Members Hapless Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 That was sarcasim my friends, you can't pump some dude holding a pipe 11 times and say it was justified. Yes, you can. But, you are entitled to your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members isvoid Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 That was sarcasim my friends, you can't pump some dude holding a pipe 11 times and say it was justified. ib4 ur spellink and grammrz are teh corerected yo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ron Burgandy Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 That was sarcasim my friends, you can't pump some dude holding a pipe 11 times and say it was justified. sure you can. that {censored} just happened. need to see the video again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 sure you can. that {censored} just happened. need to see the video again? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dougsthang Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 sure you can. that {censored} just happened. need to see the video again? I agree everyone has an opinion and unfortunately that {censored} happens way too much around here. As a parent I just think that was someones son, who knows the guy might have been whacked out on drugs or mentally challenged, I just think there was a better way to resolve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 Finally watched the video. Looks justified to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushtallica Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 Some things I think most can agree on: 1) Don't do PCP 2) Don't hold a weapon in defiance to an officer 3) Especially don't start to swing a weapon at an officer who's armed and has more who are armed with him 4) The dipships filming the vid are a sad commentary on the modern human condition and make the movie Idiocracy appear to be more a potential prophecy than a bad comedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y0UNGBL00D Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 Either way. We aren't required to wait and see if someone is serious about coming at us with a weapon. If the guy was half a block away and raised the crowbar menacingly, it'd be different. Studies have shown that a person with a weapon 21 feet away (or less) can close the distance and strike before an officer, trained or otherwise, can draw and fire. If a person is within 21 feet, and demonstrates an intent to use a weapon, an officer is justified in using deadly force. Sorry that doesn't jibe with your delicate sensibilities.Incidentally, the 21 foot benchmark is why TASER leads were originally 21 feet long. They have extended that distance more recently, though. Interesting how the active LEO here just backed up my posts verbatim. Some of us know what we're talking about Duncan, you lose, son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 I agree everyone has an opinion and unfortunately that {censored} happens way too much around here. As a parent I just think that was someones son, who knows the guy might have been whacked out on drugs or mentally challenged, I just think there was a better way to resolve this. What would the better way be? Considering that we are not trained to shoot at extremities, but at center mass. Considering that we are trained that once deadly force is employed, it should continue to be employed until the threat is neutralized. Considering that the guy was unaffected by the TASER, when every officer who carries a TASER has been TASER'd and knows that if it doesn't affect someone, holy {censored}. Considering that one round, two rounds, three rounds, etc., often aren't enough to bring someone down or stop resistance. Considering that the dog will only affect someone who feels pain. What's the better option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KCTigerChief Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 I agree everyone has an opinion and unfortunately that {censored} happens way too much around here. As a parent I just think that was someones son, who knows the guy might have been whacked out on drugs or mentally challenged, I just think there was a better way to resolve this. He threatened the lives of other humans. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 I can't say whether the cops were justified or not. Based on what I know about the situation, it seems likely that they were justified. As I see it, there's a guy in a fast food joint, not talking or screaming or anything, just breaking windows with a pipe bender. The cops come. When he walks out, the cops attempt to apprehend him without any force whatsoever, attempt non-lethal force to no useful effectand then when he begins to approach a cop standing a few feet away beginning to raise a deadly weapon, the cops use lethal force. As far as the number of shots used, reports say that he was still standing after the first five shots but had dropped the weapon. Maybe the second round of shots weren't as reasonable as the first, but I'm not ready to say that it was unreasonable, either. Our legal system doesn't expect cops to act in the MOST reasonable manner in these types of situations. A certain amount of leeway is allowed because the cops were the ones there and were best suited to evaluate the situation. We don't want cops to have to second guess themselves in situations like these. We want them to act quickly and decisively in order to control the situation before a citizen or another cop gets harmed or killed by a pipe bender-wielding lunatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dougsthang Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 What would the better way be? Considering that we are not trained to shoot at extremities, but at center mass. Considering that we are trained that once deadly force is employed, it should continue to be employed until the threat is neutralized. Considering that the guy was unaffected by the TASER, when every officer who carries a TASER has been TASER'd and knows that if it doesn't affect someone, holy {censored}. Considering that one round, two rounds, three rounds, etc., often aren't enough to bring someone down or stop resistance. Considering that the dog will only affect someone who feels pain. What's the better option? That's a good question my friend. One I don't have an answer to. I guess when one sees something like that it goes to your core values and you begin to question. It's easy to judge when one isn't in the line of fire. I guess I could equate it to slaughtering cows, everyone eats burgers all day but when they suddenly see the way meat comes to market they question the morality of the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 I can't say whether the cops were justified or not. Based on what I know about the situation, it seems likely that they were justified. As I see it, there's a guy in a fast food joint, not talking or screaming or anything, just breaking windows with a pipe bender. The cops come. When he walks out, the cops attempt to apprehend him without any force whatsoever, attempt non-lethal force to no useful effectand then when he begins to approach a cop standing a few feet away beginning to raise a deadly weapon, the cops use lethal force. As far as the number of shots used, reports say that he was still standing after the first five shots but had dropped the weapon. Maybe the second round of shots weren't as reasonable as the first, but I'm not ready to say that it was unreasonable, either. Our legal system doesn't expect cops to act in the MOST reasonable manner in these types of situations. A certain amount of leeway is allowed because the cops were the ones there and were best suited to evaluate the situation. We don't want cops to have to second guess themselves in situations like these. We want them to act quickly and decisively in order to control the situation before a citizen or another cop gets harmed or killed by a pipe bender-wielding lunatic. Actually, the legal system does expect officers to act in a reasonable manner. But you are correct, the objective reasonableness standard requires that the situation be evaluated, without benefit of hindsight, from the point of view of a reasonable officer at the scene, with the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time. The examination should also take into account the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions. See Graham v. Connor (1989). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 That's a good question my friend. One I don't have an answer to. I guess when one sees something like that it goes to your core values and you begin to question. It's easy to judge when one isn't in the line of fire. I guess I could equate it to slaughtering cows, everyone eats burgers all day but when they suddenly see the way meat comes to market they question the morality of the whole thing. As I said before, police work isn't pretty sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushtallica Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 Either way. We aren't required to wait and see if someone is serious about coming at us with a weapon. If the guy was half a block away and raised the crowbar menacingly, it'd be different. Studies have shown that a person with a weapon 21 feet away (or less) can close the distance and strike before an officer, trained or otherwise, can draw and fire. If a person is within 21 feet, and demonstrates an intent to use a weapon, an officer is justified in using deadly force. I can definitely understand. I've been in a number of fights where I was hit first, and pretty much each of those times it happened so fast I didn't see it coming even though I was aware of the potential for a fight. It's different being in a situation like that in person whereas often on video it looks like people being attacked should be able to react to everything quickly. {censored}'s different when you're there with adrenaline pumping and you don't know what the person coming at you is capable of or what the person will do. Someone a foot or two away with a weapon like that can end someone else in a quick hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 Actually, the legal system does expect officers to act in a reasonable manner. But you are correct, the objective reasonableness standard requires that the situation be evaluated, without benefit of hindsight, from the point of view of a reasonable officer at the scene, with the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time. The examination should also take into account the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions. See Graham v. Connor (1989). Yeah, that's why I said MOST reasonable. We expect reasonable but it's not quite the same standard that applies in other contexts. I am familiar with Graham v. Connor, too. And FWIW, it's rare for me to take up for law enforcement (no offense, Hap...I just get paid to do the exact opposite, and I do have a lot of respect for those who do their job with pride), but I don't see the outrage at this. Try to kill/mame a cop and you're gonna end up in a much worse predicament than you were to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members v_c Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 They should have shot the pick-axe out of his hand. Or shot the middle of it a few times so it would break in half. Thats what i'd have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rburgess Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 A bit overboard with the # of rounds pumped into the dude, but I don't have a problem with the end result. Bottom line is we're all accountable for our actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Harvest Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 IMO the only mistake the cops made is they were too close and not using the available cover of their squad car, etc. I believe they are supposed to utilize that distance and cover if possible when addressing any standoff type situation. Not sure if they were trying to enter the restaurant for the takedown here or what but they could easily have been behind a car or two when issuing the first commands and taser. Because they were not, the escalation of force was needed much quicker and they did what was necessary to maintain their safety, which is OK in and of itself but IMO it may not have been necessary if they were behind a car. We don't really have the full story to comment so I don't know {censored} about police procedures either so I'm just talking out my ass here. Also the RCMP escalation of force is like this: words -> pepper spray -> beaver tail -> k9 -> gun, slightly different than down south Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 They should have shot the pick-axe out of his hand. Or shot the middle of it a few times so it would break in half. Thats what i'd have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Harvest Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 They were trying to shoot the PCP out of his stomach! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members charveldan Posted January 24, 2012 Members Share Posted January 24, 2012 http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/01/23/monterey-park-police-fatally-shoot-man-breaking-windows-at-fast-food-restaurant/ It seems to me that the "weapon" the suspect had is a tool to bend conduit, from what i've seen. Im sure the cops will get out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hapless Posted January 25, 2012 Members Share Posted January 25, 2012 http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/01/23/monterey-park-police-fatally-shoot-man-breaking-windows-at-fast-food-restaurant/ It seems to me that the "weapon" the suspect had is a tool to bend conduit, from what i've seen. Im sure the cops will get out of it. I see. There is no way a pipe-bender could be used to cause death or great bodily harm. {censored}ing police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dicky sofa Posted January 25, 2012 Members Share Posted January 25, 2012 The crowd reactions bother me much more than the police doing their jobs...mother {censored}ing pieces of mother {censored}ing {censored} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soapbladder Posted January 25, 2012 Members Share Posted January 25, 2012 Actually, the legal system does expect officers to act in a reasonable manner. But you are correct, the objective reasonableness standard requires that the situation be evaluated, without benefit of hindsight, from the point of view of a reasonable officer at the scene, with the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time. The examination should also take into account the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions. See Graham v. Connor (1989). Right. Although whether that behavior is in fact reasonable, in the context of a lawsuit, is the sole decision of the finder of fact, which in most cases is a jury. One could certainly question the reasonableness of the hail of bullets, based on bystanders at a different restaurant being injured as a result of stray gunfire. That would be the bystander's cause of action though, and not the perp's. What advance knowledge the police had would be also be relevant. If they had knowledge of mental illness ahead of time, etc. SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.