me has hands, while yelling my orders loudly and clearly enough that bystanders and witnesses are aware that I am the on the defensive side and not the aggressor. If he makes any sudden moves I will shoot him. The mere THREAT of the use of deadly force is often justification for the use of deadly force in self defense. The best part of all is I will be legally justified in doing so regardless of weather or not he actually had a weapon after the events have passed. Even better is that since I am not a police officer, I have more freedom in the eyes of the law to defend myself and have no obligation to negotiate or wait or give the perpetrator the benefit of the doubt.

Don?t like it? Then don?t threaten people. If somebody threatens me, I don?t care what for or who they are, I?m going to believe them.

And yes, the criminal literally asked for what happened with his own spoken words. His intentions of dying at that spot were communicated clearly. Unfortuneately for him that was a choice he could not take back after the fact. Realization of your mortality and fear of death is no excuse for bad choices made seconds earlier. Too late.

 

[zerocool84]

Here are the CLIFFS for this thread:

• Suspect threatens Cops that he has an gun and is going to shoot them but do not see gun.

• Cops warn him repeatedly that they are going to use K-9

• Cops send out the K-9.

• Suspect makes a sudden move with his "gun" that was pointed and thrown in the direction of the cops.

• Cops shoot suspect while K-9 was caught in the crossfire.

• K-9/Suspect are dead.

• K-9 is flown to Hospital but not the suspect.

Pretty simple if you ask me.
If someone threatened me that they had a gun but I did not see it but made a sudden in my direction with something in their hand, I would shoot them with no thought. I just feel sad for the dog just doing it's job.



/thread