Yea my aim is better than a lot of cops i know. This is strictly speaking from using glocks. If you miss with an M4 at that range, you should be fired from law enforcement. OTOH, that video is hilarious!!!! What kinda untrained incompetence allowed this to happen? I would care more about the victim but as far as we know, he was a piece of crap that needed to go anyway.
What I saw was a total lack of control. I didn't see any threatening action by the suspect or the need for the police to shoot.
Who let the dog go? Worse of all, they couldn't shoot straight. They hit everything else and the suspect just happened to be caught in the spray with the dog. It was a total disregard for safety. A stray bullet could have killed an innocent bystander, in this case the dog.
I know I can shoot better than that and I wouldn't need more than 1 shot with a rifle. I hit what I aim at, and in this case to disable, not kill.
Who let the dog go? Worse of all, they couldn't shoot straight. They hit everything else and the suspect just happened to be caught in the spray with the dog. It was a total disregard for safety. A stray bullet could have killed an innocent bystander, in this case the dog.
I know I can shoot better than that and I wouldn't need more than 1 shot with a rifle. I hit what I aim at, and in this case to disable, not kill.
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Jahee
why did they even fire at the man in the first place, he didnt make any sudden movements or anythingi dont understand...
that is what i was trying to understand. WTF did they even start fireing.
The video is out of sync! Ignore the audio! Look at the timing of when the bullets start hitting...AFTER he flings the gun.
He did make a sudden movement. Look at the way he tosses his gun...he flings it outward. The cops don't have time to figure out whether him stretching his arm out is him aiming or him tossing. They did the right thing.
As far as him being unarmed? Doesn't matter. He said "If the dog comes my way, I'm gonna shoot." They had to assume he had a gun, whether it was a shoe in the end is inconsequential. The dog comes his way, he stretches his arm out, they assume he's keeping his word, and they start firing.
It's too bad the dog got hit, that was a unfortunate accident, but sh*t happens. Like it or not, thats one of the reasons the dog is there in the first place - to be that little bit more expendable when a human can't risk his life.
And they DIDN'T shoot at the dog. The dog ran into the line of fire.
Enough of this 20/20 hindsight BS, based on people not even realizing the video is out of sync. The cops did the right thing. If they KNEW he was unarmed, they wouldn't have shot. He brought this upon himself. The dog is the innocent one here. Sure, the cops didn't HAVE to shoot in the end, but they didn't have the luxury of hindsight at the time. Good for them. No one deserves any disciplinary action, it looks perfectly justifiable.
I just saw the second video. He told the cops OVER, and OVER that he was "ready to die", he was going to shoot "those two cops right there", and that if they let the dog go, he was going to shoot. This went on for several minutes.
He had his chance. He kept blowing it. The cops did *exactly* the right thing. He got shot because he deserved it. He got left there dying, because the dog *didn't* deserve it.
Bravo.
He had his chance. He kept blowing it. The cops did *exactly* the right thing. He got shot because he deserved it. He got left there dying, because the dog *didn't* deserve it.
Bravo.
I agree with every point made in your post.
Big whoop about leaving him lying on the ground and airlifting the police dog out there.
Absolutely. The cops do NOT have the luxury of hindsight that we do. He was hiding his "weapon". He threatened over and over to shoot them. Especially if they let the dog at him. He even pointed out which ones he was going to shoot. He told them the only way he was leaving was in a hail of bullets, and he was going down shooting, etc. At that point, he is considered an armed man, whether he's holding a gun or a candybar. When they let the dog go, he motioned his hand in their direction.
None of the cops intended to shoot the K-9. But the dog is not a human being. It does not understand the situation. All it knows is to run at the suspect. The same person that let the dog go was not the same person who was shooting. The dog does not understand not to run into the line of fire, it has a one track mind. Looking down the sights of a submachine gun from a different angle than the video, while muzzle flash and smoke are flying from your gun, and while YOUR LIFE and YOUR FRIENDS LIVES are in immediate danger is not the same as watching a video and criticizing it.
This is not nearly the same situation as the amadou diallo case, where an unarmed man was shot 41 times in NYC. Although they were mostly justfied in that case as well, you got the impression that the offers were being too trigger happy, and in the end it was a tragic misunderstanding. He wasnt held at gunpoint for minutes while amadou threatened to shoot them. But that is what they deal with day to day.
Here, its cut and dry. This ONLY tragedy is the dog getting shot. The guy getting shot - that was justice. They absolutely did the right thing. Perhaps the only mistake was letting the dog go in the first place, but again, hindsight is 20/20. Everything after that, I completely approve. If anything, it took a pretty huge amount of restraint on their part not to start unloading on him after dozens and dozens of threats. Thats part of their job. I'd hate to have to sit there, having an assumedly armed man tell me over and over he's going to kill me, and not be able to shoot back because it's my "job."
Fayd
Diamond Member
they were at my range. me and my father were the only ones there, so when they asked to shut down the range for 5 minutes to set up for a firearms qualification, we said we didnt mind.
PS: i was shooting my .22 rifle for less than dime size groups at the same marker, from prone position at the benchrests.
EDIT: removed some quote tree
It saddens me to think that suicide by cop = justice in some of your eyes. The entire situation is nothing but a complete and utter tragedy. The fact of the matter is that the police officers held his life in thier hands that night, and through some flaw of procedure he was killed instead of saved.
Bullsh*t. Suicide by cop = justice in this case because the cop's life is NOT expendable. They did not fire without warning, they were constantly threatened, and they did not fire prematurely.
It's a minor tradgedy that he had to die. In a perfect world, there would be a way to disable him without putting the cops lives in danger. But there isnt. It's much more tragic that the dog died, because THAT was the part that could have been avoided.
The police offers held their lives in his hands NO MORE than he held their lives in his.
What "flaw of prodcedure"? Did you actually watch the SECOND video?
Suspect: If yall let that dog go, or shoot me with a beanbag, I'm shootin at ya'll mother f**kers.
Suspect: Whats wrong with my b*tch? If anything wrong with my b*tch, I'm gonna die right here!
Suspect: Ya'll see these pistols on my arm? I'm real with this ******, bitch.
Suspect: Let that dog go mother f**ker, think im playing!?! I'm ready to die. That mother f**kin dog bite me, ya'll might as well shoot, cause I'm shootin at YOU. I'm shootin at these ones right here (points at them). The ones thats in my view. Wherever that dog comes from, I'm shootin at ya'll.
Suspect: My legs hurt...I'm tired of waiting. I'm ready to get up and get off!
Suspect: Let that dog go. Let it go! I ain't shown no gun. You see that, camera? I told them if they let the dog go, I'm gonna shoot em. (That statement was probably what justified them letting the dog go at him...that he might not actually have one, and is just acting for the camera. But when he whipped it out AT them, no time to think and see what might happen.)
Cop: We want you to throw your gun down, cause we don't want you to get hurt, OK? I'm going to send my dog, and he's going to bite you.
Suspect: Then I'm gonna shoot everything!
Cop: Thats why we're gonna use the dog, he don't care what you have.
Suspect: So what? When the dog bites me, I'm gonna be shootin ya'll.
Cop: We got two dogs now, and you're not gonna get both of them!
Suspect: I got one gun with 13 shots! x2
Cop: GOOD! We got more guns than YOU. YOU can end this peacefully.
Suspect: YOU can end it peacefully too! (He wants to talk to his baby's mom, who apparently doesnt want any part in it, and is at the hosptial for some unknown reason.)
Cop: We are NOT negotiating, other than you throwing your gun down. Throw your gun down, and come out so you do not get hurt.
Suspect: You not gonna get Fonda, we can just do it right now then!
Suspect: Let it go! Let it go cuz! (Repeats at least 3 times, and starts shifting around like he's about to make a move.) I dare you!
Cop: Put the gun down, or we'll send this dog to bite you...this is your LAST CHANCE!
Suspect: (shouting now) If the dog comes my way, I'm gonna shoot!
Then they let the dog go, you see his reaction immediately, and he pulls his hidden arm out *directly* at them (the same direction the dog comes from), and is obviously holding something.
Most importantly, the first bullet does not hit until AFTER the object is exposed. They did not fire prematurely. They do not, and should not have to wait for him to actually shoot back at him.
After ALL of that, I do not see how you could possibly think they were not justified in unloading on him. He threatened them DOZENS of times. He told them he had a gun, dozens of times. He told them exactly what he was going to do, and he *appeared* to follow through with it. They tried to end it peacefully, over and over. He chose this. This is EXACTLY what they cops SHOULD have done. Good for them - I'm glad theyre all alright, but poor doggie.
To me it just seems like they forced the shooting by letting the dog go. He didnt have a gun, he wasn't pointing it at anyone. Noone was in danger at that moment. They limited themselves to just 2 options by letting the dog go, either 1. he was not gonna have a gun and the dog would have been able to take him down like it was trained to, or 2. he was gonna have a gun and they would shoot him. They gambled with his life and they lost. Thats where I see the flaw. And if they really did believe that he had the gun then they just forced a reason to be able to shoot him. He can't hurt anyone with with a hidden gun. He can't hurt anyone with words either. Of course you have your hindsight arguement, but there should be procedures in place to prevent this sort of mistake from happening.
From our hindsight. At the time and place, their only rational option was to assume considerable and mortal danger.
What other options did they have? Sit there and wait forever? Thats what you do when he's holding someone hostage, which he wasn't. He told them time and time again he was going down shooting. He wasn't coming down there peacefully. They had to break the stalemate one way or another, the dog being the sensible option. He had dozens of chances to walk away peacefully....he chose not to.
Of course they believed he had a gun. Why would they believe otherwise? Which is why they didnt shoot him until after he exposed his "weapon". They have to end the situation...the longer they wait, the more desperate he gets. If he's taunting you, telling him he's about to shoot you, you can't sit there and wait for him to actually do it. They forced the situation to end, and his unfortunate decision to toss the gun in their direction led to his actually getting shot.
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.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
Backing down from a hostile and armed individual is not the job of the police. They tried talking him down. He did not cooperate. Sucks to be him.
They fired after he moved. Maybe you want to see an officer shot before they return fire. Many of us (especially the officers involved) do not.
The police had bullet-proofed vests.
They must have the advantage point, hidden behind obstacles, like cars, shields, walls and the such.
They had a perp in the open.
They have the training and experience in these types of confrontations.
Why didn't they call in a negotiator of sorts? They use them for all situations.
They couldn't confirm that the perp was armed.
Why did they escalate the situation. They could of backed off.
Was there an eminent danger displayed, no just high possibility.
They could have shot him in the kneecap with a well placed shot or even in the leg.
Use of deadly force is when Dirty Harry is on the scene.
Police reaction time was too hyper in this instance.
They didn't give the guy the chance to surrender. He was scared as anyone there.
More so. Just overly stupid, but scared.
Most likely this will go down as a good shoot.
If he just had a object in his hand like that shooting of the fellow a few years back.
In a darken doorway, not understanding the police and shot down in a hail of bullets.
They must have the advantage point, hidden behind obstacles, like cars, shields, walls and the such.
They had a perp in the open.
They have the training and experience in these types of confrontations.
Why didn't they call in a negotiator of sorts? They use them for all situations.
They couldn't confirm that the perp was armed.
Why did they escalate the situation. They could of backed off.
Was there an eminent danger displayed, no just high possibility.
They could have shot him in the kneecap with a well placed shot or even in the leg.
Use of deadly force is when Dirty Harry is on the scene.
Police reaction time was too hyper in this instance.
They didn't give the guy the chance to surrender. He was scared as anyone there.
More so. Just overly stupid, but scared.
Most likely this will go down as a good shoot.
If he just had a object in his hand like that shooting of the fellow a few years back.
In a darken doorway, not understanding the police and shot down in a hail of bullets.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
Bulletproof vests are no guarantee. Want to wear one while someone takes a shot at you? They attempted negotiation. Negotiation failed. The 'perp' stated he was armed. They did not escalate the situation; your beloved 'perp' did by stating he was going to fire on the officers.
Either you didn't read BD2003's post, or you are incredibly stupid.
Precautions that do not completely protect the officers. They were still in grave danger.
They were negotiating.
They shouldn't have to. His actions and words were enough to assume he was.
He escalated, and him telling them he was going to kill them with his "13 bullets" is eminent danger.
Which wouldnt have killed him, and he would have fired back, possibly hitting an officer, bystander, or K-9. Use of deadly force is acceptable when officers and innocents lives are in danger. You shoot someone holding a knife or a bat in the legs from a distance. You shoot someone holding a gun and threatening to use it to kill.
Minimum human reaction time is 150ms. Bullets didnt start flying until at least that long after he motioned at the cops. A split second longer, if he did actually have a gun, he'd have let a few rounds off.
They gave him MANY chances to surrender. He replied by telling them he would shoot them. They did not do a single thing without warning him of what would happen and the consequences.
I've already mentioned that case. Diallo never threatened to kill the officers, he was up close with them in an enclosed area, in the dark. The cops in that situation let their fear and prejudice take over them. They MUST function defensively in order to survive, but in that case, it was out of hand - but again, this is all conveniently judged by hindsight. That case was a pure tragedy. Defensive cops, upset suspect, and everything just went down the wrong way.
This is VERY DIFFERENT.
Are you stupid? Do you REALLY believe that officers should put their life on the line to confirm he has a gun, when he is telling them he is ready and willing to use it, and hiding the gun?
The ONLY way they could find out if it was real or not was for him to either drop it slowly and live, or whip it out quickly and die. His hiding of the gun caused this situation to end up how it did.
So you're basically telling me the perp is not responsible for the consequences of ANY of his actions while warned, and the cops are responsble for ALL of their actions based upon hindsight, without any reasonable way to judge the *reality* of the situation, at the time and place?
What happen is the officer lost hold of the dog by mistake which started the whole chain of events.
If you look at the tape, you know they over reacted and trigger happy. They totally lost control of the situation which they are being train to maintain.
If you look at the tape, you know they over reacted and trigger happy. They totally lost control of the situation which they are being train to maintain.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter