Police shoot a man armed with a crowbar.
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.
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