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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by caf1550
 


Caf, do some research. You do not decide to end somebody's life when you pull a gun. That is absolute horse crap. That is why there are excessive force and man slaughter charges that can be brought in an otherwise good shoot. You shoot until the threat ceases to be a threat. You decide that you may take a life and you are okay with that given the situation. Your aim however is not to end the life, but to stop a threat.

Death is a sad side effect that may occur, but often doesn't because of modern medicine. It is very common for people to survive multiple gun shots, even to the chest. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of people that get shot survive. That includes the people that officer's shoot in the chest.

One Shot Can Kill Sometimes 20 Won't

Military training is vastly different than any non military training. In the military if your ROE says you can fire that means you are trying to kill the "enemy." In every other situation on earth you are shooting to end the attack. When the threat stops, you stop. If you don't it is excessive force and you can very likely be looking at manslaughter charges.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pityocamptes

Originally posted by r3axion
Complete bull#. The officer was threatened, the use of the firearm was justified but 10 shots is excessive force by far. 2 or 3 to the leg would have been enough. He kept firing even after he fell to the ground.

Bull#.



Wrong!! When you pull a gun and shoot it, you are shooting to ELIMINATE the threat, not to wound, but to eliminate the threat. If you shot a person breaking into your home and told the police/jury you shot to wound, you would be up # creek... you shoot to eliminate the threat, ie shoot to kill.


Excessive force? We were not there. How do you know that the guy was not on something? Lots of different scenarios... in the end Darwinism ruled the day...
edit on 25-1-2012 by pityocamptes because: (no reason given)


Actually, mister smarty pants, you're shooting to stop the threat. Not eliminate it, or wound it. Stop it. That might be synonymous with dumping an entire magazine or two into the guy, but thats at the discretion of the situation.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 




In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot and kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.


Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a wrongful death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.



legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...




The LAPD Policy Manual Contains the Following Use-of-Deadly Force- Standards:


Deadly Force Defense Standard - "An officer is equipped with a firearm to protect himself or others against the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury ..."(13)


www.laaw.com...




Today, however, police officers are setting aside traditional tactics. They are being taught to enter a building if they are the first to arrive at the scene, to chase the gunman, and to kill or disable him as quickly as possible. This sweeping change in police tactics—variously called rapid-response, emergency-response, or first-responder—is a direct result of the shootings that occurred at Columbine High School, in Littleton, Colorado, on April 20 of last year, which was the worst in a series of shootings in schools across the United States in the 1990s. Two students armed with bombs and guns invaded Columbine and wandered through the school, firing indiscriminately. Twelve students and a teacher died, and twenty-three other students were wounded. The shooters took their own lives.





Now every officer is instructed to "take the shot if you have it."


www.theatlantic.com...[/ url]


City cops are livid over a legislative proposal that could handcuff the brave officers involved in life-and-death confrontations every day -- requiring them to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arm or leg rather than shoot to kill, The Post has learned.




Under present NYPD training, cops are taught to shoot at the center of their target and fire their weapon until the threat has been stopped.



[url=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_furious_at_don_kill_bill_SkSRn51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_furious_at_don_ki ll_bill_SkSRn51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI


shoot at the targets center mass unitl the threat has stopped



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by caf1550
 


Nothing you posted refuted anything that I have said. I explicitly said not to aim for arms or legs. I even explained why it was a bad idea. I have also explained the difference between shoot to injure, shoot to stop, and shoot to kill. Are you arguing just to argue or is there something I haven't explained well enough?

Oh, and just to clarify something, I work for a well sized police department, I am a liason with other departments, and have dealt with police and police jargon for awhile. I am often on scene with or before the police officers. I have never once heard an officer or investigator refer to a shooting as, " shoot and kill." It is always referred to as the "use of lethal force." That is the legal term for any shooting if the person dies or not. I have also heard the term "Officer Involved Shooting" used. The only person that would call it a "shoot and kill" is some crass patrolman with no professionalism and no right to keep his job.


edit on 29-1-2012 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

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.


You don't have to like it, but police dogs are literally city equipment like cars.. they are to be used & deployed in a manner consistent with policy & training. Why do you think K-9s are specifically trained not to fear, but charge, weapons?

Policy is always more restrictive than state laws etc.. example: state law allows officers discretion to roll lights & siren, dept policy says no.. permission first. Why?.. liability. Same with K-9s.. yes, law says cops are allowed to use deadly force to stop threats, but but policy says.. no, only after all other less lethal options exhausted...


Dont like it.. fine, it's reality.. police dogs are tools used by police depts, in part, to reduce liability.. Why?.. because a dog bite settlement is a lot cheaper than wrongful death..



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Basilisk
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.


No, a human being sworn to the state & defined by law.. is a peace officer. In Cali defined by 830.1PC.

A dog is a tool.. a piece of equipment issued by the city.

The suspects wasn't "right".. he was wrong. The officers didn't follow policy or training.. you think a misdemeanor call like that isn't trained for over and over again?.. there is policy to follow, procedure... they didn't.



new topics

top topics
 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join