Assuming a lot, and I very much doubt he thought he was dirty harry... thats ridiculous. Typically in these situations the home is surrounded and then the home is called and the people inside are given very specific simple direction... no idea if that was followed or not... at the very least he would have known Police were outside... maybe he didnt follow direction...maybe the lone officer that shot made an error...maybe a combination of the two or something totally else. We don't know, its tragic, the dynamics of a situation like this lead to an unlikely but possible outcome just like this and that is why the so called swatter should be charged for murder
Yeah, I'm asking about you and your statement, not everyone else. But shots fired within seconds of the door opening, + all cops should unquestionably be regarded as heroes first, that sounds like TV and movies, I'll give you that.
I mean really. "The home will be called and instructions given" I know you said TV. What show is it where police have everybody's phone number? Andy Griffith? Or perhaps the victim's correct number was provided along with the random address given.
In Mayberry they didn't even have phone numbers/direct dialing! You had to pick up the phone (Andy's candlestick phone was VERY old fashioned even for that time period) and ask the operator (Sarah) to manually connect the call.
Yeah, I'm asking about you and your statement, not everyone else. But shots fired within seconds of the door opening, + all cops should unquestionably be regarded as heroes first, that sounds like TV and movies, I'll give you that.
I just texted my buddy who is an officer and he said that is incorrect. But he is also in officer in California, maybe Canada is different.
Yeah, I'm asking about you and your statement, not everyone else. But shots fired within seconds of the door opening, + all cops should unquestionably be regarded as heroes first, that sounds like TV and movies, I'll give you that.
I just texted my buddy who is an officer and he said that is incorrect. But he is also in officer in California, maybe Canada is different.
Edit: in regards to them “calling the house”
Given how many people don't even have home phones anymore, if it was EVER done that way, it certainly could not have been reliable for the last 10-15 years.
You seem very upset and it’s confusing what you are even debating. I’m glad to see you’ve focused on me now instead, happy to call people out as its hard to just let people rant without merit, someone has to be a voice of reason... Be water my friend
I am far more confused by what you are debating. Are you reading all the same posts I am? There was no cop hating going on here, just saying that he should be held responsible.
An innocent young man who just answered his door is dead.
Everyone is aware that the police have a difficult job, and of course only the extreme examples make the news. Because 400+ swattings a year occur with no deaths doesn't mean this officer shouldn't be held accountable.
Thank you, I agree, wth are you arguing exactly Arch? I am just reading this thread now, but I don't see where anyone is debating illogically but you. You are coming off rather douchey though.
What if the guy that answered the door was your brother? It sounds like you have some emotional ties to police or something?
This is such an incredibly tragic situation, over such a trivial thing, it's insane! If the cops didn't have any concrete information on the situation, they are 1000% expected to handle it carefully.
Admittedly I still need to read the full story, but if the 100% innocent dude was shot in a matter of seconds from opening the door, then there is ZERO to say to defend the police force.
Let's just straighten out one detail. A lot of assumptions can be squashed that the apologists keep making about people not knowing what happened, and what "could" have happened.....
It is on record with the police chief himself saying, "an officer thought he saw the man reach for his waistband. So he shot him". If you read the reports, you guys would know this and would stop making excuses for this cop with made up scenarios of what "could" have happened, like "maybe the officer was ordered to shoot him". When this is very clearly someone who made a bad judgment call and shot way too quickly.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
Did the guy actually get shot in the head rather than the torso?
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
They are instructed to aim specifically for the body, and not specifically for it to be a lethal strike from my understanding. But instead because it is the largest target and gives the least chance of missing and letting a stray bullet go rogue. Aiming for the guys head, a rather small target in comparison to the body was an odd choice, even if he aggressively reached for his waistband, which is unlikely IMO.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
Did the guy actually get shot in the head rather than the torso?
Exactly. And yes he was shot in the head. At least that is what current reports say.
From my understanding from the law enforcement i know, they shoot for center of mass, torso. Not specifically to kill either, but to neutralize the situation. Usually a torso shot is a good chance for a kill, but there is always a chance to neutralize the situation and still leave the suspect alive and getting shot in the torso is pretty certain to drop you. A shot in the head, arms, or legs is not what protocol aims for. The targets are small, and in a quick reaction are very unlikely to be hit.
Well, if what you're saying about the head shot is true, that suggests a quite literal "Dirty Harry" angle...
Exactly. And yes he was shot in the head. At least that is what current reports say.
From my understanding from the law enforcement i know, they shoot for center of mass, torso. Not specifically to kill either, but to neutralize the situation. Usually a torso shot is a good chance for a kill, but there is always a chance to neutralize the situation and still leave the suspect alive and getting shot in the torso is pretty certain to drop you. A shot in the head, arms, or legs is not what protocol aims for. The targets are small, and in a quick reaction are very unlikely to be hit.
Well, if what you're saying about the head shot is true, that suggests a quite literal "Dirty Harry" angle...
Well, i am looking for the part i read that said head shot, but i am not certain now. I may have misread the fake report the swatting moron called in and said the person shot someone in the head and had someone hostage. In that case he probably did follow protocol and aimed for the body i would imagine.
Even then, it is a matter of did this guy give him a reason to. Sucks for both involved, i am sure that guy didn't wake up in the morning thinking he was going to kill someone. And an innocent person at that.
I just hope a better body cam video comes out so we can see exactly what this guy did to spook the officer into shooting him.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
Did the guy actually get shot in the head rather than the torso?
I would think so, but distance also matters. If you're five feet away I wouldn't expect an officer to shoot someone in the torso that's reaching for a gun.
I would also define aggressively as anything not slowly.
EDIT: Although maybe on the torso thing. They could empty their service weapon into the torso a lot quicker than trying to get off a single head shot, even that close.
They were completely across the street, in cover behind their cruisers. He was on his front porch at the door when they told him hands up and walk forward. There was some kind of miscommunication and something spooked the officer enough to shoot him. Hopefully we get a better video so we can see what the victim did, if anything, to spook the officer enough to shoot him.
That’s interesting, ya common practice here for armed and barricaded or hostage situations, helps prevent incidents like this too. However Canada’s law enforcement is structured differently. Theres a national standards for training (takes nearly a year). Also our small town and rural areas is patrolled by a federal police force, instead of sherrifs and small counties in the US who as I understand it can hire anyone they want and hit the ground running with minimal training? Our system forces proper background checks and consistency in training to get the best and brightest (as competiton is high for these positions). No favoritism or hiring of unqualified or biased people. The hiring process alone is a 6-7 step process involving everything from physical to psych, as well as intensive background checks. They even talk to people you dated in junior high and high school to see what you were like then. Average age of hire is 27 and most have university degrees. We don’t see the same issues as the US but that doesn’t stop our own groups of idiots thinking everytime something goes wrong down there it reflects on our police.
Also our small town and rural areas is patrolled by a federal police force, instead of sherrifs and small counties in the US who as I understand it can hire anyone they want and hit the ground running with minimal training?
Our police approach is highly decentralized, with hiring and training varying from state to state, county to county, and town to town. Our "federal" police is actually several agencies, with specific jurisdictions (Federal Marshals, FBI, Coast Guard, etc.) Each state has its own police force (California is the Highway Patrol, for instance) and each county has a sheriff. It really depends on which jurisdiction you're talking about.
Some small town offices may very well hire whoever comes off the street and doesn't smell too bad, but I would think a city like Wichita, population ~400,000, would have an acceptably trained police force.
Regardless of what the law enforcement make up is, it's only as strong as its weakest link, and offenders on the force need to be dealt with in order for trust and effective enforcement to take place.
And again... what I was arguing against is on the first few pages the broad sweeping comments/name calling etc and negative assumptions about Police. I have always maintained what happend to the victim was tragic
And again... what I was arguing against is on the first few pages the broad sweeping comments/name calling etc and negative assumptions about Police. I have always maintained what happend to the victim was tragic
You don't seem to understand what you're arguing yourself let alone what others are saying
Our system forces proper background checks and consistency in training to get the best and brightest (as competiton is high for these positions). No favoritism or hiring of unqualified or biased people. The hiring process alone is a 6-7 step process involving everything from physical to psych, as well as intensive background checks. They even talk to people you dated in junior high and high school to see what you were like then. Average age of hire is 27 and most have university degrees. We don’t see the same issues as the US but that doesn’t stop our own groups of idiots thinking everytime something goes wrong down there it reflects on our police.
The two items in bold definitely do not correlate with many police forces in the USA.
Comments
Typically in these situations the home is surrounded and then the home is called and the people inside are given very specific simple direction
Where is this information from and how do you know about this procedure?
Yeah, I'm asking about you and your statement, not everyone else. But shots fired within seconds of the door opening, + all cops should unquestionably be regarded as heroes first, that sounds like TV and movies, I'll give you that.
I just texted my buddy who is an officer and he said that is incorrect. But he is also in officer in California, maybe Canada is different.
Edit: in regards to them “calling the house”
Yeah, I'm asking about you and your statement, not everyone else. But shots fired within seconds of the door opening, + all cops should unquestionably be regarded as heroes first, that sounds like TV and movies, I'll give you that.
I just texted my buddy who is an officer and he said that is incorrect. But he is also in officer in California, maybe Canada is different.
Edit: in regards to them “calling the house”
Given how many people don't even have home phones anymore, if it was EVER done that way, it certainly could not have been reliable for the last 10-15 years.
You seem very upset and it’s confusing what you are even debating. I’m glad to see you’ve focused on me now instead, happy to call people out as its hard to just let people rant without merit, someone has to be a voice of reason... Be water my friend
I am far more confused by what you are debating. Are you reading all the same posts I am? There was no cop hating going on here, just saying that he should be held responsible.
An innocent young man who just answered his door is dead.
Everyone is aware that the police have a difficult job, and of course only the extreme examples make the news. Because 400+ swattings a year occur with no deaths doesn't mean this officer shouldn't be held accountable.
Thank you, I agree, wth are you arguing exactly Arch? I am just reading this thread now, but I don't see where anyone is debating illogically but you. You are coming off rather douchey though.
What if the guy that answered the door was your brother? It sounds like you have some emotional ties to police or something?
This is such an incredibly tragic situation, over such a trivial thing, it's insane! If the cops didn't have any concrete information on the situation, they are 1000% expected to handle it carefully.
Admittedly I still need to read the full story, but if the 100% innocent dude was shot in a matter of seconds from opening the door, then there is ZERO to say to defend the police force.
Thank you, I agree, wth are you arguing exactly Arch?
Can we agree to give him a different shortened name to avoid confusion
It is on record with the police chief himself saying, "an officer thought he saw the man reach for his waistband. So he shot him". If you read the reports, you guys would know this and would stop making excuses for this cop with made up scenarios of what "could" have happened, like "maybe the officer was ordered to shoot him". When this is very clearly someone who made a bad judgment call and shot way too quickly.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
Did the guy actually get shot in the head rather than the torso?
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
They are instructed to aim specifically for the body, and not specifically for it to be a lethal strike from my understanding. But instead because it is the largest target and gives the least chance of missing and letting a stray bullet go rogue. Aiming for the guys head, a rather small target in comparison to the body was an odd choice, even if he aggressively reached for his waistband, which is unlikely IMO.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
Did the guy actually get shot in the head rather than the torso?
Exactly. And yes he was shot in the head. At least that is what current reports say.
From my understanding from the law enforcement i know, they shoot for center of mass, torso. Not specifically to kill either, but to neutralize the situation. Usually a torso shot is a good chance for a kill, but there is always a chance to neutralize the situation and still leave the suspect alive and getting shot in the torso is pretty certain to drop you. A shot in the head, arms, or legs is not what protocol aims for. The targets are small, and in a quick reaction are very unlikely to be hit.
Well, if what you're saying about the head shot is true, that suggests a quite literal "Dirty Harry" angle...
Exactly. And yes he was shot in the head. At least that is what current reports say.
From my understanding from the law enforcement i know, they shoot for center of mass, torso. Not specifically to kill either, but to neutralize the situation. Usually a torso shot is a good chance for a kill, but there is always a chance to neutralize the situation and still leave the suspect alive and getting shot in the torso is pretty certain to drop you. A shot in the head, arms, or legs is not what protocol aims for. The targets are small, and in a quick reaction are very unlikely to be hit.
Well, if what you're saying about the head shot is true, that suggests a quite literal "Dirty Harry" angle...
Well, i am looking for the part i read that said head shot, but i am not certain now. I may have misread the fake report the swatting moron called in and said the person shot someone in the head and had someone hostage. In that case he probably did follow protocol and aimed for the body i would imagine.
Even then, it is a matter of did this guy give him a reason to. Sucks for both involved, i am sure that guy didn't wake up in the morning thinking he was going to kill someone. And an innocent person at that.
I just hope a better body cam video comes out so we can see exactly what this guy did to spook the officer into shooting him.
Now it is a matter of, did this person actually make any questionable movements that warranted deadly force and justified the officer to shoot him. And not just shoot him to take him down, but shoot him right in the head. Again, i don't think the cops actions were nefarious, but more a terrible judgement call on his part.
Any time an officer makes the decision to fire his weapon, the intention is a lethal strike.
If a decision is made for him by someone else, that may be a different story. But somebody aggressively reaching into a waistband (not sure if that's what happened at all, not following this story) would qualify for said lethal force.
Did the guy actually get shot in the head rather than the torso?
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html
I would think so, but distance also matters. If you're five feet away I wouldn't expect an officer to shoot someone in the torso that's reaching for a gun.
I would also define aggressively as anything not slowly.
EDIT: Although maybe on the torso thing. They could empty their service weapon into the torso a lot quicker than trying to get off a single head shot, even that close.
They were completely across the street, in cover behind their cruisers. He was on his front porch at the door when they told him hands up and walk forward. There was some kind of miscommunication and something spooked the officer enough to shoot him. Hopefully we get a better video so we can see what the victim did, if anything, to spook the officer enough to shoot him.
Thank you, I agree, wth are you arguing exactly Arch?
Can we agree to give him a different shortened name to avoid confusion
he is Arch, you are arch
Thank you, I agree, wth are you arguing exactly Arch?
Can we agree to give him a different shortened name to avoid confusion
he is Arch, you are arch
Can one go by Arch and the other by Archie?
Can we agree to give him a different shortened name to avoid confusion
he is Arch, you are arch
Can one go by Arch and the other by Archie?
arch_angel was here first, he should get to be called whatever he wants on seniority
Also our small town and rural areas is patrolled by a federal police force, instead of sherrifs and small counties in the US who as I understand it can hire anyone they want and hit the ground running with minimal training?
Our police approach is highly decentralized, with hiring and training varying from state to state, county to county, and town to town. Our "federal" police is actually several agencies, with specific jurisdictions (Federal Marshals, FBI, Coast Guard, etc.) Each state has its own police force (California is the Highway Patrol, for instance) and each county has a sheriff. It really depends on which jurisdiction you're talking about.
Some small town offices may very well hire whoever comes off the street and doesn't smell too bad, but I would think a city like Wichita, population ~400,000, would have an acceptably trained police force.
Regardless of what the law enforcement make up is, it's only as strong as its weakest link, and offenders on the force need to be dealt with in order for trust and effective enforcement to take place.
And again... what I was arguing against is on the first few pages the broad sweeping comments/name calling etc and negative assumptions about Police. I have always maintained what happend to the victim was tragic
You don't seem to understand what you're arguing yourself let alone what others are saying
Our system forces proper background checks and consistency in training to get the best and brightest (as competiton is high for these positions). No favoritism or hiring of unqualified or biased people. The hiring process alone is a 6-7 step process involving everything from physical to psych, as well as intensive background checks. They even talk to people you dated in junior high and high school to see what you were like then. Average age of hire is 27 and most have university degrees. We don’t see the same issues as the US but that doesn’t stop our own groups of idiots thinking everytime something goes wrong down there it reflects on our police.
The two items in bold definitely do not correlate with many police forces in the USA.