Monterey Park officers fatally shoot man 10 TIMES at Carl

My main concern with it is how the heck does anyone take a taser to the face and not have a reaction? All signs point to a person who is under the influence of some substance. Excessive force? No way. Put yourselves in the cops shoes, someone attempts to swing at your partner with a blunt object, are you going to allow it to happen or neutralize the threat? "But he had a dog he could have used" while that is true he is not going to put the dogs life in danger, he is viewed as a fellow officer. These officers should be commended not reprimanded for their actions.

Actually as I watch the video I posted in my link, the story is much different then when I seen it at the 11pm news (the clip I posted is to the 10pm news). When I first heard the story, they said that there was a "unknown weapon" (thats what the news guy said) and that there seemed to be no connection between the person and the manager, that it seemed completely random and had no motive that was linked to any of the restaurant's occupants. In that clip and the other news channels I just checked up all said that she asked for the manager by name and that she did have a gun, and that she pointed the gun at the cops, which caused them to shoot her.

In that situation, hell yea I agree with the cops, its even more interesting that in this scenario, they only shot her 2 times, ontop of the fact that she A) had a gun and B) pointed it at them, where in the other scenario we have a guy that A) has a melee weapon and B) shot 10 times. Hmmmm makes you think don't it

Originally posted by GovtFlu

the dogs purpose is to go in harms way, take a beating and die grotesquely to preserve human life.

no not when the criminal just brushed off a taser to the face and is about to hit his partner with an ice ax. taser didn't faze him, you think a dog is gonna stop him? why let the dog die when you are gonna shoot the bastard anyway? hope you never work with dogs.

This was a major over reaction by the officer who opened fire. The other officer heard shots and joined in - I think it's instinctual and he is less at fault than the officer who originally began firing.

Why were the police so close to the suspect? It seems to me the appropriate action would be to surround the suspect, giving him a wide area so he didn't feel threatened and react violently, get bystanders out of the immediate area, and talk to this guy before using any force at all.

As someone earlier in the thread said, I also do not believe he was on PCP or any other major drug.

Some in this thread have pointed out that you don't shoot at appendages or the head, because they are small, quick targets that are easily missed. Why did the officer choose to aim for the face when he deployed his tazer? Is it possible that one of the barbs missed the target and there was no shock at all? Just a barb to the face? That would explain why it had no effect on him. If this is indeed the case, that the tazer did not hit it's mark and then the officer chose to use his weapon before he chose to loose his dog, I think that the officer should no longer be allowed to walk around with a gun professionally or privately.

The officers stated he swung the shovel twice. He didn't swing it at all, although he did make to swing it, but was withdrawing before the officer opened fire. This is clear when watching, but I can understand the officer reacting in the way he did in the heat of the moment.

After thinking about this I can't completely blame the officer who opened fire shooting - but the entire situation was handled very poorly from start to finish - had the police approached the situation differently from the start I think this guy had a pretty good chance of surviving.

I honestly think there are a lot of police officers who really want to use their weapons, and when placed in positions like this will use anything at all possible to justify doing so. I can't say whether or not this is the case here, but it exists and it's worse than you probably think.


And because I think alot of people will skip over a text wall post 5 pages into a thread

IT IS POSSIBLE AND APPEARS LIKELY THAT THE TAZER DID NOT PROPERLY DEPLOY AND THAT THE SUSPECT DID NOT RECEIVE A SHOCK.

Before we all continue to just assume that he was tazered and shrugged it off like crazed drug addict.

don't cops use videos like this as a training tool? don't let things escalade when you are dealing with crazies.

reply to post by VicMT09



Yeah i normally don't agree with the police using force like this but that guy went to swing a gigantic life crushing hammer at the officer. His partner made sure it didn't happen. They didn't release the dog being that the do could have been killed or seriously injured by the weapon as well.

Don't Bring a Knife (or in this case a hammer) to a gun fight.

Edit*

After reading a lot of these other posts I have to say I was wrong about ATS.

Seriously judging the cop for shooting him 10 times. Who gives a dam if the guy got shot 10 times. He was in there smashing windows and threatening innocent people. He picked a fight and lost because he was a stupid stupid person.

The video is simple.

1. Guy goes into the place and starts smashing stuff and threatening innocent people.
2. Cops are called and wait outside for him.
3. Cop 1 tries to taze him with little to no effect.
4. Guy turns (please don't defend this btw) to either actually swing or pretend to swing large metal object at officer.
5. Other cops see that and bam dead idiot on the ground.

It's not complicated.

And btw a lot of you are saying it was a shovel.
It's not a shovel nor does it resemble one in anyway shape or form.

i find this thread funny now

1. officers just like people have a right to protect themselves, i believe more of a right because thye put themselves in harms way every day. they go into the uncertainty not knowing if they will ever see there families again. i have many police officers in my family and know many others they all say the most dangerous scenarios are either pulling someone over or dealing with a person who is doped out. ie this guy

2. now if the poliec deployed the dog and it was killed well then people on this site would be saying the oppisite and ask the question why they didnt just shoot the guy why let the dog die

now i believe the cops had done everything right in this situation, they used proper force in dealing with a combative subject. noone knows what he was doing on the ground after he was shot the first time only the officers actually know, was he going for a gun, was he still trying to attack the officers just because he was shot doesn't mean he was dead or even incapacitated, there are plenty of stories about people taking multiple shots and keep on going

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.

Willing to be violent is not the same as ability to execute violence.

Yes he showed he was willing, yes shooting him was acceptable because of that. Shooting him so many times was not. I don't recall saying he had to hit him in order for the cops to react. So I don't know why you're telling me that, obviously policing is about preventing as much crime as possible, you don't wait for it to happen to react. That doesn't mean he didn't overreact.


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.

Where did I say not to defend himself or the other cop? You keep putting words in my mouth. The man didn't even raise the crowbar, he readied himself but he didn't take 1 swing, he din't pull back to swing and he hardly even raised it. He brought it above the level it was at not all the way up like he was about to bash dude in the head.

At which point he gets shot, to death. Had he been more ready to attack and shown even clearer signs of being a threat it would make sense, he didn't though yet they reacted as he did.


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.

And? That makes the law any less dumb? No I don't care about the law, incase you didn't notice I'm saying its a stupid law. I mean by your logic I guess I should agree that every teenager in jail for pot should be in jail because "Its the law" right? I'm saying its a dumb law to permit officers to use lethal force in a situation like that. I don't know how I can be any more clear on this.

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.

And you don't see the problem with this? You don't think maybe police training should be focus on trying to avoid things like this? This is why gun safety is a joke, because apparently trained professionals can't even act properly.

Your right though, I've not been in that situation but I've been in plenty of other dangerous situations in my life, many of which involved other people. If you aren't levelheaded enough to keep composure in situations like that, go find a new job. Clearly you were, I wish more people were like that.

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.

Agreed, the car is in the way so its unfair to assume, but if you honestly don't see the problem with not letting the dog go if that was the case, you're perspective of this is extremely flawed.

Ya he's a criminal, MAYBE the dog could have got hurt(I doubt it) but thats what the dog is trained for, sorry but a human life is worth more than a K9 Dogs career. Yes its a waste of our tax money but who cares? What about all the other things our money gets wasted on? A dog being injured to save a mans life is worth more than a lot of things. Even if he is a criminal and would have been locked in jail.

Gotta love the laughter from the boys filming it....

www.youtube.com...

Are all Americans sick #s?

As for my opinion, that was an over reaction from the police if ever I saw one. OMG hes got a rake, kill him! Id call for sanctions against the officer but i suspect he will be haunted by his actions, sad day. Time to disarm America?

This is a hard one... I agree 10 shots is a little much. But when adrenaline and self preservation kicks in most people won't count the amount of shots just keep shooting till the perp is down or you hear a click. Can't watch the video but from the comments it sounds like it took 6 shots to put him down and another 4 after the fact. 6 shots! God forbid if I ever had to shoot someone and if shots 1-6 didn't work I would just empty the clip and hope that does it. I'm sure the cop took the same stance. Who knows what this guy was hopped up on and he did charge the cops that's his fault.

Now the cop could have used a little more discretion and used the taser while letting the dog do it's thing. Thats what I thought police dogs were for. I'm not saying send the dog to it's death but it could atleast distract while the cops figured out another plan of attack. Personaly I would have just used my squad car as a ram and bounced his @$$ off the hood... Don't care how many drugs are in your system you won't be standing if someone hits you with a 2500 lb car doing 25mph. He wouldn't be happy but he would probably still be alive.

Edit: Just saw that a taser was probably deployed... To the face no less. So will say the cops actions were justified this guy wasn't going to stop till he was dead. The 4 extra shots are a bit much but will refer to my previous statement.

Watch the video again. The dude was still standing after 5 shots. He went down after the 6th and the 7th shot. Yeah 10 shots were excessive, 8 woulda been perfect.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Why were the police so close to the suspect? It seems to me the appropriate action would be to surround the suspect, giving him a wide area so he didn't feel threatened and react violently, get bystanders out of the immediate area, and talk to this guy before using any force at all.

Simply put, because when cops take time to set up a perimeter and address it in that manner innocent people tend to get injured or killed. That way of handling it ended with Columbine for the most part. If you have a man with a potentially lethal weapon displaying violent actions, destroying property, and threatening people, you engage.

The first officers on scene form a team and close in to stop the situation. Since there were only two officers on the scene they had to close the distance and actively engage the person to allow others a chance to leave. If they had been busy herding people they would have put their safety in jeopardy. They would have also endangered others if their presence escalated the issue. They would have been distracted dealing with the customers and unable to fully protect the people in the area. If that had happened the out cry would have been, "see the police ain't here to protect us. They just stood by and watched it happen."

Some in this thread have pointed out that you don't shoot at appendages or the head, because they are small, quick targets that are easily missed. Why did the officer choose to aim for the face when he deployed his tazer?

The subject as wearing a thick coat that covered everything but his face. There is a distinct possibility the barbs would not have penetrated the coat. The only viable location to aim for was the face. A shot to the chest would have been useless with the taser.

Is it possible that one of the barbs missed the target and there was no shock at all? Just a barb to the face? That would explain why it had no effect on him. If this is indeed the case, that the tazer did not hit it's mark and then the officer chose to use his weapon before he chose to loose his dog,

It is possible, but hard to tell from the low quality of the video. The truth is he decided to use his gun before allowing an officer to be gravely injured or killed. I think the dog was there in case the guy stayed inside and tried to hide in the kitchen. That is the situation dogs like that are used for. The dog is not there to be a sacrificial lamb. I bet if the officer had known the guy was going to come out he would have left the dog in the car.

I honestly think there are a lot of police officers who really want to use their weapons, and when placed in positions like this will use anything at all possible to justify doing so. I can't say whether or not this is the case here, but it exists and it's worse than you probably think.

Cops are not trigger happy. Even in cases where it would be legally justifiable to use deadly force cops often don't. One of the reasons is because even most hardened killers stop and give up when outnumbered and confronted. 99.9% of the time in a case like this the guy would have dropped the weapon when he saw two cops. That especially holds true for when the cops are have a taser and a dog. Unfortunately this guy chose to come towards a cop and threaten him with the weapon. This is honestly a very rare occurrence in the overall scheme of things. Unfortunately the media and people with anti-police bias will blow it out of proportion.

Think about it, the NYPD alone responds to 24,000,000 calls every year. That doesn't include police initiated actions. So, we are talking about hundreds of millions of police calls nation wide every year. how many times do you actually see a new video of something like this? It is an amazingly small number in comparison.

Originally posted by Stryc9nine

Originally posted by GovtFlu

the dogs purpose is to go in harms way, take a beating and die grotesquely to preserve human life.

no not when the criminal just brushed off a taser to the face and is about to hit his partner with an ice ax. taser didn't faze him, you think a dog is gonna stop him? why let the dog die when you are gonna shoot the bastard anyway? hope you never work with dogs.

Sorry, but a police dog is city issued equipment, a tool. As such, its to be deployed in a manner consistent with policy & training. One reason K-9s are trained not to fear weapons, especially guns... its their purpose to go in harms way before people. Dogs before bullets.. it's policy.

Also whoever wrote police/cops shoot to kill is 100% wrong.. there's one, and officially only one, reason to use deadly force: to stop. That goes for non sworn "civilians" too.. if you ever shoot someone it was to stop them. No more, no less. Other motivations might suggest malice aforethought and open the door for criminal charges.

reply to post by GovtFlu


actaully no its 100% correct police a taught in the academy that if you feel the need to have to use your service pistol then your goal is to put the suspect down. you feel the need to use deadly force ie your service pistol which means you are going to shoot to kill, police departments don't shoot the wound a subject that is what less then lethal force is for taser pepperspray beanbag shotguns and night sticks, the minute you pull your pistol the situation has turned deadly and you have made the option to use dealy force

In the United States this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others

A shoot-to-wound mandate would “not be valid legally” because it sets a standard far beyond that established by Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, says former prosecutor Jeff Chudwin, now chief of the Olympia Fields (IL) PD and president of the Illinois Tactical Officers Assn

Recognizing that violent encounters are “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving,” the Court “does not require officers to use the least intrusive method” of forcefully controlling a threatening suspect, but “only what’s reasonable,” Chudwin explains. When an officer’s life or that of a third party appears in jeopardy, shooting can be justified as reasonable.

The critical issue of officer survival aside, Everett predicts that legislation like Paterson proposed would “substantially expand the civil and criminal liability of police officers.” He asks, “What if an officer tries to wing a suspect and ends up hitting an innocent bystander? What about the liability there? What if an officer tries to shoot an offender’s limb but shoots him in the chest instead? How does his true intent get judged?

Modern training teaches that when an officer uses deadly force the intent should be to stop the suspect’s threatening behavior as fast as possible.

• An officer’s survival instinct may exert an overpowering influence on target selection. “I don’t care how good a shot you are,” says Avery, “if your life is threatened you’re going to go for the surer thing first and worry about your assailant’s life being saved second. If a guy is running at me with a blade, the last thing I’m going to be thinking is ‘I’m going to shoot him in the arm.’” Hence, shooting for center mass may become a psychological default.

• Poor shot placement is bound to increase. Even when officers are trying to shoot center mass, they often miss. Lewinski recalls a case he was involved in where an officer firing under high stress just 5 feet from an offender failed to hit him at all with the first 5 rounds and connected with the next 4 only because the suspect moved into his line of fire. “Hitting an arm or a leg on a moving suspect with surgical precision will be virtually impossible,” Avery asserts. “I could probably count on 1 hand the individuals who can make that kind of shot under the pressure of their life on the line. Expecting that level of performance by police officers on an agency-wide basis is ludicrous.” Misses may well go on to injure or kill someone else.

• Shooting to wound reflects a misapplication of police equipment. “Less-lethal options should be attempted only with tools designed for that purpose,” Avery says. “If you deliberately use deadly force to bring people into custody without incapacitating them, you’re using the wrong tool for that job. Also if you shoot them in the arm or leg and you destroy muscle tissue, shatter bone or destroy nerve function you have maimed that person for life. Now attorneys can play the argument of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and pursue punitive damages for destroying the capacity of your ‘victim’ to earn wages and so on. You don’t try to just wound people with a gun. Period.”

www.policeone.com... er-shootings/articles/127238-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-Part-2/

10 times huh? Must have been one hell of a tough assailant to bring down if he was still standing after 7 or 8 shots!

reply to post by caf1550


He never said shoot to wound. He said shoot to stop. That is completely different. If the threat stops, you stop. If the threat continues you continue. That doesn't mean you shoot for the knee. It means if you put a controlled pair in the guy's chest and it ends the fight, you stop. You do not keep shooting to kill the person.

There is a huge difference between firing to wound and firing to stop. There is also a difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill. Every trainer I have ever dealt with LEO or civilian stressed "shoot to stop." Anyone training "shoot to kill" is setting their student and their self up for a liability lawsuit and criminal charges.

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by Stryc9nine

Originally posted by GovtFlu

the dogs purpose is to go in harms way, take a beating and die grotesquely to preserve human life.

no not when the criminal just brushed off a taser to the face and is about to hit his partner with an ice ax. taser didn't faze him, you think a dog is gonna stop him? why let the dog die when you are gonna shoot the bastard anyway? hope you never work with dogs.

Sorry, but a police dog is city issued equipment, a tool. As such, its to be deployed in a manner consistent with policy & training. One reason K-9s are trained not to fear weapons, especially guns... its their purpose to go in harms way before people. Dogs before bullets.. it's policy.

Also whoever wrote police/cops shoot to kill is 100% wrong.. there's one, and officially only one, reason to use deadly force: to stop. That goes for non sworn "civilians" too.. if you ever shoot someone it was to stop them. No more, no less. Other motivations might suggest malice aforethought and open the door for criminal charges.

did you know there was a bystander that got injured from one of the stray bullets? imagine how many more would be injured if the cops tried to aim for his legs or his shoulders. and watch the video again, he didn't go down until the 7th shot. also, where is your source on dogs purpose of dying in these situations, i would like to read it myself.

reply to post by MCJustJ

Shooting him so many times was not. I don't recall saying he had to hit him in order for the cops to react.

From earlier

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

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.

From the sounds of that, you don't believe it was an action that deserved a lethal force response because he hadn't hit the cop yet. The guy with the weapon hadn't engaged and physically attacked the cop. So, the cop should not have used lethal force. That is your stance according to what you wrote.

If some one is standing close enough to you that they can strike you in the head with a heavy metal object, they threaten to do it, and they have been destroying property just seconds before, that justifies a lethal force response to save yourself. You don't have to kill the person but that sometimes happens as a sad side effect. Even a single shot to the leg is "deadly force" because you can hit an artery by accident and still kill the person.

At that close of a distance it was about an instinctive response. It wasn't, "I'm going to shoot this guy down." It was, "oh sweet Jesus, #k me, shoot, oh god I hope my mom knows I love her,my sweet daughter, he's turned around, oh god is he going to run, he's down, he's reaching, stop shooting, oh hell, is he dead, call it in we need an ambulance am I okay, is my partner okay, is he still a threat, cuff him to make sure, we need an ambulance." Then he actually started to breathe again. The world started to come back in to focus.

Where did I say not to defend himself or the other cop?

From earlier

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.

I was explaining the difference between your fist and the metal object in question. I was explaining why the response is different for a large heavy blunt weapon and a fist. It is a matter of degrees of likely hood. If you punch a cop there is about a one in ten-thousand chance you will disable him or prevent him from fighting back. You crack him in the jaw with a five pound piece of steel and the chances are pretty high he will be too disoriented to defend himself. That is why the metal bar warrants a lethal force response and your fist does not.

At which point he gets shot, to death. Had he been more ready to attack and shown even clearer signs of being a threat it would make sense, he didn't though yet they reacted as he did.

He was destroying property, he had threatened multiple people, he failed to disarm when ordered by two police officers, he failed to disarm even after they attempted a less-lethal course of action, then he raised the weapon while bucking towards the police officer. He gave every possible sign that he was ready, willing, and able to attack the officer.

Based on the weapon wielder's actions and the actual psychology and physiology of how the human brain reacts in such a situation they were justified.

I mean by your logic I guess I should agree that every teenager in jail for pot should be in jail because "Its the law" right?

Wow, that is a leap of logic. Because I believe that a law regarding self defense is good, I must agree with all laws. That is a logical fallacy known as a non sequitur. One does not follow the other. Just to clear things up, I am anti-prohibition and believe most non violent drug offenders deserve to be let out of jail.

I do believe that a law that allows you to defend yourself with lethal force in this particular scenario is not only legally just, it is morally just. I understand that the first blow from that metal object is probably going to leave me disoriented. Based on the guy's previous actions he has a rage/anger issue. That means he will most likely hit me more than once which highly increases my chances of being permanently injured or killed. I believe it is morally just in that situation to react with potentially lethal force.

I also understand what happens to the brain and senses in a situation like that. The second officer most likely never registered that the guy had turned before he fired. Even if he did, given the short span of time, his brain did not have time to stop the action it had already began. I don't know what happen when the guy hit the ground. I will not call it excessive force. I have no idea what the guy was doing or what was happening in the officer's mind.

reply to post by MCJustJ

And you don't see the problem with this? You don't think maybe police training should be focus on trying to avoid things like this?

Departments literally spend millions every year training officers on how to avoid these situations. That is why they are actually much less common than they were just twenty years ago.That is why a taser was employed before they ever fired a shot. The officers did everything they could before hand. The man became physically threatening and the cop reacted to save his partner's life. The second cop reacted in survival mode. There is only so much you can do to train this reaction out of people. There are certain people that don't have it, and some that can have it trained out. Trust me, you don't want most of those guys in a position of authority.

This is why gun safety is a joke, because apparently trained professionals can't even act properly.

Not taking time to count your shots is not acting improperly. Stopping as fast as the human brain allows after the threat stops is not acting in an improper manner.

Agreed, the car is in the way so its unfair to assume, but if you honestly don't see the problem with not letting the dog go if that was the case, you're perspective of this is extremely flawed.

My post so far have been based on policy. I personally believed that the officer reacted on instinct and training. I believe he probably forgot the dog was there. By that I mean he probably forgot it as an option in the split second he had to decide to take action.

Even if that was the case his reaction was probably faster than deciding to release the dog and the dog getting there. Deciding to release the dog and performing the act takes about as long as drawing a gun. The bullet gets there faster than a dog. With the metal object coming up and towards his partner he went with the faster solution. If he had let the dog go the guy might have had time to take the swing.

Having been in similar situations, and having studied the physiology and psychiatry of what happens, I can not fault his decision to fire. I can second guess his decision all day long. That doesn't mean anything. We all have the precious gift of not having to deal with the physical and mental stress of the situation. We get to discuss it while sipping coffee and eating our favorite snack. He, unfortunately, had to make the decision while watching a violent man raise a heavy blunt weapon in a threatening manner towards his partner. He had to do it while wrestling a barking convulsing dog, calculating the odds of a successful shot, and enduring all manner of internal and external stresses.

reply to post by MikeNice81


well your trainers trained you poorly, im working on becoming a police officer, all the officers that i know stress that when you draw your done you have made the decision to take someones life if your shooting to stop with a deadly weapon your using it improperly, thats what less then lethal force is for, when you use lethal force you use it to kill somebody you don't use it to stop them, and usually a controlled pair to the chest will ultimately kill the suspect or the enemy when i was in marine combat training we learned failure to stop drills which are 2 to the chest and 1 to the head we also learned controlled pairs to the chest

if a LEO use his service weapon it is because he has made the decision that the situation could turn deadly and has decided to end the suspects life