WARNING:NSFW

[BLACKSUN2000]

It's long and brutal.Opinions?

[cosmicalstorm]

Some dumbass who didn't know how to stretch his hands into the air got blasted. What's there to discuss?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Unfortunately, the subject planted a brain bug in minds of the officers. Had he just done as he was told he would still be alive. However, he made the police think he had a gun. He was told that if he didn't drop the gun the dog would be sent in. He responded by telling them that if they sent the dog in he would shoot them while the dog was attacking.

It's too bad they didn't have that new wireless taser, but then again the tactical situation may have made the use of non-lethal weapons too risky.

As for the allegations of policy violations and all those other claims I think we would need to know the LACSO K9 policy and why this decision was out of policy. The other allegations like people being on the run for their lives is without evidence...

[CaptainChewbacca]

It seems like suicide-by-cop to me.

[Superman]

Sad. If he would have complied with the cops he'd probably still be alive. I really have a hard time putting the blame on them.

[BLACKSUN2000]

I don't blame the Sheriff's, but the guy was asking for it.

I feel bad for the dog.

[aieeegrunt]

Classic, the guy threw his "gun" down when the dog came at him, and they hosed him and their own dog down anyway. It's clearly visible, he throws the "gun" in an arc wide and high enough it's impossible to miss. Great fire discipline there.

You can hear one of the cops yelling at the rest of them for being trigger happy morons.

"WHAT THE FUCK, GODDAMN ASSHOLES...I don't know, everybody just opens up"

If I was the dog handler it would be difficult not to shoot these idiots myself.

I was wondering why the vid went on for so long, then I realized they wanted us to hear the aftermath commentary.

One cop goes to check on the perforated body:

"Ok cover me, COVER ME, DON'T FUCKING SHOOT'. Ha ha ya I'd be far more afraid of blue on blue than the actual gangbanger, I can't blame him.

Then the gawkers all gather round to view their handiwork, and the one guy with a brain has to shoo them away

"Hey, HEY, get back, keep the integrity of the scene."

[Alyeska]

aieeegrunt, look at the timing. The cops fired the moment they saw what he claimed to be a gun. He was threatening to shoot every cop. He was surrounded and had two dogs ready to attack. He refused to surrender. What actions are the cops supposed to take? The guy threatens a gun. He suddenly shows the gun. They open fire immediately.

The situation is entirely the fault of the criminal, period.

[Temujin]

While I have a dim view of the police in this country with all of the legitimate acts of police brutality that do occur, and the police here definitely were overzealous with their fire, my sympathy meter for the perp is reading zero. He could of easily surrendered and been alive today, instead he chose to play what he believed was a hero/matyr role standing up to the man and purposely ensuring that the situation escalated to its logical conclusion.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Classic, the guy threw his "gun" down when the dog came at him, and they hosed him and their own dog down anyway. It's clearly visible, he throws the "gun" in an arc wide and high enough it's impossible to miss. Great fire discipline there.

I love how you assume it is impossible to miss despite having a different point of view thanks to the camera. Can you share your combat experience with us and tell us how you've dealt with things like sympathetic fire. Do you even know what sympathetic fire is prior to googling it?

You can hear one of the cops yelling at the rest of them for being trigger happy morons.

"WHAT THE FUCK, GODDAMN ASSHOLES...I don't know, everybody just opens up"

If I was the dog handler it would be difficult not to shoot these idiots myself.

I was wondering why the vid went on for so long, then I realized they wanted us to hear the aftermath commentary.

One cop goes to check on the perforated body:

"Ok cover me, COVER ME, DON'T FUCKING SHOOT'. Ha ha ya I'd be far more afraid of blue on blue than the actual gangbanger, I can't blame him.

Then the gawkers all gather round to view their handiwork, and the one guy with a brain has to shoo them away

"Hey, HEY, get back, keep the integrity of the scene."

Well, unfortunately in that situation they would need to remove the gun from the scene and check the subject for weapons prior to clearing the area for EMS.

[ArmorPierce]

It looks like a couple of you guys might have missed the part of the video that stated that he did not have a gun at all and it turned out to be a flip flop.

Further, the order to release the dog was given by a off-duty supervisor who had been drinking.

From what I gathered on looking it up he dog was airlifted by helicopter off the scene whilst he bled to death on the scene. I could not find a reputable source to confirm that last part though so take it with a grain of salt.

[Alyeska]

It looks like a couple of you guys might have missed the part of the video that stated that he did not have a gun at all and it turned out to be a flip flop.

The fact is irrelevant. He threatened to have a gun and that he would shoot.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It looks like a couple of you guys might have missed the part of the video that stated that he did not have a gun at all and it turned out to be a flip flop.

Further, the order to release the dog was given by a off-duty supervisor who had been drinking.

From what I gathered on looking it up he dog was airlifted by helicopter off the scene whilst he bled to death on the scene. I could not find a reputable source to confirm that last part though so take it with a grain of salt.

I did a search under the names listed and I couldn't find any reputable source backing it up. However, Alyeska is right. He clearly claimed to have a gun and clearly threatened to shoot it. The only thing the officers might be quilty of is disobeying policy, and that's only if those claims are accurate. Disobeying policy is not a crime, and the shoot was still justified.

[higbvuyb]

The fact is irrelevant. He threatened to have a gun and that he would shoot.

More accurately, he threatened to shoot if the police got their dog to go and attack him.
It appears that they released the dog, causing the victim to panic and withdraw his hand from his shirt.
Releasing the dog at this point was obviously quite a dumb decision.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The fact is irrelevant. He threatened to have a gun and that he would shoot.

More accurately, he threatened to shoot if the police got their dog to go and attack him.
It appears that they released the dog, causing the victim to panic and withdraw his hand from his shirt.
Releasing the dog at this point was obviously quite a dumb decision.

Do you have an alternative that satisfies the requirement of the police to apprehend an armed and dangerous criminal? There is no law that states the police must wait X amount of time before utilizing force. For most states the law of arrest goes something like "a person may use reasonable force to affect an arrest if the subject flees, or resists after notice has been given. In my department we have a "ask, tell, make" rule for most situations unless the person is suicidal or has a hostage. A K9 is an excellent tool because it doesn't place officers in a direct line of fire. The only alternative I see would have been for the officers to approach on foot...so, I'm waiting with much anticipation for your superior alternative suggestion.

[aieeegrunt]

What about a trank gun? Or is there no substance that would knock the guy out fast enough? I mean people can have bad reactions to drugs, but their bodies tend to react worse to bullets.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What about a trank gun? Or is there no substance that would knock the guy out fast enough? I mean people can have bad reactions to drugs, but their bodies tend to react worse to bullets.

A trank gun? What happens if you use the drank gun and he shoots your partner in the head?

[Akhlut]

What about a trank gun? Or is there no substance that would knock the guy out fast enough? I mean people can have bad reactions to drugs, but their bodies tend to react worse to bullets.

The dose needed to knock a guy out in seconds is dangerously close to the dose needed to simply kill him. Especially since most doses are weight-dependent. Meaning, if you shoot a 98 pound methhead with a dose designed for a 350-pound body builder, that methhead is going to simply die, whereas in the reversed situation, the body builder is going to merely be drowsy, but still capable of fighting back to a dangerous extent.

Edit: To add to this, when you see tranquilizer guns used on nature documentaries, they cut out the 5-20 minutes it takes for the animal to go unconscious, or, at least, into a super-tractable state.

[Alyeska]

What about a trank gun? Or is there no substance that would knock the guy out fast enough? I mean people can have bad reactions to drugs, but their bodies tend to react worse to bullets.

There isn't a single department in the entire United States that uses tranq guns to take down suspects. NONE. For reasons listed above.

Kamikazie did note that this would have been an ideal situation for wireless tasers. The problem is not many police departments have them. So you demand they use technology they don't have.

What are they supposed to do if they don't have the technology?

[cosmicalstorm]

What a silly debate, if a dozen nervous police officers are pointing their guns at you, you will slowly raise your hands in the air and beg them not to shoot. If you don't, then you might turn into a swiss cheese. This is not rocket science.

What about a trank gun? Or is there no substance that would knock the guy out fast enough? I mean people can have bad reactions to drugs, but their bodies tend to react worse to bullets.

There isn't a single department in the entire United States that uses tranq guns to take down suspects. NONE. For reasons listed above.

Kamikazie did note that this would have been an ideal situation for wireless tasers. The problem is not many police departments have them. So you demand they use technology they don't have.

What are they supposed to do if they don't have the technology?

Besides, this video is from 2003, back then Tazers where seen as somewhat exotic by most people.

[higbvuyb]

Do you have an alternative that satisfies the requirement of the police to apprehend an armed and dangerous criminal? There is no law that states the police must wait X amount of time before utilizing force. For most states the law of arrest goes something like "a person may use reasonable force to affect an arrest if the subject flees, or resists after notice has been given. In my department we have a "ask, tell, make" rule for most situations unless the person is suicidal or has a hostage. A K9 is an excellent tool because it doesn't place officers in a direct line of fire. The only alternative I see would have been for the officers to approach on foot...so, I'm waiting with much anticipation for your superior alternative suggestion.

More importantly, is there a law stating that the police must act before X amount of time regardless of the circumstances?
Apparently a negotiation team was on the way when the dog was released, and the victim stated that he would surrender if they agreed to something as simple as letting him talk to his girlfriend. It seems that there is some possibility that some sort of dialog beyond "put the gun down" and "we're going to release the dog and he's going to bite you" might have lead to a better solution.

Also, I might be wrong, but if the police were able to attack him almost immediately after the dog was released, how was it allowing the officers to avoid being in the line of fire?

[Kamakazie Sith]

More importantly, is there a law stating that the police must act before X amount of time regardless of the circumstances?

It's kind of a law. The police are expected to be able to provide services to the rest of the city. These types of situations require lots of manpower. You need people blocking the streets. You need people on containment. You need people as the contact team. Lots of people are involved in a situation like this and since time doesn't free when these things go down it is in the best interest of the city to get it over with reasonably fast as possible. In other words "ask, tell, make".

Apparently a negotiation team was on the way when the dog was released, and the victim stated that he would surrender if they agreed to something as simple as letting him talk to his girlfriend. It seems that there is some possibility that some sort of dialog beyond "put the gun down" and "we're going to release the dog and he's going to bite you" might have lead to a better solution.

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.

Also, I might be wrong, but if the police were able to attack him almost immediately after the dog was released, how was it allowing the officers to avoid being in the line of fire?

They were most likely firing from a position of cover. If you're approaching you won't be behind cover. They had ballistic shields but those are heavy and don't afford the carrier the best shooting platform. Besides, that would have still ended up with him being shot.

[higbvuyb]

It's kind of a law. The police are expected to be able to provide services to the rest of the city. These types of situations require lots of manpower. You need people blocking the streets. You need people on containment. You need people as the contact team. Lots of people are involved in a situation like this and since time doesn't free when these things go down it is in the best interest of the city to get it over with reasonably fast as possible. In other words "ask, tell, make".

Perhaps they could have made some effort in the almost 30 minutes they wasted, beyond "The dog is going to come and bite you, or we're going to shoot you and you'll die", instead of utterly wasting the huge manpower you say they invested into it.
Does your department have a rule saying you're supposed to treat it like a time trial where if the trained negotiator you've called in arrives before you've killed the target you lose, or is he actually there to negotiate with someone while they're still alive?

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?
Perhaps they could have said "sure, we'll let you talk to your girlfriend" and then set the dog on him if he drops the shoe (if he doesn't, then they have something more to back up their use of force and so probably wouldn't have lost $300,000 in the ensuing lawsuit) and then taken him to the police station in handcuffs. He doesn't die, the police officers involved don't get punished, etc.

They were most likely firing from a position of cover. If you're approaching you won't be behind cover. They had ballistic shields but those are heavy and don't afford the carrier the best shooting platform. Besides, that would have still ended up with him being shot.

Except, they don't need to approach. They can just shoot him from behind said cover if necessary, just like they did.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Perhaps they could have made some effort in the almost 30 minutes they wasted, beyond "The dog is going to come and bite you, or we're going to shoot you and you'll die", instead of utterly wasting the huge manpower you say they invested into it.
Does your department have a rule saying you're supposed to treat it like a time trial where if the trained negotiator you've called in arrives before you've killed the target you lose, or is he actually there to negotiate with someone while they're still alive?

If a negotiator is en route then command is still in the hands of the on site commander. Only when the negotiator arrives will command be transferred. However, if a negotiator is enroute no action should be taken other than to contain the subject. After reading the investigation materials I can say that there are some serious mistakes on the part of the supervisors.

In my department a regular officer has scene command until an officer of a higher rank arrives and assumes command, and when I say arrives I mean just that. Not over the phone, text, email, etc. According to the Sheriffs department the decision to release the dog was made by the on site commander, and not the supervisor in contact over the phone. So, that on scene supervisor made a mistake. According to the department review they determinde that those on scene weren't communicating properly.

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

We're not talking about a mob with guns. We're talking about the police.

Perhaps they could have said "sure, we'll let you talk to your girlfriend" and then set the dog on him if he drops the shoe (if he doesn't, then they have something more to back up their use of force and so probably wouldn't have lost $300,000 in the ensuing lawsuit) and then taken him to the police station in handcuffs. He doesn't die, the police officers involved don't get punished, etc.

How would that have made the outcome any different. Having the dog sent on him is what caused him to make that quick movement. Furthermore, their use of force was ruled justified by the judge. It was the failure in the chain of command that led to the settlements.

Except, they don't need to approach. They can just shoot him from behind said cover if necessary, just like they did.

You asked "Also, I might be wrong, but if the police were able to attack him almost immediately after the dog was released, how was it allowing the officers to avoid being in the line of fire?" when I pointed out the advantage that a K9 offers police. So, yes the K9 functioned exactly as it was suppose to. It allowed the officers to engage from a position of cover, and not out in the open if they were to approach themselves in order to take custody. The K9 was released because if they are able to get ahold of a subject they are trained to drag the subject towards officers. It's pretty cool actually. I watched a K9 go into a garage and pull a guy out into the open.

[higbvuyb]

If a negotiator is en route then command is still in the hands of the on site commander. Only when the negotiator arrives will command be transferred. However, if a negotiator is enroute no action should be taken other than to contain the subject. After reading the investigation materials I can say that there are some serious mistakes on the part of the supervisors.

In my department a regular officer has scene command until an officer of a higher rank arrives and assumes command, and when I say arrives I mean just that. Not over the phone, text, email, etc. According to the Sheriffs department the decision to release the dog was made by the on site commander, and not the supervisor in contact over the phone. So, that on scene supervisor made a mistake. According to the department review they determinde that those on scene weren't communicating properly.

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

We're not talking about a mob with guns. We're talking about the police.

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.

How would that have made the outcome any different. Having the dog sent on him is what caused him to make that quick movement. Furthermore, their use of force was ruled justified by the judge. It was the failure in the chain of command that led to the settlements.

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.
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'.

You asked "Also, I might be wrong, but if the police were able to attack him almost immediately after the dog was released, how was it allowing the officers to avoid being in the line of fire?" when I pointed out the advantage that a K9 offers police. So, yes the K9 functioned exactly as it was suppose to. It allowed the officers to engage from a position of cover, and not out in the open if they were to approach themselves in order to take custody. The K9 was released because if they are able to get ahold of a subject they are trained to drag the subject towards officers. It's pretty cool actually. I watched a K9 go into a garage and pull a guy out into the open.

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.