Shooting of homeless man was justified, apparently. (disturbing video)
138 replies, posted
Oh USA, where you get shot for turning around by guys in decked out military gear.
Perhaps I should add more so I do not get banned for not reading the article;
I don't think they handled the situation properly at all. They clearly had the advantage. Was he reaching for a gun? Was he going to do some wild thing where he went guns blazing?
I just think they had an itchy trigger finger.
[QUOTE=GunFox;44343438]They[I] are[/I] a bunch of pussies who can't aim.
At that range an AR-15 would be laser accurate. A fucking handgun would be laser accurate. No windage, no drop, no nothing.
He wasn't an immediate threat and approaching him is dangerous. Shooting extremities even with live rounds would be preferable to rushing him like an idiot. Your femoral artery doesn't extend to the knee. Shoot him in the knee. 5.56 through your knee will permanently cripple you and render you incapable of using the joint. Mind you, I'm NEVER the guy saying "should have shot him in the leg", so recognize that when I say they should have shot him in the leg, I'm not just spewing bullshit. Neutralizing a man with a knife and neutralizing a man with a gun are two different things. If he can't run, he can't effectively employ knives.
When your life is threatened you never aim for extremities. When you are all standing there and you need to disable someone at a distance, police sharp shooters do indeed shoot for arms and legs.
This "oh all our non lethal options failed, lets rush the guy with the knife" plan was fundamentally moronic. No shit if you close to knife distance, the guy with the knives becomes a threat.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it couldn't have gone differently. I'm saying that attempting to use less-lethal weapons once they were already in that situation would be moronic.
the tv show COPS is designed to make Americans OK with shit like this.
I wouldn't doubt if the cops just use homeless people as target practice and training exercises at this point, it's not like anyone would do anything to stop it if they did. That's what this looks like to me, the guys actions were not even taken into account, they were drilling and it wouldn't matter what he did they were gonna kill this guy.
Nobody would have died if the police handling the situation weren't incompetent.
they look like they're geared up to head into Fallujah, good work shooting some guy in the back heroes. these aren't cops
[QUOTE=GunFox;44343438]They[I] are[/I] a bunch of pussies who can't aim.
At that range an AR-15 would be laser accurate. A fucking handgun would be laser accurate. No windage, no drop, no nothing.
He wasn't an immediate threat and approaching him is dangerous. Shooting extremities even with live rounds would be preferable to rushing him like an idiot. Your femoral artery doesn't extend to the knee. Shoot him in the knee. 5.56 through your knee will permanently cripple you and render you incapable of using the joint. Mind you, I'm NEVER the guy saying "should have shot him in the leg", so recognize that when I say they should have shot him in the leg, I'm not just spewing bullshit. Neutralizing a man with a knife and neutralizing a man with a gun are two different things. If he can't run, he can't effectively employ knives.
When your life is threatened you never aim for extremities. When you are all standing there and you need to disable someone at a distance, police sharp shooters do indeed shoot for arms and legs.
This "oh all our non lethal options failed, lets rush the guy with the knife" plan was fundamentally moronic. No shit if you close to knife distance, the guy with the knives becomes a threat.[/QUOTE]
You'd prefer if the police went around kneecapping people who might conceivably be a threat, rather than try to subdue non-lethally before escalating to lethal force if necessary?
In what world would police permanently crippling a man and risking potentially killing him, all because he's acting erratically and the police don't want to get close, be considered a job well done?
As far as I'm concerned, they still fired when they weren't supposed to. Even taking in to consideration a 20 year history of violence and aggression, they flashbang him and then fire at him when he is turning away.
It is possible to close the gap between himself and the nearest office and deliver fatal knife wounds very very quickly, but he was in a position to do so from the moment that the dog was released and the officers moved forward. Aiming the knife at the dog would have been at least a somewhot reasonable time to have fired, but they did not as he did not follow through with his attack. They decided to fire long after his reaction to the dog's presence; the only real justifiable time during that encounter.
He didn't even move towards the officers, or with any sudden or aggressive movements. He literally just turned around, and the first shots were only fired once his back was fully turned.
Even if this is a rare case (not rare enough, sadly) there needs to be some serious and heavy increase in the training of anyone expected to be wielding such weapons.
All that being said, there were plenty of things horribly wrong with that entire situation. The dog being released so close and in such close proximity to the flashbang, lack of distancing between those there. The handler even runs within striking distance of the homeless guy to make sure that the dog doesn't get hurt. One thing that handlers are drilled (at least here in the UK; though our canine units are pretty rare) is that you shouldn't endanger your life for the sake of your partner. But more importantly, by rushing so close to the homeless guy, he's endangering everybody else as well.
A misreading of the situation and a lack of training on behalf of at least two of the people there is what caused this. I'm surprised that they continued to use the rifles even after the homeless guy was seen to only be wielding a knife and being at a reasonable distance. If he were fired at with a handgun, he may have survived.
[QUOTE=catbarf;44344511]You'd prefer if the police went around kneecapping people who might conceivably be a threat, rather than try to subdue non-lethally before escalating to lethal force if necessary?
In what world would police permanently crippling a man and risking potentially killing him, all because he's acting erratically and the police don't want to get close, be considered a job well done?[/QUOTE]
They didn't seem to do anything but flash bang, get close enough so he's a threat on purpose, and then shoot to kill.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;44344544]They didn't seem to do anything but flash bang, get close enough so he's a threat on purpose, and then shoot to kill.[/QUOTE]
He started to move around when they launched the grenade and then moved in to attempt to subdue him. That's when he pulled the knife. They stood still for a few seconds, ordering him to stop and get down, but instead he turned and moved his hand around at his waist. That's when they shot.
Of course they moved in, they wanted to subdue him as quickly as possible after he started moving around. If he had complied, he'd still be alive.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;44344619]Of course they moved in, they wanted to subdue him as quickly as possible after he started moving around. If he had complied, he'd still be alive.[/QUOTE]
That is not what police officers are supposed to do. When confronted with a dangerous person, who has a knife, they are not trained to get close and subdue him as quickly as possible. Even if a flashbang was used.
That goes against practically everything they have been told to do in a situation like that. It's like standing with your hands up in the middle of the street in an attempt to subdue a gunman.
They have things at their disposal for use in situations like these. one of the most common methods is copious amounts of tear gas/mace and the use of tazers. Had they been used, it is almost certain that nobody would have been anywhere near as close as they were, nor would they have had to fire.
One of the first things you do is assess the situation. If they did that, they would have stopped using automatic rifles and instead switched to much safer methods of subduing the suspect.
What's with all the unnecessary equipments? It's not a military operation...
[QUOTE=sa2fan;44344877]What's with all the unnecessary equipments? It's not a military operation...[/QUOTE]
U.S. police are geared for heavily armed suspects, especially in gangland areas or the border regions. Albuquerque is a cartel area, I think. The crime statistics are really high at least.
[QUOTE=aydin690;44336881]The problem is that the situation should have never been escalated to that point. The cops had no business harassing a homeless dude for 3 fuckin hours, OVER CAMPING OUTSIDE. I used to volunteer with a ngo that focused on the homeless (vancouver has a big homeless problem) and all the cops that i came in contact with during that time tried to get to know the homeless, find out their main problems and do whatever they can to help them. They often turned a blind eye to drug use, etc.
But then again, this happened in the US of A. So, the cops are going to get medals for their bravery (read power trip).[/QUOTE]
Try actually reading the article for once.
Maybe we should just bum-rush criminals with riot squads. There's your non-lethal take-downs.
Well, non-lethal for the bad guy.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;44345365]U.S. police are geared for heavily armed suspects, especially in gangland areas or the border regions. Albuquerque is a cartel area, I think. The crime statistics are really high at least.[/QUOTE]Alright... but was it really necessary in this situation, the homeless guy?
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;44344619]He started to move around when they launched the grenade and then moved in to attempt to subdue him. That's when he pulled the knife. They stood still for a few seconds, ordering him to stop and get down, but instead he turned and moved his hand around at his waist. That's when they shot.
Of course they moved in, they wanted to subdue him as quickly as possible after he started moving around. If he had complied, he'd still be alive.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if he could hear them after having a flashbang go off that close to him
We don't even know what prompted the cops to show up. For all we know, he could have been threatening hikers in the area.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.