WARNING:NSFW

[Kamakazie Sith]

So, someone did make a mistake, and they should have waited for the negotiator. What exactly did the supervisors do wrong?

They didn't wait for the negotiator. The dog was released when it shouldn't have been. Nothing changed to justify that decision. They would have been better off taking action prior to getting a negotiator enroute. Not saying that doing so is ideal, but when you end up taking aggressive action for no reason when you have a negotiator enroute doesn't make a lot of sense.

Obeying the police because you're afraid they'll shoot you if you don't do what they say because they want to get it over with and go back to other duties isn't the same as obeying the police because they're the police.
It's unfortunate that too many people in America have an attitude problem and seem to think that the former is more important.

Maybe I missed the comment but my understanding is he wasn't afraid that they'd shoot him. In fact, he was willing to die and would try to take as many as he could with him. He wanted to dictate the terms that would cause him to surrender.

It would have made the outcome different because the officers would have been able to see him put the shoe down slowly, and so would have less reason to shoot him. When that is done, they can arrest him however they wish, including by setting a dog on him if they'd enjoy that. Certainly, they wouldn't have anything to fear from the criminal picking his 'gun' back up again. Then he mightn't have died, and then nobody would be able to go to court to make a money-grab.

I find it very unlikely that he would have put the object down until after he spoke with his girlfriend, especially when you consider the fact that he was bluffing. In basic negotiations you want to be careful what you promise them as that can quickly backfire.

Also, I find it almost funny that he got shot for doing exactly what the police told him to do, throw down the shoe. Not that this is the fault of the police - naturally they didn't have time to identify what he was pulling out before they had to make a decision.
Anyway, it seems that in America, you consider a higher level of violence to be normal than elsewhere. I'll have to keep that in mind and temporarily adjust my sense of 'reasonable'.

Where are you from that police can't use force when they reasonably fear that they are about to be shot at?

Except, in this case, there wasn't any significant danger in 'taking custody' of someone dying on the ground, and all the dog did was run forward and get shot.
Clearly dogs would be very effective in other situations, but while you can say that they were justified in shooting him when he pulled his shoe out, I don't see what the police expected the suspect to do other than withdraw his arm when he's in a panic and he sees a dog trying to bite him, other than make him behave irrationally (you aren't afraid to die, but you're afraid of the dog, sure! ) and give them an excuse to shoot him.

Other than the command mistakes we've already mentioned this is what probably would have happened if the decision to take him into custody was made. It's unfortunate.

[higbvuyb]

They didn't wait for the negotiator. The dog was released when it shouldn't have been. Nothing changed to justify that decision. They would have been better off taking action prior to getting a negotiator enroute. Not saying that doing so is ideal, but when you end up taking aggressive action for no reason when you have a negotiator enroute doesn't make a lot of sense.

That's part of what I was trying to get at.
For the rest of the discussion, I'm going to defer to your superior knowledge.
Also, I wasn't trying to imply that the police shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves, no.

[PaperJack]

The policemen might have done some mistakes, but I think the biggest mistake by far was done by the offender by simply NOT saying "wait a moment, this is not a gun, it's a flipflop and I'm gonna slowly raise my hands and surrender".
I don't understand why he kept pretending to have a gun when he was cornered and aimed to by multiple officers. He was the one who chose to die, in my opinion.
Sure, it might not be right to obey a mob just because they have lots of guns, but I'm quite sure that it's by far the best choice you can make unless you got your own mob.

For example, Galileo Galilei was captured by the Catholic Church and was told to stop propagating heresies or die burning. He accepted their terms, but when he was later released he simply didn't respect them and kept teaching that Earth rotates around the sun. However, before him, Giordano Bruno did the same thing, only he didn't accept the churchs terms and was burnt alive.
The moral of this example is that stirring up a direct fight against a superior enemy is a bad idea.

[higbvuyb]

The policemen might have done some mistakes, but I think the biggest mistake by far was done by the offender by simply NOT saying "wait a moment, this is not a gun, it's a flipflop and I'm gonna slowly raise my hands and surrender".
I don't understand why he kept pretending to have a gun when he was cornered and aimed to by multiple officers. He was the one who chose to die, in my opinion.
Sure, it might not be right to obey a mob just because they have lots of guns, but I'm quite sure that it's by far the best choice you can make unless you got your own mob.

For example, Galileo Galilei was captured by the Catholic Church and was told to stop propagating heresies or die burning. He accepted their terms, but when he was later released he simply didn't respect them and kept teaching that Earth rotates around the sun. However, before him, Giordano Bruno did the same thing, only he didn't accept the churchs terms and was burnt alive.
The moral of this example is that stirring up a direct fight against a superior enemy is a bad idea.

That isn't the point, here. Sure, you can say that the guy who died was stupid and made dumb decisions. However, not everything is a cost-benefit analysis where survival is weighted more than any other consideration. One can say with your example, that whether or not Mr Bruno was smart or dumb, you can say that the behaviour of the church in that case was unethical and oppressive.
If you don't, then you're basically saying "the guy with the most guns dictates everything".
The point here is not to establish that Deandre Brunston made the wrong decisions, because the answer is obviously 'yes'. The question is, did the police behave appropriately?

[Superboy]

The biggest problem I have with the actions of the police in that situation is that they basically sent that K9 to its execution. When they released the dog, they must have known that the guy would react the way he did, and that it would result in him getting shot. Why bother releasing the dog at all? Do cops usually show such little regard for the life on K9 units?

For that matter, these guys seemed to have plenty of time to have their guns fixed on the guy, why was there such a huge scatter in the shots? I've never fired a gun in a stressful situation, but is it really normal for cops to open fire in what looked like such a chaotic fashion?

[Kamakazie Sith]

The biggest problem I have with the actions of the police in that situation is that they basically sent that K9 to its execution. When they released the dog, they must have known that the guy would react the way he did, and that it would result in him getting shot. Why bother releasing the dog at all? Do cops usually show such little regard for the life on K9 units?

For that matter, these guys seemed to have plenty of time to have their guns fixed on the guy, why was there such a huge scatter in the shots? I've never fired a gun in a stressful situation, but is it really normal for cops to open fire in what looked like such a chaotic fashion?

That's the problem with not having established a proper incident commmand. The officer in charge should have picked those who would be the shooters and then delegated other responsibilities to the remaining officers. "You're the arrest team. You're on containment. Don't let anyone in or out"

None of that seemed to have happened so everybody will naturally take the position of the shooters. Since all police aren't created equal you will have some shooting who might be involved in their very first shoot and then others that might not be as accurate as other officers. There are a whole range of reasons why their fire was so scattered.

As for the question about the K9. No, K9s aren't sent to their death and that certainly wasn't the intention here. Again, that was poor command.

[ArmorPierce]

From what I read, they actually did designate the shooters but the none-shooters fired anyway. I believe it was part of the lawsuit.

The report also blamed some of the deputies who fired their guns because they were not deemed "designated shooters" by the on-scene sergeant. Several deputies were given two- to five-day suspensions.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/state-and-r ... 3b976.html

[Simon_Jester]

Apparently he was involved in a domestic dispute. Furthermore, the bad guy does not dictate terms to the police. If you're a criminal and you want to escape unharmed. Do as your told. Simple as apple pie.

So, basically do as the mob with the guns tell you to do?

Fuck yes. Are you crazy? They have guns. Lots of them. Pointed at your torso and/or head. Yes, you do what they say. this is so not rocket science.

If you don't, then you're basically saying "the guy with the most guns dictates everything".

Think about this. Tactically, there are certain people in society who will commit terrible crimes against other people. That's what we need the police for.

This requires that, in the last extreme, the police have the power to use force to make a criminal stop. To stop fighting, to stop making threats, to stop trying to run away. Otherwise, they cannot enforce the law; they can only suggest that criminals obey the law. So the police have a duty, on behalf of society as a whole, to make deadly threats against people who threaten others with violence. That's not just true in the US; it's true in other countries as well.

So yes, if the police are pointing guns at you, it is probably because you are doing something unlawful. You do not have a right to ignore them, even if you do not value your own life, want to die, and would therefore otherwise ignore them knowing that they'll shoot you for ignoring them. There are exceptions, of course... but the moment when guns are pointed at you is not the time or place to decide that this is an exception, unless you are tired of life.