Crazy poilice shooting....

[Lash]

I would have hated to be in those cops shoes. It was a tough situation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY5ioBvrYIg&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clubgp.com%2Fnewforum%2Ftm.a sp%3Fm%3D5739507%26p%3D1%26tmode%3D1%26smode%3D1

[Korndogg]

Now I'm all for cops doing what they have to do and I'm usually on their side but he had a damn dog right there.

[Prince Valiant]

eh...I mean, the guy was pulling back to take swing with a crowbar. Dog wasn't going to do much before he did serious damage to either him or the other cop.

Or pick ax, whatever that was...

[Korndogg]

Yeah I guess I didn't see him start to swing the first time.

[moels]

He wasn't phased when the other officer tazed him and swung whatever he had at him. I wouldn't have dumped that many rounds, but I wouldn't have stopped at 2 either. Does it say anywhere how many times he was hit? I know cops aren't always the best shots, even close up.

[GTSLOW]

Is it me or does that look like a conduit pipe bender?

Also the cop didn't unload on him until he went to act like he was going to swing on that cop. Totally justified IMO. Time to fire > release dog however it was odd on how mine rounds were fired.

[Prince Valiant]

Since the idea isn't to stop, but completely neutralize the threat, the number of shots really becomes irrelevant. It isn't shoot---wait see what happens----shoot again----


It's to end it. Unload until there is no doubt that the threat is no longer a threat.

[Rocket Power]

Since the idea isn't to stop, but completely neutralize the threat, the number of shots really becomes irrelevant. It isn't shoot---wait see what happens----shoot again----


It's to end it. Unload until there is no doubt that the threat is no longer a threat.Actually the idea IS to stop the threat. May take one round may take many more.

[Nickerz]

Probably legal but certainly excessive. Either way that guy must have been high as fuck to get tazed in the face and keep walking :lol: PCP I'm guessing.

[Rocket Power]

Probably legal but certainly excessive. Either way that guy must have been high as fuck to get tazed in the face and keep walking :lol: PCP I'm guessing.Not excessive. he was still standing after being hit 5 times, therefore still a threat.

[GTSLOW]

Like I said when he went to swing at the cop he made him self eligible for the shooting gallery.


Does anyone know if there is a group trying to defend this guy out there? Ex. girlfriend, family etc.. Always seems to be now a days.

[Nickerz]

Not excessive. he was still standing after being hit 5 times, therefore still a threat.

You are confusing the legality of this with the objective reality of the situation. Someone with 5 bullets in their chest is not a threat. I would fight him with my bare hands and bet every penny I had on that fight. Think about how retarded calling a guy with 5 bullets in his chest a threat is.

[Wagonbacker9]

If you're high on PCP you can do some crazy shit... looked like 5 shots by each officer. I think the 2nd officer's shots may have been unnecessary, but he was the one about to eat a conduit bender had the 1st one not opened up.

[Car Guy]

Anybody else not able to watch the video? I need to see this.....

[Silver350]

The cop was Justified to use deadly force. You shoot until the threat stopped, Who know if the first 4-5 rounds even hit the guy Everyone involved heart had to be about ready to come out of their chest.

[88Nightmare]

action is faster than reaction. He swung back, that is a clear threat. You start swinging weapons at cops, you have it coming.

[05caddyext]

How did they know he wasn't wearing a vest? Shot him 5 times and still standing, who knows what they guy has under his shirt. All the training in the world isn't going to change the heat of the moment. It's a known fact that most cops never have to draw their weapon once during their entire career. Someone swings a huge pipe at you, after being tased, which did nothing, hes gonna get shot. I don't see anything excessive about that at all. Hell even if people thought it was, nothing will happen. Remember Rodney King? That was over the top excessive and those cops walked away. One less douchebag walking around with nothing to lose.

[fivonut]

This is definitely a tough decision. But one of things discussed in conceal carry classes (and said here already) is stop the threat. The guy didn't react to the taser and began to swing what he was holding at the other officer. It looked to me like a pipe bender. I use them often in my daily job and I'd argue that if he landed that blow to officer's head it would have been enough to kill him. In the background you can hear the kids saying he should have shot him in the leg to stop him. The only time a firearm should be drawn on another human being is to kill them. Shooting to injure carries an implication that you did not feel deadly force was necessary to stop the threat. If deadly force is not necessary then your gun better stay in it's holster. I counted 5 shots by officer one and 5 more by officer two. During the last five the view was obstructed by the parked car. For all we know the guy could have made a second lunge.

[Nickerz]

10 bullets in his chest? CALL FOR BACKUP. THREAT IS STILL MOVING. :lol: you guys.

[WhatsADSM]

So normally I tend to be more on the side of use force... But honestly it did seem a little excessive the guy never actually swung and was just approaching the cop (which is clearly stupid). Just surprised they didn't let the dog go.

In the end though... This is what happens, you attempt to rob (presimibly) a place with some crazy weapon then ignore the cops then attempt to approach them with said big weapon, its not unexpected that you get shot.

[Rocket Power]

You are confusing the legality of this with the objective reality of the situation. Someone with 5 bullets in their chest is not a threat. I would fight him with my bare hands and bet every penny I had on that fight. Think about how retarded calling a guy with 5 bullets in his chest a threat is.
I'm not confusing anything. Someone with 5 bullets in the chest can certainly still be a threat, life is not like the movies. Getting shot once or twice doesn't automatically stop someone. He took a taser with no reaction, weather he was high or just highly motivated, he could still be a threat. He gets shot 5 times and still doesn't go down, for all they know he is wearing body armor. On some drugs or if you are just motivated enough, you can keep going until it is impossible for your body to continue, such as a CNS shot or loss of enough blood,until either of those happen you can still be a threat.

That's why you shoot to stop the threat, there is no magic number of rounds.

[Z28Envy]

there is no magic number of rounds.

I don't agree with this, when I play golden eye on my Nintendo 64, one shot with the gold gun kills them everytime!!!

[Prince Valiant]

If the point is to kill the guy, why are more shots "excessive"???

One of my favorite authors writing about those who wring their hands over the number of shots a police officer fires:

Similarly, many of the intelligentsia express not only surprise but outrage at the number of shots fired by the police in some confrontation with a criminal, even if many of these intellectuals never fired a gun in their lives, much less faced life-and-death dangers requiring split second decision. Seldom, if ever, do the intelligentsia ever seek out information on the accuracy of pistols fired under stress before venting their anger and demanding changes. In reality, a study by the New York Police Department found that, even with a range of less than 6 feet, just over half the shots fired by police missed completely. At distances 16-25 yards, only 14% of the shots hit.

Moreover, even a criminal who is hit by a bullet is not necessarily rendered instantly harmless, so there is no reason to stop firing, so long as that criminal continues to be a danger.

It's easy to sit from afar, not actually be in the situation and without any of the stress or specific training that the officers had gone through and say "They were excessive", even though there is nothing in the background of those that wish to condemn the officer to even suggest expertise or experience in these situations.

I'm not going to fault the officer for unloading on him...that's for sure. :/

[GHOSST]

That's bullshit! Why do we train? What is training for? Exactly why I don't approve of some people being given of privilege of wearing that badge. Unless that perp what fucking superman, one or two shots is all it takes to subdue him. And why have a trained attack dog (would you take another type to a domestic call?) and not use it? Does he just walk his fat ass around with that dog just to look cool.

Plain and simple, this officer buckled under the pressure, and it ended extremely excessive, and why law enforcement get bad names, incidents like this. True, training is nothing like real world, but the saying goes train how fight, fight how you train. Even to untrained eye, this guy had backup, a dog, and numerous witnesses. I guess he left his common sense at home that day..

[Yooformula]

so this perp was inside smashing windows and swinging at customers and cops then gets tazed inside twice and doesn't go down. he then comes outside and is ordered to drop his weapon but he ignores thews command and tries for another swing and some of you expect ANY cop to not drop him? i wouldn't put my dog within swinging distance of a drugged up lunatic with a pipe bender either. the dogs life is worth more than that piece of shit.

[animal]

Body armor comment already made, but also how do you know all or any of the first 5 shots hit the guy at all seeing as he's still standing...

Anyways, good illustration of what happens when you swing a pipe at a cop. Don't do it.

[Prince Valiant]

Plain and simple, this officer buckled under the pressure, and it ended extremely excessive, and why law enforcement get bad names, incidents like this. True, training is nothing like real world, but the saying goes train how fight, fight how you train. Even to untrained eye, this guy had backup, a dog, and numerous witnesses. I guess he left his common sense at home that day..If the officer "buckled under pressure", why is it he looked absolutely in control before, during, and after the shooting?

Jus' sayin'....

[pOrk]

10 bullets in his chest? CALL FOR BACKUP. THREAT IS STILL MOVING. :lol: you guys.

Maybe you are watching a different video then we are? Watch the video, the guy is still standing after the initial 5 shots are fired. How much money do you make that its worth risking your life to NOT kill some doped up moron yielding a pipe bender that is REFUSING to listen to police officers?

You can clearly see in the video that he is threatening harm by half-swinging the bender, I'm assuming those of you saying this was excessive would be singing a different tune if you were the cop stumbling to get away from this guy. Think you can do a better job? Sign up to join your local police force.

[88Nightmare]

I'm sure any officer would agree... Regardless of what happens during their shift, they WILL return home to their loved ones at the end of the day in the same condition they left. Like others said, if a guy is at a Carls Jr. with a pipe bender, gets tazed, and then swings his pipe bender back and ready to swing forward, he clearly has nothing to lose. Someone who has nothing to lose is far more dangerous than someone who does. Average cost for a police dog is $40,000. Most of the time when someone is known to be armed, they won't release a dog after them, especially if the person isn't fleeing. That guy was standing there ready for a fight, and he got what was coming to him. No officers were harmed, and all the good guys (innocent bystanders as well) get to return home to their families, including the dog (who is also a sworn officer).

[MyP71Vic]

I don't see anything wrong with this other than "a study by the New York Police Department found that, even with a range of less than 6 feet, just over half the shots fired by police missed completely. At distances 16-25 yards, only 14% of the shots hit." That seems pretty messed up. I realize under stress people shake or what ever but you better not be that bad in a situation where you are firing a gun. I can hit a target from 25 yards away with my .357 Mag 100% of the time. I use the standard 8x8 or 10x10 targets. That guy was starting to threaten the lives of others around so they ended his. Case closed and the tax payers don't have to pay for this guy to rot behind bars. Win win in my book.
-Nick

[Prince Valiant]

I don't see anything wrong with this other than "a study by the New York Police Department found that, even with a range of less than 6 feet, just over half the shots fired by police missed completely.
At short range, physical contact/struggles certainly can play a factor into the large number of misses. At longer ranges, well....I'm pretty sure they don't just stand there like a silhouetted target...

[Yooformula]

i bet more than half of those shots missed simply because he was holding the dog'sleash while firing

[PureSound15]

At short range, physical contact/struggles certainly can play a factor into the large number of misses. At longer ranges, well....I'm pretty sure they don't just stand there like a silhouetted target...

+1


I would have plugged that idiot just the same. If my or my friend's life are threatened; I promise you I would have no concept of "excessive."

[Waver]

That's bullshit! Why do we train? What is training for?

Now, since I am not an officer, nor do I claim to be, I dont know if what I am about to say is true. However I do beliveve that when an officer gets firearm training, just like in C.C. training, they are taught that if the threat requires the use of a firearm (like in this instance) they are suposed to shoot to kill. Not to slow down. Not to maim. It is their training that is used to keep them safe, to make sure that they go home to their families, ect. Also, like was said before, the dog is considered another officer.

[Nix]

The Police did what they had to do. Nothing excessive about it. All the innocent patrons and officers got to go home to their famlies and another criminal is off the streets.

I know if I was in the officers shoes that I would do what I had to do to keep from getting injured and keep the public safe. A pipe bender to the head would cave your skull in.

Would you really want to have to wish that you shot first and never have taken the hit from a pipe bender? Even if the criminal landed a single blow the end result would be the same, shot.

Thread/

[MyP71Vic]

Ok true I forgot that they are moving and so is the target but still that seems pretty bad.

[BR3W CITY]

I doubt it was body armor, who robs a store with a makeshift weapon, but has access to ballistic armor?

Pcp is the easy guess, or some Sherm. PCP basically disconnects the brains ability to realize (not to feel) pain, strangely it actually unlocks part of the brain that controls vocabulary. You can play a mean game of scrabble.
Sherm just makes people to scary wacked out shit, its basically pot+ether....extremely popular in certain communities because its cheap and has extremely intense effects. Wild outburts, loss or gain of certain motor skills, rage etc.

[Nickerz]

If the point is to kill the guy, why are more shots "excessive"???



This pretty much summarizes my problem with the situation. Its not the police officers that are the issue, its the fact they don't have enough non-lethal options and that they must "shoot to kill" legally. The point IMO should always be to neutralize the threat. If you're in a gun battle, sure shoot to kill. But some rocked out dipshit with a pipe should have been dealt in a non-lethal manner. The point should only be to "kill the guy" if there are absolutely no other options. And in this case there were certainly options, but some of them would have been a legal quagmire (not shooting to kill) or not available (non-lethal options).

[fivonut]

10 bullets in his chest? CALL FOR BACKUP. THREAT IS STILL MOVING. :lol: you guys.

You shoot until the threat is stopped, ie dead on the ground. If anyone believes anything less is sufficient then your firearm needs to stay in it's holster.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

[fivonut]

This pretty much summarizes my problem with the situation. Its not the police officers that are the issue, its the fact they don't have enough non-lethal options and that they must "shoot to kill" legally. The point IMO should always be to neutralize the threat. If you're in a gun battle, sure shoot to kill. But some rocked out dipshit with a pipe should have been dealt in a non-lethal manner. The point should only be to "kill the guy" if there are absolutely no other options. And in this case there were certainly options, but some of them would have been a legal quagmire (not shooting to kill) or not available (non-lethal options).

That pipe bender would have killed that officer. That is an immediate threat to his life. The proper response is to kill the attacker. An attacker with a knife or other close quarters weapon within 21 feet can charge and kill you before you can draw and fire. This guy was a lot closer than that. They were justified to shoot until he stopped moving.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

[MyP71Vic]

The tazer to the face was non lethal and the last step before shooting to kill. Someone that can take a shot like that most likely would not be effected by a baton and who wants to get that close to a guy with a larger metal item that can hit you before you hit him. Shooting was the only safe way for this to end.

[bikedad]

I read a lot of the comments on the video on Youtube and,,,

The Perp shouldn't have done what he did.
Wrong choice on his part in a bunch of incidents.

1) Waking up in the morning and deciding to cause an incident that required cops to come.
2) Bringing a weapon of some sort to an incident
3) Being cocky or high enough to think he's invincible
4)Threatening a cop who is probably scared that his family is not going to have a husband, father, uncle, or whatever come home because of some crazed idiot.

People can say what they want about excessive force or whatever but, unless you are in that cops shoes you can't realistically say what you would have done in the same situation and mindset.

[Prince Valiant]

But some rocked out dip**** with a pipe should have been dealt in a non-lethal manner.
Do you think a pipe is a non-lethal weapon? :/



How about one of these?

http://www.ridgid.com/ASSETS/9F8E9D47461E42BBBA89FABA4DCFA8E9/Thin_Wall_Conduit_Bender_3C.jpg


If the officer putting away his taser had gotten caught by that "rocked out dip****" anywhere above the shoulder, he'd be dead just the same as if the guy had shot him with a gun.

[CATNHAT]

The other thing that is disturbing about the video is the idiots that are doing the recording??? WTF?? They are witnessing a shooting first hand and are LAUGHING about it??? Some serious disconnect with reality for those dumbasses. Too much XBox prolly........

[Prince Valiant]

The other thing that is disturbing about the video is the idiots that are doing the recording??? WTF?? They are witnessing a shooting first hand and are LAUGHING about it???
The original uploader wrote that he thought they hit him with rubber bullets or something....

[CATNHAT]

The original uploader wrote that he thought they hit him with rubber bullets or something....

Thats what they wrote, but at the 1:34-5-6-7 mark the geniuses say "Hes dead-hes gotta be dead". 2:24 "they killed that dude". I dont think they would say that if they thought the perp was shot with rubber bullets.

[GHOSST]

I guess I just see a situation that could have been handled better, but handled in the same way no doubt. The perp was juiced on something to take a taser with no effect.

but look at the video again, when the taser didn't work it freaked the other officer out, and when the perp threatened him, he backed up and almost lost his footing, and barely got his gun out the holster, and those extra shots came from him, having almost lost control of the situation, or the other officer out of view fired. So I take back my statements about the dog officer, but the perp was going down after the first 4 or 5 shots, then he got double tapped, someone else in the area thought more shots were needed.

But that's just my opinion.. To protect and serve means what it means. The perp crossed the line, and got put down, the officers and everyone else went home safe. The aftermath is for people like us to discuss, that's all it is.

[Nickerz]

Do you think a pipe is a non-lethal weapon? :/



How about one of these?

http://www.ridgid.com/ASSETS/9F8E9D47461E42BBBA89FABA4DCFA8E9/Thin_Wall_Conduit_Bender_3C.jpg


If the officer putting away his taser had gotten caught by that "rocked out dip****" anywhere above the shoulder, he'd be dead just the same as if the guy had shot him with a gun.

http://www.brewcitymuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?53568-Crazy-poilice-shooting&p=728608&viewfull=1#post728608

[Waver]

So you feel that the situation could of been dealt with differently. O.k. I want you to put your self in the officers situation:

There is a guy who is obviously drugged up out of his mind.
He just took a Taser blast to the face (not the gut, the leg, the arm ect, but the face) and is still standing
He has a lethal weapon (you cant tell me that a pipe bender is not when it is swung at the head/neck area) and is swinging it at you.
He is more than likely going to kill you if you dont do something to bring him down for the count.......

So what is the non lethal solution?

[Al]

I don't know the whole situation, but I would have released the dog.

As expensive as a trained police dog may be, it is still less expensive than lawyer's fees/bad publicity.

[Nickerz]

So you feel that the situation could of been dealt with differently. O.k. I want you to put your self in the officers situation:

There is a guy who is obviously drugged up out of his mind.
He just took a Taser blast to the face (not the gut, the leg, the arm ect, but the face) and is still standing
He has a lethal weapon (you cant tell me that a pipe bender is not when it is swung at the head/neck area) and is swinging it at you.
He is more than likely going to kill you if you dont do something to bring him down for the count.......

So what is the non lethal solution?

Sometimes I wonder if anyone here actually processes reading skills. As I stated, the current situation didn't leave many options. Its not the fault of the responding officers, but the system in place for them. Since non-lethal solutions typically have much higher court costs involved, it becomes more economical to kill someone that raises to any meaningful level of threat.

In this situation the officers made the correct choices given their available options. I'm simply stating they should be given more options and the legal situation revolving around this needs to be reformed.

Killing someone shouldn't be the most economical solution. And because it is, this person died. If it wasn't so legally difficult, its much more likely this person could have been dealt with in a way that saved his life and neutralized the situation.

[GHOSST]

Plain and simple, it could have been handled better. This would be a perfect training video, and probably is.

3 cops, 3 guns, 1 trained police dog, 54 rounds (just averaging 18 a piece), against one drugged out guy with a lethal pipe bender, but a non projectile weapon...

Check this out, kinda funny, but you would think law enforcement would be the most athletic and physically active people on the street, but I guess not..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjV3Wz3CRlo

1 security guard, in shape, experienced, giving this guy what he needs. Even though he never takes him down, the thing I get out of this video is that the guard has confidence and balls.

How many officers do you see overweight, and rely on weapons 100%. Off topic but it goes back to my training statements..

[fivonut]

http://www.brewcitymuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?53568-Crazy-poilice-shooting&p=728608&viewfull=1#post728608


This pretty much summarizes my problem with the situation. Its not the police officers that are the issue, its the fact they don't have enough non-lethal options and that they must "shoot to kill" legally. The point IMO should always be to neutralize the threat. If you're in a gun battle, sure shoot to kill. But some rocked out dipshit with a pipe should have been dealt in a non-lethal manner. The point should only be to "kill the guy" if there are absolutely no other options. And in this case there were certainly options, but some of them would have been a legal quagmire (not shooting to kill) or not available (non-lethal options).

The problem with this theory (however "nice" it may be) is that expending every possible non-lethal option involves spending valuable time. Time that increases the threat to your own life and the likelihood that you'll be the one carried by six. While you're expending non-lethal options the person on the other end is expending increasing lethal options. Once that person demonstrates the willingness and intention to take your life the only option left is to take theirs first, anything less is toying with your own existence.

[GHOSST]

The problem with this theory (however "nice" it may be) is that expending every possible non-lethal option involves spending valuable time. Time that increases the threat to your own life and the likelihood that you'll be the one carried by six. While you're expending non-lethal options the person on the other end is expending increasing lethal options. Once that person demonstrates the willingness and intention to take your life the only option left is to take theirs first, anything less is toying with your own existence.

Very true. I just believe this set of officers lacked to training to do what was absolutely right. The tasing officer even took his eyes off the perp and put his head down within 5ft or less of the perp! And he was the one who nearly fell over, and if he was the rook, why has the rook so close the perp that the other officer felt he was an extreme threat. Who was the senior officer that should have took control of the situation from the get go?

[88Nightmare]

My girlfriend, who just graduated from police academy last month, was just talking to me about this video. She showed me her firearms textbook which clearly states quote: "The definition of subject behavior that justifies an officers use of deadly force is any behavior that an officer believes has caused or imminently threatens to cause death or great bodily harm to you or another person or persons."

Her textbook's definition of deadly force is "the intentional use of a firearm or other instrument; the use of which would result in a high probability of death."

Basically, deadly force is countered with deadly force.

For example, in academy, when she was being scenario tested, their deadly force scenario was a guy wielding a pipe. The guy in the scenario started approaching her and her partner. Both officers in training repeatedly ordered the man to drop his weapon repeatedly When he refused, they shot him (with simunition rounds). They passed. Had they not given him a few chances to comply and NOT shot him, they would have failed their scenario.

As to getting tazed in the face... She says she was trained to aim her tazer at the largest muscle available... Legs, back, ass... Getting tazed in the face would not debilitate someone and bring them down to their knees as easily as you may think. I'd trust her judgement about tazing... She's been tazed.

I'm sure rubber bullets could have been used, but not every department has them. That's typically riot gear. Riot control is generally not called to respond to a robbery in progress.

Officers are not taught "shoot to kill" for legal purposes. They are taught to "eliminate the threat".

FYI everything I've listed here is based on Wisconsin standards for training. It may vary in other states.

[GHOSST]

Awesome points man. Congrats to your girlfriend.

I honestly do believe the perp should have been taken down, he was a threat, but it seems the situation just went don't awry, which leads to politics and family, all kinds of unnecessary crap.

Hmmm, so the tazer to the face is somewhat ineffective, which again brings me right back to training. Why the hec would he aim for a portion of the body with the least effect, did he just see the face shot on The Hangover and thought he'd try it out? Makes you wonder.

[88Nightmare]

Could have been a mistake. The officer could have had his adrenaline pumping. I just know that it's impossible to determine what was going through their minds when they are at the wrong end of a deadly threat.

It's also a shitty video. Hard to tell what's happening from behind the car.

[GHOSST]

True, like I've said the tazing officer probably freaked out when the taze didn't work, he's the one that made the most mistakes in the video. He looks like the rook, but who knows. I'm just glad no one else but the perp was hurt, but at the same time if that was someone in my family, I'd be wondering if anything else could have saved his life, especially is he was troubled.

[fivonut]

We can armchair QB this all day for weeks on end evaluating and reevaluating what the officer should have done. As I said before, when employing nonlethal force time is valuable. The OP's video shows an officer doing, what I feel, is exactly right and correct in every way shape and form. This video shows what happens to an officer when they make every attempt to use non lethal force. WARNING this is a VERY graphic video!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX5kwVc9IOk


Kyle Wayne Dinkheller (June 18, 1975 – January 12, 1998) was a deputy with the Laurens County Sheriff's Office in Georgia. Near the end of his shift on Monday, January 12, 1998, Dinkheller pulled a motorist over for speeding. A confrontation ensued and Dinkheller was shot and killed. The suspect was wounded in the stomach by a shot from Dinkheller's service weapon. Despite the wound, the perpetrator, Andrew Brannan, was able to flee the scene, but was discovered the next morning hiding in a sleeping bag beneath a camouflage tarp in Laurens County, Georgia, by police, and arrested for the murder of Dinkheller. Brannan pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but the jury found that the murder of Dinkheller was carried out in a torturous and cruel manner. Brannan was found guilty of murder on 28 January 2000 and sentenced to death on January 30, 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Dinkheller

[Reverend Cooper]

first off justified,YES. Second If Joe,Ryan,Dave and I were in the car recording I think i might hear a giggle or two,maybe I'm wrong and they will chime in but i'm pretty sure I would laugh.

[Reverend Cooper]

look how he is dressed by the way be [retty hard to get a tazer to work well threw the backpack and thick clothes
he has on,the face seems like a good target at that point

[CATNHAT]

first off justified,YES. Second If Joe,Ryan,Dave and I were in the car recording I think i might hear a giggle or two,maybe I'm wrong and they will chime in but i'm pretty sure I would laugh.
You're a "Reverend" and would laugh watching someone die? To each his own I guess? I know I would not be laughing given the fact that anytime an officer pulls his gun things are getting serious. I am not defending the perp in any way shape or form, he's dead, and I agree with the officers reactions and results.

This is no laughing matter to me no matter how you spin it.

BTW, what do you find amusing by this video that would make one laugh?

subd............

[Yooformula]

that vid has been around awhile and is horrible to watch and listen to. trying to give the benefit of the doubt hoping to resolve the situation cost the deputy his life.

[MyP71Vic]

I think this will be a topic that can't be agreed upon. I am glad the officers handled this situation in the manner they did. There was a threat on their life and they nuturalized it completely. Bums dead and will not be an issue any more. Don't start anything you can't finish and don't take a pipe bender to a gun fight with a bunch of cops.
-Nick

[GHOSST]

I think this will be a topic that can't be agreed upon. I am glad the officers handled this situation in the manner they did. There was a threat on their life and they nuturalized it completely. Bums dead and will not be an issue any more. Don't start anything you can't finish and don't take a pipe bender to a gun fight with a bunch of cops.
-Nick

I agree to disagree. Its all fine and dandy until its someone you know and love.

[BR3W CITY]

You're a "Reverend" and would laugh watching someone die?

I'm legally a reverend as well, and yes, I would laugh.
Why? Because I laugh at rollover car accidents, because I laugh at stupid people at summer fest getting their asses beat by security. Everyone has a different point at which things become crass or taboo. Is it actually "funny"? No, not really. Whats the other option, sit there solemnly as you realize the world around you is a crap fest filled with drugged out assholes thieves etc?
Dont take yourself so seriously man.

[Rocket Power]

This pretty much summarizes my problem with the situation. Its not the police officers that are the issue, its the fact they don't have enough non-lethal options and that they must "shoot to kill" legally. The point IMO should always be to neutralize the threat. If you're in a gun battle, sure shoot to kill. But some rocked out dipshit with a pipe should have been dealt in a non-lethal manner. The point should only be to "kill the guy" if there are absolutely no other options. And in this case there were certainly options, but some of them would have been a legal quagmire (not shooting to kill) or not available (non-lethal options).


They tried the non-lethal manner. The threat needed to be stopped. There wasn't time for these mythical other options that you speak of. The one cop was about to get a pipe bender to the head.

[Rocket Power]

I don't know the whole situation, but I would have released the dog.Which may or may not have stopped the guy before he hit the cop in the head with the pipe bender, possibly killing him

[Rocket Power]

Sometimes I wonder if anyone here actually processes reading skills. As I stated, the current situation didn't leave many options. Its not the fault of the responding officers, but the system in place for them. Since non-lethal solutions typically have much higher court costs involved, it becomes more economical to kill someone that raises to any meaningful level of threat.

In this situation the officers made the correct choices given their available options. I'm simply stating they should be given more options and the legal situation revolving around this needs to be reformed.

Killing someone shouldn't be the most economical solution. And because it is, this person died. If it wasn't so legally difficult, its much more likely this person could have been dealt with in a way that saved his life and neutralized the situation.

What are you talking about?
Cops don't shoot people because it's economical. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

[Rocket Power]

My girlfriend, who just graduated from police academy last month, was just talking to me about this video. She showed me her firearms textbook which clearly states quote: "The definition of subject behavior that justifies an officers use of deadly force is any behavior that an officer believes has caused or imminently threatens to cause death or great bodily harm to you or another person or persons."

Her textbook's definition of deadly force is "the intentional use of a firearm or other instrument; the use of which would result in a high probability of death."

Basically, deadly force is countered with deadly force.

For example, in academy, when she was being scenario tested, their deadly force scenario was a guy wielding a pipe. The guy in the scenario started approaching her and her partner. Both officers in training repeatedly ordered the man to drop his weapon repeatedly When he refused, they shot him (with simunition rounds). They passed. Had they not given him a few chances to comply and NOT shot him, they would have failed their scenario.

As to getting tazed in the face... She says she was trained to aim her tazer at the largest muscle available... Legs, back, ass... Getting tazed in the face would not debilitate someone and bring them down to their knees as easily as you may think. I'd trust her judgement about tazing... She's been tazed.

I'm sure rubber bullets could have been used, but not every department has them. That's typically riot gear. Riot control is generally not called to respond to a robbery in progress.

Officers are not taught "shoot to kill" for legal purposes. They are taught to "eliminate the threat".

FYI everything I've listed here is based on Wisconsin standards for training. It may vary in other states.

This^
I have been through the same training, been tased, and have had 3 1/2 more years of additional training after school.

They were shooting to stop the threat, sometimes the threat is stopped before a person dies sometimes not, but death is NOT the intent, but unfortunately is sometime the result.

There is one person at fault, and it isn't the officers.

[Korndogg]

Holy shit man. You know there is a multi-quote function right?? lol

[Rocket Power]

Holy shit man. You know there is a multi-quote function right?? lol

I was finding more things to respond to as I read. LOL

[Nickerz]

What are you talking about?
Cops don't shoot people because it's economical. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

They absolutely do. If there is a chance to wound a subject, but not kill them, neutralizing the threat they will choose to kill him. Because that is how they are trained. Because as was mentioned by another poster, shooting someone without killing them implies that less than lethal force could have been used. So there is in fact an incentive to kill someone when legally OK, even if alternatives exist. It gives the best outcome for the department in terms of minimizing costs, and maximizes the chance the officer will return home.

There are a LOT of videos where police have fired at a subject with a non-projectile\firearm who then began to run which they continued to fire on. Another common thing I've seen is officers standing infront of cars firing into cars. They say "he was going to run me over." Well don't stand in front of a lunatics car? Don't get me wrong, these people need to be locked up. But to at any whim and at the first chance jump to justifiable homicide is ridiculous. There needs to be a lot more options and legal remedies for police that doesn't make killing someone the easiest and best choice.

That is the ethical and moral issue. Yes, people like this should have been facials or ended up in a tissue. But at the end of the day, universal morality trumps authoritarian bullshit. Treating life as a black and white, legal or not legal situation is abhorrent. And people that say they laugh at this kind of stuff are either incredibly immature, sociopaths or people that have stopped developing as human beings. I don't respect people that own guns and talk about how every time some issue comes up they want or can use it. I respect people that have guns and use it as their last straw. And even then a respectable person regrets having to use it if they're a decent human being.

Again, these officers acted in their best capacity. The fact they don't have better access to non-lethal weapons, and police haven't pursued more cases to set better legal precedent is unfortunate. Many other countries we would consider vastly less civilized consider our enforcement methods to be incredibly barbaric. I kid you not, nearly any time I see a situation like this unfold and I see officers work towards a better method other than justifiable homicide I'm not surprised when one of two things becomes apparent. Either the video is extremely old, or from another country.

The amount of force used changed dramatically after the war on drugs, and the amount of reach increased after 9\11. For people who value your rights, these things are a loss, not a gain. Its unfortunate the officers are put into these situations due to the way its all structured.

[CATNHAT]

I'm legally a reverend as well, and yes, I would laugh.
Why? Because I laugh at rollover car accidents, because I laugh at stupid people at summer fest getting their asses beat by security. Everyone has a different point at which things become crass or taboo. Is it actually "funny"? No, not really. Whats the other option, sit there solemnly as you realize the world around you is a crap fest filled with drugged out assholes thieves etc?
Dont take yourself so seriously man.

^^ that is very true. Upon further considertion I too would probably chuckle a little b/c the perp was total dumbass. Especially if I was sitting there with some of my buddies like coop mentioned.

[Rocket Power]

Because that is how they are trained.
NO THEY ARE NOT!
I actually have gone through the training, but apparently you want to keep believing your fantasy.


Because as was mentioned by another poster, shooting someone without killing them implies that less than lethal force could have been used. So there is in fact an incentive to kill someone when legally OK, even if alternatives exist. This isn't hollywood where you shoot the gun out of someone's hand or shoot them in the leg and they'll stop doing whatever they're doing.



It gives the best outcome for the department in terms of minimizing costs Because no one EVER sues after there is a death. Riiiiiight....


Another common thing I've seen is officers standing infront of cars firing into cars. They say "he was going to run me over." Well don't stand in front of a lunatics car? Because if someone is going to try to run over a cop with his gun drawn, they won't turn the steering wheel if he tries to move. Give me a break.



The fact they don't have better access to non-lethal weapons,

What do you want them to do, haul a little red wagon around with them all the time full of more non-lethal weapons? Most cops already carry tasers,OC, and a baton in addition to everything else they have to carry.

I'm done with this thread, keep living in your fantasyland.

[MyP71Vic]

First off nobody I know or care for is stupid enough to do something like this. Second even if I did I would not blame the cops for defending themselves and removing the threat. Unless you are a druggy or know some that would get drugged up and destroy a food joint then go try to take on the cops in an effort to try and kill one then this really should not be that big of an issue. Is it a bad thing that this person is dead, yes, but I will not lose any sleep over someone getting gunned down after threatening other peoples lives. This guy made his choice to do what he did and this was what the police did to stop him from causeing others harm. If he was not threatening their lives they would not have killed him. Until you are put into a situation that requires you to act quickly to defend yourself and the person you are with you will not understand. All you will want to do is make the person stop anyway you can and sometimes it will make you do something that might not have been the only possible solution but really you don't have time to think of 20 ways to avoid what is happening and use the one thing that you know will work. The best solution is the one which keeps innocent people from getting hurt.
-Nick

[LIL EVO]

Ofcs are trained to shoot for the central nervous system. Neck to nose. Brain stem. The intent isn't to kill, its to immediately stop threat. "We" dont control if they die or not.

Someone needs three things to justify deadly force. Weapon, intent, delivery system. I didnt even watch the video but it sounds like he had all three.

[BR3W CITY]

I know nothing of police training, but whatever happen to "Failure drills"? 2body - 1 head if thread hasn't stopped?
I've been taught that 100 times.

[LIL EVO]

Not trained at the academy level. Thats more advanced, swat training, etc.

[LIL EVO]

It has much to do with perceived threat and officer subject factors.

Scenario A
Your partner is on the ground being punched, stomped. You are behind a chain link fence

Answer
Deadly force justified. Love to hear discussion on this.

Scenario B
Small female officer being punched, attacked by large subject. Her personal feeling of having no other option and death or great bodily harm inflicted is inevitable. Key is "no other option"

Answer
Deadly force

Scenario B deadly force may not be justified if there was an equal sized officer, etc. Many variables.

[That_Guy]

You are confusing the legality of this with the objective reality of the situation. Someone with 5 bullets in their chest is not a threat. I would fight him with my bare hands and bet every penny I had on that fight. Think about how retarded calling a guy with 5 bullets in his chest a threat is.

really? sigh.

[GHOSST]

First off nobody I know or care for is stupid enough to do something like this. Second even if I did I would not blame the cops for defending themselves and removing the threat. Unless you are a druggy or know some that would get drugged up and destroy a food joint then go try to take on the cops in an effort to try and kill one then this really should not be that big of an issue. Is it a bad thing that this person is dead, yes, but I will not lose any sleep over someone getting gunned down after threatening other peoples lives. This guy made his choice to do what he did and this was what the police did to stop him from causeing others harm. If he was not threatening their lives they would not have killed him. Until you are put into a situation that requires you to act quickly to defend yourself and the person you are with you will not understand. All you will want to do is make the person stop anyway you can and sometimes it will make you do something that might not have been the only possible solution but really you don't have time to think of 20 ways to avoid what is happening and use the one thing that you know will work. The best solution is the one which keeps innocent people from getting hurt.
-Nick

Well I guess your just the miracle anomaly of human existence, that doesn't know ANYONE who has hit the slippery slope that you cared about. Listen, they don't have to be riddled by bullets to make my point. Everyone has a black sheep in the family, or knows someone close to them who has that family member that just can't avoid problems, no matter what they are, but anything that could possibly push them to the edge, and in the worse case scenario, over it.

So color you better than the rest of us puny degenerates. No matter what walk of life you come from, bad things happen to good people and bad people alike, drugs happen to the most unlikely of people, not to mention alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, career stress, relationship stress, family stress or loss, mental health, and many many other things that lead to a chain reaction of problems, and all these issues can easily relate, its just that simple. Nobody is perfect in this messed up world, being drugged out isn't the only thing to make people snap.

Now realize this comment is towards you and your comment, and to clear the air I'm not trying to justify that the criminal shouldn't have been put down, but simply the way he was put down, and if it was someone you cared about, you'd be thinking about the latter. This criminal definitely crossed the line, and he paid the price most likely with his life.


It just seriously seems like its new member etiquette to just talk out the ass, imo to get noticed, but oh well. I gave you what you wanted. Enjoy.

[BR3W CITY]

lol, he's still got a few posts to reach KidCougar status...

[Nix]

lol, he's still got a few posts to reach KidCougar status...

Hahaha! Maybe it is him?! A wolf in sheeps clothing? Lol ;)

[Waver]

My girlfriend, who just graduated from police academy last month, was just talking to me about this video. She showed me her firearms textbook which clearly states quote: "The definition of subject behavior that justifies an officers use of deadly force is any behavior that an officer believes has caused or imminently threatens to cause death or great bodily harm to you or another person or persons."

Her textbook's definition of deadly force is "the intentional use of a firearm or other instrument; the use of which would result in a high probability of death."

Basically, deadly force is countered with deadly force.

For example, in academy, when she was being scenario tested, their deadly force scenario was a guy wielding a pipe. The guy in the scenario started approaching her and her partner. Both officers in training repeatedly ordered the man to drop his weapon repeatedly When he refused, they shot him (with simunition rounds). They passed. Had they not given him a few chances to comply and NOT shot him, they would have failed their scenario.

As to getting tazed in the face... She says she was trained to aim her tazer at the largest muscle available... Legs, back, ass... Getting tazed in the face would not debilitate someone and bring them down to their knees as easily as you may think. I'd trust her judgement about tazing... She's been tazed.

I'm sure rubber bullets could have been used, but not every department has them. That's typically riot gear. Riot control is generally not called to respond to a robbery in progress.

Officers are not taught "shoot to kill" for legal purposes. They are taught to "eliminate the threat".

FYI everything I've listed here is based on Wisconsin standards for training. It may vary in other states.

Nickerz, read the statement above one more time. No where does it say anything about a financial price. When nonlethal methods are found to be ineffective against a perp who is holding a deadly weapon, then deadly force must be used.

There is a reason why it is called deadly force. They are trained to shoot to kill and eliminate the threat, not to maim the threat.

No the bigger question does this fall into a case was deadly force is necessary. To me, it was. The perp was given ample time to drop the weapon, given ample warning. He was then shot with a Taser.....once again given ample time to drop the weapon......He was a threat to their life as well as the life of others around them. Should the dog have been released...maybe, but that would of been putting the life of another (remember the dog is also considered an officer, and it is a living creature......that falls in the life of an officer). They shot to neutralize the threat to their life.....


Now you said that he had 5 rounds in his chest, however he was still moving and still had a deadly weapon in his hands....He, thus, is considered still a deadly threat.........

Where is there any mention of financial liability?


I guess it is because we are living in a world where a guy who is breaking the law and is a threat to our personal safty can sue if he gets hurt......However that is not why the police are trained to use deadly force.

[fivonut]

They absolutely do. If there is a chance to wound a subject, but not kill them, neutralizing the threat they will choose to kill him. Because that is how they are trained. Because as was mentioned by another poster, shooting someone without killing them implies that less than lethal force could have been used. So there is in fact an incentive to kill someone when legally OK, even if alternatives exist. It gives the best outcome for the department in terms of minimizing costs, and maximizes the chance the officer will return home.

There are a LOT of videos where police have fired at a subject with a non-projectile\firearm who then began to run which they continued to fire on. Another common thing I've seen is officers standing infront of cars firing into cars. They say "he was going to run me over." Well don't stand in front of a lunatics car? Don't get me wrong, these people need to be locked up. But to at any whim and at the first chance jump to justifiable homicide is ridiculous. There needs to be a lot more options and legal remedies for police that doesn't make killing someone the easiest and best choice.

I'm assuming you're referring to something I said, and you're twisting it slightly. What I said was that if you feel shooting to injure would suffice then you have no business drawing your weapon (not exact words). What it means is that drawing your weapon is ONLY to be done when no thing else at hand will stop the threat and the only way to stop the threat is to kill the threat. It doesn't mean that killing is justified just because you drew your weapon. You should only draw your weapon when killing is your only option (at hand or in the immediate vicinity). I think officers have plenty of non lethal options and we saw these officers use one, tasers.

Killing a person in self defense is NOT a legal or authoritarian argument. EVERY human being has the universal right to life, this includes the right to defend their life (which is why we have the 2nd amendment). However, the second that you make a conscience decision to infringe on that universal right, you lose your universal right to life since the person you're attacking has the right to defend theirs by taking yours.

[GHOSST]

Hahaha! Maybe it is him?! A wolf in sheeps clothing? Lol ;)

Not unless he's into crown vics now, that would be a quick transition, but who knows..