The "best" police shooting video I've ever seen....

originally posted by: UKTruth
Oh dear.
The cop got himself into a worse situation as soon as he tasered the guy.
Force should be used in defence, not as an attack.

That's really the crux of it too. I was just thinking about that very thing.

I could probably research it out, but I'm too lazy at the moment; I wonder what the firearm usage ratio is today versus say the 1930's or 40's? In other words, how many times per 100,000 encounters does a law enforcement officer have to discharge a firearm today versus then? I'll bet it's like 10x more frequent now.

Used to be a police officer discharged a firearm as a last and final resort, and then only to save his life. Now it seems like firearms (and tasers) are just a "tool" used by law enforcement, like a wrench or a pry bar.

Some people might argue bad guys are more dangerous now, or there's more of them, but I'm not sure I'd agree. There have been gangs since the 1700's. There's been bad guys like Al Capone, Bonnie & Clyde and so many others. Sure there's more bad guys now, but there are also way more people now too. I'd bet the bad guys scale pretty evenly across population growth. And hell, machine guns were legal then, so what's different now?

A couple things come to mind. One, there's way more laws now, so encounters with law enforcement is up, proportionately. And two, there seems to be a different mentality in law enforcement now. Now, it's like..."Someone made me show up here, so come hell or high water, someone's gonna' get cuffed, stuffed in the squad car and taken downtown!!" Used to be the cops got everyone to calm down and left, telling everyone to be nice. Now, someone's definitely going to jail!

a reply to: MisterSpock

cops and guns , and he was there by himself no back up , "i didnt want to"

but fires 5 shots , one shot was enough if he was already on the ground

another example of power tripping cops and inexperience in dealing with a situation which could have ended in peace


grabbing a taser isnt a good reason to shoot someone to death , 5 times

I think everyone in the world who buys a gun should be psychologically evaluated first

"Suicide by Cop". The suspect is heard saying "shoot me". The cop allowed himself to be put into the position, by ignorance.

The cop should have never gone up the stairs without back up. Obviously there was more going on than met his eye. Besides, Latino family relations are not the same for the Average American Family, especially when their residency is in question. They do not have the same values.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: UKTruth
Oh dear.
The cop got himself into a worse situation as soon as he tasered the guy.
Force should be used in defence, not as an attack.

That's really the crux of it too. I was just thinking about that very thing.

I could probably research it out, but I'm too lazy at the moment; I wonder what the firearm usage ratio is today versus say the 1930's or 40's? In other words, how many times per 100,000 encounters does a law enforcement officer have to discharge a firearm today versus then? I'll bet it's like 10x more frequent now.

Used to be a police officer discharged a firearm as a last and final resort, and then only to save his life. Now it seems like firearms (and tasers) are just a "tool" used by law enforcement, like a wrench or a pry bar.

Some people might argue bad guys are more dangerous now, or there's more of them, but I'm not sure I'd agree. There have been gangs since the 1700's. There's been bad guys like Al Capone, Bonnie & Clyde and so many others. Sure there's more bad guys now, but there are also way more people now too. I'd bet the bad guys scale pretty evenly across population growth. And hell, machine guns were legal then, so what's different now?

A couple things come to mind. One, there's way more laws now, so encounters with law enforcement is up, proportionately. And two, there seems to be a different mentality in law enforcement now. Now, it's like..."Someone made me show up here, so come hell or high water, someone's gonna' get cuffed, stuffed in the squad car and taken downtown!!" Used to be the cops got everyone to calm down and left, telling everyone to be nice. Now, someone's definitely going to jail!

Thats the issue exactly - cops seem to think shooting people is a way of enforcing the law. The officer here was threatening the person with death if he didn't do as he was told - basically, the death penalty for resisting arrest with no trial, no jury, just the officers decision. All the while the officer was in no danger of being killed himself.

Being a cop must be a very tough job, but they should never be threating to kill people for not obeying them.

There are situations where accidents are understandble, though tragic. The case in the hotel where a guy was shot in the corridor because the cops thought he was armed and he reached behind his back. This was not one of those situations.

JMO but the officer did not need to shoot the guy. Never approach a perpetrator alone unless there is Imminent danger. Always wait for backup. If the officer would have stayed at the bottom of the stairs until backup arrived the outcome would have probably been less than lethal. Should a,could a, would a I suppose. What a waste. It seems that life these days means very little to many of us.

originally posted by: flyonthewall
JMO but the officer did not need to shoot the guy. Never approach a perpetrator alone unless there is Imminent danger. Always wait for backup. If the officer would have stayed at the bottom of the stairs until backup arrived the outcome would have probably been less than lethal. Should a,could a, would a I suppose. What a waste. It seems that life these days means very little to many of us.

Didn't the guy hit him with his own stun gun? So if that was the case what should the cop have done as he was getting 100k volts too? I agree with many that the cop should have de-escalated the situation until back up had come, but this in itself is the big part of this issue that cops are typically solo. Solo with a rather long wait time for backup, and because of that the gun comes out quicker. In this case getting zapped could easily have the cop over run by three guys and then killed, so do I blame him for shooting after the guy used a stun gun on him too, no.

a reply to: MisterSpock

At 7:15 he says he wants to die in front of his wife. So we can assume the lady standing there is his wife.

At 7:24 she says: "Yes Manuel you have always hit me, you have always hit me."

So, it seems the cop was at the right place and Manuel had a death wish.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Only weird thing about this whole situation is the cop being alone. This whole situation could have been avoided if he had an other officer there to help restrain the suspect.

Peace

It was suicide by cop, the idiot wanted to be shot in front of his wife (He actually said that) the wife says he beat her every week (She actually said that) so good efin riddance...!

a reply to: operation mindcrime

His backing officer was 25 miles away at the time of dispatch.

Can only stand around verbally judo-ing with people for so long in some cases.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Just surprised...

In my corner of the world it would not happen that only one cop would show up to a domestic violence call. I believe it's even policy that two man always ride together.

Is this a budget problem?

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

In this case, no. IIRC, this call was in a town of a few hundred and was out in the middle of nowhere. Two units were dispatched but because of the area, only one was close.

My old agency was much the same. West district would only have a handful of guys on at any given time, and once you crossed a particular highway that cut through the district there was one, and only one, officer available for a geographically large but low population area. If he needed help, it could take anywhere up to half an hour even running code to get to him depending on where he was in his zone.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You need some big ... to be a law enforcer in America.

Respect!!

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Only weird thing about this whole situation is the cop being alone.

That was my thought.

Also he was waiting for back up for way to long.

Reality check for everyone.

Do NOT grab an officers taser.....
Suicide by cop.

It happens a lot.

Bad cop.

The only mistake I saw was the officer approaching the situation without backup. He should have waited until assistance arrived.

I'm appalled at most of the responses here. It goes to show just how uneducated people are about law enforcement and what officers deal with daily. The officer wasn't "inexperienced". He was there doing his job. Most of you don't understand the many things that can go out of control because of a drunkard, abusive person and the presence of law enforcement.

Police departments don't always have the means and financing to have 2 cops riding together. What most of you 'think' you know is based off of TV and zero to do with real experience. Police officers are often 'not' near one another because they have to patrol and often go down on calls in completely separate places.

The officer walked up the stairs to meet the people. He didn't abuse authority by demanding that they come down to him. What if he did? Would they have listened? Likely not. The drunk guy was standoffish from the start. Just listen to his words and his threats. The officer did not escalate it. The drunk did this from the word go.

Backup wouldn't have made a difference here. The drunk appeared to put hands on the woman and THEY began screaming. What the officer did at that moment, the safest thing he could have possibly done was use his taser. He did.

Yes, the drunk was being a drunk... He told the officer multiple times that "that's the last time...", threatened the officers life in multiple ways and words. The officer was probably worried about being by himself anyways because so many things could go wrong in a situation like this and not by his own doing. Imagine what was going through his mind as he's being threatened and trying to focus on the guy who's trying to take the taser.

Most importantly, the drunk was trying desperately to get the taser from the cop. That's really bad for the cop. A disabled cop is usually a dead cop. That's what tasers do. The drunk was definitely trying to suicide by cop because he wanted his wife and kid to see it. Obviously some self pity BS along with trying to be super macho the whole duration of the recording.

Multiple shots fired... The cop doesn't pull his gun to wound. He pulls his gun to kill. The same thing any person who has a concealed weapons permit. You don't pull it to scare, wound or play around. You pull it to KILL. Eliminate the threat. Make 100% sure that the threat is no longer there and it cant play possum and come back to harm the officer in any way.

This officer made is position known the whole way through. They ALL knew what was about to happen and the officer made his intentions verbal and he wasn't quick to go from verbal commands to shooting the subject. They knew full well what was coming next. This officer wasn't as quick to act compared to most officers in the same situation. He gave way more than enough warning, time and patience.

Could have this been handled a different way? Maybe. Bet you couldn't make a better choice in the same situation. Some of you said... Leave and come back with backup. Didn't you hear the woman screaming? The child screaming? He was drunk, belligerent and combatant. If that officer walked away and that drunk attacked, hurt or even killed that woman, guess who would have been at fault? Guess who would have had to carry the guilt?

So for you who think you have all the right answers and would have, could have done this better... Prove it. Join the police force and spend some time on the street and then come back and tell me different. All I see in here are a bunch of cop haters.

Anyone who knows me knows that I will call out a LEO without a thought in a quick second. Anyone who've read my posts and responses will also see this. Being a former police officer, I'm going to tell you the facts of the situation and I'll call BS when I see it.

The officer did what he had to do. This situation wouldn't have gotten any better and it could have gone so much worse.

The shooting was justified and unavoidable without placing someone else's life in danger.


The younger guy is super lucky he didn't get shot when he went into his car and grabbed something. HUGE no-no right there. At that point, I'm sure the officers brain was scrambled and could no longer assess the situation.

The cop was wrong to taze the victim to begin with. He was only trying to restrain the woman, and got shot with a weapon in the back. I'm old and have little training, but could have separated them easily. Even if it got hot, I would step back and line them up one at a time.

Plenty of ways to ruin their day and pursuede them to quit acting up; threaten them "if I have to come back..." run their IDs, make them write statements...etc. It was just a domestic call with no complainant nor injuries.

a reply to: StallionDuck

...
Multiple shots fired... The cop doesn't pull his gun to wound. He pulls his gun to kill. The same thing any person who has a concealed weapons permit. You don't pull it to scare, wound or play around. You pull it to KILL. Eliminate the threat. Make 100% sure that the threat is no longer there and it cant play possum and come back to harm the officer in any way.

WRONG!!!

I take STRONG EXCEPTION to this statement!!

First of all, a law enforcement officer (or anyone else for that matter) should only draw and fire a firearm for ONE reason, and one reason ONLY...to stop a threat. Period! Nothing more, and nothing less! There should NEVER be a thought about death, wounding or anything else other than stopping an imminent threat to themselves or someone else. That's it.

To suggest a law enforcement officer's sole purpose in drawing and firing a firearm is to purposely execute someone is ridiculous and assinine in the extreme! No one has appointed an LEO with the title of Judge, Jury and Executioner, and the minute they appoint themselves to this role they have crossed a very serious legal line! Very serious. Law enforcement's job is NOT to execute people!

There is a BIG legal difference between Self Defence and Premeditated Murder! When you suggest Concealed Carry persons should adopt this same philosophy you are, again, categorically WRONG! The only time a CC member should draw and fire a firearm is if they, or one of their loved ones, are in imminent grave danger. And, even then the act of drawing and firing should be for one purpose and one only...TO STOP THE THREAT! Nothing more.

Secondly, a person does not draw a firearm to "KILL" (as you state). If they are of sound mind, they draw and fire a firearm to stop the threat.

"...Eliminate the threat. Make 100% sure that the threat is no longer there and it cant play possum and come back to harm the officer in any way.

?????? Seiously????

I seriously hope you are not a LEO and do not have access to firearms with that frame of mind!! Are you serious (or possibly drunk)??? Why not empty another magazine into the perp, and then go back to your squad car, grab the riot gun and pump a few 12 ga. rounds into him...right before you behead the guy??? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds??? 'Eliminate the threat'...I can't believe I just read this!! Seriously!

Thirdly, the only thing you said which is somewhat accurate (though still wrong in the context you used), is a person should not draw a firearm to 'scare, wound or play around'. While this is true, it would be more accurate to say...a person should never point a firearm without a thorough understanding they are using "Deadly Force", and the person (or thing) they are aiming at may very likely be killed by the act.

Next time you want to post something like this, please THINK first! An attitude like this yours can get yourself, or others who take your advice, locked up in a penitentiary...or DEAD!

SMH!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You're right, on the specifics. My point there was an obvious one. The outcome is the same. Death. 5 rounds to the chest will certainly stop most threats. I stand by my statement.

When I was in the academy, we learned that the words out of your mouth in court is "I stopped the threat". That's the same as a homeowner saying "I did not shoot to kill the burglar, I shot AT him to stop the threat of harm". There is a way to say things in court and there are the obvious things you say in private.

Another thing commonly said within Law Enforcement....

- A dead criminal can't come back and sue you.

Sadly, this is a true statement because the alternative does happen.

You can word it properly and I can take the exact same instance and word it very directly. If you want to wound someone, you shoot them in the leg. Police officers aim for center mass. Center mass = assured kill. That's what you're aiming for, that is the outcome. No semantics needed.

So, that being said... You're right but I'm certainly not WRONG. Do you honestly think as an X cop, I would walk into a court and tell the judge, "I pumped 5 rounds in his face to kill him and make sure he was dead"? I'd go to prison so fast... What you say and what you DID were two different things but the outcome is exactly the same.


A CC permit in Texas, you have to go to a class. In that class they tell you... DO NOT PULL YOUR WEAPON, unless you intend to fire it. Pulling that weapon = firing that weapon. If you pull it, you can go to jail for brandishing a firearm. It's that simple. I'm not sure where you get your rulebook from but it's not correct.

Why not empty another magazine into the perp, and then go back to your squad car, grab the riot gun and pump a few 12 ga. rounds into him...right before you behead the guy???

Yeah? You think that would work?

Cmon man... No need to go full retard. You never go full retard.