I think the officers acted within reason. Could there have been a better decision made? Maybe, but the officer would be risking his life to take the time to load LTL rounds, and using a taser when the broken fire hydrant is shooting water 15 feet into the air is not really a good idea.

 

Edit: After reading some more posts, I do think the officers should have been more cautious about shooting him. However, taking into account his previous behavior and the split-second decision the officers had to make, I think that shooting him might not have been the best choice, but it wasn't completely uncalled for.

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by br100x

No you wouldn't shoot them, but he made an attempt to endanger others, he may have KILLED someone. Seconds after, you can reasonably assume he is still dangerous. You are bringing in irrelevant scenarios. They will get off, and your going to look stupid for fighting me on this. Just take a step back, I think i understand the common laws about how its done. Just like how you said "Rodney King officers didnt get convicted" when in reality they did, and then you come back and agree with me. You don't understand what your talking about. You have an opinion, and i have mine, Mine is based on my training and facts. That's all. I'm done arguing with you, you can think whatever you want. Go ahead and continue to judge the people that serve and protect you everyday.

All my scenarios represented were nearly the same as the video that played out. There was no active threat to the LE that warranted a shooting. Again, slowly walking towards cops while unarmed isn't justifiable for lethal force, regardless of what crime was just committed.

 

So you're telling me the LAPD will let themselves off? Have I argued that they wouldn't? Being that they are investigating it, it makes perfect sense to let themselves off.

 

Being that you claim to be a police officer, you should know that backup is important. Would you want to be labeled a snitch by your fellow officers? Would you want to be known as that guy who got the most popular officer fired because of a mistake he made? How would those labels affect your fellow officers assisting you should you ever need help? That is precisely why little ever comes of law enforcement abuse cases.

 

About Rodney King, I misread your post and didn't see the "federal" part of it. I misread something on the internet. Burn me at the stake now. But they were found innocent in a state court, leaving my response to what I assumed you said as correct.

 

My opinion is based on common sense and morality. Someone walking slowly towards me after just being involved in a violent car crash isn't worthy of my ammo.

 

to dayton

sorry friend but ... I do not really understand ... you're telling me that in usa is illegal to fire warning shots? when anyone away from children can have a weapon? it's ridiculous! I have respect for human life and I'm sorry for the dead guy .. but he has broken the law has caused damage to other people and has resisted the police ... then apologizes in Italy if I am committing a crime and the police me the intimate 'alt, and continuous police fire in the air and then try to hit parts of the body non-lethal ..

this is a cop. security for themselves first, avoid involving other people and then stop the suspect.

escalation of force. intimate alt. show you my weapon, firing into the air and then I hurt you .. if you go you're just a jerk.

 

 

I agree to a point. Here we cannot fire warning shots, and we cannot shoot to wound. Basically, there is old case law where people that get shot by cops (for justifiable reasons) come back and sue the cops. Its a mess and to an outsider its confusing. I understand what you're saying, but here in the USA it is illegal for us to fire warning shots. If you pull the trigger you pull it to kill, and we're trained to shoot to kill. But yea.

All my scenarios represented were nearly the same as the video that played out. There was no active threat to the LE that warranted a shooting. Again, slowly walking towards cops while unarmed isn't justifiable for lethal force, regardless of what crime was just committed.

 

So you're telling me the LAPD will let themselves off? Have I argued that they wouldn't? Being that they are investigating it, it makes perfect sense to let themselves off.

 

Being that you claim to be a police officer, you should know that backup is important. Would you want to be labeled a snitch by your fellow officers? Would you want to be known as that guy who got the most popular officer fired because of a mistake he made? How would those labels affect your fellow officers assisting you should you ever need help? That is precisely why little ever comes of law enforcement abuse cases.

 

About Rodney King, I misread your post and didn't see the "federal" part of it. I misread something on the internet. Burn me at the stake now. But they were found innocent in a state court, leaving my response to what I assumed you said as correct.

 

My opinion is based on common sense and morality. Someone walking slowly towards me after just being involved in a violent car crash isn't worthy of my ammo.

 

I don't "claim" to be a police officer. How dare you question my career. They will do an internal investigation yes, Your stupid if you think its strictly the LAPD. They hire an outside source to do the investigation. While they may have one of their own, another agency is always hired out to conduct an investigation to prevent what your saying. You haven't been in a situation like that, you probably havent even been in a training situation like that, so I'd say those of us who have been, carry a little bit more weight. In the end it doesnt matter, they will be let off, BY THEIR OWN AGENCY AND THE AGENCY THAT IS SELECTED TO CARRY OUT A SECONDARY INVESTIGATION. Someday that very rationality might get you killed, which is your fault in itself, i just hope to God your partner doesn't die. It could be anothers life your risking, and that scares me.

I agree to a point. Here we cannot fire warning shots, and we cannot shoot to wound. Basically, there is old case law where people that get shot by cops (for justifiable reasons) come back and sue the cops. Its a mess and to an outsider its confusing. I understand what you're saying, but here in the USA it is illegal for us to fire warning shots. If you pull the trigger you pull it to kill, and we're trained to shoot to kill. But yea.

If you seriously are only allowed to shoot to kill, that makes this situation worse! The fact this officer shot to kill this injured, unarmed person, wow!

you are obviously not a police officer...It's shocking your profile says your a police officer and you don't understand this concept. Please do us a favor and read up on policing and use of force laws. I hope to god you're not a police officer. I would hate to have you protecting my family.

  

I don't "claim" to be a police officer. How dare you question my career

Would just like to draw your attention to this when you questioned my future career...

I don't "claim" to be a police officer. How dare you question my career. They will do an internal investigation yes, Your stupid if you think its strictly the LAPD. They hire an outside source to do the investigation. While they may have one of their own, another agency is always hired out to conduct an investigation to prevent what your saying. You haven't been in a situation like that, you probably havent even been in a training situation like that, so I'd say those of us who have been, carry a little bit more weight. In the end it doesnt matter, they will be let off, BY THEIR OWN AGENCY AND THE AGENCY THAT IS SELECTED TO CARRY OUT A SECONDARY INVESTIGATION. Someday that very rationality might get you killed, which is your fault in itself, i just hope to God your partner doesn't die. It could be anothers life your risking, and that scares me.

I said claim because there is no proof on here, and you shouldn't provide proof for your own safety. This is the internet after all, and it's full of people being things that they aren't. On this site, it's police officers and the occasional FBI agent who doesn't know his command structure. It is for that reasoning that I take whatever people say about their careers on here with a heavy grain of salt.

 

And those secondary agencies don't remain unassisted, therefore having a bias towards clearing the other agency. A cop I know in my area was talking about how he received a "warning ticket" from a Kansas Trooper. The cop who received the ticket called the trooper's sergeant, who the ticketed cop was good friends with, to tell him about it. This resulted in the rookie trooper being read the riot act on how you don't do that to other LE officers because they respond to help your ass. Two months later, the cop who was ticketed was first on scene to that rookie Trooper getting his ass beat.

 

And a cop, who willingly signs up for a job they know is dangerous, being killed is a bigger tragedy than someone being wrongfully killed by the cop? Any unnecessary death is a tragedy. This entire "us vs. them" and "come home at all costs" attitude is what is ruining law enforcement today, and what is ultimately making it more dangerous for you. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, but there should be limits, like not shooting at an unarmed person who is slowly walking towards you.

I said claim because there is no proof on here, and you shouldn't provide proof for your own safety. This is the internet after all, and it's full of people being things that they aren't. On this site, it's police officers and the occasional FBI agent who doesn't know his command structure. It is for that reasoning that I take whatever people say about their careers on here with a heavy grain of salt.

 

And those secondary agencies don't remain unassisted, therefore having a bias towards clearing the other agency. A cop I know in my area was talking about how he received a "warning ticket" from a Kansas Trooper. The cop who received the ticket called the trooper's sergeant, who the ticketed cop was good friends with, to tell him about it. This resulted in the rookie trooper being read the riot act on how you don't do that to other LE officers because they respond to help your ass. Two months later, the cop who was ticketed was first on scene to that rookie Trooper getting his ass beat.

 

And a cop, who willingly signs up for a job they know is dangerous, being killed is a bigger tragedy than someone being wrongfully killed by the cop? Any unnecessary death is a tragedy. This entire "us vs. them" and "come home at all costs" attitude is what is ruining law enforcement today, and what is ultimately making it more dangerous for you. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, but there should be limits, like not shooting at an unarmed person who is slowly walking towards you.

 

The main thing is, he wasn't surrendering. The most basic situation to explain is... he used deadly force on a civilian car, he was in the right mind to injure a civilian with the possibility to kill them, and he still tried to escape. Notice how he crashed, then STILL tried to move forwards and backwards, he obviously was not surrendering. In the law it allows cops to use deadly force to prevent the escape of someone who could still endanger others when they escape. So he was trying to escape, Which, if he could have, he could have went and shot hit family, or did whatever. The most basic point is, he was a danger to society when he was evading the police. Even afterwards, he is still deemed a threat, because who knows what he could do if he escapes, he certainly didnt care when he struck that vehicle. He could still pose a threat, and that's the main reason he was shot. It's not mainly "whether he is was a threat to the officers" he was a threat to society, regardless of whether he dropped his weapon, stopped his car, or what have you. He used deadly force once, and who's to say he wouldnt do it again.

 

The main thing is, he wasn't surrendering. The most basic situation to explain is... he used deadly force on a civilian car, he was in the right mind to injure a civilian with the possibility to kill them, and he still tried to escape. Notice how he crashed, then STILL tried to move forwards and backwards, he obviously was not surrendering. In the law it allows cops to use deadly force to prevent the escape of someone who could still endanger others when they escape. So he was trying to escape, Which, if he could have, he could have went and shot hit family, or did whatever. The most basic point is, he was a danger to society when he was evading the police. Even afterwards, he is still deemed a threat, because who knows what he could do if he escapes, he certainly didnt care when he struck that vehicle. He could still pose a threat, and that's the main reason he was shot. It's not mainly "whether he is was a threat to the officers" he was a threat to society, regardless of whether he dropped his weapon, stopped his car, or what have you. He used deadly force once, and who's to say he wouldnt do it again.

 

Taking someone's life shouldn't be a matter of "what if's," it should be discernible facts. What is proved in the video:

 

-Suspect ran from police

-Suspect slammed into vehicle, probably severely impairing judgement

-Suspect attempted to escape

-Suspect realized he couldn't drive away

-Suspect puts hands out of window, possibly to surrender, but no object in his hand

-Shots fired at suspect

-Suspect exits car, slowly walking towards police. Possibly suicide by cop or attempting to show he meant no harm.

-Suspect walks towards police at the back of his car, instead of running out in front of his car and away from police, leaving all arguments that he was trying to flee at that point in time null and void

-Police continue shooting, suspect goes down

 

How is someone slowly walking a threat to public safety, and how does cutting him down in a hail of gunfire improve public safety?

Taking someone's life shouldn't be a matter of "what if's," it should be discernible facts. What is proved in the video:

 

-Suspect ran from police

-Suspect slammed into vehicle, probably severely impairing judgement

-Suspect attempted to escape

-Suspect realized he couldn't drive away

-Suspect puts hands out of window, possibly to surrender, but no object in his hand

-Shots fired at suspect

-Suspect exits car, slowly walking towards police. Possibly suicide by cop or attempting to show he meant no harm.

-Suspect walks towards police at the back of his car, instead of running out in front of his car and away from police, leaving all arguments that he was trying to flee at that point in time null and void

-Police continue shooting, suspect goes down

 

How is someone slowly walking a threat to public safety, and how does cutting him down in a hail of gunfire improve public safety?

 

You're right, it shouldnt be what if's, but these decisions are made split second. There wasn't time to sit down and debate facts. A fact was this person was a danger to society, and there was a good chance, that he was STILL a danger to society. Even if he didn't show it at the time, he was at one point, using deadly force. Those officers used discretion and assumed he could use deadly force again.

 

You're right, it shouldnt be what if's, but these decisions are made split second. There wasn't time to sit down and debate facts. A fact was this person was a danger to society, and there was a good chance, that he was STILL a danger to society. Even if he didn't show it at the time, he was at one point, using deadly force. Those officers used discretion and assumed he could use deadly force again.

 

The suspect in the video crashed into a vehicle. James Holmes shot up a theater and gave up with a gun at his feet, and was then arrested.

 

As Ridgerunner pointed out a few days ago, cops need to be able to go from "safeties off" in their mind to "safeties on" in a rapid pace as a situation develops. This means discerning the difference between someone pointing a gun at you and putting his or her hands out a window, realizing that your fellow officers shouldn't have shot and not join them or perhaps telling them to cease fire, and being able to recognize when a threat that might have required lethal force seconds ago no longer requires it.

The suspect in the video crashed into a vehicle. James Holmes shot up a theater and gave up with a gun at his feet, and was then arrested.

 

As Ridgerunner pointed out a few days ago, cops need to be able to go from "safeties off" in their mind to "safeties on" in a rapid pace as a situation develops. This means discerning the difference between someone pointing a gun at you and putting his or her hands out a window, realizing that your fellow officers shouldn't have shot and not join them or perhaps telling them to cease fire, and being able to recognize when a threat that might have required lethal force seconds ago no longer requires it.

 

James Holmes surrendered. He gave up, This guy tried backing out his crashed vehicle, and then tried to escape on foot. Cops didn't take the chance that he would escape. Holmes surrendered. There is a difference. Even if he was injured, even after a car crash, he still did not surrender, and they didn't take the chance that he would escape and cause more harm.

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by Dayton17

Anyone who thinks they can present a case that justifies this shooting should, to put it bluntly, go play in traffic. 

 

The man got out of his vehicle and posed no harm to officers. He was stumbling around a fairly far distance from the officers. 

The ones who took the shots should be fired, and charged. Typical LAPD. 

c13, I will now quote the same definition to you that I quoted to Dayton. The standard for use of force is that a reasonable officer could find it necessary. The standard isn't what is necessary, in retrospect; it takes into account imperfect info, the fact that an officer onscene does not have a birds-eye view, the fact that decisions have to be made quickly, and so on. To Dayton, I emphasized "necessary" - if any reasonable officer would think that using less force would have accomplished the same goal (e.g. if any reasonable officer would think tackling would be enough), then you must use the lesser force. To you, I'm emphasizing "could". If reasonable officers could disagree about what force is needed, the standard is the highest one. Courts generally give police the benefit of the doubt, unless it's objectively unreasonable (no reasonable officer could think it was needed) - and just like with non-cops, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the person being accused. This came up in the Zimmerman trial as well: in criminal cases, it's possible that there isn't enough evidence to say either side was in the wrong. Sometimes it's unclear who was in the right, so there's not enough evidence to damn anybody.

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. Justified? You be the judge.

 

In my opinion, he posed a significantly less threat upon leaving the vehicle (in essence, dropping his weapon) and this was the prime time for a beanbag shotgun or a taser.

 

MODERATOR NOTICE

WARNING! Graphic content. Do not click on it if offended

 

 

Skip to 4:30 for end of it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDiWrOc4T4s [/s

As my dad being a police officer, when he instructs lethal force classes he uses videos like these. The part where he puts the car in reverse and tries going backwards is enough to justify lethal force. if I were in the officers' shoes I would have opened fire also because if the car is still in good enough condition where he backs up towards officers I wouldn't know if he would try to ram a officer or myself. there also could have been a hidden weapon we couldn't see. In the brief moment we couldn't see him he could have pointed a weapon or something resembling it in the officers direction. He also could of had it in his waistband and used it earlier and started to move his hands towards it. we don't know if he was going to try and throw it down or use it against officers. the officers had a better view than we did. we couldn't here audio so he might have been told numerous times to stop or drop the weapon if he had one.  

James Holmes surrendered. He gave up, This guy tried backing out his crashed vehicle, and then tried to escape on foot. Cops didn't take the chance that he would escape. Holmes surrendered. There is a difference. Even if he was injured, even after a car crash, he still did not surrender, and they didn't take the chance that he would escape and cause more harm.

Again, he didn't try to escape after exiting the vehicle. If he would've done that, he would've gone away from the police as fast as he could, not slowly walk towards them.

As my dad being a police officer, when he instructs lethal force classes he uses videos like these. The part where he puts the car in reverse and tries going backwards is enough to justify lethal force. if I were in the officers' shoes I would have opened fire also because if the car is still in good enough condition where he backs up towards officers I wouldn't know if he would try to ram a officer or myself. there also could have been a hidden weapon we couldn't see. In the brief moment we couldn't see him he could have pointed a weapon or something resembling it in the officers direction. He also could of had it in his waistband and used it earlier and started to move his hands towards it. we don't know if he was going to try and throw it down or use it against officers. the officers had a better view than we did. we couldn't here audio so he might have been told numerous times to stop or drop the weapon if he had one.  

And does he teach the officers he instructs to keep shooting after the suspect drops the gun? With the analogy I've used many times over the past 5 pages, when the suspect exited his weapon, the vehicle, he dropped his "gun," so to say, therefore lethal force based on his use of that weapon is no longer justified. The suspect was slowly walking towards the cops, while most likely non-coherent after the crash he was just involved in. His hands were visible the entire time too, making the argument that he might have had something in his waistband mute.

Im honestly done, There is no point in arguing with a civilian set on his views. Regardless of whether its right or wrong morally, in the lawbook this was justified. As you will find out if you actually follow this. Goodnight.

Im honestly done, There is no point in arguing with a civilian set on his views. Regardless of whether its right or wrong morally, in the lawbook this was justified. As you will find out if you actually follow this. Goodnight.

The law has permitted many atrocious things over the course of human history. Simply being law does not make something justified.

What's this debate about? Is it about the legality of the shooting, or the morality of it? I don't think it was ever made clear.

Again, he didn't try to escape after exiting the vehicle. If he would've done that, he would've gone away from the police as fast as he could, not slowly walk towards them.

And does he teach the officers he instructs to keep shooting after the suspect drops the gun? With the analogy I've used many times over the past 5 pages, when the suspect exited his weapon, the vehicle, he dropped his "gun," so to say, therefore lethal force based on his use of that weapon is no longer justified. The suspect was slowly walking towards the cops, while most likely non-coherent after the crash he was just involved in. His hands were visible the entire time too, making the argument that he might have had something in his waistband mute.

they are trained to keep shooting until the suspect is no longer a threat. they are also taught that they can shoot until the suspect collapses onto the ground. we also don't know if he was reaching into his waistband while his back was to us. like I said before the officers had a better vantage point than us.

We also don't know what the police were chasing him for. He could have killed a cop and took his gun or robbed somewhere  with a gun or other weapon. We don't know what happened prior to the chase.

Totally justified. legally and morally.

 

I would have dropped him the second he exited the vehicle.

 

Do we even know when they started firing, how many rounds were fired? Maybe they began shooting him as he exited the vehicle, and that's why he was stumbling around the back of the car.

 

Bottom line is, if you don't commit a crime, you aren't likely to be shot.

What's this debate about? Is it about the legality of the shooting, or the morality of it? I don't think it was ever made clear.

I didn't really specify, but both really. My comment about morality was mainly in response to him saying the law justified it.

 

they are trained to keep shooting until the suspect is no longer a threat. they are also taught that they can shoot until the suspect collapses onto the ground. we also don't know if he was reaching into his waistband while his back was to us. like I said before the officers had a better vantage point than us.

We also don't know what the police were chasing him for. He could have killed a cop and took his gun or robbed somewhere  with a gun or other weapon. We don't know what happened prior to the chase.

And when was he a threat upon leaving the vehicle? Had he left it and ran at the officers, let alone with a weapon, a shooting being justified could be argued and I would support it. Sticking his hands out the window, then slowly walking towards officers shouldn't be considered a threat. But then again, being that this is the same department who fired 114 rounds at a 2 hispanic women in a wrong make, model and color pickup truck during the Chris Dorner manhunt, I'm really not surprised if they did consider it a threat.