Police Officers unloads bullets right into the K-9 Dog

[eits]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: crystal
WTF, did I saw that right.

Cops ask guy to drop the gun -> start shooting -> guy throw gun -> dog ran up -> both went down.

yeah thats what i seen.

leaves to question WHY they let the dog attack.OR did they let the dog attack (wich is what usually happens) then start shooting hitting the dog.


either way they need a bunch of training.

you saw it wrong... both of you. there's a delay in the video. the guy threw the gun down when he saw the dog attacking. that's when the cops opened fire on everything on the porch like the bunch of incompetent buttholes they are.

And I'm sure you could do better, eh? Any idea what the human recognition/reaction time is? It's not measured in milliseconds. This guy says he has a gun. Said individual makes a rapid movement, which could be, for a reasonable person at the time, construed as an attempt to produce said weapon. The individual gets shot. Don't like it? Don't give the cops a hard time, don't carry a gun when committing a crime, and don't state that you are armed when you aren't. Simple enough.

Wonder why so many cops are jerks? It's because they have to deal with people like you all day.

then why the hell would they ask him to throw down his gun? why would they release the dog? anything he did would be perceived as a sudden movement.

and, no, i don't wonder why cops are jerks. they're paid to make the city money... not to be friends with everyone. that doesn't mean all cops are jerks. what i AM saying, however, is the lapd is a team of idiots who don't know shyt from apple butter.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: eits
wtf... way to go, you fvcking dickholes. goddamn lapd...

you massacred an unarmed man... way to gain friends in the community, dickface. i'm sure that REALLY goes over well among other black neighborhoods in l.a.

AND you shot an amazingly trained dog, someone's beloved pet and partner. good fvcking job.

IDIOT.

Should I take a photo of me wearing a jacket and my 1911, and another with me wearing a jacket /without/ my 1911...and have you tell me in which one I'm carrying? Not exactly easy. Now imagine someone stating that he had a gun, and in a state of mind in which he may quite possibly be willing to kill you. With me so far? Said individual makes sudden move..BANG. It's not that difficult to understand.

How much would you bet that if this guy would have placed his hands above his head and complied with officer instruction, that nobody would have been injured?

he threw the "gun" down when he saw the dog attacking. what did they expect him to do? why would the cops tell him to throw the gun down and then release the dog? with me so far? they released the dog in order to make him throw the gun down and give up. they didn't do it in order to make him pull the gun on the dog so they could shoot up the entire porch and everything on it. "omg, he made a sudden movement... SHOOT!"... well, no, jackoff... he didn't.

basically, they unknowingly made it so that anything the guy did would end up looking like a sudden movement... that's some grade a police work. fvcking dragnet, right there.

I just watched the beginning of the video when the shots were fired. He had several seconds to respond and failed to comply until the K9 was released. Said compliance was viewed as an act of aggression; who's to say he wasn't attempting to shoot the K9 and/or other officers at the scene?

I'm not defending the outcome, but you need to put yourself in that situation. I do not deny that this was a tragic incident, but it is not without explanation either.

You may resume namecalling now -- looks like you need more practice.

Originally posted by: eits
And, no, i don't wonder why cops are jerks. they're paid to make the city money... not to be friends with everyone. that doesn't mean all cops are jerks. what i AM saying, however, is the lapd is a team of idiots who don't know shyt from apple butter.

If you're so good at it, work for LAPD and straighten them out. I am curious, though; how would officers responding to this incident make the city any money?

 

[KrillBee]

guns kill people.

guns are bad.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: eits
wtf... way to go, you fvcking dickholes. goddamn lapd...

you massacred an unarmed man... way to gain friends in the community, dickface. i'm sure that REALLY goes over well among other black neighborhoods in l.a.

AND you shot an amazingly trained dog, someone's beloved pet and partner. good fvcking job.

IDIOT.

Should I take a photo of me wearing a jacket and my 1911, and another with me wearing a jacket /without/ my 1911...and have you tell me in which one I'm carrying? Not exactly easy. Now imagine someone stating that he had a gun, and in a state of mind in which he may quite possibly be willing to kill you. With me so far? Said individual makes sudden move..BANG. It's not that difficult to understand.

How much would you bet that if this guy would have placed his hands above his head and complied with officer instruction, that nobody would have been injured?

he threw the "gun" down when he saw the dog attacking. what did they expect him to do? why would the cops tell him to throw the gun down and then release the dog? with me so far? they released the dog in order to make him throw the gun down and give up. they didn't do it in order to make him pull the gun on the dog so they could shoot up the entire porch and everything on it. "omg, he made a sudden movement... SHOOT!"... well, no, jackoff... he didn't.

basically, they unknowingly made it so that anything the guy did would end up looking like a sudden movement... that's some grade a police work. fvcking dragnet, right there.

I just watched the beginning of the video when the shots were fired. He had several seconds to respond and failed to comply until the K9 was released. Said compliance was viewed as an act of aggression; who's to say he wasn't attempting to shoot the K9 and/or other officers at the scene?

I'm not defending the outcome, but you need to put yourself in that situation. I do not deny that this was a tragic incident, but it is not without explanation either.

You may resume namecalling now -- looks like you need more practice.

Originally posted by: eits
And, no, i don't wonder why cops are jerks. they're paid to make the city money... not to be friends with everyone. that doesn't mean all cops are jerks. what i AM saying, however, is the lapd is a team of idiots who don't know shyt from apple butter.

If you're so good at it, work for LAPD and straighten them out. I am curious, though; how would officers responding to this incident make the city any money?

are you kidding? cops are paid to make the city money... that's why they have ticket quotas and keep the city safe... so more people will spend money in the city.

the guy threw the gun... the "gun" was in mid-air and the dog was almost on him whenever the cops opened fire. it's not like he had it in-hand whenever they opened fire.. it was in mid-air at least 4 feet in front of him... AND the k-9 was just about on him.

what good cops would fire at innocents or another cop in the way? aren't they trained?

 

[Number1]

There was no need to release the dog. The suspect was not going anywhere.

This was a major fvck up on the police's part.
They should fire the entire team and charge the leader with murder.
This was a disgrace.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: Twista
The thing is so many of them was shooting they'll never know who shot the dog. We know it was one of the police

Yeah we'll never know. I mean this is 2006, not 2506. The forensics science is simply not there. Heck, do they even have a CSI department? Maybe in the future, they'll have things like fingerprinting, video testimony, witnesses, ballistics testing, etc. But what do I know? I am just making these words up!

ballistic fingerprint each of the officer's guns. it's not that hard.

course, it's rather ****** up that they did that. it wasnt necessary.

 

[fishface313]

You can hear the suspect say "If the dog come my way, im gonna shoot", so obviously he got what he deserved.

he is a piece of ******, too bad the dog didn't rip his arm off.

 

[Fayd]

whoever said police are trained to shoot to kill has never seen police shoot. they cant hit a man sized target at 20 feet with any reliability.

this proves again my suspicions that people who join the police are just fuckheads who want to shoot guns to be macho.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: Twista
The thing is so many of them was shooting they'll never know who shot the dog. We know it was one of the police

Yeah we'll never know. I mean this is 2006, not 2506. The forensics science is simply not there. Heck, do they even have a CSI department? Maybe in the future, they'll have things like fingerprinting, video testimony, witnesses, ballistics testing, etc. But what do I know? I am just making these words up!

ballistic fingerprint each of the officer's guns. it's not that hard.

course, it's rather ****** up that they did that. it wasnt necessary.

Next time that happens, you just feel free to go up and peacefully disarm the guy. Let us know how it works out for you.

Originally posted by: Fayd
whoever said police are trained to shoot to kill has never seen police shoot. they cant hit a man sized target at 20 feet with any reliability.

this proves again my suspicions that people who join the police are just fuckheads who want to shoot guns to be macho.

Ever try to shoot while you're under a high-stress situation?

In case you didn't know, you don't have to be a police officer to own a gun in America. This is ATOT, where people blindly insult others from the safety of their computer screen. I'm not even a trained LEO -- do you want to stand 40ft away and let me shoot at you? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[eits]

sometimes, i can't understand the mentality of some of you people who are constantly hard-up for authority figures or people in "noble" positions always killing other people. this whole "they deserved it" thing doesn't fly. it's the whole "they deserved it" mentality that makes people like the guy who got shot in this video the way they are.

it's SOOOOO goddamn annoying everytime i hear people ALWAYS defending cops or soldiers whenever they use excessive force and kill someone. it's always "they deserved it" or "there needs to be more of this"... and it always seems to be some pseudo-macho, gun-toting, nra badge-wearing, elephant sticker having, bush apologist.

 

[krunchykrome]

I haven't read this entire post, but I skimmed through some replies and got the overall impression that the majority of you guys are outraged at this situation. Yes it is sad that it had to end this way, yes it's sad that the dog was airlifted before the human being, yes it's sad that they shot the dog, but I watched that video, and that scum threatened the cops. It was dark outside, and he threatened to die that night, and he threatened to shoot the cops if so and so happened. I dont see any reason why this guy should not have been shot down. 81 times though is extremely excessive and ridiculous and actions should be taken against those cops for that reason. Also, it was pretty stupid to send in the dog and then shoot. They should have shot without sending in the dog, or shot and then sent in the dog, or sent in the dog and never shooting the man. Either way, that man should have gone down. If I were to go out at night in my comfortable suburban neighborhood and hide in a shadow at night and threaten to shoot a cop, I would expect the cops to do nothing less than take me down from a distance by means of a dog or a bullet, and I would honestly expect the bullet.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: eits
sometimes, i can't understand the mentality of some of you people who are constantly hard-up for authority figures or people in "noble" positions always killing other people. this whole "they deserved it" thing doesn't fly. it's the whole "they deserved it" mentality that makes people like the guy who got shot in this video the way they are.

it's SOOOOO goddamn annoying everytime i hear people ALWAYS defending cops or soldiers whenever they use excessive force and kill someone. it's always "they deserved it" or "there needs to be more of this"... and it always seems to be some pseudo-macho, gun-toting, nra badge-wearing, elephant sticker having, bush apologist.

Selective reading skills, perhaps? I see quite the opposite as you. I find it annoying that in every thread involving police activity, some dumbass comes in and talks crap about law enforcement, regardless of whether or not the action in the situation were justified.

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I haven't read this entire post, but I skimmed through some replies and got the overall impression that the majority of you guys are outraged at this situation. Yes it is sad that it had to end this way, yes it's sad that the dog was airlifted before the human being, yes it's sad that they shot the dog, but I watched that video, and that scum threatened the cops. It was dark outside, and he threatened to die that night, and he threatened to shoot the cops if so and so happened. I dont see any reason why this guy should not have been shot down. 81 times though is extremely excessive and ridiculous and actions should be taken against those cops for that reason. Also, it was pretty stupid to send in the dog and then shoot. They should have shot without sending in the dog, or shot and then sent in the dog, or sent in the dog and never shooting the man. Either way, that man should have gone down. If I were to go out at night in my comfortable suburban neighborhood and hide in a shadow at night and threaten to shoot a cop, I would expect the cops to do nothing less than take me down from a distance by means of a dog or a bullet, and I would honestly expect the bullet.

An officer on a police forum makes a good point:

Although I won't make any excuses for anyone, the deployment of the K9 could have been accidental. When the officer feared that he was going to be shot or was in danger, he may have grabbed his gun and forgot about the dog.

Just a thought.

Take it as you will.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: eits
sometimes, i can't understand the mentality of some of you people who are constantly hard-up for authority figures or people in "noble" positions always killing other people. this whole "they deserved it" thing doesn't fly. it's the whole "they deserved it" mentality that makes people like the guy who got shot in this video the way they are.

it's SOOOOO goddamn annoying everytime i hear people ALWAYS defending cops or soldiers whenever they use excessive force and kill someone. it's always "they deserved it" or "there needs to be more of this"... and it always seems to be some pseudo-macho, gun-toting, nra badge-wearing, elephant sticker having, bush apologist.

Why are you confusing responsible gun ownership with police brutality?

What if someone owns guns, is a member of the NRA, but doesn't trust the police (and hence owns guns?)

 

[91TTZ]

PS- Wasn't it under Clinton's rule that the FBI and police massacred the Branch Davidians in Waco?

Members of the Democrat party aren't considered gun-toting, nra badge-wearing, elephant sticker having, bush apologists, yet they still seemed to crack down and massacre mostly innocent people. They even shot those who tried to run out of the place while it was burning.

Yay for liberalism.

 

[Fayd]

people saying he deserved it are ****** morons.

and i'm a NRA member. the cops ****** that up. i'm more concerned about the person they shot to death than the dog. (sucks for the dog, though. he was doing what he was trained to do.)

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: Twista
The thing is so many of them was shooting they'll never know who shot the dog. We know it was one of the police

Yeah we'll never know. I mean this is 2006, not 2506. The forensics science is simply not there. Heck, do they even have a CSI department? Maybe in the future, they'll have things like fingerprinting, video testimony, witnesses, ballistics testing, etc. But what do I know? I am just making these words up!

ballistic fingerprint each of the officer's guns. it's not that hard.

course, it's rather ****** up that they did that. it wasnt necessary.

Next time that happens, you just feel free to go up and peacefully disarm the guy. Let us know how it works out for you.

Originally posted by: Fayd
whoever said police are trained to shoot to kill has never seen police shoot. they cant hit a man sized target at 20 feet with any reliability.

this proves again my suspicions that people who join the police are just fuckheads who want to shoot guns to be macho.

Ever try to shoot while you're under a high-stress situation?

In case you didn't know, you don't have to be a police officer to own a gun in America. This is ATOT, where people blindly insult others from the safety of their computer screen. I'm not even a trained LEO -- do you want to stand 40ft away and let me shoot at you? Somehow I doubt it.

i'm trained in gun use. i have seen policemen training, i have seen what it takes to qualify. it's not pretty. any complete moron could go take the police gun course and pass. i guarantee it.

FYI, the man sized target at 20 feet is something i saw. this was their qualifications. he was using an M4 type rifle in semi-auto mode, and was doing about a 20-25 inch group at the first marker on a rifle range. (15 yards, 45-50 feet) and he was standing roughly halfway between the benchrests and the target.

 

[Bumrush99]

I think this video is a hoax, created by people with a political agenda against the police. Apparently this happened in late 2003, why has it taken so long for this video to surface?

The moron that was killed in this video, Deandre Brunston, became the poster boy for police brutally by the apologists that excuse this type of behavior.

Did a little research on google, NOT ONE legitimate website on the internet like the LA Times or any other news organization has any information detailing this video.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: sygyzy

Originally posted by: Twista
The thing is so many of them was shooting they'll never know who shot the dog. We know it was one of the police

Yeah we'll never know. I mean this is 2006, not 2506. The forensics science is simply not there. Heck, do they even have a CSI department? Maybe in the future, they'll have things like fingerprinting, video testimony, witnesses, ballistics testing, etc. But what do I know? I am just making these words up!

ballistic fingerprint each of the officer's guns. it's not that hard.

course, it's rather ****** up that they did that. it wasnt necessary.

Next time that happens, you just feel free to go up and peacefully disarm the guy. Let us know how it works out for you.

Originally posted by: Fayd
whoever said police are trained to shoot to kill has never seen police shoot. they cant hit a man sized target at 20 feet with any reliability.

this proves again my suspicions that people who join the police are just fuckheads who want to shoot guns to be macho.

Ever try to shoot while you're under a high-stress situation?

In case you didn't know, you don't have to be a police officer to own a gun in America. This is ATOT, where people blindly insult others from the safety of their computer screen. I'm not even a trained LEO -- do you want to stand 40ft away and let me shoot at you? Somehow I doubt it.

i'm trained in gun use. i have seen policemen training, i have seen what it takes to qualify. it's not pretty. any complete moron could go take the police gun course and pass. i guarantee it.

FYI, the man sized target at 20 feet is something i saw. this was their qualifications. he was using an M4 type rifle in semi-auto mode, and was doing about a 20-25 inch group at the first marker on a rifle range. (15 yards, 45-50 feet)

Shens.

Out of curiosity, under what circumstance were you present for an officer's firearm qualification?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: eits
sometimes, i can't understand the mentality of some of you people who are constantly hard-up for authority figures or people in "noble" positions always killing other people. this whole "they deserved it" thing doesn't fly. it's the whole "they deserved it" mentality that makes people like the guy who got shot in this video the way they are.

it's SOOOOO goddamn annoying everytime i hear people ALWAYS defending cops or soldiers whenever they use excessive force and kill someone. it's always "they deserved it" or "there needs to be more of this"... and it always seems to be some pseudo-macho, gun-toting, nra badge-wearing, elephant sticker having, bush apologist.

Why are you confusing responsible gun ownership with police brutality?

What if someone owns guns, is a member of the NRA, but doesn't trust the police (and hence owns guns?)

fair argument. i wasn't confusing the two... i was pointing out an observation. there are different kinds of gun owners.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
PS- Wasn't it under Clinton's rule that the FBI and police massacred the Branch Davidians in Waco?

Members of the Democrat party aren't considered gun-toting, nra badge-wearing, elephant sticker having, bush apologists, yet they still seemed to crack down and massacre mostly innocent people. They even shot those who tried to run out of the place while it was burning.

Yay for liberalism.

that wasn't right, either, and janet reno took TONS of heat for that

 

[OCNewbie]

Originally posted by: eits
he threw the "gun" down when he saw the dog attacking. what did they expect him to do? why would the cops tell him to throw the gun down and then release the dog? with me so far? they released the dog in order to make him throw the gun down and give up. they didn't do it in order to make him pull the gun on the dog so they could shoot up the entire porch and everything on it. "omg, he made a sudden movement... SHOOT!"... well, no, jackoff... he didn't.

basically, they unknowingly made it so that anything the guy did would end up looking like a sudden movement... that's some grade a police work. fvcking dragnet, right there.

You seem a little biased against the LAPD. Like I said earlier, and other people have said, the suspect clearly said "if the dog come my way, I'm gawn shoot", and he said it at least twice. So again, having said that, why wouldn't the cops believe the man was going to do what he said?

Also, I'm not sure, but could the dog have been released on accident? It appears he still has his muzzle on? Or maybe that's just another piece of normal K-9 gear. Definitely still has his leash attached, and I thought they normally released the leash from the neck area or no?

Edit - Oh, and they said "PUT the gun down", not fling it in our general direction suddenly. It seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction on the suspect's part to fling the gun away as the dog approached. When many cops have many guns trained at you, and you're asked to "put the gun down" you slowly place it on the ground.

The only mistake the police made that I can see was provoking the suspect by sending in the dog. Then again, like I said earlier in this post, perhaps the dog was released on accident.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: OCNewbie

Originally posted by: eits
he threw the "gun" down when he saw the dog attacking. what did they expect him to do? why would the cops tell him to throw the gun down and then release the dog? with me so far? they released the dog in order to make him throw the gun down and give up. they didn't do it in order to make him pull the gun on the dog so they could shoot up the entire porch and everything on it. "omg, he made a sudden movement... SHOOT!"... well, no, jackoff... he didn't.

basically, they unknowingly made it so that anything the guy did would end up looking like a sudden movement... that's some grade a police work. fvcking dragnet, right there.

You seem a little biased against the LAPD. Like I said earlier, and other people have said, the suspect clearly said "if the dog come my way, I'm gawn shoot", and he said it at least twice. So again, having said that, why wouldn't the cops believe the man was going to do what he said?

Also, I'm not sure, but could the dog have been released on accident? It appears he still has his muzzle on? Or maybe that's just another piece of normal K-9 gear. Definitely still has his leash attached, and I thought they normally released the leash from the neck area or no?

Originally posted by: CadetLee

An officer on a police forum makes a good point:

Although I won't make any excuses for anyone, the deployment of the K9 could have been accidental. When the officer feared that he was going to be shot or was in danger, he may have grabbed his gun and forgot about the dog.

Just a thought.

Take it as you will.

 

[Rastus]

It looked to me like the cop that was holding the dog dropped the leash to reach for his weapon and started firing when the guy on the porch threw what he had in his hand.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: KrillBee
guns kill people.

guns are bad.

And knives, cars, electricity, quads, planes, etc. :roll:

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: eits
sometimes, i can't understand the mentality of some of you people who are constantly hard-up for authority figures or people in "noble" positions always killing other people. this whole "they deserved it" thing doesn't fly. it's the whole "they deserved it" mentality that makes people like the guy who got shot in this video the way they are.

it's SOOOOO goddamn annoying everytime i hear people ALWAYS defending cops or soldiers whenever they use excessive force and kill someone. it's always "they deserved it" or "there needs to be more of this"... and it always seems to be some pseudo-macho, gun-toting, nra badge-wearing, elephant sticker having, bush apologist.

I?m usually the first to hold a higher authority figure accountable for abuse of power.

In this case it was totally justified, but their marksmanship could use some work. Stressful or not, they were in stationary positions behind cover, at close range, and probably firing from a supported position (hood of squad car, etc).

Having taken positions and been stationary for more than a few minutes, the initial ?zomg this is actually happening? rush should have lapsed and they should have only been in a high alert state focused on the task at hand. If you aren't capable of that level of focus and M.O.M., stick to writing tickets. The onset of the shaky heart pounding adrenaline rush and tunnel vision typically reflects the shock of the initial exposure to and realization of the situation. They had plenty of time sitting and watching for that initial reaction to subside. Drawing and firing in seconds notice in a struggle when you are jumped by surprise is one thing. It?s another thing to miss a human sized target 20 feet away when you?ve been training your weapon on your target from a stationary position for 10 minutes.

Conclusion: they need to return to traffic duty or hit the range more often.