Suicide by Cop caught by Body Camera in Idaho

reply to post by gardener


Oh yay a guessing game...

Ima go with...


authoritarians.

..maybe space aliens.

Shoot to 'wound'?

For those suggesting this, or saying that the officer over-reacted by shooting five times, let me explain. Police go through intense training. When they are being threatened with a deadly weapon, they shoot to kill. This officer reacted appropriately, due to his training. Three to the chest, two to the head. That is what he did.

Don't you think the officer that had to pull the trigger wishes he could have just 'wounded' him or tazed him? He has been forced by that man to live with this for his rest of his life.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


The level of force was clearly excessive... The individual was slow moving, legs were together (not intended to jump or run the officer down) one shot to bruise would have sufficed if no alternative was present. This is clearly a case that the officer would have a use and justification for a taser.

reply to post by westcoast


Don't agree, the cop was not reacting (depending of muscular memory). There was no attempt to rush the officer...

Watch the film closely, the cop is moving backwards around the corner, the guy has continued to advance having raised his right arm which has a knife held in an attack position.
Watch the corner of the wall on the right if you are not sure the cop is moving backwards around the corner.
It is self defence and self preservation, you don't turn the other cheek or negotiate when this happens, that's why cops have guns, handing out leaflets or talking is not going to stop anyone by this stage, taser, see previous post about the need for a .45 over 9mm and adrenaline.

boymonkey74
Sorry but the guy could have shot to wound, he wasn't running at him just walking slow...heck I bet a shot to the floor would have made him drop.
The cop made sure he would never get up again.

Just wondering, how many times have you had to pull your service weapon while facing a person holding a lethal weapon? The reason I ask is you do not seem to understand just how much danger that LEO was in. Inside of 15 feet and someone with a knife is lethal. That officer gave him a hell of a lot more room than I would have.

Having said that, five shots in an apartment building while not knowing what was behind your target was kinda sketchy. You can see he either missed with at least one round, or it went clean through. There is a bullet hole in the wall. That was the only bad thing I saw.

Just a note: I am not a fan of cops, but this cop did the right thing.

Yeah, this local to my area, and am not going to dare watch that... very disturbing. With the cameras footage release at least now it's know what happened and appropriate action can be taken if any by the courts, as I mentioned not going to watch it but shooting seems like a bit much in the situation.
Cops and cameras locally,
After Spokane's Police dealing with Otto Zehm in 2006, I am relieved to hear that Spokane police will have to wear cameras soon-see more here

Otto Zehm (1970–2006) was a mentally disabled man from Spokane, Washington who died on March 20, 2006, two days after being beaten, tasered multiple times, hogtied, gagged and sat upon by seven Spokane Police Officers until he passed out and never regained consciousness.[1] Zehm committed no crime and on May 30, 2006, the Spokane County coroner ruled the death a homicide.[2][3]

- Source
In the case above in Spokane, nothing short of uncalled for-for lack of words- corruption and power trip.

Spokane police will soon be wearing body cameras like the ones that captured that shooting. The department approved the cameras last year and now the department is working with the police guild, the city's legal department, and the prosecutor's office to detail how they should be used.

Article of OP's Video - COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho - Coeur d'Alene Police have released body camera video from a fatal officer-involved shooting last August.

I don't think you could have a better example of what happens when you put a gun in the hand of someone who has really bad training. then again, what do you expect from the real "american taliban" also known as the police. Using the word "law" when talking about creatures like this is just plain vile.

reply to post by matafuchs


At the speed events were going its not like he couldn't of shoot him in a knee cap, at this distance it takes a split second to bring the gun down to aim for a knee and bring it back up for the chest... If special force can double tap two in the chest and one in the head it's like he couldn't shot two in the leg... No one's going to stay on their feet after a bullet in a kneecap... Hell he could of shot the arm carrying the knife.

Its like they are afraid of taking any kind of risks whatsoever its always kill instead of try to neutralize ALWAYS, and I'm not saying you have to play superman here... But I just mean if your not willing to put your life on the line and do everything to save a citizen even if it includes potentially getting hurt in the process then its just NOT a job for you...

Its like the army, if you don't have the nerves and the mental wits to bear putting your life on the line its not for you, can you imagine a scenario where before deploying into a country they would nuke the whole damn thing first just to "be safe"... Its the same thing it shouldn't be shoot to kill first and ask questions later... It should be question first, try to neutralize if all fail go lethal...

westcoast
Shoot to 'wound'?

For those suggesting this, or saying that the officer over-reacted by shooting five times, let me explain. Police go through intense training. When they are being threatened with a deadly weapon, they shoot to kill. This officer reacted appropriately, due to his training. Three to the chest, two to the head. That is what he did.

Don't you think the officer that had to pull the trigger wishes he could have just 'wounded' him or tazed him? He has been forced by that man to live with this for his rest of his life.

And this is why I think there is a systematic problem with law enforcement in this country. Sure, procedurally this officer did nothing wrong that I'm aware of. That said, this officer did nothing anyone else couldn't have done. So why isn't law enforcement trained to function beyond simple point and click brutality? Why is law enforcement not trained to be more precise with a firearm so that in some instances wounding an individual take precedent over homicide? Why is all law enforcement not provided with and trained to use less than lethal weapons and tactics? You say police go through intense training but with cases like this I have a hard time seeing what that training is for. I can point a firearm at someone and unload a flurry of bullets and I've never handled a firearm in my life.

westcoast
Shoot to 'wound'?

For those suggesting this, or saying that the officer over-reacted by shooting five times, let me explain. Police go through intense training. When they are being threatened with a deadly weapon, they shoot to kill. This officer reacted appropriately, due to his training. Three to the chest, two to the head. That is what he did.

Don't you think the officer that had to pull the trigger wishes he could have just 'wounded' him or tazed him? He has been forced by that man to live with this for his rest of his life.

Thats the weakest excuse I've ever heard, I'm 99% sure you are a cop but regardless whether you are or not... I have this simple question for you...

Would you be a police officer in Britain where they have no guns, only a baton?

Annnnddddd the answer is NO... because the only way you could bare assuming this job is through hidding behind a firearm hence the reason why you should NEVER be given one in first place... If one can't man up enough to try to neutralize a potential danger before trying to kill it, get out of the police...

If you can't assess a potentially dangerous situation as much for you as the other person and assume some risk in trying to neutralize the person with the goal of trying to save both lives and just not yours then your just simply a coward... You don't belong on that job...

I really wish I hadn't watched that, but I did anyway. The only point I really want to make is...

My adrenaline was almost flowing just watching the video and I wasn't even there. We can all sit back and say he over reacted, he did the right thing, etc. etc. fairly easily because we had the luxury and convenience of watching what was happening sitting in our own homes, behind our computer screens. We were not in danger. We could look at the video every which way we wanted to. We could watch it a few times trying to figure out where it went wrong.

BUT - The LEO did not have this opportunity. His evaluation of the situation had to be done in a split second. Maybe he would have made a different decision if he had the ability to slow time down to where he could weigh all of his options like we are doing now.

We can "Armchair Quarterback" him all day long. It's easy to do when watching it after the fact.

I don't know how I would react if I were him but I do imagine that I would like to have the time to think about it before I had to make a decision. I feel like he probably would have liked the same.

nofear39
reply to post by matafuchs

 

The leo didnt need to kill him ... a bullet in the leg would of been enough .. i think i heard 4 bullets WTF !!!!

This statement here is why the public at large are so confused and ignorant to a degree.

When a COP draws his weapon and pulls the trigger they are NOT shooting to maim or injure. That is NOT what they are taught and instructed to do.

A cop when forced to shoot is taught to aim CENTER mass (of the torso) not the legs or arms or EVEN the head. They shoot to kill. It is for the safety of the officer(s) involved. A wounded armed suspect can still kill!! A dead one can't.

Cops are also taught that when a suspect is armed be it a gun or other weapon it is CENTER mass NOT taser! Tasers are for suspects that are unarmed and uncontrollable. An unarmed suspect is NOT supposed to be fired upon except under a few conditions. When he or she poses a violent danger to the PUBLIC or when he or she posses a considerable violent danger to the officers at the scene.


I hope this clears this matter up!!

reply to post by thesmokingman


I saw this story from PoliceOne on my facebook feed earlier.

I second everything you said. The guy kept advancing on the cop, even after given multiple commands to put the knives down. The officer even backed up a few steps. There is no "shoot to wound" when the guy advancing on you with deadly weapons is a few feet away. The officer shot enough to make sure the threat was neutralized (meaning the threat has stopped. It doesn't mean to always kill). There are plenty of articles out there where someone gets shot and keeps on going (the officer doesn't know if the guy is hopped up on something like PCP or meth, or just so screwed up in the head that they don't care).

I assume the officer went into the house alone because he thought the suspect may have been immediately injuring himself and wanted to confront and stop him from hurting himself even more. From the article -

“I’m worried about him cutting himself,” Woods told Mortensen before the shooting.

I believe the shooting was justified with the given situation, but things could have taken another turn if he waited for backup to arrive.

Instead of just 1 officer going into the house, he could have waited for another. 1 cop with a taser and another with a firearm to cover the other officer if the taser is ineffective.

ETA - As for body cameras, I think they should be on every officer in the country.

Some people are mental if they think its that easy to shoot someone just to wound them, the man made a quick decision in the heat of the moment.

Now you could argue that police should protect life no matter what, maybe this man was mentally ill and they needed to protect him from himself.

But, you are not factoring in allot of things, like adrenaline rush, spur of the moment, you dont know how you would react to that unless you are placed in that situation.

Everyone is so quick to give their opinions on how the cops are always so bad because they dont shoot people to wound them but they shoot to kill, this man had to take a life and he has to deal with that, not us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, if a perp is standing up to 9 feet away from you and he is planning on stabbing you and you have no idea, it would take him less time to stab you then it would take you to take your gun out and shoot him.

If a gun needs to be fired, I'm all for them shooting center mass. You don't want to miss shots, and the goal is to put someone down, and shooting center mass until they go down is correct.

There's other questions that should be asked though like should less lethal ammo be used, and could a taser have been used?

reply to post by thesmokingman


Know what else the officer could have done? Backed out of the house.

I think if the cop puts himself in the danger zone and then shoots he should face charges. Just like that kid with the plastic AK. They pulled up made themselves feel threatened and killed the kid.

He should have backed out and waited for back up. Then when back up arrived raze him while other officers subdue.

This was unjustified.

reply to post by matafuchs


Why not shoot him in the thigh? Shoulder? Fire a warning shot into the air? He had knives...not a gun...and not even throwing knives.

I still don't get it....the tech is cool but the only thing this tech shows is how much time the officer really had to make a better decision.

I have no problems with officers enforcing the law...but not brutally if not necessary.

reply to post by projectbane


fair enough.

You make a good point in which case I concede.....but I still think that despite his training could have spared the guys life with a shot to the shoulder. If it hits his heart so be it, but sometimes people can be in a rage that can be sorted by incapacitating the assailant.

reply to post by LightAssassin


You never shoot anywhere but center mass because that endangers yourself. That said.. this officer didnt need to shoot period.