When shit kind of maybe possibly could potentially hit the fan just get a machine gun and spin in circles really, really fast. This is the ultimate protection for the police from the scourge of unarmed men still breathing. I'm surprised this technique is not in the procedures manual already.
Tosh.0 Staffer Accidentally Killed by Cop
- Thread starter Mobile Suit Gooch
- Start date
- Status
RealDeadOne
Member
Tragic situation and there's a problem with police being too trigger happy but you're lying if you say you wouldn't fire your gun if you thought a crazy knife murderer was about to cut your fucking throat, which is what the information these guys had basically told them.
chickdigger802
Banned
So its like in modern day shooters where everyone wears the same brown stuff and you sometimes shoot at your own teammate thinking they are the enemy.
sadly real life doesn't have the red names over enemy heads and friendly fire
clearly this isn't the right approach, but i'm a bit baffled what would be the 'right' approach for the police in this situation where you have a split second decision with bloodied men charging at you.
I guess the life lesson is, if you are ever in a hostage situation and find yourself wearing similar color shirt as the assailant, do what you must to get a shirt thats vastly different color, or just get rid of the shirt with some excuse.
sadly real life doesn't have the red names over enemy heads and friendly fire
clearly this isn't the right approach, but i'm a bit baffled what would be the 'right' approach for the police in this situation where you have a split second decision with bloodied men charging at you.
I guess the life lesson is, if you are ever in a hostage situation and find yourself wearing similar color shirt as the assailant, do what you must to get a shirt thats vastly different color, or just get rid of the shirt with some excuse.
BossLackey
Gold Member
Cops these days just aren't up to snuff. Clearly.
Way to go assholes.
Way to go assholes.
So its like in modern day shooters where everyone wears the same brown stuff and you sometimes shoot at your own teammate thinking they are the enemy.
sadly real life doesn't have the red names over enemy heads and friendly fire
clearly this isn't the right approach, but i'm a bit baffled what would be the 'right' approach for the police in this situation where you have a split second decision with bloodied men charging at you.
I guess the life lesson is, if you are ever in a hostage situation and find yourself wearing similar color shirt as the assailant, do what you must to get a shirt thats vastly different color, or just get rid of the shirt with some excuse.
Two bloodied men without guns charging 3 cops with guns. They surely didn't need to immediately shoot. Especially the one that even missed the intended target.
Also they had time to assess that there were two men charging at them, the call reported two men in the apartment, and they determined which was the suspect and which was the victim, yet they didn't have time to look and see if the two men were armed?
Police are not civilians and shouldn't think like one. Otherwise why not get rid of police academies and give guns to public volunteers? The policing job is a career of risk and respect, I'm sure they say somewhere in their pledges to put the public before themselves. Guns should be the absolute last resort.
Every week now you hear of brutalities resulting in innocent deaths.
'If a crime occurs due to the criminal actions of another then that person may be held responsible even if they did not carry out that crime directly.'
I can't remember the phrasing directly but it's a pretty common theme across the world for law enforcement. If it wasn't for the crazy guy with the knife then none of this would have happened therefore it's the crazy guys fault... According to some schools of logic anyway.
chickdigger802
Banned
unless i missed something, the intel they got was there were a total of 2 dudes, and the assailant was wearing a black shirt. I dont know the current sunset time of LA, but i'm gonna assume 9pm is dark or at the very least pretty dark, so making a quick judgement call on if armed or not is probably not blatantly obvious (knifes are easy to hide, and its not mentioned that the police knew what kind of knife the assailant had before they got inside).
If this was a traditional hostage situation they probably would had more time to assess the situation, but wasn't the call about someone knife assaulting? So there is a time pressure.
Definitely feels like an unfortunate event where the coin flip ended up wrong.
Unless i misread something or missed something, well then fuck cops?
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
Again, though, in this situation supposedly they thought he was attacking the first victim to escape. He matched the description of the attacker and appeared to be lunging at the back of the first person to bolt out the door. IF this is true, then it is completely understandable.
It is. In most states there are laws that state that if your are committing a felony and someone dies because of that felony, you can be charged for the murder. Makes pretty good sense to me.
You are talking about seconds here. It would take seconds for an attacker to clear the space between himself and the cops, and even less time for him to attack the first victim who they claim they thought was being attacked. We all have hindsight which obviously makes this situation far easier to judge.
If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend checking out End of Watch. REALLY fucking good movie that features one cop making a POV documentary.
The situation in question is reprehensible. Cops need to be thinking non-lethal options in certain scenarios. If no gun is involved, rubber bullets or tazers, etc. should be the weapon of choice.
Phoenix
Member
Unfortunately that isn't true. If they felt that the second guy was attacking the first guy (they thought he was lunching at the first guy, not them) they can use force to end the attack.
DragonSworne
Banned
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
Not always effective, especially if the attacker is on drugs.
Fart Stink
Banned
I love the option that you suggest: just kill everyone, because, hey, you never know.
No, I am saying that cops shouldn't shift the inherent and expected dangers of their job to the general public because they are cowards.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
Totally.
OfWhiteSkinOnRedLeather
Member
Shoot first, paid vacation later.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I don't agree with him but cops do choose to be in that profession.
Yes, because the guilt of killing an innocent man won't be on their minds at all. Totally wonderful!
Yea, we should just rail road people's lives when they go under investigation whether they are guilty or not.
So why shoot them both?
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
They didn't mean to shoot the first person who they believed to be the fleeing victim.
- this creep will probably only get a couple of years.
- way ahead of you Johnson * shoots innocent bystander
But on a serious note police should have cameras, this all sounds fishy too.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
It doesn't really sound too fishy to me. The first reports out of incidents like this are usually wrong, that's part of the reason why we have crazy conspiracy theories pop up every time there's a mass shooting and the like.
- Police were told there were two men in the apartment
- After arriving at the building a clearly injured victim runs out the door
- A second man matching the description of the attacker follows close behind
- Police believe they are seeing the assault continue in front of their eyes, three of them open fire, killing the man they believe is the attacker
- Police then discover there are two more men inside the apartment, one of which is the unarmed attacker
Eighty Deuce
Banned
Millitary rules of engagement are stricter than police ROE. That's fuckibg sad.
boiled goose
good with gravy
it makes sense, but i still dont think it justifies shooting.
the police curerntly cant freaking wait to use their guns and light someone up. deadly force should be the last resort not the first one.
I dont necessarily blame just the individuals here. the problem is a system wide police culture issue and improper training.
shoot first, ask questions later is certainly the mentality.
if you dont obey you are also going to get shot dead.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
It's a tough situation to discuss 'cause I don't want to be like "Yeah, they did the right thing!" When obviously they didn't, because an innocent man is dead.
But, had they been right and that was the attacker chasing after the escaping victim it would have all been perfectly fine and none of us would be discussing it now. Did they believe it was the attacker? I would assume so, unless someone wants to argue they purposefully/knowingly shot the escaping victim for some crazy reason.
The way that I fault them is that they obviously fired without seeing a weapon (since there was no weapon to be seen). They were able to assess the situation inside correctly. Even when they were witnessing the actual attack, they didn't use deadly force because they realized the knife was on the floor and the man wasn't armed. So, why didn't they outside the room?
The obvious answer seems to be that they reacted in the heat of the moment. This really isn't a valid excuse since obviously police shouldn't be shooting based on gut feelings. But, part of me still understands, especially given the info of there being only two men inside (one victim, on attacker).
It's a fucked situation.
Because you are innocent until proven guilty. Any officer involved shooting results in an investigation, and you can't have an officer who is being investigated on the streets. But, there are justified shootings, and you obviously can't tell someone who was involved in one that they are going to have to go without their pay check until everything is cleared. They are normal people with families to support.
Killing an innocent who seemed like the attacker on first impression is in no way understandable.
In active criminal scenario confusion should be expected. Cops have become too trigger happy while taking less risks on the field in an effort to clear the situation before retorting to deadly force. This is not their job, or at least not what I expect from the police.
Perhaps the US needs international help in retraining its police force while using non-lethal weapons. Some action needs to happen to lessen the incidents about innocents being chocked or shot to death every week by the police.
Uh huh. You bet.
I NEVER want to shoot anyone. Ever. And I haven't, but you go ahead with your generalities. I expect nothing less in these threads.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
This sentence is obviously and clearly based on hindsight. You have the view that he was an innocent, they did not. You are right, because of hindsight. They were wrong because they were given bad information.
They believed they were saving someones life. If you don't find that understandable, I don't know what to tell you. Understanding it doesn't mean you have to agree it was the right thing to do. It wasn't. As I said above, there was no weapon in sight, so they shouldn't have fired. But, they had multiple reasons to believe they were seeing the attack unfold in front of them.
You are told there are two people in a room. One attacker, one victim. You then see a man who has been cut in the throat being chased by another man (what they thought they were seeing, no hindsight). Gee, I don't understand why anyone would think the man doing the chasing is the attacker.
kame-sennin
Member
This is the exact opposite of what officers believe and are trained to do.
kame-sennin
Member
Dude, police don't protect, they don't serve. The only thing they're good at is covering their own asses and giving out beatings. You can moan as much as you want, but the evidence is overwhelming.
A lot of us don't have police training, authority or obligations and what we would do in this situation is irrelevant.
Many of us are, however, tax payers and citizens of this country, and allowed to have an opinion on how our police force operates (hopefully at a higher level than what the average citizen would do).
And a lot of those opinions are terrible when it comes to monday morning quarterbacking in these types of situation. Paying taxes does not "allow" one an opinion - btw. Anyone can have one, but no one is obligated to actually take one seriously.
Then argue against those opinions, rather than sayng "You would have shot them if your panicky, untrained ass had been there!"
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
They didn't mean to hit the victim. He caught one in the leg while they were shooting at the other guy.
They shot the one they believed to be the victim, too. They fucked up no matter what they think they saw.
StormyTheRabbit
Member
And the pigs will most likely walk away with a paid suspension.
Who cares if you're adding more risk to the victim by using your weapons, just open fire.
I heard a while ago about cops having to wear cameras and when they did police-lead crime went dramatically down. Personally, I think this is something that should be implemented more broadly. I hate to say it, but I think it's true - there is often a fine line between police and criminals.
That leads to better interactions because both sides are being monitored and thus less prone to crappy behavior. Isn't applicable in a situation like this, where its incomplete information.
DerpButter
Member
So.. TIL I'm just gonna call the fire department, or an ambulance if I'm ever being attacked.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
That's an odd way to look at it. Had the second victim actually been armed and attempting to kill the first, then shooting him would have been the right choice, even if there is a risk of the first victim being hurt as well. You either let the first get stabbed, or you shoot (which is obviously what the police here thought). Of course you shoot.
Of course they fucked up. There is one innocent person dead and another with a bullet in his leg.
- Status