Suspect with Crowbar Shot Outside Carls Jr Monterey Park

[SolidPenguin]

Dogs are treated like a person, they wouldnt put a person into danger like that if the guy has an AXE.

The guys comment in the video "Didnt have to shoot him, couldve baton'd him or something" Is pretty stupid. I am not going to attempt to even baton a guy if hes holding a damn AXE...

If only that other cop got out his taser in time, then while he was down release the dog, wouldve been better. But split second decisions

[FN-2199]

Originally Posted by TOPEC

cops hold guns sideways?

Don't you know? They take form Officer Lou:

[Gerbs]

Originally Posted by optiblue

He swung at the police. Opening fire is justified, but not that many bullets. Couldn't they just shoot his legs?
Posted via RS Mobile

Your telling me if your in their situation you would be thinking more about how many bullets to shoot than your safety

[Nlkko]

Some idiot won the Darwin award. Exciting.

[threezero]

Originally Posted by bloodmack

From what I've learned a officer is not supposed to use his gun unless its the absolute last resource he has available to him. I don't get why they didn't use the dog..

the dog is a k9 officer, the perp had an axe the same size of the dog releasing the dog could very well means sacrificing the dog. usually dogs are use for chases or when suspects get themselves into a hard to reach places or when the suspect loses the ability to fight back and severly injure the dog, they are not to be use as shield

i agree with the gun, the guy certainly looks older than 15, anybody at that age should know you will get pwn when u swing an axe at the po po

[zulutango]

You shoot to preserve life or grevious bodily harm. Somebody with an axe who starts swinging at you, your partner and some Police dogs, is not behaving rationally. A rational person would have dropped the axe as he was ordered. This BS about shooting somebody in the legs or shooting the axe out of his hand is the result of too many Holywood movies. In real life in a stress situation, it is almost impossible. While the bullets miss the axe weilder gets to continue his actions.

As far as 1 shot being enough, from personal experience, hitting someone twice in the centre mass does not stop them. It took a high tackle by four of us after the guy was shot to bring him down when he dropped the knife. The normal method is two shots to centre mass and the third to the head. Re-assess and repeat until the danger is neutralized. In this video we don't know how many shots hit him and what kind of impact they had. This is life and death, not some video game.

[geeknerd]

Originally Posted by zulutango

You shoot to preserve life or grevious bodily harm. Somebody with an axe who starts swinging at you, your partner and some Police dogs, is not behaving rationally. A rational person would have dropped the axe as he was ordered. This BS about shooting somebody in the legs or shooting the axe out of his hand is the result of too many Holywood movies. In real life in a stress situation, it is almost impossible. While the bullets miss the axe weilder gets to continue his actions.

As far as 1 shot being enough, from personal experience, hitting someone twice in the centre mass does not stop them. It took a high tackle by four of us after the guy was shot to bring him down when he dropped the knife. The normal method is two shots to centre mass and the third to the head. Re-assess and repeat until the danger is neutralized. In this video we don't know how many shots hit him and what kind of impact they had. This is life and death, not some video game.

Whats your take on the '2nd round' of shots being fired, when the guy was stumbling away and had his back towards the cops. Would it be justified b/c he was turned around (maybe hidden hands)? Although from the video it looked obvious that the guy was stumbling and was ready to fall.

To me, it looks like the cop (not holding the dog) got suprised when he looked up and saw the suspect facing him followed by the other officer's gunfire. As a reaction, he draws his gun and fires at the suspect that has his back turned.
Also want to mention that, if infact it was the 2nd cop who fired, note that then the first cop actually stopped firing(did his bullets run out?).

Although they are trained for this, could it have been a split second situation mistake

[7seven]

Originally Posted by gars

I've heard stories of soldiers in Iraq having someone in their squad carrying an M14 because their M16/M4's don't have enough stopping power. Stories of guys with multiple gunshot wounds from a 5.56mm round and they're still standing. They need the M14 because the large caliberr 7.62 round will drop the guy.

Don't disagree with the shots fired.

This is half true. I've been overseas as a private security contractor, and from experience I agree the M4 does lack stopping power, I have fired multiple rounds into a combatant center mass without him going down, but switching from an M4 to a M14 is not practical as the M14 is not effective and cumbersome to use in close quarters and building sweeps. The short barrel SCAR-H has been an good option from the M4. The M14 is more practical for longer range combat and marksmans.

Originally Posted by optiblue

He swung at the police. Opening fire is justified, but not that many bullets. Couldn't they just shoot his legs?
Posted via RS Mobile

You're taught and trained to fire center mass until the subject is down. At the point where the subject swings the axe with intent to do deadly harm, you return with use of deadly force.

Whats your take on the '2nd round' of shots being fired, when the guy was stumbling away and had his back towards the cops. Would it be justified b/c he was turned around (maybe hidden hands)? Although from the video it looked obvious that the guy was stumbling and was ready to fall.

Zulutango can weigh in here, but again if you open fire on a subject, you fire center mass until the target is down. The 6th and 7th rounds came in what you called "2nd round of shots" and the subject was still on his feet, totally justified IMO.

[Supafly]

Originally Posted by Bigbaddie

feel like 6 shots were too many.. 1 woulda stopped him from swinging at the officer.

Its like fighting...if someone tries to throw a punch to your face, are you just gonna take a broken nose/cheekbone or a black eye and walk away like nothing happened?

I for one will start throwing whatever I got to defend myself.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by geeknerd

Whats your take on the '2nd round' of shots being fired, when the guy was stumbling away and had his back towards the cops. Would it be justified b/c he was turned around (maybe hidden hands)? Although from the video it looked obvious that the guy was stumbling and was ready to fall.

To me, it looks like the cop (not holding the dog) got suprised when he looked up and saw the suspect facing him followed by the other officer's gunfire. As a reaction, he draws his gun and fires at the suspect that has his back turned.
Also want to mention that, if infact it was the 2nd cop who fired, note that then the first cop actually stopped firing(did his bullets run out?).

Although they are trained for this, could it have been a split second situation mistake

We're watching a video and only see part of what happens and our view is obstructed for much of the time. We don't know if any of the first shots hit him or even injured him in a way that would stop him. From what you say they did not as he was still moving. I carried 15 +1 rounds in my S&W (plus extra mags) but some carry less rounds so we don't know why the first shots stopped.

The axe carrier may well have turned back towards the Police and continued the attack. He had attempted capital murder against them already and they were taking no chances. People can cover short distances in very short periods of time and the Police experience is that someone with an edged weapon who is within 21 feet will very likely be able to kill you unless they are stopped. He seems within that distance, as was the case in the shooting I was involved with. When people get shot they don't go flying backwards or drop immediately ( unless head shot) and they are quite capable of continuing to harm you, specially when they are driven by drugs/alcohol/mental goals which override pain compliance.

[melloman]

Shots were justified to end the situation, and neutralize the suspect.

[Great68]

An axe is much more deadly than a stapler. I have no problem with how the police handled themselves here.

[falcon]

For all of you saying it was too many shots, or why didnt' they shoot his legs etc., police are trained to use lethal force when required to fire a gun, and only fire if you are prepared to do so. Nothing against what was done. Don't motion to swing an axe at a police officer when a gun is pointed at you. Really, now....

[Gridlock]

Yeah, you "can" do many things that don't involve killing him. You "can" sweep legs, use the dog or baton the fuck out of him. You also "can" risk the chance that you may not go home that night.

No one forced him to have an axe there, or smash out the windows just for shits and giggles and no one certainly forced him to step back on the officer in a show of power.

The key here is as Great68 said, there is a difference between a stapler and an axe, thus, the reason for one case being brought up on police brutality, and the other being celebrated as an example of, although tragic**, but justified use of a police weapon.

**I say tragic for loss of a better word, in that a man died at the hands of another, but the idea here is he started down that path.

[7seven]

So turns out that one of the officers did deploy and hit the subject, Steven Rodriquez with his tazer but it had no effect.

[fT-z33wor]

on another note, when officers have their guns drawn on you

drop whatever the fuck's in your hand down and cooperate

[TheKingdom2000]

Thinking about it more now. I think there needs to be more training on the cops end. For these types of situations.

They were way to close to the suspect in the first place, imo.
I mean that one cop could have been maimed easily. They shouldn't be in that situation in the first place. But, it's always easier said than done.

[FishTaco]

Originally Posted by 7seven

This is half true. I've been overseas as a private security contractor, and from experience I agree the M4 does lack stopping power, I have fired multiple rounds into a combatant center mass without him going down

Ya but remember that the 5.56mm NATO rounds are ball tipped for accuracy/distance. They spall like a motherfucker when they hit meat though. We had an insurgent try and sneak into our base. One well placed 5.56mm round entered his eye, bounced off his skull, and exited down through his jaw. He survived. The 5.56mm is good for being able to carry more ammo, and the kinetic energy it can produce through a C7/M16 reaches over 3000ft/sec, but I feel that a 6.8mm should be used in today's warfare. Especially when the insurgents are high out of their mind when fighting and can't really feel pain. NATO uses 5.56mm though so it would most likely be too expensive to refit everyone with a replacement weapon.

Police use 9mm hollow points so when the round enters a body, the ballistics mushroom on contact to disperse max damage through the organs.

[Psykopathik]

Gordon Freeman just couldn't stay away from the bars...

[pastarocket]

The axe swinger made threatening gestures at the cops. -definitely on the cop's side in this incident.

[Dragon-88]

Originally Posted by bloodmack

The dogs are primarily there for 2 reasons. To intimidate and attack on command if necessary, I understand its a dog and everyone loves dogs, but these dogs are trained to take down people are they not?

They also cost thousands to train. Would you put your dog up again someone with a weapon? All it takes is one big injury and the dogs career is done.

In this situation they already knew the suspect wouldn't cooperate and they don't want anyone else get injured so they did the right thing.