Greetings,

Today I would ask the US members of this forum to straighten some things up for me. Opinions from other countries are welcome of course

Not so long ago, this video was put on the Belgian police forum, of which I am a member. Now, the discussion was whether or not this particular LEO was authorised to use lethal force and if he was, if it is justified to shoot a man in the back as well. Make sure to watch the video first and read the analysis this person made of it. After that, I can discuss it properly since telling the entire story would take a lot of typing.

Here in Belgium, the rules about deadly force are about the same as in the US. However, shooting a man 10 times is regarded as unproportional. Belgian officers shoot with hollow point ammunition to make sure the suspect is incapacitated without using too much rounds. Don't know the US type of ammo though so this could be a reason multiple rounds were discharged.

The reason I placed it here is the fact that I want to hear opinions, other than Belgian LEO's since we are no experts on US law.

So, long story short, I have these questions:

1. Did this LEO use authorised deadly force by US law? By belgian law, this would have been unproportional since he had his K9 as well and he fired 5 shots in his back after already discharging 5 shots.

2. If so, does the US law state anything about the allowed amount of rounds?

3. Would the use of his K9 have been more suitable here? Again, in Belgium a K9 officer would only refuse to send his K9 if there was a direct threat to the physical well being of the animal.In this situation, it is hard to judge though.

4. Is discharging a weapon sideways a common thing in the US? I highly doubt this though since weapons training is among the best in the US.

Many thanks for your opinions and answers. And like I said, feel free to post your own opinions or country laws on this matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHVAwz0dAbw&feature=related

I know the video and seeing how he was about to hit his partner with his bat/crowbar (whatever he had in his hands), I think it was justified. A hit in the head with a crowbar can quickly be lethal. Wether shooting him while he was already falling him was correct, could be doubted, but generally if cops in the US shoot, it's to kill; other than that, he might have just had the adrenaline rush or shock of the guy turning around, which might have caused him to shoot multiple rounds at the guy, even when he was already collapsing.

In my opinion, the cop did the right thing, after a taser had failed, releasing a dog wouldn't probably done much effect, other than the dog getting hit with that crowbar and possibly dying.

EDIT: After watching this "analysis" video, I'm mad at the creator. He isn't much better than the people filming it. It's just yet another sensationist commenting on the "mistakes" the policemen make, while trying to protect their community and lives. In such a situation, which is a lot of stress and mental tension you can't expect them to do everything right. To be honest, I'm glad no officer, wether K-9 or human got hurt and the agressor was put down. It's unfortunate that he died, yet it's, in a sort of way, his own fault.

1. if an officer feels in-dangered because of a deadly weapon to himself or others he may subdue the threat. But the 10 shots were not necessary.
   
2. Nope
   
3. Yes. It would of been a better option.
   
4. This is my first time seeing a cop shoot like that.
   

I partially agree with break, The 5 first shots were justified as it was evident that the dog would have no effect after the guy didn't even flinch from the taser. I don't think the shot to the back and the other 4 while he was down were justified though. I would have thought that 5 shots would have been enough. Having said that the adrenaline, and the fear for himself and the others around him would have been a massive factor affecting the officers actions.

I think that the criminal was swinging for that officer with intent to injure him and 5 lethal shots were definitely justified.

It was warranted, the suspect did not react to the taser, which indicates that the suspect was under the influence of some kind of narcotic, PCP tends to make people immune to stuff like that, people on PCP can fight ten BAMF cops and win.

The same applies with sending in the dog on the guy, it's just going to latch on, and he's going to keep charging.

The guy were going for an officer with a raised weapon, and did not respond in any way to the taser, at this point, the only option for the officer is to shoot the suspect, the suspect placed the officers attending in a life threatening situation

1. All that is needed for the officer to use deadly force and be justified is if he feels his life is in serious danger or the life of another is in serious danger.

2. No, But all departments investigate any officer involved shooting. Internal Affairs could find it excessive use of force for the amount of shots fired.

3. The K9 could have been used yes. But it up to the officer if he wants to release his dog after the suspect. He is thinking of his dogs safety, his and his partner's safety too. that pipe and could do some serious damage.

4. K9 officers are trained to shoot like that... They are trained when shooting while holding their dog is to pull the their hand holding the leash in to their body and their hand with their gun out and with a slant. I am not 100% sure why they do that I assume it is to counter act the dog pulling toward the suspect. Also If your dog is going at the suspect pulling towards him you don't want your dog jumping and getting in the line of fire when your shooting.

Edited February 18, 201214 yr by Maze426

Thanks for all the opinions so far.

@Break: pretty much agree with everything you said.

@rjn4: so in this case, you would have released your K9? Like Nicolai said, I don't think it would have done much, seeing the guy didn't even feel a taser in his face.

@Nicolai: absolutely right. Suspects under the influence of drugs are capable of extreme things. I witnessed that myself already during my internship. So your opinion is the last 5 shots were justified as well?

@Maze426: thanks for that. So the sideway shooting is indeed more common with K9 officers? Didn't know that. So internal affairs could still discipline him, even if he used justified lethal force but did so disproportionally?

Edit: btw, could you please mention if this would be justified in your own country? In Belgium, this would probably be justified in the way that he wouldn't be facing charges for manslaughter but like Maze said, internal affairs (Comit

Edited February 18, 201214 yr by kjel0112

It's very, very easy to be sitting here and review the actions of the officer(s) involved in incidents, but fact is that they have to make split second decisions while being high on adrenaline and under a great deal of stress.

The last thing officers need is hesitation based on the fear of after-action reviews, by either police, media and citizens, the latter two knows fuck all what it's like being on the street, the officers that conducts investigations and "reviews" usually haven't been on the street in years.

Such things should be carried out by long serving officers with recent street experience, as well as officers that has been in a similar situation.

It's very, very easy to be sitting here and review the actions of the officer(s) involved in incidents, but fact is that they have to make split second decisions while being high on adrenaline and under a great deal of stress.

Such things should be carried out by long serving officers with recent street experience, as well as officers that has been in a similar situation.

Couldn't agree more. However, I still believe that it is the job of a LEO to remain calm and rational in every situation. That's what they are trained to do. So in my view, releasing those shots even after he was clearly incapacitated, would be unprofessional conduct.

As a referee, I know what it's like to make split second decisions and being shouted at and hated afterwards for making them by people who know nothing about the rules and the amount of presure. Therefore, I have the greatest respect for street policemen. It's a shame that the public doesn't.

That's how it works in the real world, the same world where police work is black and white, and the suspect gives up the minute he sees the po-po.

Newsflash, the world is grey, nothing but grey, the world doesn't work like that, there's people out there that hates the cops because "it's cool" to hate the pigs, people should try to be a cop just for one day.

As someone who experiences near death moments frequently I have to add my opinion here.

Oone thing I didn't see pointed out by many people here and elsewhere regarding this video, is that the K9 officer did not fire all 10 shots.

The K9 officer only fired the first 5 shots.

The second group of 5 came from the other officer, who was startled by the events that just took place and likely reacted out of adrenaline rush after he was almost hit in the face with a crowbar and then heard / saw his partner begin shooting.

While the second grouping of 5 shots was unnecessary, I have a hard time saying it was "excessive" based on the emotional stress of the situation and the fact that the second officer likely reacted solely out of adrenaline rush in the heat of a potential near death experience; his actions indicate rote memory response based on extensive training to me.

Those five shots meant fuck all, the suspect were already long gone, that's what happens when you assault the law.

.

@Maze426: thanks for that. So the sideway shooting is indeed more common with K9 officers? Didn't know that. So internal affairs could still discipline him, even if he used justified lethal force but did so disproportionally?

Yeah the sideway shooting is how k9 handlers are trained.

Yes, weather justified or not the shooting is looked into. The officer can still get in trouble for excessive use of force even if it was justified.

Imo he was justified.

Edit: btw, could you please mention if this would be justified in your own country?

The social degenerates we call "chavs" would see it as another excuse to loot, oh sorry, I mean riot again.

@rjn4: so in this case, you would have released your K9? Like Nicolai said, I don't think it would have done much, seeing the guy didn't even feel a taser in his face.

You release the dog, he hangs on. The dog will slow him down enough that you can tackle him and or tase him again. If none of that worked back-up was on scene rather quickly.

A dog, four cops, and a few hundred volts of electricity should be able to take down one guy with a pipe bender...

Thanks for the opinions guys.

@NicolaiB: again, couldn't agree more.

@Harper: we have plenty of chavs over here as well . It's impressive that UK officers are able to handle with so many scum. In this case, the LEO wouldn't even have a gun so he would have no choice but to engage in a melee fight or release the dog.

Rjn, that guy would have taken at least four more cops to get under control, the dog would slow him down, but he'd still fight those cops, whatever that guy is on (I'm guessing PCP) will make him invincible, we've had suspects break their arms and still punch cops.

That guy was definatley under the influence of something, the way he pulled the barbs out of his face after he was tasered and not even flinch.

I agree that the police officer's actions here were justified in shooting the suspect. He was shot at the first five times when the suspect was about to whack the officer with the taser, and the last five shots seem to be fired by the other officer, as johnclark said, probably because he had just regained awareness after almost losing his life to the suspect. The problem in modern online society is that everybody in general is strongly skewed against police and police work. Everybody, it seems, prefers anarchy any day to seeing a cop on the streets.

I am truly disgusted by the video-takers, though. They find the whole debacle entertaining! They even laugh after the guy is shot. Not to make generalizations, but I would reckon that they probably have committed some of the crimes the deceased suspect has.

I am truly disgusted by the video-takers, though. They find the whole debacle entertaining! They even laugh after the guy is shot. Not to make generalizations, but I would reckon that they probably have committed some of the crimes the deceased suspect has.

Too right. When I saw the original video without the analysis, I couldn't believe they were actually laughing. I mean, what could possibly be funny about seeing a person get shot to death? Talk about lack of respect.