San Francisco police shot man 20 times, including 6 in the back

This is what happens when "cocktail" drugs are done. That is a mixture of drugs that makes one lose all sense of reality. This guy was no angel either. Known gang member with a long rap-sheet. Don't feel sorry for this one, nor blame the police. He had already stabbed somebody prior to the police confrontation.

It takes two to tango, in this case six.

The suspect shares the blame for his death, don't want to be shot to death by cops? Don't walk around with a knife. If you have a knife, drop the thing when your told to. Too high to figure out what's going on? Probably gonna get perforated at that point.

Did the police really need to fire 27 rounds to subdue him? Seems a bit much. Maybe they need more powerfull guns, or more time at the range?

a reply to: caterpillage

Did the police really need to fire 27 rounds to subdue him? Seems a bit much. Maybe they need more powerfull guns, or more time at the range?

For 4 cops that averages only 7 rounds each. That's less than half a magazine. I think they showed great restraint.

ETA: Wasn't it only 20 shots? If that's the case, it was only one third of a magazine each.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

27 shots fired. 20 wounds, some of them caused by the same bullet.

And people think they can just hit an arm or leg to disable them!

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Sigh. Another "shoot'em in the shoulder/leg" guy. Do you have any idea of the stress involved during a defensive shooting? Do you actually know anything about guns? Or do Hollywood movies comprise pretty much all your firearm knowledge?
We are taught to shoot center mass for a reason. Fine motor control is gone in a life or death situation and the "shoot'em in the leg" crap won't work. Thread a needle while you're scared out of your mind and get it right on the first try, then you can say "Shoot'em in the shoulder".

What a cheap answer and "cop out"!

Five to six cops aiming their weapons at one guy.....

Defensive shooting? This is NOT the correct word to be using which tells me you have no training......it is called deadly force.

And this was NOT a life or death situation........

dn:

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I am not often one to fall on the side of police agencies, when they kill lightly armed or unarmed individuals. However, if the police version of events is accurate, in that the suspect did not relinquish his knife, even after being pepper sprayed and bean bagged, then I can see why they might have opened fire. To be shot in the back is a cruel thing to have happen, but given that the suspect had shown extraordinary resilience to the pepper spraying, and the bean bag rounds, the officers were, I believe, justified in preventing the suspect from continuing to pose a threat.

If he had some how escaped the police, they would have been hauled over the coals for allowing an apparently impervious suspect, armed with a blade, to run amok.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: DeathSlayer

So let me get this straight.

He was high on what can be described as a cocktail of drugs and refused to drop the knife even after non lethal force was used...

What else are they supposed to do? Sing him a song?

As for in the back, well when you're surrounded, that's almost certainly going to happen.

Tell me, if you were behind a guy wielding a knife at your partner, and you were armed, what would you do?

Ask him ever so politely if he could face you before shooting him dead?

I would shoot him in the shoulder which would disable his arm that held the knife. The impact and wound made by the caliber of the round would restrict movement of the arm. and if that was not good enough, take a 12 gauge shotgun and blow his hand off..... in the end the suspect would be alive.

Not too hard to figure out.

One of the absolute stupidest explanations of shooting I've ever seen on ATS.

Stop watching Rambo and Die Hard.

"Blow his hand off." Seriously? Did you write that seriously, or were you giggling in the knowledge of how ludicrous that is?

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Best you read about how cops are taught to shoot.

They are 'taught' to shoot only in self defense.

Which officer was shooting in defense of his life, all of them?

Do you have a source for this? I'm curious to know which agencies teach their officers they're allowed to fire their weapons ONLY in self defense.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Best you read about how cops are taught to shoot.

They are 'taught' to shoot only in self defense.

Which officer was shooting in defense of his life, all of them?

Do you have a source for this? I'm curious to know which agencies teach their officers they're allowed to fire their weapons ONLY in self defense.

Or defense of private citizens , sorry.

Either or, nobody was life threatened here, except dude and that cop that exposed himself to danger walking up on him like that. Point me to the training that doesn't call that fool hardy, worthy of reprimand.

Address that.

a reply to: intrptr

He was high on a mix of drugs and had already stabbed someone. Well in fairness he was a "suspect" in an earlier stabbing.

Shooting was justified.

I'm all for calling the police on the carpet when they step out of line be it through corruption or excessive use of force.

I see neither in this particular instance.

Maybe the only suggestion I would make would be the use of a net gun in smilar circumstances, but even that could lead to complications.

Ideally, we wouldn't have people wandering about in altered states whilst also wielding implements of injury; and I say this as someone who believes citizens should be able to arm themselves in any manner they see fit to protect themselves and who also partakes of a certain herb.

You act a fool, be prepared to be treated as such.

If this idiot had been killed by an equal number of gang members, this would be a non-story.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: intrptr

He was high on a mix of drugs and had already stabbed someone. Well in fairness he was a "suspect" in an earlier stabbing.

Shooting was justified.

Yah, he was "messed up".

Now he's dead for, 'not complying soon enough'.

Let that be a lesson to everyone. Not complying soon enough is justification for being gunned down.

The extra twenty or so rounds are for good measure.

a reply to: intrptr

Do we just let him run around stabbing people?

Let that be a lesson, don't get high and stab someone and then refuse police orders and you won't be killed...

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Once again...

Police aren't trained to wound. If a suspect meets all requirements to use lethal force, all officers in attendance will do so.

Don't meet these requirements unless you're ok with being shot several times.

a reply to: Vector99

Refusing to comply for some period of moment or minutes isn't a death penalty.

Heres how we used to handle situations like this. Life used to have value. This guy wasn't high, this went on for hours, was resolved without loss of life.

a reply to: intrptr

Well the guy in the OP WAS high, got hit with tasers and pepper-balls, and didn't go down after that. Non-lethal force wasn't stopping this guy, lethal force was justified.

a reply to: intrptr


His past will be used as justification for the shooting.


The blue line will close around these gang members to ensure "deadly force" was needed as officers "lives were in danger" (as you see one cop placed himself close enough to warrant the shooting).


The knife was a weapon and that alone is enough to use deadly force especially was he was a suspect in an earlier crime (no arrest, no trial needed)


Those extra shots were just fired by the cops to give them something to laugh and brag about later.

a reply to: Vector99

The whole of PD against one guy and they can't come up with a solution to spare life? The video I present showed how they used fired hoses and a ladder to subdue someone armed, 'standing their ground'.

Non lethal isn't ever expired in the case where someone is just not complying with "orders". If they aren't currently trying to otherwise harm officers or the public, that is.

At the time he wasn't.

Becoming a LEO thread, y'all star each other to Orwellian stardom, I'm out.

a reply to: intrptr

I presume you're referring to the cop that stepped between the guy high on meth carrying a knife and the civilians standing on the sidewalk behind the group of officers?

If all we're going to do is spout rhetoric, let's do it from both sides. That cop is a hero. If he hadn't stepped between the drug addled man wielding a knife and the civilians, the fella could've attacked that group of civvies and inflicted even more knife wounds and possibly a fatality or two.

a reply to: 200Plus

Sometimes people need to be shot. This guy is one of those people.