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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
That man was way too calm to be on PCP. If he was on PCP he was a regular user of the stuff and it wasn't your typical case of someone tweaking on PCP being unable to handle themselves.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MCJustJ
 





And he didn't perform a deadly act first, he performed a THREATENING ACT there is a difference.


The person had already shown he was willing to be violent. When he made the threatening move the officer had the right to assume that he would follow through on the threat. Legally a person (cop or otherwise) does not have to wait to be assaulted to use force. You can use force to prevent the assault, with in certain guidelines.

Since the subject had shown a tendency towards violence, had ability, had opportunity, and was in the process of initiating a violent action, the cop was with in those legal guidlines. You do not have to wait to be hit in the head with a shovel to react. By then it may be too late for any defense. The law recognizes this and makes accommodations.




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.


No, but there is a much greater likely hood of a person being disabled from a blow with a blunt metal object or the sharp edge of a shovel. A person that is unable to fight back is much more likely to sustain "grave" bodily injury or be killed. That means that a greater amount of force is allowed in defending against the atack.




If that man was taking full on swings at the officer, then sure maybe I would consider that using deadly force.


If the officer had let that occur there is a serious likely hood that he could be permenantly disabled, maimed, or killed. The point of defense is to stop that from happening.




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 he has been tased and still shows that he is willing to attack it actually does. Other wise they have to go hands on and risk serious bodily injury and death. Legally speaking they took the next step in the use of force continuim that is codified under law in most states.




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.


In that type of situation it is actually very common for individuals to fire more shots than they thought or planned. I remember reading a report one time that said more than 80% of people involved in shootings thought they had fired fewer times than they really did. It isn't something uniuqe to this cop or cops in general. It is actually something that happens with everyone across the board.

Until you have been in that situation you can not understand the physiological and psychological reactions. I have been there on three occasions. (I never had to fire.) I can honestly say that all of the attempted explanations in the world can't convey the reality.




What about the rest of them?


We can't see what happens once the guy hits the ground. He could have been trying to get up. He might have been reaching for a second weapon. We can't judge those last few shots because we can not see what was happening.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
freaking idiots. I am talking about ats posters!

1. If you don't want to get shot then don't come at a cop with a weapon.
2. You don't shoot to maim or wound someone, you shoot to kill if it comes to that.

I didn't read all the posts but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody called it police brutality and said "they could have just shot the weapon out of his hand".

QUIT breaking the law and when caught QUIT resisting and you most likely will not get shot or tazed.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MCJustJ
 


Sorry I was replying to the story eyeswide had me read...Not the original OP...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:09 AM
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.


Its not personal.. just training and policy. If the dog wasn't there, I'd side with the officers.

Dog before bullets, its policy of every dept.. the dogs purpose is to go in harms way, take a beating and die grotesquely to preserve human life.

I went to the academy with some Monterey Park guys.. who use the LA Sheriffs academy and maybe Rio Hondo still. Ive worked the same areas, trained with their K-9s.. chased people through their city... a decent small dept with some good guys who, in this case, abandoned policy & training which led to a horrible lapse of judgement. It happens.

Another reason to give the dog space.. it will bite officers.. thats happened many times.

Manslaughter as a result of negligence would be appropriate.. I'd be for a Misd charge with suspended sentence, handled administratively.. meaning he'd lose his job or buy serious time off.

Cops in Ca with a POST certification enjoy AB301 rights.. he'll get a lot more due process than most people, but ultimately will very likely lose his job and probably get charged.

In So Cal police depts, with the exception of LAPD, on average hire 3 out of 100 applicants.. fewer survive the academy, fewer than that make it off probation to obtain a POST.. it's a big boy job, big boy responsibility.. and big boy repercussions when strict policy / training guidelines are not followed.

All they had to do was follow force policy.. deadly force as a last resort. With the dog on a leash, they skipped a less lethal option to their own peril.

BTW.. cops do have and use 5th amendment rights, after a shooting is it standard to refuse to answer any questions... unless "ordered", further refusal with then be insubordination. All statements a cop is ordered to give, are inadmissible in court, but not administrative AB301 related hearings.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


You do realize that the suspect was the first to attempt the use of deadly force with his weapon. And that DOG is also an officer of the law. The officer that shot the suspect was protecting his fellow officers from a suspect with a weapon that was attempting to harm them. Bottom line.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by MCJustJ
 


Sorry I was replying to the story eyeswide had me read...Not the original OP...


Sorry for the confusion! lol The story I referenced earlier shows the fault in current training, if failure drills were taught, it might have changed the situation. The stress of the situation caused the officer to keep repeating the same action (as he's been trained to do) instead of changing tactics. Decades ago, it was standard for many officers to unholster, fire & then reholster during quals, until some officers began instinctively replicating that action during OIS.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


I want to thank you for this post. I don't agree with the recommended action. However, that mainly comes from working for a department in another portion of the country. It is interesting to see how the academy trains out there.

Here that dog is just as much an officer as the humans. His life is to be protected just like the human's life. Yes, he may have to go on a search or chase that humans don't. However, in an open environment situation like that he would not be released unless the guy tried to flee.

Really, I don't see why the guy brought the dog out. Maybe it was an intimidation move. A lot of times just seeing the dog ends the situation. It is just like seeing the red dot from the taser. 90% of the time the situation goes calm right then. This is one of those incidents where I don't think anything short of lethal force was going to stop the guy.

(For those that don't know "lethal force" means any force that may reasonably be expected to result in or does result in death. If you fire one shot and hit somebody in the leg, that is still lethal force. The act of firing a gun at some one is always considered lethal force.)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Well put, it's hard to explain to people how the job works, let alone the different nuances in the use of force continuum and how it varies by department. Here in Jersey the AG's office JUST started allowing the use of TASERs last year , BY SUPERVISORS ONLY! And the verbage is so cloudy that most departments still haven't issued them for fear of litigation. One less tool in the toolbox...

Edit to add, we also don't have "less than lethal" options such as beanbag rounds, we have "less lethal"options. There's that verbage again.
edit on 26-1-2012 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


A big reason departments don't train failure drills is, they are low probability shots. Shooting at the head is like shooting at an arm. It is small and easy to miss under perfect conditions. When you add the physiological effects of adrenalin, bodies in motion, and environmental factors the probability of successfully hitting the cranium is minute. It is a matter of using high probability shots to incapacitate quickly and to protect bystanders.

The whole technique is based on a shot that actually missed it's target in real combat. Rhodesian Mike Rousseau was aiming for the guerrilla fighter's head and accidentally shot him through the center of the neck. Even the guy that inspired Jeff Cooper to start teaching it couldn't hit in battle. It is too risky of a move to bank your life on.

ETA:
The Newhall Massacre is a perfect example of how bad training can lead to cops getting killed. The CHP officers in that shootout were found with spent brass in their pocket with fresh rounds. The range they practiced at had a very uptight range officer. So, it became common practice to put your spent brass in the pocket instead of dumping it on the ground. When it came time to reload in real life they couldn't because they had to separate the live rounds from the spent rounds.California didn't issue or allow speed loaders for revolvers. So, the guys were having to make single bullet reloads from their pocket.

edit on 26-1-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


I fully understand the reasons why it isn't taught bro (besides the pr nightmare), last thing you need is a round sailing past the bg and into little johnny's school bus down the street, with an adrenaline dump your fine motor skills can be reduced to point shooting, and depending on the situation it may be hard for you to register hits anyway. But 17 hits COM and the bg is still returning fire, its got to occur to you to try something else. Although I'm not sure how I would have reacted, It would register that the bg was wearing body armor, as I wouldn't believe you could take that type of damage and still be combat effective.
edit on 26-1-2012 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
this kind of video demonstrates perfectly how insane the US has become.

boom , boom , boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom , boom.
judge , jury and executioner right there.

US is past saving. its gonna get much uglier.


On a seperat note. Just because this is ATS and all. Was the perp human? He pulled a taser cord off his face that had no effect. Did the cop fill him with 10bullets becuase he knew he was not human?


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



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


The department I work for issues tasers, but they are not to be worn on the duty belt unless the officer is heading in to a situation that is already violent or has a high likely hood of becoming violent. Basically, it is pointless to have them because they stay in the trunk unless you are dealing with a psych welfare check, domestic abuse, or something of that nature. They come in handy then, but you run the risk of an officer grabbing the wrong grip in a chaotic situation. Most officer's just leave them in the trunk of their car and rely on their mace and baton if the need arises.

In my opinion that sucks. From what I've seen pepper spray has about a 70% chance of stopping an attack. Then you have an irate subject that you have to fight to get under control more often than not. You are still putting everybody at risk of nasty injuries. The baton is my least favorite thing to use. It really is very crude and somebody is bound to get seriously hurt. A taser is quick, effective, and almost never results in any long term damage. For everybody involved it really is the best solution. Unfortunately it has gotten a bad rep because of a few officers that got over zealous.

Less lethal round/weapon is the new verbage everywhere I believe. Some people actually did die because of tasers, mace/pepper spray, rubber rounds, and wood rounds. So, they changed the wording to avoid legal liability.

Our officers carry six sponge rounds with their shotgun. Only half of the officers actually have shotguns in their car at any time though. On top of that you can't really use the sponge round in any situation besides a riot. Again, for us it is really pointless.
edit on 26-1-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Basilisk
 


It is an animal.

A guy gets 10 bullets because he might cause harm to an animal.

The animal is trained to go for the arms so the suspect cannot strike. If the animal was let loose he would have took either arm and the perp could not have swung at it.

Keystone cops , plain and simple. Its like watching officer wiggum off the simpsons only this is real. sad.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 



I tossed it out there because a lot of people on ATS don't understand why certain things are done. They don't really understand violence in the real world. They don't understand the reality of what happens. They have distorted views because of Hollywood and the media.

The officer Solis case is the type of thing that haunts an officer. That is like Platt in Miami. They are rare cases, but they do happen, and you pray you don't end up on that call.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


I can see where you're coming from. I guess the issue I have with this is the military and police are both trained differently. We have different jobs. We're trained only to kill but the first thing on an officer's mind at home shouldn't be "kill." It worries me.

I can see your point though. Just slightly different views. I just hate to see anyone's life cut short because of a stupid move that they could be behind bars for.

Semper Fi
edit on 26-1-2012 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by r3axion
 


Officers aren't trained to kill. They are trained to shoot to "stop the threat." However, a person can turn and make the move to run faster than your brain can process the information. That is even more true when the physiological effects of an adrenalin dump are clouding the thought process and altering motor skills. It has been proven by several experts and used as a defense for both civilians and police officers.

The September 2011 issue of Combat Handguns had a great article by Massad Ayoob about exactly that subject. The title was "Justified Shots In The Back."



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Like I said, I see both sides but that isn't the opinion I share.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
These officers will have a lot of explaining to do.

The suspect did indeed behave in a threatening manner and he certainly did *not* comply.

However, firstly I did not see any real "swing" at any officer, and secondly why didn't the officers use other non-lethal means of subduing the suspect. This, by definition, is excessive force. Especially the 5 extra shots that were fired from close range after the suspect clearly went down already.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but shooting him 10 times definitely wasn't called for, period. First off, the guy had a melee weapon. There was no reason for the cops to "feel threatened" if they wasn't standing so damn close to him in the first place. What they SHOULD have done was try to defuse the situation instead of only giving him 3 seconds to comply after barking orders, then immediately proceed to taze him. They should have kept a distance, who gives a # if it takes a hour to get the guy to drop his weapon, as long as he would've kept HIS distance, then it shouldnt matter PERIOD.

The problem here is, people seem to think that cops are just here to punish people, kinda how a parent is to a child, and that cops are always in the righteous. They think they should whoop ass and worry about motives AFTER they arrest people. The guy didn't hurt anyone, and he didn't try to swing at them UNTIL he was shot with a tazer, they provoke his actions. I'm sorry but a cop is just another human being, and I really don't blame him for swinging at them. That would be like if a cop just came up to you and punched you, wouldn't your reaction be to fight back? or would you just stand there. I'm sorry but badge or no badge, these guys is just another human being and if I was to get hit I would instinctively fight back.

If you notice the whole story, the guy was pissed about getting into a dispute with his college professor over a bad grade. So he was having a bad day and for whatever reason, was some how set off by someone inside the restaurant, or maybe he was on the phone with someone and some words was said that pushed him over the edge. Whatever spark that caused him to start damaging the store is beside the point, sure he broke a few windows and some things, but noone was hurt. So we kill people now if they do 1 grand of property damage?. That's bull#

The same thing happened the other day in my local area, pretty much the exact same scenario, over something petty, at a restaurant, and noone was injured, except at-least they didn't shoot the person 10 times

www.fox8.com...
edit on 26-1-2012 by DeboWilliams because: (no reason given)

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

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



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join