LAPD Officers Shoot Man Five Times in Broad Daylight

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Exactly. The Lee Rigby murderers were both shot in a non-lethal manner when they charged police. That's because British firearms officers are trained to an extremely high standard.

 

Yeah... You do not just get a gun by right over here because you are law enforcement. I'm sure some could reply to this by saying but the public can have firearms by right in America, but that's another lengthy debate/discussion in itself.

 

Regardless of those differences in societies right now, Police should be trained to exceptionally high standards wherever in the world.

[DocM]

Perfect example of defending murder. So if you resist arrest you can be shot?! And people think that's OK?

>

If the resisting suspect reaches for an officers firearm, a clearly aggressive move with potentially lethal consequences for officers and innocent bystanders, HELL EFFING YES!!

People need to extract their heads from their rectums on this point.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

If the resisting suspect reaches for an officers firearm, a clearly aggressive move with potentially lethal consequences for officers and innocent bystanders, HELL EFFING YES!!

People need to extract their heads from their rectums on this point.

 

Exactly the point. If something is potential until it becomes a genuine matter of life or death a lot of force can be used to prevent said potential from materialising prior to killing. If this amount of officers cannot stop one mans attempts to reach for a gun with brute force prior to shooting then they're failing at their job.

 

The cops in the UK probably fear from potential outcomes if a drunk maniac with a bottle/knife comes at them, but it doesn't give them a free license to kill every human with the potential to lethally harm them.

 

As I said above even if a firearm has to be used, the human body is a large target, especially on a downed human being at close range. A bullet to the hand, arm, leg or even parts of the torso are non-lethal if they can be treated quickly.

 

I personally think a lot of Americans live in a bubble where they think officers of the law elsewhere in the world do not face life-threatening situations on a daily basis in the same way as US Law enforcement. That is sheer ignorance. Of course they do, and that is why rigorous training is put in place, as well as one officer always having the support of others and many practical ways to improve their chances (body armour, short haircuts, and then all of the deterrents such as pepper spray, batons, handcuffs and physical body training).

[theyarecomingforyou]

If the resisting suspect reaches for an officers firearm, a clearly aggressive move with potentially lethal consequences for officers and innocent bystanders, HELL EFFING YES!!

The issue is the confrontational and aggressive tactics used by police. In most of the videos I see cops provoke the situation and it escalates. It the police had acted properly it wouldn't have escalated to the point where the man could have grabbed the gun.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The issue is the confrontational and aggressive tactics used by police. In most of the videos I see cops provoke the situation and it escalates. It the police had acted properly it wouldn't have escalated to the point where the man could have grabbed the gun.

 

Definitely true in a fair amount of cases. If a person in the wrong, for whatever reason, fears for his or her life they can act stupidly in the moment (such as reaching for a lethal weapon). The difference we hope for law enforcement is through all of the rigorous training they should be getting they're equipped to think logically in threatening situations whereas Joe Public 9 times out of 10 will not have the luxury of learning how to cope with highly reactional and stressful situations (such as being surrounded by a mass of law enforcement, seeing guns and being on the end of physical constraint and a lot of shouting).

 

As strange as it sounds you sometimes have to "protect" the criminal in order for a correct line of justice to be served (trial).

[trag3dy]

Perfect example of defending murder. So if you resist arrest you can be shot?! And people think that's OK?

Police in other countries manage to do their jobs without carrying guns and they have lower crime rates as well. US cops are murderes above the law.

The truly amazing thing is how people still defend them no matter what.

 

I'm not defending murder. I'm defending common sense.

 

You don't play around with bears in the woods because you might get your head bit off. Likewise you don't resist arrest and you likely won't get shot.

 

I'm not saying things couldn't have been handled differently but it's easy to say that after the fact.

[Dinggus]

If you go out drinking in the UK on a weekend you'll see fights, brawls, glass being thrown, bouncers getting assaulted and a lot more. As someone who has lived all their life in the UK I'm pretty well experienced with how our cops can handle things.

 

We're far from perfect, but I don't think I've ever seen videos of the UK cops represented like this video.

 

There's a lot of force than can be used prior to deadly. Batons, pepper spray, and even fists. Even if a gun has to be used there's many parts of the body to aim for that can stun prior to outright killing. Unloading multiple shots into someone is to outright plan to kill.

If an officer is seen using fists to subdue a subject, then it's called police brutality. US is full of law enforcement haters, and they'll say anything or twist what they seen to get an officer into trouble.

There's a lot of levels of force that is used, keep adding more and more, risks the officers life. Here is an example:

1. Physical presence --- depending on the totality of the circumstances, a call/situation may require additional officers or an on scene officer may request assistance in order to gain better control of the situation and gain more safety for themselves.

2. Verbal commands

3. Empty-hand submission techniques, PPCT - Pressure Point Control Tactics

4. Intermediate Weapons (e.g. baton, pepper spray, Taser, beanbag rounds, Mace (spray), etc.)

5. Lethal force.

[+Random Stranger Subscriber¹]

After comparing USA and Canada cops to UK and other euro countries,  I find the cops in Canada and USA are always looking at you like you are a criminal, 

while cops in UK and other europe countries usually appear much friendlier and a willing to joke around with you and let you take a picture with them, and talk to you and help with directions and general advice.

 

try taking a picture with the cop in north america and they will become defensive or even offensive.   most of them are not helpful if you ask a general question, and look at you as a nuisance!

 

 

 

huge difference in how they act towards the very people they are supposed to SERVE AND PROTECT!      I have met nice cops a few times but they are rare.  

 

In UK I felt protected next to cops.   In USA and Canada I try to avoid them as much as possible.

[The Evil Overlord]

Edit

*Withdrawn as my statement was made for me by another user*

[TAZMINATOR]

After comparing USA and Canada cops to UK and other euro countries,  I find the cops in Canada and USA are always looking at you like you are a criminal, 

while cops in UK and other europe countries usually appear much friendlier and a willing to joke around with you and let you take a picture with them, and talk to you and help with directions and general advice.

 

try taking a picture with the cop in north america and they will become defensive or even offensive.   most of them are not helpful if you ask a general question, and look at you as a nuisance!

 

 

 

huge difference in how they act towards the very people they are supposed to SERVE AND PROTECT!      I have met nice cops a few times but they are rare.  

 

In UK I felt protected next to cops.   In USA and Canada I try to avoid them as much as possible.

 

Not all cops in USA... There are some good cops.  I have friends who are cops.  They are friendly to me.

 

Even the ones who do not know me, they are friendly to me.

 

Depends on where you live in USA.

[+Random Stranger Subscriber¹]

Not all cops in USA... There are some good cops.  I have friends who are cops.  They are friendly to me.

 

Even the ones who do not know me, they are friendly to me.

 

Depends on where you live in USA.

 

 

yeah, i mentioned that.     but OVERALL impression in living in Canada for a very long time, and visiting at least 7 different states,   most cops are not nice. 

 

i assume they are nicer in smaller communities,   but in big cities it is not the case.        

 

(again, with exceptions...  i one day in new orleans i have met the most rude group of cops and the very nice officer on segway, who chatted to me for 10 minutes about the city)

[Memphis]

yeah, i mentioned that. but OVERALL impression in living in Canada for a very long time, and visiting at least 7 different states, most cops are not nice.

i assume they are nicer in smaller communities, but in big cities it is not the case.

(again, with exceptions... i one day in new orleans i have met the most rude group of cops and the very nice officer on segway, who chatted to me for 10 minutes about the city)

I had a friend who left a PD in Arizona because of what he described as egotistical **sholes. He went into nursing because he felt it fit protecting and serving better. He told me similar stories. I remember when I first visited a bigger city and asked a cop for directions. I don't think I've gotten that much of a cold shoulder before or since.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I'm not defending murder. I'm defending common sense.

 

You don't play around with bears in the woods because you might get your head bit off. Likewise you don't resist arrest and you likely won't get shot.

 

I'm not saying things couldn't have been handled differently but it's easy to say that after the fact.

This is why we expect police officers to be trained and conducting themselves like professionals... I don't understand why people are expecting the police to act as if they aren't trained or professional. We should be pushing them to act professionally and increasing training and job structure to that end.

 

For instance, mentally ill people are very difficult to deal with. They often do things that can be very threatening and dangerous. Depending on their illness it can happen suddenly and depending on their physical makeup potentially lethal (even without weapons). Yet we, as a society, wouldn't consider it OK if a psychiatrist routinely killed his patients because they failed to comply with his "orders". Even if the actions were ones where a layman may be protected with self defense laws. We expect that their years of training and specialty dealing with groups of troubled persons should ensure they act rationally in situations dealing with them.

 

Cops have a dangerous job, but they shouldn't react like a layman does when "threatened"; aka primal fear and survival instinct at all costs.

 

As I have said numerous times in this thread, every time a police officer kills a "suspect" is a tragedy as this is a usurpation of the power of the courts and a severe violation of our Constitution. We understand it has to happen in certain cases, but it should be minimized as much as absolutely possible. Resisting arrest in and of itself is NOT reason enough to kill someone.

[chrisj1968]

http://youtu.be/6oP1Ke70Mi8

 

I'm concerned about the content of the video, the discussion.. pretty darn strong message. 

apparently this is Fema training officers July 2001 just before 9/11 that christians and libertarians, founding fathers are all terrorists.

 

fairly compelling

[The Evil Overlord]

http://youtu.be/6oP1Ke70Mi8

 

I'm concerned about the content of the video, the discussion.. pretty darn strong message. 

apparently this is Fema training officers July 2001 just before 9/11 that christians and libertarians, founding fathers are all terrorists.

 

fairly compelling

I haven't watched the vid, but I'll assume it was something to do with how America was colonised, and if those actions were judged by the laws in place, post 'modern terrorism' then they would qualify, as such.

[trag3dy]

 

This is why we expect police officers to be trained and conducting themselves like professionals... I don't understand why people are expecting the police to act as if they aren't trained or professional. We should be pushing them to act professionally and increasing training and job structure to that end.

 

For instance, mentally ill people are very difficult to deal with. They often do things that can be very threatening and dangerous. Depending on their illness it can happen suddenly and depending on their physical makeup potentially lethal (even without weapons). Yet we, as a society, wouldn't consider it OK if a psychiatrist routinely killed his patients because they failed to comply with his "orders". Even if the actions were ones where a layman may be protected with self defense laws. We expect that their years of training and specialty dealing with groups of troubled persons should ensure they act rationally in situations dealing with them.

 

Cops have a dangerous job, but they shouldn't react like a layman does when "threatened"; aka primal fear and survival instinct at all costs.

 

As I have said numerous times in this thread, every time a police officer kills a "suspect" is a tragedy as this is a usurpation of the power of the courts and a severe violation of our Constitution. We understand it has to happen in certain cases, but it should be minimized as much as absolutely possible. Resisting arrest in and of itself is NOT reason enough to kill someone.

 

It is when they're grabbing for your gun.

[HeartsOfWar]

Found this just now:

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/03/man-killed-by-los-angeles-police-was-wanted-by-us-marshals/21149283/

It does add a little more detail, but I still believe it could have been handled better. It says they were trained to deal with this, but obviously something got crossed.

 

This article seems to indicate a lot of things for me to assume a clearer opinion:

 

- The cop that I previously identified as being a bad apple is a rookie cop. This explains a lot considering how he lost his baton and then dropped it instead of securing it, tried throwing punches instead of subduing, and lost control of the situation leading to a struggle for his weapon with a suspect.

 

- The cop's weapon in question was jammed, indicating a struggle took place, but was never dropped as some seem to have thought.

 

- The suspect was a bank robber, identity thief that violated parole and was homeless, likely on drugs. The actions of a very irrational man.

 

- The suspect, according to eye-witnesses and cops, started the fight with the cops first.

 

- The video, several eye-witnesses, and cop, all state the suspect went for the gun of the officer.

 

This may seem like a situation where deadly force was unnecessary due to the sheer number of cops on the scene, but even a 150lb man that is frantic or on drugs can easily be unpredictable and take 4+ people to subdue. Do I think the situation should have played out different if the rookie cop had not been present or wasn't so green? Yes; however, while the cop made mistakes and deserves to be reprimanded / punished, the suspect went for the officers gun and there's only one reason to do that: intent to use it as a weapon.

[chrisj1968]

you could be right that the topic was about colonization. history is being rewritten with a changing narrative that the founding fathers were terrorists. one narrative is that the boston tea party was a terrorist act, when in fact King George the despot, was raising taxes tremendously.

 

there should be some cause for some level of concern however. Christians aren't chopping heads off.. and my being a christian, that places a bullseye right on me and I have no desire nor inclination to act in a manner this guy is stating. So I'm a dead man in theory of this guys teaching. I'm not afraid either. not to turn this into a christian soapbox debate but this was coming, the hatred of christians alone.

 

Matthew 24:9 "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

[The Evil Overlord]

you could be right that the topic was about colonization. history is being rewritten with a changing narrative that the founding fathers were terrorists. one narrative is that the boston tea party was a terrorist act, when in fact King George the despot, was raising taxes tremendously.

there should be some cause for some level of concern however. Christians aren't chopping heads off.. and my being a christian, that places a bullseye right on me and I have no desire nor inclination to act in a manner this guy is stating. So I'm a dead man in theory of this guys teaching. I'm not afraid either. not to turn this into a christian soapbox debate but this was coming, the hatred of christians alone.

Matthew 24:9 "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

We're getting waay off topic here, there are religions older than Christianity, not to mention attrocities god fearing Christians have committed historically, ok they don't even compare to isis, I'll give you that.

The debate on this thread is something that has stirred controversy, some think (I am one of them) the actions were unprofessional, and in my case, question training methods, some would argue, don't question, or protest police actions, akin to communism, 'we're in charge, do as you're told'

Staying within the guidelines layed out by law, a citizen of any society would have nothing to worry about.

But I was concerned as if we used a different scenario, a car chase, police will at some point be given permission to contain the chase using their vehicles, in the UK, any police vehicle damaged by such a chase, the officer driving the vehicle, the has to submit to a breath test, even if the officer didn't cause the damage. And protocol is followed, that's not to say they're perfect, they're people, just like we are. But this is how they're trained. Even the officers who shot Lee Rigby's murderer faced questioning about the fact that their weapon was discharged.

I don't know about the intricate details of US police training, but was curious about it, or if there's even a protocol and inquest regarding the level of professionalism they've displayed.

(I have to go, dinner's ready)

[HeartsOfWar]

you could be right that the topic was about colonization. history is being rewritten with a changing narrative that the founding fathers were terrorists. one narrative is that the boston tea party was a terrorist act, when in fact King George the despot, was raising taxes tremendously.

 

there should be some cause for some level of concern however. Christians aren't chopping heads off.. and my being a christian, that places a bullseye right on me and I have no desire nor inclination to act in a manner this guy is stating. So I'm a dead man in theory of this guys teaching. I'm not afraid either. not to turn this into a christian soapbox debate but this was coming, the hatred of christians alone.

 

Matthew 24:9 "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

 

This would mean that every king, ruler, emperor, pope, or prophet, etc that expanded their kingdom, empire, or religion by force was a terrorist. I don't think history, the greatest teacher of all, agrees.

 

Every religion has a dark past or present and will likely have a dark future, but that does not mean the religion itself is bad. Every religion or political group is going to have extremists, but in general, you do not have a bulls-eye on your back because you are Christian. You have a bulls-eye on your back because you are not practicing the same beliefs as the extremist, and this to me, is the differentiator of a terrorist.

 

- The Boston Tea Party was an act of extremism but not terrorism because there was no violence.

 

- The 13 colonies did not go to war with the British because they felt the British were so irredeemable in their beliefs. They went to war to gain their independence from what they saw as opression due to unfair taxation without representation. This would be considered treason but not terrorism.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

It is when they're grabbing for your gun.

No, it isn't. Reaching for a cops gun should result in a serious attempt to stop you, obviously, but that attempt doesn't have to only be shooting you.

 

It is a serious shame that so many in our nation subscribe to the notion that our rights are secondary to that of state actors. So much so, that these persons don't agree with the Constitution's mandate for due process.

 

The job of policing will result in cops killing people, but, as I said earlier, they should be made as rare as possible with proper training and equipment. Every loss of life at the hands of police should be vigorously scrutinized to ensure the officer(s) involved did the best they could do to apprehend the innocent party and abide by our Constitution. If the death could have been prevented the officer(s) should be given the additional training and/or equipment needed to help them in this regard.

 

This is the minimum standard our Constitution requires; although I understand that no one really cares about that document anymore until "gun rights"...

[+LogicalApex MVC]

This would mean that every king, ruler, emperor, pope, or prophet, etc that expanded their kingdom, empire, or religion by force was a terrorist. I don't think history, the greatest teacher of all, agrees.

 

Every religion has a dark past or present and will likely have a dark future, but that does not mean the religion itself is bad. Every religion or political group is going to have extremists, but in general, you do not have a bulls-eye on your back because you are Christian. You have a bulls-eye on your back because you are not practicing the same beliefs as the extremist, and this to me, is the differentiator of a terrorist.

 

- The Boston Tea Party was an act of extremism but not terrorism because there was no violence.

 

- The 13 colonies did not go to war with the British because they felt the British were so irredeemable in their beliefs. They went to war to gain their independence from what they saw as opression due to unfair taxation without representation. This would be considered treason but not terrorism.

As the old classic saying goes "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"...

[BGM]

man wouldn't be dead if cop didn't have a gun... there i said it.

 

*runs*

[HeartsOfWar]

No, it isn't. Reaching for a cops gun should result in a serious attempt to stop you, obviously, but that attempt doesn't have to only be shooting you.

 

It is a serious shame that so many in our nation subscribe to the notion that our rights are secondary to that of state actors. So much so, that these persons don't agree with the Constitution's mandate for due process.

 

The job of policing will result in cops killing people, but, as I said earlier, they should be made as rare as possible with proper training and equipment. Every loss of life at the hands of police should be vigorously scrutinized to ensure the officer(s) involved did the best they could do to apprehend the innocent party and abide by our Constitution. If the death could have been prevented the officer(s) should be given the additional training and/or equipment needed to help them in this regard.

 

This is the minimum standard our Constitution requires; although I understand that no one really cares about that document anymore until "gun rights"...

 

While I understand your point of view, they had a rookie cop fumble the hell out of the situation which lead to the suspect almost becoming armed and that risk is too dangerous.

 

The suspect was willing to fight 4-5 armed officers while unarmed himself; so, just imagine what damage he could have done if he actually got the gun. An innocent bystander could have been shot, a cop shot, multiple casualties, etc.

 

Yes, I truly dislike the loss of life, but the suspect is more at fault for that loss of life than the cops. No one forced the suspect to be aggressive; no one forced the suspect to reach for the officers gun. Just as easy as you think it would have been for the cops to apprehend him without firing a shot, the suspect could have willingly laid on the ground and given up instead of doing what he did.

 

The rookie should be reprimanded and punished for not following protocol, but this suspect was a walking time bomb.

[Blue-Vision]

So, here we are again.

 

Cries of "Police Brutality" and "Profiling" and "Oppression". AGAIN.

 

The deceased in question a) went for the arresting officer's weapon, b) was apparently wanted for robbery, c) was on any number of dangerous and illegal substances, d) was violating parole, e) assaulted the arresting officer, and f) was resisting arrest.

 

Because of race, he/she is entitled to some kind of "gentle handling"? NOPE. Same thing would have happened to "whitey" in the same circumstances.

 

To the apologists, underdog- and little-guy fanboys: this is another example of "plain stupidity" at work. Nothing more, nothing less. This waste of life made his choices, and chose poorly. There's nothing for anyone to be up in arms about.

 

People have better things to do with their time than blame "The Man" for situations that the dregs of society cause, and if I could I'd kindly ask them to get off of their high horses and tend to themselves and their own lives instead.

 

These "Crusades" are becoming very tiresome, and everyone else tends to clean up the messes afterwards.

 

/rant