Jump to content
  • entries
    147
  • comments
    16
  • views
    48,945

Police shoot a man armed with a crowbar.


Shirtless Crackhead

389 views

Apparently Gordon Freeman is a terror threat at Carl's Jr.

 

 

But anywho, let's take this apart.

 

Now what you have is an armed suspect who was, from what I can gather; smashing windows, then went into Carl's Jr. Police arrive, the workers exit, he followed later, and the police pepper sprayed him. Then he motioned as if he was going to swing on the officer who pepper sprayed him, and a police officers fired 10 rounds at him.

 

It's fun to note the cop that is seen opening fire first is holding a K-9 (dog) and holding his gun "gangsta" style until he decided this guy is a serious threat and needed 5 rounds; assuming the second volley of fire was from another officer. The second volley coming after he was already on the ground, which in some circles could be called a double-tap and a violation of Geneva convention in wartime.

 

He was alive at the time of the video taken, but at some point was taken to a local hospital and pronounced dead. I'm sure the EMT's did there very best to make a timely run, yes that's sarcasm.

 

Now pepper spray isn't a surefire non-lethal. And while a crowbar might be highly effective against head-crabs, I'm pretty sure 4-5 police officers (which were there) are more than capable of dealing with one guy and his crowbar, without resorting to simply shooting the guy.

 

The suspect was non-compliant, and posed a threat however.

 

So the question really comes down to how we expect the police to react to situations like this. Their rules of engagement if you will. And thereby the risk they incur following said rules. It's obvious why a police officer would rather just shoot some obvious turd then risk getting stabbed or worse, getting in a tumble with say an HIV positive suspect who's packing a razor blade somewhere.

 

On the other hand, are the police there to serve the public? Of which the man with the crowbar is part of? Or are they there to maintain the civil obedience and protect themselves? Service, atleast in the military has always been imbued with a sense of selflessness, of sacrifice. It seems police officers, via political influence bought by what amounts to police unions; have reduced a "sense" of selflessness and sacrifice. They have instead turned it into cases where police are victims, and make no doubt, that happens too.

 

I can show you a video of a police officer who got reprimanded for excessive force who then let a Vietnam vet shoot him up with an M1 carbine, like some hapless retard.

 

So there is a fine line, and even though to outside eyes who don't deal with situations like these may see these two events as completely and totally different. Hindsight is 20/20 and a gift not granted to those dealing with those sorts of moments firsthand.

 

The police at Carl's Jr had no assurance as to what the man's intentions were, what all possible weapons he could have had. What drugs he was on, which might be more probable than I'm leading on, as he kept fighting after getting shot ten times.

 

Now I obviously think this whole incident is basically gross police negligence, because the officer holding the K-9 should have let the dog go and then all the officers should have bum rushed him as soon as he walked out. It may have hurt the guy, but they would have detained him and defused the situation. They also could have obviously used a tazer.

 

Not that anything will come of this, I believe the incident took place in California. And there the police will be given some paid vacation, given a "psych" evaluation, and be put back on the job. Meanwhile the whole story has yet to be known to me. That meaning, the reasons/motivations/factors as to the man with the crowbar and what he was doing.

4 Comments


Recommended Comments

Such a knee-jerk reaction by the police - I mean, watching that in a video makes me wonder why they were unable to incapacitate someone moving so freaking slowly. I do however understand that in the heat of the moment, and if you are there, shit can be moving faster than you could think (rationally).

 

But then, officers are trained professionals. Surely, SURELY they have training that prepares them for such situations. If they're so worried, why not cap a limb? Or use their obvious number advantage to draw him out and bum rush him (you do raise a valid point about engaging someone of that character though). Their job is to use reasonable force.

 

This was not reasonable force. This is unnecessary use of deadly force. The use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed - these guys sprayed some shit in his eyes, panicked, and shot him.

Link to comment

It's to me, more of a failure to apply non-lethal force.

 

As soon as he walked out the door, they should have mobbed him, taken him to the ground, put him in cuffs, and thrown him in the drunk tank.

Link to comment
Agreed. That's the more affirmative way of saying what I meant haha. It raises the questions of legal deadly force if officers can't use it properly. I don't see how these dudes can be allowed back on the streets as officers - IMO they've simply failed the one-sit-only test.
Link to comment

Because Police unions protect officers for being fired for negligence (along with everything else under the sun), they might get reassigned to some other department, and that's the best you can hope for.

 

In my hometown, a cop went to knock on the window of a drunk who passed out at the wheel with his foot on the brake. When the dude let off the brake, the cop shot him; they took the car into the next county, filed it as 'self-defense' (basically) and the local/area news never said shit.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...