l3ubba

I was actually talking with someone else about this before. While I don't agree with the shooting I can understand the justification given. The initial call that was received was for a possible armed robbery when it was actually just a theft, so the responding officers assumed that the suspects were armed. When the officers had them at gunpoint and the guy was standing sideways to them the officers couldn't see his right hand. The individual kept moving his hands and at the point he was shot his hand was at his waist and out of view from the other officers. Like I said, I don't agree with it and I think they were a little to quick to be on the trigger but the law says that is a justifiable shooting. What makes it even worse in my opinion is that the agency tried (via court order) to keep the video from being release to the public. Hiding evidence is not a good way to gain trust in the community and doesn't reflect well on your agency. It is even more unfortunate that the group of men were actually friends of the victim from the theft and were trying to help find the stolen bicycle.

What I said is that it is well known that the Russian media is heavily influenced by the government so things you see on lots of Russian news channels must be taken with a grain of salt. I didn't say anything about whether or not Russian police are better than American police because I don't know much about Russian police. And like I said before, regardless of what other countries do it doesn't necessarily mean it will work in the US. The cultures in other countries compared to American are vastly different, it doesn't mean one is better than the other or that one is the right way and the other is the wrong way. But nice attempt at putting words in my mouth.

Here is a very good video that I found awhile back that really shows the advantages and disadvantages to a taser and explains how tasers actually work. https://www.facebook.com/ActiveSelfProtection/videos/759579630816486/?pnref=story

Yes, it is always best to have some distance between you and a suspect but that isn't always a realistic option. The world is not always an open place where you can have the perfect distance between you and another person. My point was that you said the officers should have calmly asked him to put down the screwdriver, not yell at him, and let the family member talk him down. What did the officers do? They calmly asked him to put down the screwdriver, they weren't yelling at him, and the mother only made the situation worse by yelling (the thing you said they shouldn't have done). Officers are trained to leave distance between them and the individual but as I said before you can't always stay a certain distance. Sometimes you are working in close quarters (as they were in that video), also you aren't going to come off as friendly and approachable if you are constantly staying 20 feet away from people. You don't normally have conversations with people 20 feet away and people won't want to talk to you or give you information if they feel you are treating them as a dangerous felon when they are just talking to you. Officers are also trained that having one officer using non-lethal while the other officer covers him with lethal, but unfortunately things don't always allow for that. Like I said in my previous post, the entire incident happened in 8 seconds. The officers didn't have time to designate who would go to a non-lethal option, they had 4-5 feet between them and the suspect and less than 8 seconds before he started coming at them. You are using my reasoning out of context. I didn't say that the sole reason for using deadly force was because "tasers aren't always effective", it is that plus the fact that they only had a very limited amount of space and time. I have found that it is very difficult to compare things like these to other countries, the cultures are vastly different. Not to mention, what do you think the number of attacks on police are in Canada or Europe are? Probably a lot fewer than they are in the US, so obviously when you have fewer incidents happening the number of shootings are going to be a lot less.

No, what I am saying is that your ability to judge what correct police action is and what isn't is very skewed and not a complete picture because you do not have the training or experience to know what correct procedures are (for the lack of a better term). When I say "walk all over them" I am referring to the video that this thread is about. The police shouldn't let a suspect force them to run 30 meters backwards away from their car, which was actually a risky thing for that officer to do. In your hypothetical situation you make the situation sound so calm and slow moving. If that were the way it actually was then yes, the police could have easily done that. The suspect started coming out of the door then pulled out a screwdriver. The officers did initially ask calmly for him to put it down, they said calmly "Can you drop that for me bud?" several times and the family member was actually the one that started yelling first, the mother started yelling and that is when the suspect started moving towards the officer. Now you are saying they should back up a few feet; where the officers were standing there were several cars in the driveway that would have made it difficult to back up. They are in a confined space and when you watch the video the entire situation from when the suspect takes out the screwdriver to the moment he moves towards the officers and is shot happens in the span of about 8 seconds. This shows how quickly the situation escalated and how much reaction time the officers had. Also the time to use a taser is NOT when a suspect has a weapon that could be lethal and any force matrix or defensive tactics instructor will tell you that. If a suspect has a weapon that could be lethal then you want to match the suspects resistance level because what happens when the taser fails and now you used your one shot and have no time to switch to another tool? I am not saying you can't ask questions and suggest different ways of doing things but I am telling you why some of the things you suggest are not the correct way of handling a situation or aren't realistic or safe choices. Asking why they didn't tase him or pepper spray them are legitimate questions, but since you don't have the same training or experience as a police officer there are some things you won't take into consideration because you simply don't have the same knowledge that police officers do. Nobody is saying that is a bad thing and that is why I have taken the time to have a discussion with you and explain these things, so that you can possibly have a new understanding of it.

It is pretty well known that many of the Russian media outlets are heavily influenced by the government.

Not exactly. I was a sheriff's explorer with my sheriff's office for 3 years and accumulated about 2700 hours riding with patrol deputies during that time (mostly on the 5PM-5AM shift, my favorite). After that I spent some time at a university to try and get my B.S. but decided I couldn't wait any longer to get back into law enforcement so I enrolled in the police academy in the beginning of 2012 and graduated in August of that year. Spent about a year looking for an agency to work for but wasn't having much luck (most likely due to how young I was at the time) so after about a year of no full time employment I decided to join the military (for more reasons than just a paycheck). My contract with the Army is up in July of 2017 at which point I plan on transferring to the Coast Guard as a reservist (I have found that the Army isn't really my cup of tea other than being Airborne) and getting hired with a law enforcement agency in the state where my LE certification is.

Being a taxpayer entitles you to ask questions and receive answers, it does not make you qualified to tell how police officers to do their jobs. If that is the sole qualification then why do police academy instructors have to go through all their training and get certified if just any American taxpayer can tell the police how to do their jobs? My point about hurt feelings is that suspects are the ones who dictates what happens. The police shouldn't have to run away from a suspect (there is actually a law that says they don't have to) or let the suspect walk all over them just too keep people, who generally have little knowledge of law enforcement in the first place, happy. The video you linked just brings me back to this thread but I am pretty sure I know which shooting you are talking about so I will tell you why most of the tools on their belts were bad ideas. OC spray: honestly this is probably the worst tool police carry, it doesn't actually incapacitate an individual (it isn't hard to keep fighting after being sprayed), how long it takes to take effect and how much the individual is affected varies from person to person so the results are not always reliable, and you are almost always going to contaminate yourself. Baton/nightstick: they were in close quarters and while there are baton tactics you can use in close quarters they aren't meant to be used against someone holding a sharp weapon, batons are rarely used by police at all due to the very brutal nature of the weapon, ever since Rodney King the public has a very negative perception of batons. Taser: This is probably the only other tool they had that might have been effective. I say might because tasers only work if certain conditions are met, if one condition is not met then it won't incapacitate the suspect. First, both prongs have to hit the subject and penetrate through their clothing; next the prongs have to get a wide enough spread in order to be effective, if the prongs land too close to each other the suspect might feel some pain in that area but there won't be neuromuscular incapacitatation. It isn't uncommon for a taser to fail due to not meeting those conditions (although it isn't the taser's fault). Now consider that they were in close quarters and he was coming at them. There was only a couple seconds reaction time. I don't know about you but if I have one chance to stop a suspect before they start stabbing me with a screwdriver I am going to go with the tool that almost guarantees the suspect will be stopped. You say cops have a dangerous job but are trained to never take a risk. So which is it? Do they have a dangerous job or are they trained to never take risks? If they never take risks then they don't have a dangerous job. If police never took risks then they would never do traffic stops because there is too much risk involved.

You think that he is just going to let them grab his hands? Do you think that once you make a move for someone's hands they are just going to remain still and let you grab them? I don't even know what you are saying in your second sentence. You keep referring to your training, what training have you received and who did you receive it from? Apparently who ever trained you didn't teach you that handcuffing someone isn't always the first priority and it can actually make things worse. Using your logic I should handcuff every person I come in contact if I suspect they committed a crime?

Not sure who trained you to "do it asap" but that is bad advice. There are many reasons not to handcuff a suspect immediately, too many for me to list. If he reached for a pistol in his waistband would they have a fast enough reaction to overpower him? It only takes a couple seconds for him to aim and pull the trigger. As Pavelow stated having a suspect put their hands up against the wall is a bad idea and trying to detain someone in a public area (if it can be avoided) is an even worse idea. What if he drew his pistol while they were attempting to detain him right outside the bathroom? Then you would be shooting with lots of innocent people around. You keep saying that all they had to do is overpower him as if that is an easy task, this makes me strongly believe that you have never been involved in fighting someone who is resisting arrest. It isn't easy, even with two people, to detain someone who is fighting for their freedom and this guy was a fairly big dude so he could easily get enough of an upper hand to fire off a few rounds if he wanted too. I know lots of agencies have gone away from that too. They taught me the same thing in the police academy and for the same reason you just listed. They taught us to never have them put their hands on the wall and even to not lean or press them up against the wall because that gives them something to push off of and gives them more power. If you keep them away from walls/cars/etc, they have nothing to push off of and they are easier to knock over since they have nothing to keep them up.

It isn't my standards that make a shooting justified. These are the standards set by our government, a government of officials elected by the American people. And there is more criteria than fear for one's life that makes a shooting justified (officer or not). The fact that you are a taxpayer makes you qualified to say who is a well trained cop and who isn't? So I assume that since I pay my taxes I can now go around and criticize every public worker's job performance. Let me go up to an air traffic controller and criticize him on how he is controlling even though I have no training or experience in his field. I am an American taxpayer right and I "pay his salary" (even if only less than 1% of my taxes actually go to his salary) so I should be able to tell him what he is doing wrong in his job right? Yes, law enforcement is a dangerous job and the officers who take that job know and accept the risks of their jobs however, that doesn't mean they should just let suspects (especially dangerous ones) walk all over them out of fear of hurting someone's feelings. Depending on the situation a screwdriver can be just as dangerous as a knife. It isn't as simple as you make it out to be, if it was we could just write a book listing all the situations when you can shoot and when you can't. There are lots of factors that have to be looked at in a deadly force situation, it isn't as cut and dry as you make it sound. Well for one I would be hesitant to believe anything the Russian news puts out, it is heavily influenced by the government. My knowledge is limited on the Makarov but it can't be any more difficult to shoot than other 9mm pistols. 9mm pistols are not difficult weapons to shoot compared to other pistols. And using Youtube as a source is meaningless. I can find lots of videos on just about anything, that doesn't mean it is a common occurrence or easy to accomplish. I can show you a bunch of videos showing American police officers shooting suspects in the arms and legs, does that mean it is easy to do or that it happens all the time? No.

I never said that all the cops I know are great people. And out of all those stories of officers shooting people how many of them are justified? Almost all of them. That goes to show that the police are doing the right thing, people just don't want to accept that mentally ill and unarmed people can still be dangerous. If you have scientific evidence then I would love to see it, but I have a feeling that it doesn't exist. Please tell me what what training or experience you have to say what makes a better cop? And no I am not from Germany I just live here, I am from the U.S. born and raised. Nope I don't care how much older I am than you, I couldn't care less.

Police officers always try to find ways not to kill the suspect. Deadly force is a last resort and the suspect is the one who dictates the outcome of the situation. Also you clearly have never shot a handgun before much less at distance, with a moving target, while under immense stress. Do you know how hard it is to hit someone's arms or legs? This is not the movies. World's Wildest Police Videos is probably one of the worst TV shows that ever aired because their show is dedicated to showing the craziest things involving police such as police wounding or shooting guns out of people's hands. The problem with constantly showing those videos is people start to think that is the norm and that it isn't hard. Do you know why those videos are on a show called "World's Wildest Police Videos", because they are videos that are incredible, they are "wild", it doesn't happen very often. You know why they tell you that? Because it's true, they don't just pull it out of their ass. Instead of repeating myself I will just refer you to my reply to Zarezhu. Every comment you leave on these threads are always about how "rare" it is to see good cops or cops that handle situations correctly. Where do you get this information? How many cops do you know? How often are you out on the street along side cops observing what they do? It is actually starting to piss me off because I spent 3 years on the street with deputies, I saw the things they did on a daily basis and I know that every single thing you have said is 100% false. And your little "100x the officer" comment is complete bullshit. It is easy for you to say that behind your keyboard but go put yourself in a deadly force situation then come back and tell me about how an officer who shoots is less of a cop than one who doesn't. Be honest with me, how old are you? Because I really really want to chalk up your ridiculous comments to you just being young and inexperienced as opposed to completely stupid.

And how many presidents have you seen in your lifetime? If I had to take a guess I would say you were born in the late 90s-early 2000s (average age on these forums) so you are probably not old enough to remember Bill Clinton so you've pretty much only been through two presidents. Not to mention the fact that you probably don't know much more about any president other than what you see in the media (like most people in this country).

Have you ever fought with someone in a confined space before? I am willing to bet you have ever had to detain someone who is resisting arrest much less in a confined space. I can tell you from experience that it sucks and that bathroom is not a lot of space at all. What if they had tried detaining him in the bathroom and he pulled the same stunt? You know why that shooting went so well? Because the male officer was able to push the suspect a good enough distance away. If that had happened in that bathroom there would have been a lot less space and a much higher chance of someone other than the suspect getting injured. The way they handled it was textbook procedure and a perfect example of how it should have been handled. These are the kinds of videos they showed us in the police academy and told us to do what they did.

Not everyone needs to be handcuffed. Sometimes handcuffing a person will result in them not wanting to cooperate because they feel they are already under arrest. Also, they probably didn't want to handcuff him in the bathroom because it is a confined place with not a lot of room to fight if he decided to resist...or pull a pellet gun from his waistband. Yes I know people lie, but you said "in a lot of cases" as if cops lie most of the time. I am just tired of people criticizing an officer's split second decision, especially when that decision was the correct one. I have always said that in the public's eyes no matter what an officer does somebody will always come in and say "well they should have done this" or "I would have done it this way" and 99% of the time it is the people with no actual training or experience in law enforcement that say those things. It just goes to show that the police will always be wrong no matter how they handle the situation. If the officers shot him then people will say they should have used a taser, if they tased him people would say they should have used OC spray, if they used OC spray people will say they should have went hands on, if they went hands on people will say they should have talked the suspect down.

Do you have anything to back that statement up? So a dude pulls a gun on you and you want to keep trying to restrain him? This isn't the movies or a TV show, they don't just kick the due in the stomach and tackle him and everything is ok. The dude had a gun (later found to be a pellet gun), anyone who pulls a gun on me should expect to be met with another gun. I'm not going to wait for a suspect to get the first shot off before I open fire. It is easy for people to sit at their keyboard and watch a video 20 times and say what they would have done (especially if they have never been in that kind of situation) but when you are out there on the street you make these decisions in fractions of a second. Hesitate or make the wrong decision and you might not make it home that night. Bottom line, the officers met deadly force with deadly force which is how it should be.

My favorite part about this was the people tweeting how they were going to move to Canada now that gay marriage is legal in the US when Canada made it legal in 2005.

I can assure you they are all fake.

While these videos are staged I do like watching them because they are really funny. Here is another one they did with Steve, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30InBgGhiSo

That is the fakest shit I have ever heard.

Very well put. The difference between people who supported the Confederacy and people who supported the Nazis was the people who supported the Confederacy knew exactly what they were supporting and knew they wanted to keep slavery; not everyone who supported the Nazis knew what kind of atrocities the Nazis were committing.

Just ignore him, he is a known troll. Every post he makes in this forum is always about some conspiracy theory or some other ridiculously radical idea. He is only seeking attention and try to stir shit up.

Businesses can refuse business to whoever they want. A private business is under no obligation to serve you if they don't want to. However, the caveat to that is they cannot refuse you simply because of the color of your skin or sexual orientation as cp207 already said. The way that some of those bakeries got around that was they refused to bake a wedding cake for gay couples because of their religious beliefs but they offered to make them something else such as cupcakes. So they were able to avoid breaking the law by still offering a service, it was just something different than the customer originally asked for.

In the post I quoted above you were ok with people demanding the flag being removed from government facilities but not "all those bans by private corporations". I never said "I don't need this topic" and yes I already explained why I thought what you said was hypocritical when you were talking about the whole cake situation. And no, I don't think any of those companies did anything wrong. They are all private companies who are free to sell or not sell whatever products they choose. Like I said, I am simply responding to what you posted. You made a bunch of posts about companies not selling Confederate flags and not willing to bake Confederate flag cakes so I responded to those posts. If that is not the "purpose of this topic" then don't post about it, you can't fault me for something you brought up.