It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Monterey Park officers fatally shoot man 10 TIMES at Carl

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Stryc9nine
 


Yeah my MOS doesn't really give me much job opportunity once I'm out so that's probably where I'll end up going




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I would bet this guy was stoned drunk and out of his mind, which is sad because he probably didn't know what he was doing, and most certainly didn't feel a thing when he died. The really sad part is cops don't care if that guy was having a bad day. All the cop see's is a crazy guy.... the only thing I see is a guy who needed help.

Tranquilizer guns would be more adequate in this case.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by proteus33
 


did you not watch the video and realize that they tried to taser the suspect?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by caf1550
 


Officers are supposed to use only the force necessary to detain a suspect.

He was shot while he was on the ground like an additional 4 times.
This was an execution.


It was a justified shooting in my opinion. Here is what I saw. The officer that deployed the taser shot the guy in the face or neck with it; he brushed it off like it was nothing. When he turned to swing his shovel, he got exactly what he should have.

I quoted this post of yours because I can't see where he was shot on the ground 4 additional times. I watched it several times, I heard 8 shots and you could still see the guy; although heading towards the ground. Two more shots were fired with the guy out of view of the camera; for all you know he could have been on his knees trying to get back up.

Also, this it isn't exactly a Hollywood production, cops aren't trained to shoot your knee and then convince you to give up. Bottom line is the guy was probably jacked on a narcotic and posed a threat to the cops and got what he deserved.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMar
 


Well it's your opinion and that's fine. I was just stating mine.

But there were definitely 10 shots.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by KaiserSoze

Escalation, de-escalation of force training dictates the K-9 should have been deployed before using deadly force. The dog handler choose to kill a person rather than risk his K-9.

Manslaughter.


That would clearly be a poor use of resources. Do you have any idea what those dogs are worth? They are expensive to begin with, add all of the training and they can be over $50,000. What do a few bullets and some extra paperwork cost? A public servant displaying sound economic judgement, in a life threatening situation none the less, impressive. Manslaughter? Lighten up a bit.


You seriously underestimate that Dog if you honestly think it would have been injured. I'm not going to tell my stories on ATS but I can tell you right now those dogs are no joke and before that guy even knew what the hell was going on he would have been on the ground being not only attacked by a dog, but also mobbed by the nearby police.

But fine, if you want to act like its a risk that's fine. 1 shot is all it took, he went down after 1 mpw let go of the dog and let it take it from there. That small risk is eliminated.

Anyone who thinks those cops didn't go too far, well I hate to say this but what if that was your brother? Or your cousin? Ya he was an idiot but he didn't deserve to die and now his family has to deal with that because of these irresponsible police officers.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MCJustJ
 
What if that cop who was about to get hit was your brother, or father?

The point I don't think is sinking in for some is that the crazy-crowbar-man had chosen to commit an act of deadly force first. The officers tried to use less than lethal force, but as soon as that weapon began to swing, the officers were acting well within their rights to respond in kind.

How many shots fired is irrelevant and here's why, unlike the military, police officers do not fire warning shots nor do they shoot to wound or incapacitate. They are trained to aim center mass and neutralize the threat... That is standard operating procedure.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by DelMar
 


Well it's your opinion and that's fine. I was just stating mine.

But there were definitely 10 shots.


Agreed, there were 10, that's what I posted above. 8 were while the "bad guy" was visible in the camera frame and 2 more after he was no longer visible behind the car.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMar
 


Oh, gotcha. I misread.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 





the moment that cop saw him turn for him he could have simply fired a round into the air, then the suspect would have known they were serious.


You never fire a warning shot. It puts other people at risk. That bullet in the air must come down some where. That somewhere can very easily be an innocent person's head.

Two cops with guns and a K-9 tased him. That is more than warning enough that the situation was serious.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 





Legs, shoulder, doesn't matter. He was like 3 feet away, give me a break.


You do not aim for legs and such. Legs and arms move faster than the brain can signal for your finger to stop the firing motion. You can end up shooting at something that is no longer there. It is about more than the size of the target. It is about the ability of the target to move faster than your brain can process the information.

Even at three feet you shoot at the largest available target to ensure the safety of bystanders.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I been to that Carls a lot before...Luckily I wasn't there when this occurred...10 times is not necessary yet they only use 9mm
...One shot with a .45 would drop anyone, maybe they should start upgrading their weaponry....Those 10 shots could of hit any bystander...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 





10 times is not necessary yet they only use 9mm...One shot with a .45 would drop anyone,



Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.28

In fact, physiological factors may actually play a relatively minor role in achieving rapid incapacitation. Barring central nervous system hits, there is no physiological reason for an individual to be incapacitated by even a fatal wound, until blood loss is sufficient to drop blood pressure and/or the brain is deprived of oxygen. The effects of pain, which could contribute greatly to incapacitation, are commonly delayed in the aftermath of serious injury such as a gunshot wound. The body engages survival patterns, the well known "fight or flight" syndrome. Pain is irrelevant to survival and is commonly suppressed until some time later. In order to be a factor, pain must first be perceived, and second must cause an emotional response. In many individuals, pain is ignored even when perceived, or the response is anger and increased resistance, not surrender.



The factors governing incapacitation of the human target are many, and variable. The actual destruction caused by any small arms projectile is too small in magnitude relative to the mass and complexity of the target. If a bullet destroys about 2 ounces of tissue in its passage through the body, that represents 0.07 of one percent of the mass of a 180 pound man. Unless the tissue destroyed is located within the critical areas of the central nervous system, it is physiologically insufficient to force incapacitation upon the unwilling target. It may certainly prove to be lethal, but a body count is no evidence of incapacitation.


FBI Study on Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

I suggest you start by reading the link above. Then look up Martin Fackler and some actual scientific work regarding ballistic wounding.

Also look up Jared Reston. He is a police officer in Florida that took .45acp rounds to the face, thigh, and elbow. Yet, he kept fighting and carried the day.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Officers don't shoot to wound.. they are supposed to shoot to kill. When they make the decision to pull the trigger they are making a choice whether the person they are aiming at will either die or not die. If the person is incapacitated by two or 3 shots he might live .. if not they fire until they fall to the ground. This is why surviving a police shootout is rare.. if you survive it's likely through luck and poor aim.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion

Seeing as I'm a Marine I'd say I'm pretty well acquainted with weapons and target ranges.


Question Brother... If you were deployed and patrolling house to house and a guy picks up crowbar and comes towards you in a threatening manner and you told him to put it down (provided he understood english) and he acts as if he is going to swing at you and ignores your order, are you going to aim at his arms and legs and hope that it stops him in time? Or would you instinctively fire center mass as you've been trained?

Cpl/0231

Semper Fidelis



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
One shot with a .45 would drop anyone, maybe they should start upgrading their weaponry....Those 10 shots could of hit any bystander...


Actually the shots looked pretty controlled to me , And the 1 shot with a .45 comment is simply ignorant (not you, the comment) Here's a story of a man that took 22 rounds of .40 , 17 of them center mass , and was still able to shoot and hit a police officer.

Story

People think that you drop and are DRT (Dead Right There) after being shot... that is not the case. This isn't the movies.

Post Script Copy & Paste

This is a reply I posted a while ago in the weaponry forum. Hopefully It'll grant you a better understanding of the effects of bullets to human physiology and terminal ballistics.
******************************************************************************
In all seriousness 3 things stop a fight.

#1 a CNS (Central Nervous System) shot.

This is either putting a round in the brainbox or rounds high torso severing the spinal column. It's an instant fight stopper , you get hit in the brain housing group and it's lights out , you take 1 or two well placed rounds high torso to your spine and the signals can no longer go from your brain to your body , you're still conscious but no longer a threat i.e. paralyzed. THIS IS THE ONLY INSTANT FIGHT STOPPER

#2 Loss of blood pressure (Bleeding Out)

If you're hit in the heart , a major artery or suffer multiple hits to major organs (Liver , Kidneys) you'll lose blood really quickly. How quickly depends on where you're hit and your heart rate. Your average man's heart pumps about a gallon and a half of blood a minute at a resting heart rate , if you're running for your life or experiencing an adrenaline dump , your heart rate can double to almost 3 gallons a minute.

A loss of 20% of your blood volume results in unconsciousness in most cases.

Assuming your heart is pumping as fast as it can and you've experienced a catastrophic wound , in theory you can bleed out in about 5 seconds (Lose 20%) , add a few more seconds for your body to burn up the oxygen that is still stored in the blood and you can still be in the fight up to half a minute , that is with the perfect shot under the perfect conditions.

Why is that a problem? Well if the badguy is still conscious (dead but doesn't know it yet) he can still shoot at you , therefore he can still possibly kill you. You have to wait for his brain to stop receiving oxygen from his cardiovascular system , this can take time... time you don't have.

#3 is the "Psyche-out"

Upon being in involuntary possesion of a projectile (Being Shot) a person may think... I've been shot , that must mean I'm dead (or going to die) and give up the will to fight. People watch movies and tv and see that when a person gets shot, they fall dead right there , so life imitates art. Also if a person receives a wound that exceeds their threshold for pain they may "give it up" if you're lucky this might happen however it's not likely. The will to live is strong in most and many times people are shot and initially may not even know they are hit , now add whatever chemichal cocktail the person may be under the influence of or mental state and the chances of a person being shot and instantly stopping aggression are slim.

(Look Up the Peter Soulis incident) A man was shot 22 times with .40 cal JHP's including 17 CENTER MASS HIT's and still had the drive to fire at a police officer and make 4 hits. The badguy died from his wounds Officer Soulis was saved by his vest.


The rest can be found in context and in it's entirety HERE
edit on 26-1-2012 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
The first 5 shots, turned the suspect away, from the attack he was either BLUFFING or intending to make....watch it again...

The final 5 shots, were by the officer he bluffed or intended to attack, though the guy was not seemingly a threat, having been turned away and was on the verge of collapsing when the final 5 shots were given.

OFFICER 1: Justified force on force action, in defending his partner, who obviously was too slow to react to the suspect.


OFFICER 2: nope. you shot an already shot man, who was no longer a threat to you, as he was turned, and collapsing, thereby no longer a reasonable threat. He needs charges...and a stiff sentence.


Officer 2, used his handgun to stand in for him putting the suspect in cuffs...dead men dont move/resist/writhe around in pain/etc.


edit on 26-1-2012 by ahmonrarh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


Hmmmm that guy was obviously on PCP...Just alcohol in the bloodstream? Yeah right...Good autopsy they must of missed something..

I am not law enforcement, but do they teach them failure drills? Someone who is doped up on PCP need a good shot to the cranium in order for them to go down.
edit on 26-1-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
reply to post by MCJustJ
 
What if that cop who was about to get hit was your brother, or father?

The point I don't think is sinking in for some is that the crazy-crowbar-man had chosen to commit an act of deadly force first. The officers tried to use less than lethal force, but as soon as that weapon began to swing, the officers were acting well within their rights to respond in kind.

How many shots fired is irrelevant and here's why, unlike the military, police officers do not fire warning shots nor do they shoot to wound or incapacitate. They are trained to aim center mass and neutralize the threat... That is standard operating procedure.


Heres the thing though, the officer didn't get hit, because he got shot. It was clear after he got shot he was no longer a threat. The "What if the cop" scenario becomes irrelevant the moment he no longer poses a threat.

And he didn't perform a deadly act first, he performed a THREATENING ACT there is a difference. I could beat a cop to death with my bare hands that doesn't mean if I throw my fists up at a cop they can shoot me because it could be deadly. If that man was taking full on swings at the officer, then sure maybe I would consider that using deadly force.

All he did was raise the weapon to show he was willing to attack, which clearly means he has to be stopped it doesn't mean use deadly force.

If police officers have to be trained to use common sense they shouldn't be given weapons. You don't need to be trained in how to wound or incapacitate someone to know that if you shoot them, and they fall to the ground. STOP SHOOTING! Its not like I would be saying this cop was in the wrong if the deceased man died from the first shot that just so happened to hit him in the heart. I don't expect the cop to try to use non lethal force, but I expect them to know when to stop using force. Which this officer CLEARLY had trouble doing.

This is common sense.

I want you to tell me what threat that man posed after hitting the ground. People want to argue that the cop did a double tap? Fine, what about all the other shots? It was excessive force plain and simple.

We can all agree, those first shots are completely and 100% justified. What about the rest of them?

If not being trained is the reason that so many people have died then perhaps its time for some new training? How many lives have to be lost before they do something different?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


No mozambiques , they're not PC
Center Mass is what they teach in the Academy , your average officer isn't really a gun guy and they usually won't shoot more than the 50 rounds required for their annual/ semi annual qual.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join