They really need to implement these body cameras fast because it's gonna do many do many things. Ease the public, give more evidence than ever available for both sides in situations like these. And protect not only the officers, but the people.

Apparently one of these officers was wearing one, hopefully the LAPD releases the footage soon and it can provide some insight. 

It is disappointing that the one suspect was able to get the gun,but bottom line is, HE HAS THE FU**ING GUN! He's a danger to the public! I see how some say re-training may be necessary, but he is armed. He is dangerous. And it is imperative that he's stopped! I think it is justified! Sad. But justified.

If he wouldn't have fought, maybe he wouldn't have gotten shot. His fault for being stupid.

It's really hard to tell from the video, I guess it was justified. 

The guy shooting the video is a dumbass, and so are most of the people around him.

I wish this video had been as clear as the Eric Garner one. This video doesn't definitely prove anything one way or another.

The problem here is the concept. You reach for an officers gun, you get blasted in the face repeatedly. I'd rather these officers shoot an unarmed homeless man than for the homeless man to get the gun and start shooting. I say good work to the officers. Promotion time.

I think if non-leathel doesn't do it shoot him in the foot/leg, but don't kill him!

I think if non-leathel doesn't do it shoot him in the foot/leg, but don't kill him!

 

Yeah...that way he can shoot back at you.

 

It's never a officers intention to go out and kill a person....but at the end of the day when it comes down to you living or the other guy trying to kill you....you gonna kill that fool.

 

The cops began with batons, then tried a taser, then had to get physical which resulted in 2 officers receiving injuries. To top it off, the firearm had the magazine partially out and the slide locked partially back, indicating there was a struggle for the gun.

If someone gets a hold of my gun, I don't care whether he gets it or not. I'm killing him, and if I can't, I expect the people next to me to.

Just because you dont have control of a weapon doesn't mean you're unarmed.

I think if non-leathel doesn't do it shoot him in the foot/leg, but don't kill him!

Name one first world police department that teaches shooting to wound.

This has been discussed before so I'll summarize what cp702 said, but a shot that isn't intended to kill (ie: not in the torso or head) means that the shooter did not feel his life was in danger, therefore there is not a reason to employ lethal force (which a firearm loaded with live ammo always is, regardless of where it's aimed). Besides the massive lawsuit that would come of it, it would also include a host of criminal charges to the shooter.

Edited March 2, 201511 yr by c13

Name one first world police department that teaches shooting to wound.

Well, just for this part, I'd like to say that a huge majority of police officers in France have never used their weapons on duty. Actually I remember a detective in Paris that was working for the criminal and drugs traffic department (so often in direct contact with drug dealers and gang members) admitted he never used his gun in more than twenty years of carreer. And my own dad, cop for more than 30 years, never had to use his weapon even once in his carreer. So that says it all.

 

There are just two different cultures. One where weapons and usage of force are allowed and not really frowned upon, and another where weapons are considered taboo.

I was laughing at that guy that picked up the baton thinking he's gonna do something in front of a bunch a cops, then gets put to the ground.

 

Anyway, you reach for an officers gun, expect to get shot. Nuff said!

The problem here is the concept. You reach for an officers gun, you get blasted in the face repeatedly. I'd rather these officers shoot an unarmed homeless man than for the homeless man to get the gun and start shooting. I say good work to the officers. Promotion time.

I agree that it would be better for them to shoot him rather than he gets the gun and starts shooting, but to say it warrants a promotion is a little disturbing. To me, anyway. 

Seriously though, the whole going lethal is soo american once again, they got like 6 cops on scene, and 2 suspects, they cannot put hand cuffs on a suspect without shooting him.

Also before the officer started to shoot you saw all the officers clear from the suspect and he just layed there otherwise he would have moved away.

 

This is exactly America, this shit doesn't happen in Europe and it's getting more often that police is shooting an un armed person.

 

Those LAPD officers might need some sort of re training cause 4 vs 1 and still lose a gun, not completely sure how that works.

 

They don't need a retraining, they've done nothing wrong. The firearm was never full taken by the suspect, he grabbed onto it when the others fired. If your grabbing the gun, there is still the chance of him overtaking it. 

 

On my note, they used less than lethal 3 different times (Hands, Baton and Taser) when the suspect still resisted and actually grabbed onto the Officer's gun, I find it justified and nothing I bet will come out of it.

I think if non-leathel doesn't do it shoot him in the foot/leg, but don't kill him!

I didn't want to weigh in on this, but this is the most ignorant way of thinking about this, and people need to stop this thinking.

 

Have you ever gone shooting? Do you know how hard it is to aim at a small target like a leg or a foot? Especially if it's moving? Not impossible, but so unbelievably unlikely. Cops are trained for two things, aim for center mass, that's the most square area for your bullets to hit. You have adrenaline pumping through your body, you won't be able to hit shit. You're panicking because your life is in danger. I'd like to see someone under that kind of duress be able to actually hit something. Even that close. And the other point is, the police (at least in the states) is trained to keep firing until the subject is down. Neutralize the threat, stop the subject from doing any more harm. It's sad that that usually kills the person, but you have to stop any potential situation from escalating any more than it already has. Any chance of just hitting him in the leg is not an option, just because he's shot once, doesn't mean he'll stop. There's plenty of officer's videos that prove that.

 

As for the need for 5+ officers for one guy, it's usually due to drugs. Not saying he was on them or not, we don't know, but there are plenty of videos showing how even 10 cops can't subdue a subject who's on PCP. That stuff is ridiculous. I've seen footage they showed us in cadets of a subject who broke a pair of handcuffs that the officer placed on him. That's insane. The paramedics found out that he broke both his wrists and dislocated his arms doing so. Did he feel it? Nope. Got pepper sprayed and tazered. Did that do anything? Nope. PCP is one hell of a drug. 

Edited March 3, 201511 yr by Ringo4493

I found a less blurry video: Its also in slow motion.

Edited March 3, 201511 yr by Chester199

I found a less blurry video: Its also in slow motion.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can see around 5:22 and 5:28 where the homeless man goes for the black officer's gun.

Well, just for this part, I'd like to say that a huge majority of police officers in France have never used their weapons on duty. Actually I remember a detective in Paris that was working for the criminal and drugs traffic department (so often in direct contact with drug dealers and gang members) admitted he never used his gun in more than twenty years of carreer. And my own dad, cop for more than 30 years, never had to use his weapon even once in his carreer. So that says it all.

 

There are just two different cultures. One where weapons and usage of force are allowed and not really frowned upon, and another where weapons are considered taboo.

No, that actually says literally nothing which is in the slightest bit relevant to what c13 said. The quote was about shooting to wound. Your story is about shooting at all; it has nothing whatsoever with shooting to wound. I'm baffled how you can possibly think it says something that has to do with the quote.

Also: the huge majority of US police officers never fire their weapons except on the range; that's not somehow unique to Europe. US police use their weapons more often than European police, but it's still extremely rare in the US.

The cops began with batons, then tried a taser, then had to get physical which resulted in 2 officers receiving injuries. To top it off, the firearm had the magazine partially out and the slide locked partially back, indicating there was a struggle for the gun.

If someone gets a hold of my gun, I don't care whether he gets it or not. I'm killing him, and if I can't, I expect the people next to me to.

Just because you dont have control of a weapon doesn't mean you're unarmed.

Name one first world police department that teaches shooting to wound.

This has been discussed before so I'll summarize what cp702 said, but a shot that isn't intended to kill (ie: not in the torso or head) means that the shooter did not feel his life was in danger, therefore there is not a reason to employ lethal force (which a firearm loaded with live ammo always is, regardless of where it's aimed). Besides the massive lawsuit that would come of it, it would also include a host of criminal charges to the shooter.

 

 

I didn't want to weigh in on this, but this is the most ignorant way of thinking about this, and people need to stop this thinking.

 

Have you ever gone shooting? Do you know how hard it is to aim at a small target like a leg or a foot? Especially if it's moving? Not impossible, but so unbelievably unlikely. Cops are trained for two things, aim for center mass, that's the most square area for your bullets to hit. You have adrenaline pumping through your body, you won't be able to hit shit. You're panicking because your life is in danger. I'd like to see someone under that kind of duress be able to actually hit something. Even that close. And the other point is, the police (at least in the states) is trained to keep firing until the subject is down. Neutralize the threat, stop the subject from doing any more harm. It's sad that that usually kills the person, but you have to stop any potential situation from escalating any more than it already has. Any chance of just hitting him in the leg is not an option, just because he's shot once, doesn't mean he'll stop. There's plenty of officer's videos that prove that.

 

As for the need for 5+ officers for one guy, it's usually due to drugs. Not saying he was on them or not, we don't know, but there are plenty of videos showing how even 10 cops can't subdue a subject who's on PCP. That stuff is ridiculous. I've seen footage they showed us in cadets of a subject who broke a pair of handcuffs that the officer placed on him. That's insane. The paramedics found out that he broke both his wrists and dislocated his arms doing so. Did he feel it? Nope. Got pepper sprayed and tazered. Did that do anything? Nope. PCP is one hell of a drug. 

 

 

Yeah...that way he can shoot back at you.

 

It's never a officers intention to go out and kill a person....but at the end of the day when it comes down to you living or the other guy trying to kill you....you gonna kill that fool.

 

 

You guys do make good points.

Why is it that cops are always getting their guns stolen, or in every altercation they claim the suspect was going for the gun? What are their holsters made out of, play-doh? I mean if he had the gun then there's a very serious case in the cops' favor, but unfortunately the video is too far away and low-res to be able to tell. This is why we need bodycameras people!

 

But sometimes it feels like getting into an altercation with a cop is automatically a death sentence, because there will always be the risk of the gun getting loose.

 

Just based on the evidence so far it looks like a justified shooting. That is, and only is, if the gun was in the hands of the suspect.

Hes good to go.  Handled well.

 

Who knows what the guy was on.  They gave him a direct bump with a zapper, and he was still going.

 

Seen bad guys in Afghanistan take plenty of rounds and keep going because of drugs they were on.

 

One guy can become very, very strong on the right cocktail.  Play-doh holster or not.  ;)

I agree that it would be better for them to shoot him rather than he gets the gun and starts shooting, but to say it warrants a promotion is a little disturbing. To me, anyway.

Anger can play a large role in the human thought process. The men and women who serve to protect our streets are no different then the men and women who serve to protect our country, the United States. Really angers me when people are ignorant enough to make blunt, retarded insults to law enforcement.

Edited March 3, 201511 yr by CriminalKillaz