Curious what people here think of this. The guy gets tasered in the face and doesn't even flinch. He appears to turn around to take a swing at an officer, but then is shot multiple times.

[video=youtube;bY5ioBvrYIg][/video]

Here is a short story about the incident.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/online-video-captures-moment-cops-shoot-kill-man-carl-jr-california-article-1.1010835

First, the guy's an idiot for raising a weapon and walking toward a cop. Second, the cops probably should have planted two or three rounds in the guy's legs to immobilize him. But they didn't, and dumbass is dead. Shit goes wrong when you try to go Gordon Freeman on an officer.

Got what he deserved end of story! You don't shoot to injure, you shoot to kill!

gorocks99;1065048 wrote:First, the guy's an idiot for raising a weapon and walking toward a cop. Second, the cops probably should have planted two or three rounds in the guy's legs to immobilize him. But they didn't, and dumbass is dead. Shit goes wrong when you try to go Gordon Freeman on an officer.

I agree with this. All of it.

gorocks99;1065048 wrote:First, the guy's an idiot for raising a weapon and walking toward a cop.

Yes.

gorocks99;1065048 wrote:Second, the cops probably should have planted two or three rounds in the guy's legs to immobilize him.

He would have sued the police department. Now he can't.

Fab1b;1065094 wrote:Got what he deserved end of story!

+1

Bottom line is this: I would prefer to have a Police Officer, productive citizen, go home to his family than a stupid, (most likely repeat offender) criminal to his. </SPAN>
What I saw was a potential threat on a police officer and a situation that could have threaten other police officers also. </SPAN>
Note to Criminals: From Police Officer to CCW Carriers&#8230;. Weapons are pulled and pointed at you to be used.. </SPAN>

The idea of a few rounds </SPAN>to immobilize someone does not always deter the threat injury and harm to others. This guy could have a crowbar in his hand now but dropped with a few rounds in the leg could produce a gun from his inside jacket pocket. &#8220;Shot to kill that the rule&#8221; understand that simple rule when a police weapon is pointed at you (criminal) an you could live to commit another crime another day and destroy someone else life tomorrow. </SPAN>

Belly35;1065112 wrote:Bottom line is this: I would prefer to have a Police Officer, productive citizen, go home to his family than a stupid, (most likely repeat offender) criminal to his.
What I saw was a potential threat on a police officer and a situation that could have threaten other police officers also.
Note to Criminals: From Police Officer to CCW Carriers&#8230;. Weapons are pulled and pointed at you to be used..

The idea of a few rounds to immobilize someone does not always deter the threat injury and harm to others. This guy could have a crowbar in his hand now but dropped with a few rounds in the leg could produce a gun from his inside jacket pocket. &#8220;Shot to kill that the rule&#8221; understand that simple rule when a police weapon is pointed at you (criminal) an you could live to commit another crime another day and destroy someone else life tomorrow.

could not agree with you more

BearBoy69;1065118 wrote:could not agree with you more

Your username cracks me up.

gorocks99;1065048 wrote:First, the guy's an idiot for raising a weapon and walking toward a cop. Second, the cops probably should have planted two or three rounds in the guy's legs to immobilize him. But they didn't, and dumbass is dead. Shit goes wrong when you try to go Gordon Freeman on an officer.

From my understanding, police aren't trained to shoot people in the legs or hands or any "specific" area to immobilize or neutralize the threat. If the person is a threat enough to warrant a shooting they are taught to shoot center mass.

The shooting the legs or arm or hands, or whatever extremity is just a movie gimmick.

But I could be entirely wrong about that. Anyone here that can clarify? SEJ?

Bet the stupid dead guy wishes he would not have swung the crowbar.

Hope this helps.

Fly4Fun;1065124 wrote:From my understanding, police aren't trained to shoot people in the legs or hands or any "specific" area to immobilize or neutralize the threat. If the person is a threat enough to warrant a shooting they are taught to shoot center mass.

The shooting the legs or arm or hands, or whatever extremity is just a movie gimmick.

But I could be entirely wrong about that. Anyone here that can clarify? SEJ?

I think you may be right, most (if not all) PDs are trained not&#8203; to shoot to immobilize, and rather, shoot to kill, because if you don't immobilize it gets really really hairy.

gorocks99;1065048 wrote:First, the guy's an idiot for raising a weapon and walking toward a cop. Second, the cops probably should have planted two or three rounds in the guy's legs to immobilize him. But they didn't, and dumbass is dead. **** goes wrong when you try to go Gordon Freeman on an officer.

When your life is in danger, no one who has EVER been trained properly to shoot a hand gun (very inaccurate) has EVER been trained to "shoot the leg".

You always aim for the biggest target, the middle of the body.

If you shoot and miss the leg the guy with the crowbar whacks you in the head, severely endangering your life.

shot 10 times...I think six or seven should have done the trick.

I'll be in the minority here, but this is how I feel about it.

It could have been handled better by the police. First off, they fabricated a story about him swinging at them twice. He didn't swing at them once. He raised a crowbar towards one, then turned away and they opened fire on him. A police office is trained to only use lethal force on a suspect when their life or a bystander's life is immediate danger. I don't see anything in the video that makes me think anyone's life was in danger.

Yes, the suspect was an idiot. No, he didn't do anything in that video that called for him to be shot multiple times.

There will be multiple lawsuits filed by the family in this case, that officer will either lose his job or be suspended for a long time and it will end up costing tax payers a lot more money then the 30 days in jail that this guy deserved for damaging private property (if it were handled in a more professional manner).

jmog;1065133 wrote:When your life is in danger, no one who has EVER been trained properly to shoot a hand gun (very inaccurate) has EVER been trained to "shoot the leg".

You always aim for the biggest target, the middle of the body.

If you shoot and miss the leg the guy with the crowbar whacks you in the head, severely endangering your life.

Fair enough, like I said, I'm guessing most PDs have a policy of shoot to kill rather than shoot to wound, so there's definitely nothing wrong with what they did if they felt endangered. Also a bit surprised they didn't send the K9 on him, but again, after he took the taser like Galifianakis they probably assumed this guy wasn't stopping for much.

SnotBubbles;1065137 wrote:I'll be in the minority here, but this is how I feel about it.

It could have been handled better by the police. First off, they fabricated a story about him swinging at them twice. He didn't swing at them once. He raised a crowbar towards one, then turned away and they opened fire on him. A police office is trained to only use lethal force on a suspect when their life or a bystander's life is immediate danger. I don't see anything in the video that makes me think anyone's life was in danger.

Yes, the suspect was an idiot. No, he didn't do anything in that video that called for him to be shot multiple times.

There will be multiple lawsuits filed by the family in this case, that officer will either lose his job or be suspended for a long time and it will end up costing tax payers a lot more money then the 30 days in jail that this guy deserved for damaging private property (if it were handled in a more professional manner).

I think the facts are unclear. I am in a library so my computer is muted (unaware if there is any sound to help give more information, but I doubt it).

I think people often think about cops as just trying to justify shooting people. They have a dangerous job and a wrong decision can mean someone elses or their own life. There aren't many people who have a job like that with those kind of risks.

As far as this instance. You are correct that I don't see him actually swing the metal object at the cops. But after he is tazed he does seem to bring the object back in a position where he is ready to swing and advancing towards the officer. This is the point that they start firing at him and he goes down.

The police were probably ordering him to drop his weapon and get on the ground. He refused and kept walking. They then use the tazer. He just plucks them out of his face (to me and probably to the police this signifies he's on some kind of drug at the moment which makes the situation worse).

He starts advancing towards the police with the metal object ready to swing. He gets shot multiple times.

Of course the police officers testimony won't be an exact recollection of how things went. That is to be expected. The human memory is imperfect and a lot worse than people actually expect. Just because the police officers report doesn't perfectly coincide with the video does not mean they were maliciously making stuff up. People remember stuff differently and sometimes completely the opposite of how things actually happened.

A police officer has the right to protect himself and others. This does not include a right to unlimited force, but does include the right to use force a level greater than the suspect. If the other guy uses his fists, the officer may use a stick, taser, or other non-lethal force. If he threatens the officer with a weapon, deadly force is not only allowed, but quite possibly required.

It interests me that a few believe the officer owes the criminal a "fair fight". He does not, and is actually not doing his job properly if he were to do so.

I actually think he should have challenged him to an arm wrestling match.

gorocks99;1065139 wrote:. Also a bit surprised they didn't send the K9 on him, but again, after he took the taser like Galifianakis they probably assumed this guy wasn't stopping for much.

A friend of mine is a K9 officer and also trains K9 officers. I guess most dept will not deploy a K9 on someone with a blunt weapon (crowbar, bat, etc) because that is the highest chance a dog has of getting injured. Just my understanding of how he has explained things in the past. Makes sense though.

Piece of shit cops.

/Endered

If the criminal was able to get to his car .. what happpen then .... 3000 pound weapon and the potential injury to the public

10 piece of lead is the correct solution to the problem..


Never send a crowbar to a gun fight.. mofo

Sure looked to me like he started to swing that crowbar at the cop who tased him, and the other officer didn't hesitate to open fire, as he should have.

In a sort of Barney Fife moment, however, the taser-er manages to QUICKLY drop the taser and draw his gun and fire a few more rounds after the guy is presumably already dead.

Damn.

Belly35;1065375 wrote:If the criminal was able to get to his car .. what happpen then .... 3000 pound weapon and the potential injury to the public

10 piece of lead is the correct solution to the problem..


Never send a crowbar to a gun fight.. mofo

It didn't happen and wasn't close to happening. The police acted too swiftly and lethally. If the guy had already hurt someone (not something) or was an immediate threat to someone...it would be different. He was pissed off and breaking windows. Give him his space, calm him down....or release the police dog that is standing there and trained to subdue a suspect. You don't fucking shoot him because he raised a crowbar towards you.