suspect shot outside of a carls jr in california *NSFW*

[dcludwig]

I don't care if he was shot 5 or 55 times either, but if that was you (a civilian) doing the shooting instead of a cop and it was caught on tape just like it was here, I think the prosecutor would have a problem with the last 5 shots (while the criminal was moving away from you - not to mention the 10 shots). Let's be real here - if this was a civilian shooting, the shooter would probably be facing murder charges.

Unless you are seeing a different angle than me, you can't see the perp behind the car after the first sting. Did he reach for the crowbar again? Lots of interpretation here.

I would tend to agree with this assessment as we cannot see what was happening with the perp after the first five rounds. And I, too, will not cry any tears if it were 5 or 15 rounds. Saying that, two things do bother me. First from what I CAN see of the perp, he was falling AWAY from the officers. Secondly, where are the police dash-cams? There have to have been at least a couple recording this incident. If and when they are made public and it shows the perp truly falling to the ground as the last volley was fired into him it will, no doubt, cause some public outcry.

Adrenaline is a key word from my view, which makes make me more accepting of the extra 5 or 6 rounds being fired, regardless of the state of the bad guy. But to the anti's, a slow motion of a police dash-cam showing the extra rounds being pumped into the thug as he is falling to the ground is huge fuel for their fire. Just an observation. I weep not at the loss of this thugs life - he certainly would bludgeoned someone to death eventually with his "tool-of-choice".

The worst part of the video was the narrative of the youts in the car capturing it on video.

[BobK]

Additionally, the second "volley" came less than a half second after the first, it's not like the officer waited a minute and then shot him as he lay on the ground. The mental order to "shoot" had probably already been transmitted from brain to finger.

I agree, and am also familiar with the Ayoob position on the same subject.

Did you notice that the officer with the Taser was looking down at the Taser trying to figure out why it didn't work and had his attention completely off of the BG for a few critical seconds almost like tunnel vision. He is lucky the other officer had his back and jumped in shooting. I think if the other officer wasn't there, the BG would have been able to hit him before he could react. Very fortunate, and I hope he learned something from reviewing the incident. It was very chilling to me.

[Scruit]

Whatever happens in this case, I think it will become a training video fro many new officers. Lots of good, bad and questionable choices all made within a few seconds.

- Why was the dog not released? Should it have been released? Discuss.
- The taser officer took his focus off the BG and nearly took a metal pipe to the head for it. What should he have done differently?
- Was the first volley justified? In hindsight it looks like the pipe was only 'raised' and it could be questioned (after-the-fact) about if there was any intent to strike the officer at all. Consider the officer's reaction time.
- The taser officer was caught off guard and fumbling for his weapon. This was very nearly a fatal mistake. His volley of shots comes after the suspect appears to move out of striking position (due to being shot by k9 officer). Was this second volley justified? Consider reaction time plus adrenaline.

Finally: How many beers does taser cop owe k9 cop for saving his damn life. That second or two of focusing on the failed taser turned into a near-death experience.

[Chuck]

The guy is still standing at this point in the video, and the second cop has just fired his second shot



It's amazing how fast this went down.
In my other screen shot, at 42 seconds the guy is pulling the taser probes out of his face and the cop is holstering his taser.
The shooting actually starts just as the counter turns to 45 seconds.
And by 47 seconds the first cop has shot five times and the second cop has shot twice already, (after fiddling with his taser)

The guy didn't have time to fall.

Good shoot for both cops is my judgement

[Mustang380gal]

.

Finally: How many beers does taser cop owe k9 cop for saving his damn life. That second or two of focusing on the failed taser turned into a near-death experience.

K9 cop should never have to buy his own beer again, if the taser cop is around.

It's amazing how fast this went down.
In my other screen shot, at 42 seconds the guy is pulling the taser probes out of his face and the cop is holstering his taser.
The shooting actually starts just as the counter turns to 45 seconds.
And by 47 seconds the first cop has shot five times and the second cop has shot twice already, (after fiddling with his taser)

The guy didn't have time to fall.

Good shoot for both cops is my judgement

Blink and you miss it. I had to watch a few times to catch what I was seeing. I didn't see the barbs being pulled out the first time.

[xtractr]

As to the question if the dog should have been released, I think if it had, it's likely, it would have been hurt or killed. Unless the dog grabs the arm holding the pipe on the first bite, One quick blow to the dog's head would have caused some serious injuries. I think if I were the handler, and saw someone standing with a weapon at the ready, whether it be a knife, gun or pipe, I would be hesitant to release as well.

[Sevens]

I am no K-9 trainer or expert of any sort... but I always thought that the purpose of the dog was to do things that the officers cannot do, and take some the risk that the officers might not need to. As for whether or not the dog would have succeeded--

I'd definitely put my money on that dog! I think he would have made mincemeat of that idiot.

[Greg Focker]

In a more perfect world (that admittedly we do not live in), I believe the dog would have ended this entire scenario better for every single participant involved, and that includes the dog who deserved his treat. And for the idiot children watching and filming (poorly) in the car, it would have even been one helluva lot more entertaining to watch.

Speaking as someone who has repeatedly had police dogs try to come a take a chunk out of him (albeit, I was wearing a bite sleeve at the time and we were training), I'd be willing to bet on myself in a case of "police dog vs man with BIG metal hammer". As long as you time up the first swing (and a dog is a bigger target moving slower than a baseball... something almost everyone here learned to hit as a kid), the dog's going to be laid out (if not dead) after impact.

I am no K-9 trainer or expert of any sort... but I always thought that the purpose of the dog was to do things that the officers cannot do, and take some the risk that the officers might not need to. As for whether or not the dog would have succeeded--

I'd definitely put my money on that dog! I think he would have made mincemeat of that idiot.

Spend some time around K9 cops, and you'll privately get the same answer from every one of them that is actually worth a damn as a K9 handler: you hurt/shoot/kill their K9 partner, and they will react to it almost as if you hurt/shot/killed their family member. I think you're safer shooting one officer's human partner than shooting a K9 officer's dog. Now, if you shot their dog, immediately threw your weapon far away, and proned out with your hands on your head they might not shoot you... but that is FAR from a safe bet.

Dogs are great at some things people suck at... but if I were that K9 handler, I too would be shooting the oxygen thief rather than sending my dog in harm's way in that {inappropriate language} situation.

[iceollie12]

Regarding the police dog; it generally costs 12-16 grand to train a police dog that does many things aside from attacking (sniffing drugs, tracking running convicts, etc.). A couple 9mm Glock rounds are far cheaper than a dead police dog. I've also seen videos where K9 units attack somebody doped up, but that perp is so oblivious to pain that the dog doesn't immediately take them down (they usually end up with really awful wounds, but the dog didn't drop them like a bullet).

[dangerranger6100]

- Why was the dog not released? Should it have been released? Discuss.
- The taser officer took his focus off the BG and nearly took a metal pipe to the head for it. What should he have done differently?
- Was the first volley justified? In hindsight it looks like the pipe was only 'raised' and it could be questioned (after-the-fact) about if there was any intent to strike the officer at all. Consider the officer's reaction time.
- The taser officer was caught off guard and fumbling for his weapon. This was very nearly a fatal mistake. His volley of shots comes after the suspect appears to move out of striking position (due to being shot by k9 officer). Was this second volley justified? Consider reaction time plus adrenaline.

The guy was definitely about to tee off on the officer, someone mentioned earlier, you can see him crow hop towards him right before the K-9 officer shoots.

The K-9 officer was protecting his partner(the dog), that's why it wasn't released.

Should that second volley of shots been fired? Probably not, the threat seemed to be neutralized for the moment, even though he was still on his feet. If the rounds miss they have to end up somewhere, which makes the "shoot him in the hand" comments even more idiotic. The second volley was justified though, given that he was caught off guard by a deadly attack directed at him.

[ParaC7]

And if you know anything about dogs, that's like wagging a piece of cheese or a hunk of chicken in front of the dog's face and then telling him he can't have any of it, and never giving him a thing. That dog was born, bred and trained to work and a working dog absolutely lives to do what he is trained and bred to do.

That stumbling idiot mere feet from a healthy, working and motivated police dog-- man, it's just plain unfair to the animal.

I'm wondering if the handler felt that the perp's hold on the weapon would give him a good swing against the dog and was holding the dog until a safer moment to release.
Once the weapon was raised the quickest was to stop the threat was to shoot. The dog would take longer to get there than the bullet

Ditto I believe that the handler was trying to protect his dog as much as the dog was trying to protect him. Also you dont know if that dog was bite trained or not. Alot of departments are using the whats called the bark and bay method over biting due to lawsuits resulting from dog bites. I grew up around police K-9, my father was the commander of the K-9 unit in his department for as long as i can remember.

[Vex]

From a training perspective, I believe there were several mistakes by the police (be forewarned though, this doesn't make the shoot unjustified).

First, I think usage of the dog was a mistake. The initial reports of a person causing damage to property was a misdemeanor crime to begin with, he wasn't running, and there wasn't a vehicle around to sniff. It seems to me the dog was let out of the car as an intimidation technique, but it ended up backfiring on them. All the dog did was tie up one of the K9 officer's hands, thus limiting his ability to react and respond. When you're only 50% effective, you have drastically fewer choices in an appropriate response, and are much less agile. Because of these limitations, the K9 officer put himself in a position where shooting was his single response option.

Next, what was going to happen if the taser probes worked effectively? The suspect would fall down, and the next task would be to put him in handcuffs. How many other officers were around to help the tasing officer with that task? Again, the dog became a liability. The K9 officer would not have been able to approach and assist the tasing officer with handcuffs, because the dog would be in the way... further illustrating my point that the dog was a mistake.

The initial tasing was sloppy, too. From the video, I believe the tasing officer rushed the deployment, and by not taking his time, the taser was ineffective. The laser on those things is pretty foolproof. Put the laser dot right between the shoulder blades, fire from 12-15 feet, and the taser probes will hit where they need to for a full effect. Instead, the taser dart hit in the neck area, which is absolutely against the training. Even more so, the neck area was covered by a loose fitting garment which softened the blow of the dart and stopped penetration. That officer needs to be retrained, IMO.

The taser also became a liability when the untrained officer looked away to try to reload. After the first set of darts failed due to operator error, the tasing officer drops his head down to look at the taser while fumbling with cartridges. This put him off balance and off guard when the suspect turned to try to swing at him. In the tasing officer's retraining, he should spend the entire classroom portion constantly loading and reloading the taser without looking. It takes hundreds (if not thousands) of repetitions before an action even begins to take hold, and closer to 5,000 repetitions before the training is permanently learned in muscle memory. He should have been able to reload the taser with his eyes on the target and remain on guard at all times. He lost focus, and nearly lost his head because of it.

Now, those things said, the shooting is justified. When the grand jury looks at these shootings, they have to consider the situation from the perspective of the officers at the time of the actions, without the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. Hindsight is for the internet, not for the court room. The dog was a mistake. The tasing was botched. The tasing officer needs further training. The opportunity for the suspect to swing at the officer should never have happened. But, these mistakes do not change the fact that once the suspect presented deadly force, the officers had only one option left: shoot.

[Chuck]

That's one heck of a tactical analysis, Vex."

Thanks