Fan in San Diego Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 I thought this story was pretty amusing from the same website http://www.kpho.com/news/16540038/detail.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 You're exactly right. Part of training I received in the Marine Corps is to get pepper sprayed and fight through it. I'm quite sure law enforcement officials receive the same training. I must say it was one of the most unpleasant days of my 40 years of living. For AJ Zep's benefit, law enforcement officers are trained in the escalation of force. Non-lethal measures have become more available of the last 10-15 years. As opined above, they do not always subdue a subject. Drugs such as PCP and Meth can allow suspects to overcome non-lethal methods. Please keep in mind, we do not pay Police Officers to get injured. Many think that the cops should fight a suspect and put their life in further jeapordy. The fact is once a suspect refuses to comply with police orders the officers are then left with few choices. Grapling with a suspect is one of the least favorable options and quite frankly, if you were in that situation and had a gun, would you fight the person or shoot the person when you felt your life is in jeapordy? Many of us also instinctively see the good in all people. In fact the are people in this world who have the instincts of animals and only marginally qualify as human beings because of their DNA. There are some seriously BAD people in this world and the Police are the people who we hire to deal with them. This is often spun for sympathy by family members after some animal is shot down by the police as "He was a father" (So he donated sperm to some woman), or he was just misunderstood...blah, blah, blah. I think you know what I mean. I know, I know it's Wiki but the facts are straight on this as far as I know. The North Hollywood Shootout. The LAPD was later criticized[citation needed] for not allowing Matasareanu to receive medical attention, to which the department countered by stating that ambulance personnel were following standard procedure in hostile situations by refusing to enter "the hot zone", as Matasareanu was still considered to be dangerous.[10] Some reports indicate that he was lying on the pavement with no weapons for approximately an hour before ambulances arrived.[26] A lawsuit, on the behalf of Matasareanu's children, was filed against members of the LAPD, claiming that Matasareanu's civil rights were violated and that he was allowed to bleed to death.[27] The lawsuit was tried in United States District Court in February and March 2000, and ended in a mistrial with the jury deadlocked.[28] The suit was later dropped when Matasareanu's family agreed to dismiss the action with a waiver of malicious prosecution.[29] So a guy who just shot a lot of cops and innocent people may have been moved to the back of the line when EMT's were helping people. Thank God this family never saw dime one from this suit. I hope the lawyer spent a lot of time and money on that case and took a huge hit in his pocketbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 You're exactly right. Part of training I received in the Marine Corps is to get pepper sprayed and fight through it. I'm quite sure law enforcement officials receive the same training. I must say it was one of the most unpleasant days of my 40 years of living. For AJ Zep's benefit, law enforcement officers are trained in the escalation of force. Non-lethal measures have become more available of the last 10-15 years. As opined above, they do not always subdue a subject. Drugs such as PCP and Meth can allow suspects to overcome non-lethal methods. Please keep in mind, we do not pay Police Officers to get injured. Many think that the cops should fight a suspect and put their life in further jeapordy. The fact is once a suspect refuses to comply with police orders the officers are then left with few choices. Grapling with a suspect is one of the least favorable options and quite frankly, if you were in that situation and had a gun, would you fight the person or shoot the person when you felt your life is in jeapordy? Many of us also instinctively see the good in all people. In fact the are people in this world who have the instincts of animals and only marginally qualify as human beings because of their DNA. There are some seriously BAD people in this world and the Police are the people who we hire to deal with them. This is often spun for sympathy by family members after some animal is shot down by the police as "He was a father" (So he donated sperm to some woman), or he was just misunderstood...blah, blah, blah. I think you know what I mean. Yeah, that stuff seriously sucks. When my wife and I were dating, she used to carry a canister of if around on her key chain. I was f&%king with it and wound up squirting myself square in the freaking forehead. This was at about 3:00AM and she was still living with her parents. Wound up waking the whole house up and everyone filed out in their PJ's. I just wanted to sit down and cry like a girl. That said, it was still possible to function. So fighting through it is clearly possible... (A year later, I got it again because a friend of mine thought he was being 'cute.' He agreed, to let me blast him in the face with it in return. I did. It's a miracle I'm still alive after some of the stupid stuff I've done... rammed into a tree once to see what it'd feel like!) Thread hijacking aside, you're right about genuinely *bad* people. It's a shame. The 'good' in 'normal' people usually leads them to want to help. But sometimes, you've generally just got "bad." If they HAD fought with him, I can just see the headline... 'three police offers beat helpless man stealing worthless junk, race riots at 11.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 For AJ Zep's benefit, law enforcement officers are trained in the escalation of force. Non-lethal measures have become more available of the last 10-15 years. As opined above, they do not always subdue a subject. Drugs such as PCP and Meth can allow suspects to overcome non-lethal methods. Please keep in mind, we do not pay Police Officers to get injured. Many think that the cops should fight a suspect and put their life in further jeapordy. The fact is once a suspect refuses to comply with police orders the officers are then left with few choices. Grapling with a suspect is one of the least favorable options and quite frankly, if you were in that situation and had a gun, would you fight the person or shoot the person when you felt your life is in jeapordy? It astounds me that so many people don't seem to understand the fairly obvious concept that cops are not required to put their lives in even more danger than is already inherent to the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Yeah, that stuff seriously sucks. When my wife and I were dating, she used to carry a canister of if around on her key chain. I was f&%king with it and wound up squirting myself square in the freaking forehead. This was at about 3:00AM and she was still living with her parents. Wound up waking the whole house up and everyone filed out in their PJ's. I just wanted to sit down and cry like a girl. That said, it was still possible to function. So fighting through it is clearly possible... (A year later, I got it again because a friend of mine thought he was being 'cute.' He agreed, to let me blast him in the face with it in return. I did. It's a miracle I'm still alive after some of the stupid stuff I've done... rammed into a tree once to see what it'd feel like!) Thread hijacking aside, you're right about genuinely *bad* people. It's a shame. The 'good' in 'normal' people usually leads them to want to help. But sometimes, you've generally just got "bad." If they HAD fought with him, I can just see the headline... 'three police offers beat helpless man stealing worthless junk, race riots at 11.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 It astounds me that so many people don't seem to understand the fairly obvious concept that cops are not required to put their lives in even more danger than is already inherent to the job. Nobody expects them to do that...I don't want their lives in jeopardy either, cause I'm very thankful that these guys and gals put their lives on the line as it is. At the same time, however, I'm quite certain that protocol is not to "shoot to kill" every single time there is a situation where there's a possibility that a cop could be injured. And when you have THREE professionally trained cops against ONE unarmed man, it should not end in death, IMO. If it were one cop who, for whatever reason, couldn't get away from the assailant, I'd totally understand it. But I guarantee you if I had one of those thick, telescopic metal batons that police carry with them, I'd have this guy on the ground myself, I don't care how big he was. If I had two other people to help me, there's not even a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodBye Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Look, we have no idea how hot you are or not. So it's odd you'd admit to being a dog. But hey, honesty is the best policy. BTW, I don't see big jugs on any of them dogs. So, to be "hot" how big do my boobs have to be?? Nunya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 Yeah, that stuff seriously sucks. When my wife and I were dating, she used to carry a canister of if around on her key chain. I was f&%king with it and wound up squirting myself square in the freaking forehead. This was at about 3:00AM and she was still living with her parents. Wound up waking the whole house up and everyone filed out in their PJ's. I just wanted to sit down and cry like a girl. That said, it was still possible to function. So fighting through it is clearly possible... (A year later, I got it again because a friend of mine thought he was being 'cute.' He agreed, to let me blast him in the face with it in return. I did. It's a miracle I'm still alive after some of the stupid stuff I've done... rammed into a tree once to see what it'd feel like!) Thread hijacking aside, you're right about genuinely *bad* people. It's a shame. The 'good' in 'normal' people usually leads them to want to help. But sometimes, you've generally just got "bad." If they HAD fought with him, I can just see the headline... 'three police offers beat helpless man stealing worthless junk, race riots at 11.' First off Second you are absolutely right. A lot of the time today cops are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Nobody expects them to do that...I don't want their lives in jeopardy either, cause I'm very thankful that these guys and gals put their lives on the line as it is. At the same time, however, I'm quite certain that protocol is not to "shoot to kill" every single time there is a situation where there's a possibility that a cop could be injured. And when you have THREE professionally trained cops against ONE unarmed man, it should not end in death, IMO. If it were one cop who, for whatever reason, couldn't get away from the assailant, I'd totally understand it. But I guarantee you if I had one of those thick, telescopic metal batons that police carry with them, I'd have this guy on the ground myself, I don't care how big he was. If I had two other people to help me, there's not even a question. Ok Mighty Mouse. So, to be "hot" how big do my boobs have to be?? Nunya Send me a picture and I'll tell you if they qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Much like polar bears, the loss of this guy's life means little. . . very little. If only we could figure out how to get rid of more guys like this, and find oil at the same time... damn, that'd be sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Nobody expects them to do that...I don't want their lives in jeopardy either, cause I'm very thankful that these guys and gals put their lives on the line as it is. At the same time, however, I'm quite certain that protocol is not to "shoot to kill" every single time there is a situation where there's a possibility that a cop could be injured. And when you have THREE professionally trained cops against ONE unarmed man, it should not end in death, IMO. If it were one cop who, for whatever reason, couldn't get away from the assailant, I'd totally understand it. But I guarantee you if I had one of those thick, telescopic metal batons that police carry with them, I'd have this guy on the ground myself, I don't care how big he was. If I had two other people to help me, there's not even a question. The protocol is to aim for center mass and hit vitals. In Iraq during the Battle of Fallujah, the AQ fighters were injecting themselves with shots of adreneline. There are many case files of AQ fighters being shot NUMEROUS times and continuing to fight as if superhuman, when their body should've shut down. PCP is a common drug known to have such an effect. The cops apprehending the suspect tried non-lethal force and it did not subdue the suspect which many have already opined, is a very painful treatment, they are reasonable to suspect the guy might be under the influence. What next? Hit him with a baton? Why would you want to close the distance and get closer to someone who just shrugged off a taser? Do you see my point? Those telescopic batons don't reach out 20 yards. I may not get you to change your opinion, but clearly you have no law enforcement background and quite frankly, seem very naive about some of the customers the police have to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Nobody expects them to do that...I don't want their lives in jeopardy either, cause I'm very thankful that these guys and gals put their lives on the line as it is. At the same time, however, I'm quite certain that protocol is not to "shoot to kill" every single time there is a situation where there's a possibility that a cop could be injured. And when you have THREE professionally trained cops against ONE unarmed man, it should not end in death, IMO. Ideally, no it shouldn't, but hand to hand combat is FAR more dangerous for cops so it's not unusual for them to have to shoot. And if a cop has to shoot, they are going to put the man down. And again, the best way to ensure things go smoothly for any suspect is for them to follow orders and not attack the cops. The longer someone continues to escalate the situation because they think that the rules don't apply to them, the less sympathy I'm going to have when things turn badly for them. Much like polar bears, the loss of this guy's life means little. . . very little. If only we could figure out how to get rid of more guys like this, and find oil at the same time... damn, that'd be sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 The protocol is to aim for center mass and hit vitals. In Iraq during the Battle of Fallujah, the AQ fighters were injecting themselves with shots of adreneline. There are many case files of AQ fighters being shot NUMEROUS times and continuing to fight as if superhuman, when their body should've shut down. PCP is a common drug known to have such an effect. The cops apprehending the suspect tried non-lethal force and it did not subdue the suspect which many have already opined, is a very painful treatment, they are reasonable to suspect the guy might be under the influence. What next? Hit him with a baton? Why would you want to close the distance and get closer to someone who just shrugged off a taser? Do you see my point? Those telescopic batons don't reach out 20 yards. I may not get you to change your opinion, but clearly you have no law enforcement background and quite frankly, seem very naive about some of the customers the police have to deal with. First of all, with all due respect to your military training and service, we're not talking about war, and we're not talking about trying to take out an enemy combatant. We're talking about a guy rummaging through a garage, unarmed, and probably - as others have suggested - loaded out of his mind. The only non-lethal force they mentioned in the article was tasering, and I highly doubt that the next step after tasering is lethal force. If it is, particularly with three officers present, there's something wrong with that. Let me just ask you flat out: With your military training, which I'm assuming has to be somewhat similar to what the police receive, are you saying that you and two other officers could not subdue an unarmed man without killing him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 First of all, with all due respect to your military training and service, we're not talking about war, and we're not talking about trying to take out an enemy combatant. We're talking about a guy rummaging through a garage, unarmed, and probably - as others have suggested - loaded out of his mind. The only non-lethal force they mentioned in the article was tasering, and I highly doubt that the next step after tasering is lethal force. If it is, particularly with three officers present, there's something wrong with that. Let me just ask you flat out: With your military training, which I'm assuming has to be somewhat similar to what the police receive, are you saying that you and two other officers could not subdue an unarmed man without killing him? How would they know if he was unarmed prior to subduing him? Just because he's not brandishing a weapon doesn't mean he doesn't have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Have you ever watched Cops? Sometimes three men have trouble subduing a guy. One episode had a naked guy on PCP that was shot by the homeowner. The guy was slippery from the blood. It took 5 or 6 cops to finally subdue him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 How would they know if he was unarmed prior to subduing him? Just because he's not brandishing a weapon doesn't mean he doesn't have one. Wouldn't that be the case in just about any situation, though? How would they know I didn't have a weapon under my hip when they stop me for a ticket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Have you ever watched Cops? Sometimes three men have trouble subduing a guy. One episode had a naked guy on PCP that was shot by the homeowner. The guy was slippery from the blood. It took 5 or 6 cops to finally subdue him. Yeah, I know what you mean. I guess I would expect that the cops in this case would have at least tried to beat the guy down or something before shooting him. Or if you need to shoot him, hit him in the shoulder or the leg. This is just really hard for me to fathom that taking his life was the best option, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 First of all, with all due respect to your military training and service, we're not talking about war, and we're not talking about trying to take out an enemy combatant. We're talking about a guy rummaging through a garage, unarmed, and probably - as others have suggested - loaded out of his mind. The only non-lethal force they mentioned in the article was tasering, and I highly doubt that the next step after tasering is lethal force. If it is, particularly with three officers present, there's something wrong with that. Let me just ask you flat out: With your military training, which I'm assuming has to be somewhat similar to what the police receive, are you saying that you and two other officers could not subdue an unarmed man without killing him? Hand-to-hand combat is precisely what we're talking about. Middle of the night, don't know if the guy's got a gun stuck in his waistband, don't know if he's on something. Do know that he's not complying with commands, a taser didn't put him down, and he apparently grabbed -- and used -- another officer's Taser during the brawl. Time for the cops to worry about their OWN safety first. Don't know how else to explain it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Hand-to-hand combat is precisely what we're talking about. Middle of the night, don't know if the guy's got a gun stuck in his waistband, don't know if he's on something. Do know that he's not complying with commands, a taser didn't put him down, and he apparently grabbed -- and used -- another officer's Taser during the brawl. Time for the cops to worry about their OWN safety first. Don't know how else to explain it to you. As I posted earlier in the thread, if it's the same taser he yanked off himself (I'm assuming none of the other officers were so helpless that they allowed this guy to just come up and grab a taser off their belt), then having it was useless to him. It can only be fired once, and then another cartridge would have to be loaded. The only thing he could have done was hold it against an officer's person directly, in which case it would still not have incapacitated him in the same way it would if the probes and wires had been in effect. Having a taser that had already been fired is basically the equivalent of him being unarmed. It still comes back to the same question: Why can't three trained police officers take down an unarmed man w/out killing him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Did you read the link? “The suspect shocked both officers at different times during the fight,” said Phoenix police spokeswoman Stacie Derge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 AJ- You admit you know little about police training and the escalation of force yet you assume that what they did is impropper or that "they could've done something else". Apparently just about everyone who posted here except you 'gets it'. Sure it's unfortunate that he died for a petty crime, but he earned it by not complying. EVERYONE knows that police officers carry weapons and if you refuse to do what they say (while committing a crime), you run the risk of being seriously injured or dead. Have you ever been pulled over? I assume you're a law abiding person. Then why dose the cop stay behind you and approach with his hand on his weapon in most cases? It's because THEY DON'T KNOW WHO THEY'RE DEALING WITH. I just think you're acting foolish by assuming that there "must" be another way to subdue him without knowing what that something is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts