Police Officers unloads bullets right into the K-9 Dog

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Procedures like what? If you can come up with an idea that doesnt put officers and civilians in undue danger, doesn't let the suspect go and doesnt rely on hindsight, I'm all ears.

They had all the time in the world, they could have backed down and tried to calm the guy down. Noone was in danger until they sent the dog in.

Did they REALLY have all the time in the world? He was irrational, and ready to fire. They had apparently been there for quite some time, being that helicopters were on the scene. He could have jumped out with his gun any second. They had to keep their guns aimed right at him.

A quick search of the name comes with an article that mentions this:

Trey (the perp's nickname) ran down a driveway toward some tiny apartments down the block. Latino immigrants stayed in all of these places. Trey stopped on the porch in front of one apartment and witnesses said they thought he tried to talk to the people inside. But they spoke Spanish and Trey spoke English. All the while, more and more Sheriffs kept showing up. A helicopter overhead ordered people in Spanish to go back into their homes.

He was not in front of his own house. The people inside the house and neighborhood were also in immediate danger. Stalling could lead to him taking hostages. They did NOT have all the time in the world, and they had already been at a standoff for hours. They cannot siege him until he starves to death. His actions and words displayed that he would go down shooting, and no other way.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Did they REALLY have all the time in the world?

Yes. He did not put anyone in immediate danger and he wasn't going anywhere.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Did they REALLY have all the time in the world?

Yes. He did not put anyone in immediate danger and he wasn't going anywhere.

How the hell is "I have a gun, with 13 rounds, and I'm going to shoot you" NOT immediate danger, especially in the context of desperation and of innocent people in the house? Seriously, you're going to have to elaborate on that one.

And please, for the love of all things holy, do not tell me it's because he was actually holding a flip-flop.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Did they REALLY have all the time in the world?

Yes. He did not put anyone in immediate danger and he wasn't going anywhere.

So per your mindset, if I walk into your place of business, say that I have a gun and if you call the police I am going to kill you, you are not in immediate danger?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Did they REALLY have all the time in the world?

Yes. He did not put anyone in immediate danger and he wasn't going anywhere.

How the hell is "I have a gun, with 13 rounds, and I'm going to shoot you" NOT immediate danger, especially in the context of desperation and of innocent people in the house? Seriously, you're going to have to elaborate on that one.

And please, for the love of all things holy, do not tell me it's because he was actually holding a flip-flop.

It was not certain whether he had a gun or not.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Did they REALLY have all the time in the world?

Yes. He did not put anyone in immediate danger and he wasn't going anywhere.

So per your mindset, if I walk into your place of business, say that I have a gun and if you call the police I am going to kill you, you are not in immediate danger?

If you didn't show me a gun or make any menacing gestures such as a "gun in your pocket" pointing at me sort of thing, then no. Might I be intimidated or scared? possibly. Would I believe you and think I was in danger? possibly. Would I be right in shooting and killing you with my own gun just because of what you said? no.

 

[jlee]

.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Did they REALLY have all the time in the world?

Yes. He did not put anyone in immediate danger and he wasn't going anywhere.

So per your mindset, if I walk into your place of business, say that I have a gun and if you call the police I am going to kill you, you are not in immediate danger?

If you didn't show me a gun or make any menacing gestures such as a "gun in your pocket" pointing at me sort of thing, then no. Might I be intimidated or scared? possibly. Would I believe you and think I was in danger? possibly. Would I be right in shooting and killing you with my own gun just because of what you said? no.

So a finger in someone's pocket is more dangerous than someone stating that they are armed and willing to fire upon law enforcement?

You're a bright one.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Did they REALLY have all the time in the world?

Yes. He did not put anyone in immediate danger and he wasn't going anywhere.

So per your mindset, if I walk into your place of business, say that I have a gun and if you call the police I am going to kill you, you are not in immediate danger?

If you didn't show me a gun or make any menacing gestures such as a "gun in your pocket" pointing at me sort of thing, then no. Might I be intimidated or scared? possibly. Would I believe you and think I was in danger? possibly. Would I be right in shooting and killing you with my own gun just because of what you said? no.

So a finger in someone's pocket is more dangerous than someone stating that they are armed and willing to fire upon law enforcement?

You're a bright one.

Yes because then the possible gun would be pointed at me, instead of the possible gun not being pointed at me. if I told you "I have a gun and its pointed at you, and Im going to shoot and kill you", but had my hands behind my back, do I have a gun pointed at you?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Did they REALLY have all the time in the world?

Yes. He did not put anyone in immediate danger and he wasn't going anywhere.

So per your mindset, if I walk into your place of business, say that I have a gun and if you call the police I am going to kill you, you are not in immediate danger?

If you didn't show me a gun or make any menacing gestures such as a "gun in your pocket" pointing at me sort of thing, then no. Might I be intimidated or scared? possibly. Would I believe you and think I was in danger? possibly. Would I be right in shooting and killing you with my own gun just because of what you said? no.

So a finger in someone's pocket is more dangerous than someone stating that they are armed and willing to fire upon law enforcement?

You're a bright one.

Yes because then the possible gun would be pointed at me, instead of the possible gun not being pointed at me. if I told you "I have a gun and its pointed at you, and Im going to shoot and kill you", but had my hands behind my back, do I have a gun pointed at you?

Any idea how long it takes to unholster, fire a handgun? Probably about as much time as it takes you to realize what is happening. Much less time is required if said handgun is unholstered and in-hand underneath my arm. Perhaps you don't realize that multiple targets can be fired upon in seconds...in hostile hands, a gun that is not pointed at me can kill me just as dead as one that isn't pointed at me -- what's the difference? About two tenths of a second. Want to bet your life on that?

Bottom line: By his admission, he was armed. He voiced intent to fire upon law enforcement. They negotiated; he failed to comply. They took him down. It's a shame that the K9 was hit -- but I have no sympathy for the individual. Maybe next time, someone will comply with police direction rather than returning their negotiation with death threats.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Did they REALLY have all the time in the world?

Yes. He did not put anyone in immediate danger and he wasn't going anywhere.

How the hell is "I have a gun, with 13 rounds, and I'm going to shoot you" NOT immediate danger, especially in the context of desperation and of innocent people in the house? Seriously, you're going to have to elaborate on that one.

And please, for the love of all things holy, do not tell me it's because he was actually holding a flip-flop.

It was not certain whether he had a gun or not.

His declaration that he had one, and his threats to use it are sufficient enough to reasonable assume that he had one, by law, and by common sense.

If you didn't show me a gun or make any menacing gestures such as a "gun in your pocket" pointing at me sort of thing, then no. Might I be intimidated or scared? possibly. Would I believe you and think I was in danger? possibly. Would I be right in shooting and killing you with my own gun just because of what you said? no.

You've most definitely never been put in that situation from your response. I have. I've been robbed at "supposed" gunpoint, a punk pointing something at me through the pockets of his hoody. In that situation, you do not have time to think, you only have time to act. Every second you stall could be your life. You do not weigh your options, and try to determine whether or not he's lying. Doing so risks being wrong, and getting shot. Its NEVER worth that risk. Only armchair heros who's never been there talk about how they'd have kicked his ass in that situation. Whether or not he actually had a gun, I'll never know, and doesn't matter.

Sure, many people take that risk, and might be right. But they're reckless and stupid. Those are the people that tend to get shot in such a situation.

And I'm pretty sure, by law, if there were witnesses, and I whipped a licensed concealed weapon out and shot him to death, I'd be all in the clear, and I'd be absolutely right in doing so. Hindsight is a convenience that you don't have when your life is in danger, and the law FULLY understands that.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
Any idea how long it takes to unholster, fire a handgun? Probably about as much time as it takes you to realize what is happening. Much less time is required if said handgun is unholstered and in-hand underneath my arm. Perhaps you don't realize that multiple targets can be fired upon in seconds...in hostile hands, a gun that is not pointed at me can kill me just as dead as one that isn't pointed at me -- what's the difference? About two tenths of a second. Want to bet your life on that?

They had thier guns already pointed at him. That is plainly obvious since they fired on him so quickly. If he had swung his arm towards them, then they would have put him down before he could fire, which is exactly what happened. But it only happened because of them sending the dog on him. They could have avoided it.

Bottom line: By his admission, he was armed. He voiced intent to fire upon law enforcement. They negotiated; he failed to comply. They took him down. It's a shame that the K9 was hit -- but I have no sympathy for the individual. Maybe next time, someone will comply with police direction rather than returning their negotiation with death threats.

I disagree but I respect your opinion. I have sympathy for everyone involved in it. If you don't, thats fine by me.

edit: fix quote tags

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003
His declaration that he had one, and his threats to use it are sufficient enough to reasonable assume that he had one, by law, and by common sense.

That may be true, but it doesn't mean they didn't handle the situation poorly by sending in the dog when noone was in danger and they all had thier guns on him and he had nowhere to go.

If you didn't show me a gun or make any menacing gestures such as a "gun in your pocket" pointing at me sort of thing, then no. Might I be intimidated or scared? possibly. Would I believe you and think I was in danger? possibly. Would I be right in shooting and killing you with my own gun just because of what you said? no.

You've most definitely never been put in that situation from your response. I have. I've been robbed at "supposed" gunpoint, a punk pointing something at me through the pockets of his hoody. In that situation, you do not have time to think, you only have time to act. Every second you stall could be your life. You do not weigh your options, and try to determine whether or not he's lying. Doing so risks being wrong, and getting shot. Its NEVER worth that risk. Only armchair heros who's never been there talk about how they'd have kicked his ass in that situation. Whether or not he actually had a gun, I'll never know, and doesn't matter.

Sure, many people take that risk, and might be right. But they're reckless and stupid. Those are the people that tend to get shot in such a situation.

And I'm pretty sure, by law, if there were witnesses, and I whipped a licensed concealed weapon out and shot him to death, I'd be all in the clear, and I'd be absolutely right in doing so. Hindsight is a convenience that you don't have when your life is in danger, and the law FULLY understands that.

You did not comprehend what I said correctly. Please read it again. I bolded the relevant part to make it easier.

That said its clear that I will not change your opinion and that you will not change mine. Lets just drop it already, this is boring and depressing.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee
Any idea how long it takes to unholster, fire a handgun? Probably about as much time as it takes you to realize what is happening. Much less time is required if said handgun is unholstered and in-hand underneath my arm. Perhaps you don't realize that multiple targets can be fired upon in seconds...in hostile hands, a gun that is not pointed at me can kill me just as dead as one that isn't pointed at me -- what's the difference? About two tenths of a second. Want to bet your life on that?

They had thier guns already pointed at him. That is plainly obvious since they fired on him so quickly. If he had swung his arm towards them, then they would have put him down before he could fire, which is exactly what happened. But it only happened because of them sending the dog on him. They could have avoided it.

By what, continuing the standoff and allowing this individual to control the situation?

Bottom line: By his admission, he was armed. He voiced intent to fire upon law enforcement. They negotiated; he failed to comply. They took him down. It's a shame that the K9 was hit -- but I have no sympathy for the individual. Maybe next time, someone will comply with police direction rather than returning their negotiation with death threats.

I disagree but I respect your opinion. I have sympathy for everyone involved in it. If you don't, thats fine by me.

edit: fix quote tags[/quote]

If he had complied with the LEOs the first time..second time..third time..fourth time, etc., this situation would have been resolved peacefully. If he actually had a firearm, would you feel any differently?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
If he had complied with the LEOs the first time..second time..third time..fourth time, etc., this situation would have been resolved peacefully. If he actually had a firearm, would you feel any differently?

Honestly, not by much, I would have less sympathy for the dead guy but I would still think that the whole thing was possibly avoidable. Assuming that everything went exactly the same way except instead of a flipflop, it was a gun he threw.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee
If he had complied with the LEOs the first time..second time..third time..fourth time, etc., this situation would have been resolved peacefully. If he actually had a firearm, would you feel any differently?

Honestly, not by much, I would have less sympathy for the dead guy but I would still think that the whole thing was possibly avoidable. Assuming that everything went exactly the same way except instead of a flipflop, it was a gun he threw.

Possibly avoidable? He stated if they even tried to take him with a less-lethal weapon (beanbag), that he would open fire. What was your suggested course of action, an armed standoff -- thereby increasing the possibility that a civilian would be injured in a firefight? You must make this decision without hindsight; you are assuming that the individual is armed and hostile, as his intentions have been plainly voiced.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee
If he had complied with the LEOs the first time..second time..third time..fourth time, etc., this situation would have been resolved peacefully. If he actually had a firearm, would you feel any differently?

Honestly, not by much, I would have less sympathy for the dead guy but I would still think that the whole thing was possibly avoidable. Assuming that everything went exactly the same way except instead of a flipflop, it was a gun he threw.

Possibly avoidable? He stated if they even tried to take him with a less-lethal weapon (beanbag), that he would open fire. What was your suggested course of action, an armed standoff -- thereby increasing the possibility that a civilian would be injured in a firefight? You must make this decision without hindsight; you are assuming that the individual is armed and hostile, as his intentions have been plainly voiced.

How is the possibility of a civilian being injured in a firefight increased? Especially if the odds of a firefight is decreased. If there is no firefight, how can there be a firefight? Looks to me like there was no possibility of a civilian being injured anyway, since he wasn't going to run away anywhere with all those cops pointing thier guns at him.

 

[Canai]

I think the pure fact that this thread is soooo long is proof enough a large number of people think the police reacted in an inappropriate way. It's also nice that they spray the porch again after the suspect is down on the ground.

edit: I'm not sure how old this video is, but wouldn't they have had tazers if they had automatic weapons?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Twista
http://www.flurl.com/item/Poor_Dog_u_197612

Holy crap... dumb cops or what?

Prob. a repost :/

EDIT IN FOR MORE INFORMATION.
Updated!
http://www.filecabi.net/video/goddammit30.html

Los Angeles sheriffs gun down Deandre Brunston in Compton, He was unarmed. The object in his hand was a flipflop he found on the porch. The dog was airlifted while Deandre was left to die on the ground.

shamE!

Excellent!!! A fitting end to a life of crime. The ultimate FVCK YOU!!! :thumbsup:

Poor dog though. That really sucks that the dog got in the line of fire.

Fvck that POS on the porch. He got what he deserved!

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: CadetLee
If he had complied with the LEOs the first time..second time..third time..fourth time, etc., this situation would have been resolved peacefully. If he actually had a firearm, would you feel any differently?

Honestly, not by much, I would have less sympathy for the dead guy but I would still think that the whole thing was possibly avoidable. Assuming that everything went exactly the same way except instead of a flipflop, it was a gun he threw.

Possibly avoidable? He stated if they even tried to take him with a less-lethal weapon (beanbag), that he would open fire. What was your suggested course of action, an armed standoff -- thereby increasing the possibility that a civilian would be injured in a firefight? You must make this decision without hindsight; you are assuming that the individual is armed and hostile, as his intentions have been plainly voiced.

How is the possibility of a civilian being injured in a firefight increased? Especially if the odds of a firefight is decreased. If there is no firefight, how can there be a firefight? Looks to me like there was no possibility of a civilian being injured anyway, since he wasn't going to run away anywhere with all those cops pointing thier guns at him.

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.

You did not answer my question.

Originally posted by: Canai
I think the pure fact that this thread is soooo long is proof enough a large number of people think the police reacted in an inappropriate way. It's also nice that they spray the porch again after the suspect is down on the ground.

People here think police act in an inappropriate way no matter what they do.

edit: I'm not sure how old this video is, but wouldn't they have had tazers if they had automatic weapons?

Not necessarily.

 

[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.

 

[Bumrush99]

Nobody is wondering why this video is on the net 3 full years after the incident occurred? I have yet to find one reliable news source that has any info on this video, as far as I'm concerned this video is a hoax until proved otherwise..

And do any of you think for one second that the police allowed someone to video tape this from close range in the middle of hostage situation involving weapons?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Nobody is wondering why this video is on the net 3 full years after the incident occurred? I have yet to find one reliable news source that has any info on this video, as far as I'm concerned this video is a hoax until proved otherwise..

And do any of you think for one second that the police allowed someone to video tape this from close range in the middle of hostage situation involving weapons?

Yes I wonder about that. There was also a few others earlier that brought that up too.

 

[jlee]

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?

 

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Nobody is wondering why this video is on the net 3 full years after the incident occurred? I have yet to find one reliable news source that has any info on this video, as far as I'm concerned this video is a hoax until proved otherwise..

And do any of you think for one second that the police allowed someone to video tape this from close range in the middle of hostage situation involving weapons?

Yes I wonder about that. There was also a few others earlier that brought that up too.

My guess would be that the video was filmed by police as a way to capture the events as they unfolded for later use, much like dash mounted cameras... I think there were a couple of references to the camera by the suspect.

I think the police would have been open to much more criticism for the incident without the tape... While its unfortunate as I stated in an earlier post, I do feel that the police were justified in shooting.

Originally posted by: Canai
I think the pure fact that this thread is soooo long is proof enough a large number of people think the police reacted in an inappropriate way. It's also nice that they spray the porch again after the suspect is down on the ground.

edit: I'm not sure how old this video is, but wouldn't they have had tazers if they had automatic weapons?

Tazers are generally considered to be not reliable enough to instantly incapacitate someone to use in a high risk situation as this.