Because people with different assumptions bring something interesting to the conversation. If the only input we got was from the Eagleland brigade, it would make the discussion about the moral side worse. In the discussion about the legal side, no one here is qualified: that's a matter for lawyers (even police training on this isn't the last word, which is why police hire lawyers if they're being investigated or sued for it).

Furthermore, it is not your place to say that someone isn't contributing anything to a thread. So long as posts contain content, you can only talk about whether they contribute to *you*. Other people may disagree with your view of the posts. The standard for debate isn't "what John34 finds useful".

Excuse me Sir, not to be disrespectful at all towards you but to me it doesn't make any sense for an individual who does not live in the US to comment on something that happened in an American city. There is no need for sarcastic comments. 

I usually am quick to defend police shooting (if they're just of course). But I really was puzzled as to why they shot and killed the man after leaving his car. Yes, he might have been endangering lives while in the vehicle; but once he was out he didn't appear as if he had any deadly weapons on him or was endangering anyone else. No, I don't think this shooting was just with the evidence we have. But we need to keep an open mind to what may have caused the officers to shoot, or if it was terrible judgement.

Edited December 18, 201312 yr by HOLLISTUPID

I usually am quick to defend police shooting (if they're just of course). But I really was puzzled as to why they shot and killed the man after leaving his car. Yes, he might have been endangering lives while in the vehicle; but once he was out he didn't appear as if he had any deadly weapons on him or was endangering anyone else. No, I don't think this shooting was just with the evidence we have. But we need to keep an open mind to what may have caused the officers to shoot, or if it was terrible judgement.

 

Hm, didn't know that they shot him to death? Is it comfirmed that he died?

 

Just curious

Update:

Officers were trying to use non lethal beanbag rounds, but not all officers knew that and when they fired the beanbags. Some officers mistook it for shots and returned fire. 

 

So this was more or less an accidental shooting. 

 

Well... Kind of complicates things, in a different way, though nothing really changes in my mind.

 

And it turns out he had mental issues... we really need to keep dangerously unstable people away from the rest of us.

Well, I was a Firefighter for 2 years and I've done EMS work as well, when you have a body that's been pumped full of bullets.....you can't and don't do anything. There's nothing you can do especially if you're only a police officer. resuscitation would do no good. It's a hard thing, but there's not much to do. (This is if he was shot)

 

That depends very much on the area of impact, meaning where the person gets shot. And of course you can do something. If the victim is shot in the leg or arm you can still the bleeding, also shots to the chest don't have to be lethal immediately. You can have collapsed lungs, but as long as your circulation still works, there's a lot you can do. Thoracic drainage, oxygen, compression bandages, ...

And if the heart stops, resuscitation would still be useful AND necessary because as long as you keep up circulation and keep the brain's oxygen supply active you can bring the victim to a hospital where surgery can fix the damage. So saying resuscitation would do no good is wrong, and you can do very much to keep a gunshot victim's circulation going - assuming we are talking about someone like the man in the video, not somebody with his chest full with bullets. And the absence of a pulse is NOT an indication for death. Legally u need 10 minutes of asystoly (ECG) to declare somebody dead or signs of death like livor mortis or rigor mortis. In fact you HAVE to resuscitate somebody who got shot at least until u have 10 minutes of asystoly.

 

And to the people saying people with mental issues are a danger to society: I'm sorry but saying to shoot people because they're ILL is not acceptable for me. Most people with mental issues aren't aggressive towards others, and even if they are, you can't simply shoot because they don't know what they're doing. These people need medication and medical treatment. If he really was stopped for DUI and had mental issues (of course that turned out later I guess) police should have been extra careful because he isn't thinking clearly and can't be convinced by rational arguments - these people think differently. So as long as he isn't firing a gun at the officers on scene they should have tried to de-escalate, call people on scene who deal with this kind of danger more often, like hostage negotiators or psychiatrists. There was no chance he could escape, so they should have stood back and waited for professionals, people who can deal with that kind of people.

 

I know it is easy to be a smartass after events like that happened, but I think it is good to have a discussion about it, without discussion nobody would critizise the police work. They may have done what they thought was best at the moment, but afterwards it turns out it definitely wasn't the best they could have done.

My simple question to you is if you aren't American why comment on something that happened in America? Do you know anything about American police? If not why comment? "My issue is the line of thought you lot have guns being normal, it is something I would never understand." That's nice that you would never comprehend. Am I suppose to care? I've been reading most of your comments and they are obnoxious. 

Am I supposed to care about what you are saying? Different opinions, learn to respect them in the future. 

Update on this, LAPD fired 22 shots, at the unarmed man, killing him. News link: http://t.co/lN93JYEVZA

Edited December 20, 201312 yr by Firefighter 5663

Out of curiosity, at what point are onscene EMTs allowed to declare someone dead? I assume they can declare a death in cases of decapitation or the absence of some other life-critical organ, but is there a rule for when you have to keep trying to help them and when you can say "they're dead, nothing we can do"? (I mean outside mass casualty triage settings, where I'd assume it's easier to say "you're going to die anyway, we're allocating our limited resources to people who it'll actually help")

 

Well, normally, the EMTs would declare someone deceased once they've done everything in there power to resuscitate someone but no vitals are being shown, a trooper may also declare someone officially deceased. However, since there were likely no medics on scene for anywhere from 3 to 5 minutes, if not more, if this man were to have been shot that many times, it would be obvious that he was likely going to be deceased. The procedure would be to bring med bag along with AED kit, take vitals from the screen of the kit, and then print out the results, which if deceased would be flat lined. They would declare him dead at that time. They may even try to use the defibrillator on him but is unlikely, he would have lost too much blood. Since it was only police on the immediate scene, they do not have the resources, even if they had the knowledge, to save this man. All they can do is see if you is moving, obvious things, and that's it, maybe check pulse. Why you can't see that happening in the video is beyond me, I find it strange.

That depends very much on the area of impact, meaning where the person gets shot. And of course you can do something. If the victim is shot in the leg or arm you can still the bleeding, also shots to the chest don't have to be lethal immediately. You can have collapsed lungs, but as long as your circulation still works, there's a lot you can do. Thoracic drainage, oxygen, compression bandages, ...

And if the heart stops, resuscitation would still be useful AND necessary because as long as you keep up circulation and keep the brain's oxygen supply active you can bring the victim to a hospital where surgery can fix the damage. So saying resuscitation would do no good is wrong, and you can do very much to keep a gunshot victim's circulation going - assuming we are talking about someone like the man in the video, not somebody with his chest full with bullets. And the absence of a pulse is NOT an indication for death. Legally u need 10 minutes of asystoly (ECG) to declare somebody dead or signs of death like livor mortis or rigor mortis. In fact you HAVE to resuscitate somebody who got shot at least until u have 10 minutes of asystoly.

 

And to the people saying people with mental issues are a danger to society: I'm sorry but saying to shoot people because they're ILL is not acceptable for me. Most people with mental issues aren't aggressive towards others, and even if they are, you can't simply shoot because they don't know what they're doing. These people need medication and medical treatment. If he really was stopped for DUI and had mental issues (of course that turned out later I guess) police should have been extra careful because he isn't thinking clearly and can't be convinced by rational arguments - these people think differently. So as long as he isn't firing a gun at the officers on scene they should have tried to de-escalate, call people on scene who deal with this kind of danger more often, like hostage negotiators or psychiatrists. There was no chance he could escape, so they should have stood back and waited for professionals, people who can deal with that kind of people.

 

I know it is easy to be a smartass after events like that happened, but I think it is good to have a discussion about it, without discussion nobody would critizise the police work. They may have done what they thought was best at the moment, but afterwards it turns out it definitely wasn't the best they could have done.

Yesir, you are correct, I apologize for neglecting to include these details. And a logical discussion is very important. 

When he got out of the car the officers should've attempted to try and surround 'em from the other side too and close the net up, it didn't look like he was much harm to anyone after the crash as he stumbled out. Shooting an unarmed man in a case like this just isn't right. Unjustified.

Edited December 21, 201312 yr by Olanov

Well, since it appears it could have been a huge error in judgement, who do we punish? The officer(s) who did not make clear they were deploying less-than-lethal or the officers who mistook it for lethal force being appropriate, and trusting the judgment of fellow officers, did the same? Do we ruin careers over something that could be a completely non-malicious error?

Well, since it appears it could have been a huge error in judgement, who do we punish? The officer(s) who did not make clear they were deploying less-than-lethal or the officers who mistook it for lethal force being appropriate, and trusting the judgment of fellow officers, did the same? Do we ruin careers over something that could be a completely non-malicious error?

 

A person that did not present a threat was shot, it should raise questions regarding whether or not these officers are either well enough trained or even suited to be a police officer if they make a mistake as significant as what they did. They may not have had ill intentions but that doesn't make it water under the bridge.

 

 

It looks to me like one gun went off and other officers acted based on instinct, usually cops don't shoot unarmed people so they may have assume that one officer had seen something that posed a threat, that officer may very well have thought that the suspect was a threat and made the wrong call.

 

LAPD has quite a history of injuring both innocent and suspects, I wouldn't expect too many radical changes after this incident.

Sorry if this was already brought up, didnt read the whole thread.  One of the officers fired a beanbag/less-than-lethal round, and other officers misheard this as the suspect firing at them, so they returned fire

 

EDIT: Sorry, I see that was brought up already

Edited December 21, 201312 yr by Officer Doom

I'm not sure if this was already posted but I found this on the LAPD website:

December 20, 2013

Pursuit Ends in Officer Involved Shooting

Los Angeles:  On Friday, December 13, 2013, around 10:00 p.m., the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department requested LAPD to take over a pursuit of a silver Chevrolet Corvette that Sheriff's deputies were pursuing for reckless driving.

Officers from Newton Division observed the vehicle along with the LAPD Air Unit, and LAPD assumed the pursuit as requested by LASD.

The pursuit terminated at the intersection of Los Angeles Street and Olympic Blvd when the suspect’s vehicle ran a red light and collided with an uninvolved vehicle with two occupants.

At that point the suspect’s vehicle came to rest at the southwest corner of the intersection and the suspect exited the vehicle and an officer involved shooting occurred.

The suspect was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.  The two occupants of the vehicle struck by the suspect’s vehicle were also transported.  One occupant sustained a shattered vertebra in her neck and a collapsed lung.  The second occupant complained of injuries to the face and body.  There were no officers injured during the incident.  No weapon was recovered. 

The investigation will ultimately be reviewed by the Chief of Police, the Office of the Inspector General and Board of Police Commissioners for compliance with the Department’s use-of-force policy, which states that an officer’s use-of-force actions must be objectively reasonable.  

Additionally, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Justice System Integrity Division will conduct a comprehensive review of the facts of the officer-involved shooting.

 

Last night in Los Angeles, a suspect was running from the police in a corvette. After crashing into another vehicle at an intersection, the suspect tried to continue driving, but was stuck by a traffic light and a parked car. Upon exiting the vehicle, while he didn't have his hands up, he made no move to or indication that he had a weapon. The police opened fire with lethal rounds.

Describes my GTA V pursuit experience perfectly :p

All jokes aside tho it's terrible that happened an the officer should be under investigation.

A police officer has not even a second to decide whether it is right or wrong. A judge has weeks and months to do so.

From what I've seen, most pursuits finish when the suspect bails and flees, eventually being caught by the police. After repeatedly trying to get his car to go, he decided to leave. Police are trained throughout their careers in situations exactly like these, and I trust their judgement. We don't know who they were chasing, we don't know what he did, and we don't know what could have happened. It is too hard to judge based on just the video. I trust their judgement.

Have to agree with this, after 10 years in the police, it's difficult to judge the WHOLE situation from video footage. Im not suggesting that officers were in the right or wrong to do what they did, but from the video we are unaware of a lot of information that may have swayed the officers to make that judgement, ie. circumstances of whatever crime has been committed, was suspect armed at the time of the alleged offence, is the suspect known to police, if so does he have previous for firearms and/or weapons, is he a drug user, does he have previous convictions for violent/gun crime, including that against police officers, all of these plus more, are a dynamic risk assessment, throw the high speed chase in as well and your assessment is constantly changing.

 

Until you are presented with the full facts then I believe it is difficult to give a fair assessment of the video, as the video may only make up some of what is actually going on there. Again its one of those things where the officers make a split second decision, right or wrong, have to live with it for the rest of their lives and where a review board gets to sit down in nice comfortable office with the luxury of time. And if it is found to be a bad shoot then its just another bad bit of press for the police, who, in my opinion, do a fantastic job 99.9% of the time.

 

But it will be interesting to see what the outcome of this unfortunate situation is.

 

My thoughts go out to the innocent driver and their family, the suspects family, and the officers involved in the shooting and their families, always a stressful time to have your actions reviewed, even if you know you were in the right.

After 13 years of my every day duty  on streets as a police officer, it is dificult to judge by the camera. But.... If that guy wreck the car, why nobody came for him pul him out of the car and get him on the ground. Thats 1st think we should do in such case. Also shot him from the back?      well.., if he put his hands in to his pockets? maybe...running towards officers? maybe....but shot the guy who runnig out of the officers? with clearly open empty hands? shot him at his back???

 

Im the guy who use force every day and i alreday shot in my duty, but this? i would never shot the guy in his back while he have empty hands. By our law i can shot the guy in his back only, if hes intention murder fleeng the scene, or the suspect with gun in hand. Im cop with my all good heart but this wasnt good and justified by my opinion. Just a sad case

Like my old boss who server 40 years in duty once told me. " always think before you  will use the gun, because gun will never give you, its only takes"

Edited January 6, 201412 yr by MartinK

If you resist arrest isnt that grounds for lethal force??

no? how many people get shot for resisting arrest? only if you draw a weapon on them then they have grounds for leathal force damn a lot of sick people out there

its different betwen resist and threatening somebody. If hes resisting , he can do this passivly or actively. By passive resisting he can just keep in the car or keep some solid material just avoid his moving. for example he will laying on the ground with hands under hi stomach and refuse to give you his hands. Thats passive way. If hes active resist, he just move for example his hands and arms just avoid to be cuffed. Thats active resist.

 

If suspect use a punch at you, its atack and direct threat to your person and then, you can use non lethal force to stop it and get dominancy over him.

 

BUT Once you start to feel threath on your health because of his actions, than you can use lethal force, but  its on your juddging where you will shot at, mostly aimed on legs, arms, on place where you can cause injuries but not fatal wounds. This is on your decision. 

 

But when you start to act in self defence, you can use lethal force. Its police law in my country.

 

I live in Czech republic (middle europe for those who dont know where is it) and our police law is very strong, even with using of guns but mostly we have good training and we are trained when use a guns.

In last year 2013 was gun used  30x in my 10 mil.population  but these 30 used  is on 40.000 cops so its less then 0.05% but death is like less then 5 ppls.

 

In case you are curiouse about our police law about using a guns.

 

Police officer is authorized use a gun (lethal force)  when:

 

§56

 

a)  in case of self defence and outer emergency

 

b) if danger offender who we intervene dont, obey his command or he refuse to leave his cover

 

c) to avoid escape of danger offender who he cant arrest him by other way.

 

d) if he cant overcome  his active resist leading this resist to dash his arresting

 

e) to deflect violent atack, which threatning  guarded or protected building or area

 

f) If not a chance to stop by other way traffic vehicle, if his driver seriously threatening public safety and od repeat usisng a warning lights, he dont obey orders.

 

g) If a person against who is used a non lethal force Threatning by aimed gun or warning shot, dont obey order leadibg to his aresting, leadinbg to his secure or secure somebody else

 

h) when other animal threat  live or health onther person

 

 

By the police law, is a "GUN" everything, what is responsible to make any atack more effective.         (Pistol, knife, stick , rock, fork, just everythink except the fist....)

 

this is shot summary of our police law in my country

no? how many people get shot for resisting arrest? only if you draw a weapon on them then they have grounds for leathal force damn a lot of sick people out there

agree with you, if the guy will leave the car with gun in the hand, ok ill say bravo to cops. But shot the guy with empty hands in his back? no i cant even as a cop