Holy $#!+ This Guy Is One Tough Bastard!!

[Acantha]

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?

Honestly, you're getting worse and worse in this. How can you actually be saying that's these cops should have risked dying in order to possibly subdue a thief who obviously was going to fight them? How do you know what would happen if these 3 guys tried to take him down? Even if he didn't have a weapon on him, which they didn't know for sure, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN A FIGHT. He could have gotten a lucky position and broken one of their necks. Hit one of them just right to either cause death from the blow or a fall. Gotten a weapon from one of them during the encounter and endangered everyone's lives...including bystanders.

 

Look man, I know you're a pretty smart guy with a straight head on your shoulders, but in this particular case, in this thread, you are coming off like someone who watches and believes too many movies. You just don't give a guy like this a chance to hurt you....period. And he did nothing to deserve that chance. He broke the law, and tried to fight off and hurt police officers. Given the fact that third cop came and saw the fight going on actually proves that the first 2 cops were TRYING to keep it non-lethal (which again, was a BAD idea at that point). This guy EARNED being shot!

 

Now, maybe if he had been shot 41 times, we'd have something to debate...

[ajzepp]

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...

 

 

The fact that I'm not a police officer doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about things. On the other hand, just because someone IS a police officer doesn't mean they always make the correct decisions when presented with a given set of circumstances. If you think it's "foolish" that I am inquring whether there could be better ways of doing something w/out killing someone, then I dare say that perhaps you are a bit numb to things. People should always talk about whether things could have been handled better, particularly when a life is at stake. If these officers followed protocol, then great. But as of right now, it's really hard for me to believe that.

 

Are you going to answer my question, by the way?

[ajzepp]

Honestly, you're getting worse and worse in this. How can you actually be saying that's these cops should have risked dying in order to possibly subdue a thief who obviously was going to fight them? How do you know what would happen if these 3 guys tried to take him down? Even if he didn't have a weapon on him, which they didn't know for sure, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN A FIGHT. He could have gotten a lucky position and broken one of their necks. Hit one of them just right to either cause death from the blow or a fall. Gotten a weapon from one of them during the encounter and endangered everyone's lives...including bystanders.

 

Look man, I know you're a pretty smart guy with a straight head on your shoulders, but in this particular case, in this thread, you are coming off like someone who watches and believes too many movies. You just don't give a guy like this a chance to hurt you....period. And he did nothing to deserve that chance. He broke the law, and tried to fight off and hurt police officers. Given the fact that third cop came and saw the fight going on actually proves that the first 2 cops were TRYING to keep it non-lethal (which again, was a BAD idea at that point). This guy EARNED being shot!

 

Now, maybe if he had been shot 41 times, we'd have something to debate...

 

 

Dude, all I want to hear is someone in law enforcement tell me what their protocol is when there are three officers and one unarmed assailant. I'm sure that my ignorance, naivete, foolishness, and whatever else I'm exhibiting can be solved pretty quickly...I just want to know what they are trained to do in this sort of situation.

[sweetbaboo]

It still comes back to the same question: Why can't three trained police officers take down an unarmed man w/out killing him?

I've read through this whole thread and still can't figure out why you're being so difficult. If you were the wife or son or daughter of one of those cops, you'd be glad that he was able to come home that night rather than further risk getting killed or seriously f*cked up by a psycho that demonstrated unusual resilience.

[ajzepp]

Did you read the link?

 

“The suspect shocked both officers at different times during the fight,” said Phoenix police spokeswoman Stacie Derge.

 

Yes, and I'm sure it hurt like hell! But it shouldn't incapacitate the officers.

[ajzepp]

I've read through this whole thread and still can't figure out why you're being so difficult. If you were the wife or son or daughter of one of those cops, you'd be glad that he was able to come home that night rather than further risk getting killed or seriously f*cked up by a psycho that demonstrated unusual resilience.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just see things differently than you guys do, is all.

[Wacka]

Right, a cop is fighting, possibly for his life and he's going to go down a checklist on what to do.

[ajzepp]

Here's a link to a discussion I started with some online cops...

 

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/showthread.php?t=80686

[Fan in San Diego]

Here's a link to a discussion I started with some online cops...

 

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/showthread.php?t=80686

 

Interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

[ajzepp]

Interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

 

Yeah, I was interested to hear their views...pretty cool that they have a forum like that!

[SD Jarhead]

Here's a link to a discussion I started with some online cops...

 

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/showthread.php?t=80686

 

AJ- What is different in this thread than what I and others have already told you? You got the same answer from the police officers posting than you did here. It is called escalation of force. As I wrote earlier, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but you've been incredibly bull headed in this thread. Even though I was in the military, I have received some law enforcement training. It is exactly the same as I posted.

 

I'm done with this and am not going to insult you, but I think you were way out there on this one. Take care...

[Lori]

AJ- What is different in this thread than what I and others have already told you?

The source, obviously. He wasn't willing to believe us, despite your training and my EMS experience, because we're not cops.

 

Eh, whatever ...

[ajzepp]

AJ- What is different in this thread than what I and others have already told you? You got the same answer from the police officers posting than you did here. It is called escalation of force. As I wrote earlier, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but you've been incredibly bull headed in this thread. Even though I was in the military, I have received some law enforcement training. It is exactly the same as I posted.

 

I'm done with this and am not going to insult you, but I think you were way out there on this one. Take care...

 

 

Well, there was one obvious difference, but aside from that, it was pretty much like you said.

[ajzepp]

The source, obviously. He wasn't willing to believe us, despite your training and my EMS experience, because we're not cops.

 

Eh, whatever ...

 

 

I think it's great that you have EMS experience, Lori, but no, it wouldn't really be the same as hearing things from a cop's perspective.

[Steely Dan]

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?

 

So you read SD's post about how strong guys can be when they are loaded out of their minds and yet you sitll think that they could have subdued him with two cops. You also say that the taser only had one shot in it and yet the article says this:

 

“The suspect shocked both officers at different times during the fight,” said Phoenix police spokeswoman Stacie Derge.

 

A third officer arrived during the scuffle and shot the suspect, who died at the scene.

 

The officers were not seriously injured, but received minor scrapes in the fight. The homeowner stayed in his house throughout the incident and was not injured.

 

1. He shocked both officers during the fight so the taser had moe than one shot. There are different types of tasers and not all are only one shot.

 

2. The officers were injured during the fight and so they were trying to subdue him and couldn't. That's why the third cop shot him.

 

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?

 

Here's the protocol for someone being pulled over (told to me by a cop who's a friend). Pull off to the side of the road and place your hands on the steering wheel in sight of the officer. When he arrives roll down the window. This helps the officer know that you don't have anything in your hands where he can't see them. When I've been pulled over and had to get something out of my glove compartment some of the officers put a hand on their gun. This doesn't bother me because traffic stops are very dangerous for cops. I'm sure some A-Holes are offended but they are incredibly self centered and incredibly stupid.

 

 

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?

 

1. How did he manage to shock them?

 

2. How did he manage to shock them?

 

3. How did he manage to shock them?

 

 

Did you read the link?

 

“The suspect shocked both officers at different times during the fight,” said Phoenix police spokeswoman Stacie Derge.

 

How many times do multiple people have to keep saying that!!

 

 

The fact that I'm not a police officer doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about things. On the other hand, just because someone IS a police officer doesn't mean they always make the correct decisions when presented with a given set of circumstances. If you think it's "foolish" that I am inquring whether there could be better ways of doing something w/out killing someone, then I dare say that perhaps you are a bit numb to things. People should always talk about whether things could have been handled better, particularly when a life is at stake. If these officers followed protocol, then great. But as of right now, it's really hard for me to believe that.

 

Are you going to answer my question, by the way?

 

1. It means you have an uneducated opinion. I don't mean you're stupid I mean you're opinion isn't based on fact.

 

2. You do realize the officers lives were at stake, right?

 

 

AJ- What is different in this thread than what I and others have already told you? You got the same answer from the police officers posting than you did here. It is called escalation of force. As I wrote earlier, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but you've been incredibly bull headed in this thread. Even though I was in the military, I have received some law enforcement training. It is exactly the same as I posted.

 

I'm done with this and am not going to insult you, but I think you were way out there on this one. Take care...

 

I couldn't get the link to work ajzepp could you post a working one please?

 

 

Well, there was one obvious difference, but aside from that, it was pretty much like you said.

 

Instead of making ambiguous statements why not copy and paste something that proves that statement?

[Fan in San Diego]

I would love to know the rate of fatal shooting by police in Canada and Euro countries compared to the USA? I would guess we are higher than those countries. And if so, why ?

[ajzepp]

I would love to know the rate of fatal shooting by police in Canada and Euro countries compared to the USA? I would guess we are higher than those countries. And if so, why ?

 

 

I think Michael Moore touched upon that exact issue in his "documentary" about gun control. I don't remember the name of it, and I don't really care for Michael Moore, but it was interesting.

[ajzepp]

Dan: There are two types of tasers in use with the police force, and both of them can only fire their wires and probes once. If the guy was tasing the officers, he was holding it against them, which - as I stated several times in this thread - causes pain, but does not incapacitate them in the same way the probes would.

[Wacka]

Here's the protocol for someone being pulled over (told to me by a cop who's a friend). Pull off to the side of the road and place your hands on the steering wheel in sight of the officer. When he arrives roll down the window. This helps the officer know that you don't have anything in your hands where he can't see them. When I've been pulled over and had to get something out of my glove compartment some of the officers put a hand on their gun. This doesn't bother me because traffic stops are very dangerous for cops. I'm sure some A-Holes are offended but they are incredibly self centered and incredibly stupid.

 

Last time I got a ticket (>5 years ago) it was getting dark. The cop put his spotlight so it was shining in my eyes off the mirror and couldn't see him coming. I had teh window down and my hands at 10 and 2. When I went to get my registration out of the glove compartment, he shined his flashlight on my hands so he could see exactly what I was doing. I knew exactly what he was doing.

He got me for going through a crosswalk while a pedestrian was in it. A blind person was on the other side of the median and the cop was stopped to let him pass, but was in a turning lane. The cop was blocking my view of the pedestrian.

[ajzepp]

AJ, in law enforcement there is what is known as the Force Continuum.

 

1) Officer Presence

2) Verbal Commands

3) Empty Hand Control

4) Intermediate Weapons

5) Lethal Force

 

Due to variables you can go from Level 1 (officer presence) straight to Level 5 (lethal force) if the situation dictates it.

Typically officers use the 1+1 principal, meaning they are always one level higher than the suspect. In the example you have given, the suspect has a taser (level 4). In that case the officer goes up one level to level 5 (lethal force). Now when the officer is allowed to use lethal force is another subject. Hopefully this answers your question.

 

 

Thanks, that does help. Between what people here have said and what I've read at the police forum I linked to, most of my issues/concerns/questions have been addressed. The only thing I'm interested in hearing the officers address further is the issue of the taser beign in the possession of the assailant. Given that in this case he was apparently zapping them with it directly, I'd be curious to know if their approach would have been different if he were not able to be within arm's reach, and if the taser had already been discharged. Sounds like it wouldn't have made much difference, though.