NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html

Consider also that these were SWAT team members, who use fully automatic weapons, usually at very close range.

LAKELAND, Fla. — Officers fired 110 rounds of ammunition at the man suspected of killing a sheriff's deputy, killing the suspect, according to an autopsy released by the sheriff's office.

Angilo Freeland — who was suspected of fatally shooting the deputy after being pulled over for speeding Thursday — was hit 68 times by the SWAT team members' shots, the examination released Saturday showed.

Nine officers fired at him at the same time. He probably looked like an anatomy lesson after the bursts of fire.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html

Consider also that these were SWAT team members, who use fully automatic weapons, usually at very close range.



Nine officers fired at him at the same time. He probably looked like an anatomy lesson after the bursts of fire.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?

the man was suspected of the crime and yet they still shot him to pieces. whatever happened to innocent til proven guilty? i'm so glad i don't live in the us.

I have no problem with it; anyone moronic enough to raise a gun to police deserves everything he gets. Overkill like this just means he doesn't get a chance to hurt anybody else.
Unfortunately, here in Aus there's an idiot lobby that goes crazy every time a cop uses lethal force. There was an incident a while back of a whole group of police on a Sydney beach and a seriously disturbed (and well armed) man. Clear case of suicide-by-cop, but who were the ones criticized..?
The only good thing is that the various state police services (we don't have local cops or Sheriff's Departments) don't seem to listen. Our police are still properly armed.

the man was suspected of the crime and yet they still shot him to pieces. whatever happened to innocent til proven guilty? i'm so glad i don't live in the us.

I don't care where you live, your cops would still have killed this guy. He raised a gun to police.

Here in the UK, there'd be nationwide media attention. All papers would carry a debate on whether the use of force is justified to this extent. A few papers would probably characterise the actions of the police as 'disturbing' and possibly 'recklessly emotional'.

I think people would be greatly surprised that the police were emotive. Not that they felt anger or anything, but that they expressed it so violently.

Possibly. We're scared of guns.

i'm going to ask the next question you'll be expecting of me: why is killing a cop any worse than killing any other human being?

the man was suspected of the crime and yet they still shot him to pieces. whatever happened to innocent til proven guilty? i'm so glad i don't live in the us.

I ask the same thing, sometimes (all the time, actually).

i'm going to ask the next question you'll be expecting of me: why is killing a cop any worse than killing any other human being?

I don't see that it is, necessarily; killing a cop in the performance of his duty probably is, because it's killing someone who not only didn't deserve it, but was also performing a service for the entire community.

But note that I did not say he was killed because he killed a cop; I said he was killed for rising a gun to the police. When they attempted to arrest him, he raised his gun. It doesn't mtter if you're a shoplifter or Geoffrey Dahmer, you pull a gun on a cop, you're comitting suicide.

Wow, can you say overkill. Cops like that shouldn't be allowed use weapons, they should be restricted to secretarial work and the like.

i'm going to ask the next question you'll be expecting of me: why is killing a cop any worse than killing any other human being?

A police officer is a representative of law and justice hence any attack on a police officer is implicitly an attack on the law and justice of the country in addition to an attack on the officer.

I don't care where you live, your cops would still have killed this guy. He raised a gun to police.

Exactly. There is nothing to debate. You point a weapon at the police, you get shot.

Here in the UK, there'd be nationwide media attention. All papers would carry a debate on whether the use of force is justified to this extent. A few papers would probably characterise the actions of the police as 'disturbing' and possibly 'recklessly emotional'.

I think people would be greatly surprised that the police were emotive. Not that they felt anger or anything, but that they expressed it so violently.

Possibly. We're scared of guns.

the problem isn't the fact that guns were used it's that a 'shoot to kill' policy was used, or in this case a 'shoot til there's nothing recognisable left'. fair enough it isn't always possible to not kill someone when you're shooting at them but these police officers weren't even trying to just stop him, you don't fire 110 rounds at someone unless you want them dead.

Exactly. There is nothing to debate. You point a weapon at the police, you get shot.

Why not give regular police hand grenades? Like, "You point a weapon at a police officer from a window, or behind a wall, you get 'naded".

A police officer is a representative of law and justice hence any attack on a police officer is implicitly an attack on the law and justice of the country.

well, i think that could justify a longer jail term but not the vindictive way in which 'cop-killers' are hunted down.

DK supports state murder?

im shocked and stunned

Why not give regular police hand grenades? Like, "You point a weapon at a police officer from a window, or behind a wall, you get 'naded".

Are you trying to be ridiculous?

The police should fire as many times as neccessary. When a person points a gun at you, you aren't going to have one officer shoot or something. What are we trying to be "fair" to the suspect? Give him a change to kill an officer? You fire as many times as neccessary until the suspect is down. You don't take the chance that he/she can fire the gun. To do anything other then what the police did here would be irresponsible and stupid.

There were nine guys with automatic rifles capable of firing how many bullets a second? Its hardly surprising how many bullets were in him

well, i think that could justify a longer jail term but not the vindictive way in which 'cop-killers' are hunted down.

Agreed. On this occasion, however, the man was armed and apparently tried to shoot the SWAT team. In this circumstance I can't really see any alternative to returning fire.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html

Consider also that these were SWAT team members, who use fully automatic weapons, usually at very close range.



Nine officers fired at him at the same time. He probably looked like an anatomy lesson after the bursts of fire.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?

You might want to quote the part of the report where it says that the 'suspect' raised his gun to shoot at the SWAT team. It seems that a lot of people are just reading your summary and jumping to the wrong conclusion.

DK supports state murder?

im shocked and stunned

Now, this seriously confuses me. This guy is suspected of the killing of someone. The police attempt to arrest him; HE pulls a gun; the police shoot him in self defence.

How can this be murder, in any way?

Police tend to take the killing of a fellow policeman very seriously. There an almost fraternal brotherhood there and for better or worse, it becomes very personal for them.

I haven't read the article, but I'm assuming the suspect was armed and threatening at the time. If not, then obviously, it wasn't a justified shooting in any context.

But as for the number of bullets, well I'll just say that you would have to be some kind of moron to threaten a SWAT team armed to the teeth. They aren't about to take the time to decide which of them shoots him. They all unloaded on his dumb ass. I don't have a problem with that.

As for those of you who don't think a cop killed is any way different than any other person, you're right. But think about it from a personal standpoint. Suppose it was your brother killed. Or your best friend. Is that going to be the same to you as a total stranger getting killed? Obviously not. Police are human beings and they are going to react exactly as you would if one of your family gets killed. That's not a justification. It's humanity.

The police should fire as many times as neccessary. When a person points a gun at you, you aren't going to have one officer shoot or something. What are we trying to be "fair" to the suspect? Give him a change to kill an officer? You fire as many times as neccessary until the suspect is down. You don't take the chance that he/she can fire the gun. To do anything other then what the police did here would be irresponsible and stupid.

If this is true, why doesn't every Swat shooting result in a 68-hit kill?

I would say this was a justified execution. If he had already fired upon, and killed a police officer, then I say the resulting force levied by the remaining officers should be considered self-defense of themselves and of society in general.

Who knows where this might have gone next? Likely the man would have taken a hostage or forcibly hijacked a vehicle to escape.

If what the article says is true (and my faith in the media is low) then this wasn't a man at all; just another dangerous animal that needed to be put down.

That being said, if the article wasn't giving us all of the details (quite possible), then it's nearly impossible to asscertain if the killing was justified.

Are you trying to be ridiculous?

The police should fire as many times as neccessary. When a person points a gun at you, you aren't going to have one officer shoot or something. What are we trying to be "fair" to the suspect? Give him a change to kill an officer? You fire as many times as neccessary until the suspect is down. You don't take the chance that he/she can fire the gun. To do anything other then what the police did here would be irresponsible and stupid.

Yeah, it's not like they were armed with automatic rifles against an unarmored man or anything, there is no telling how many shots it woulkd have taken to take him down.

After reading the article, this doesn't strike me as a routine pull-over. The whole thing sounds rather fabricated as it stands.


Now, this seriously confuses me. This guy is suspected of the killing of someone. The police attempt to arrest him; HE pulls a gun; the police shoot him in self defence.

How can this be murder, in any way?
Nine SWAT members unloaded their entire amount of rounds into a single person. Sounds questionable to me.

If this is true, why doesn't every Swat shooting result in a 68-hit kill?

Because in most cases SWAT (or it's local equivalent) has more control over the situation. All cops, at least in the western world, want to get custody of a suspect, not kill him. Generally, if someone is taken out by a SWAT team, he's actually eliminated by a pair of SWAT snipers or takes his own life.

In this case, it sounds like they confronted the guy with overwhelming force, and he called their bluff. Which wasn't a bluff.

If this is true, why doesn't every Swat shooting result in a 68-hit kill?

This guy was out in the open and the cops were able to cover him with a lot of people. I would say it stands to reason if SWAT is going into a building, they won't have nearly the line of fire to have so many officers being able to shoot. I suppose you might say that in this case, the officers decided to shoot the guys corpse but I am not going to complain. Like I said, the man pointed a gun at police and you just don't do that.

Police tend to take the killing of a fellow policeman very seriously. There an almost fraternal brotherhood there and for better or worse, it becomes very personal for them.

I haven't read the article, but I'm assuming the suspect was armed and threatening at the time. If not, then obviously, it wasn't a justified shooting in any context.

But as for the number of bullets, well I'll just say that you would have to be some kind of moron to threaten a SWAT team armed to the teeth. They aren't about to take the time to decide which of them shoots him. They all unloaded on his dumb ass. I don't have a problem with that.

As for those of you who don't think a cop killed is any way different than any other person, you're right. But think about it from a personal standpoint. Suppose it was your brother killed. Or your best friend. Is that going to be the same to you as a total stranger getting killed? Obviously not. Police are human beings and they are going to react exactly as you would if one of your family gets killed. That's not a justification. It's humanity.

of course, but police and SWAT teams in particular are trusted with firearms and trusted to use them responsibly and reasonably, if that reason becomes clouded when one of their own is killed then some other team should be brought in from another state or county or a federal team should be brought in.

Under these circumstances police were right to shoot this dangerous man. If they tried to count the bullets they were firing to see if they are a bit overreacting, the guy perhaps could had the oppurtunity to shoot one more police as he is dying.

of course, but police and SWAT teams in particular are trusted with firearms and trusted to use them responsibly and reasonably, if that reason becomes clouded when one of their own is killed then some other team should be brought in from another state or county or a federal team should be brought in.

Bring someone else in? A police officer is dead. It doesn't matter who you bring in, they will all be seriously pissed off at this guy.

of course, but police and SWAT teams in particular are trusted with firearms and trusted to use them responsibly and reasonably, if that reason becomes clouded when one of their own is killed then some other team should be brought in from another state or county or a federal team should be brought in.

It had been 24 hours. They aren't about to lay off the pursuit until somebody else can pick up un it. Besides, they got him, and nobody else. Seems reasonable and responsible to me.

Under these circumstances police were right to shoot this dangerous man. If they tried to count the bullets they were firing to see if they are a bit overreacting, the guy perhaps could had the oppurtunity to shoot one more police as he is dying.

Let's see, nine SWAT members with automatic rifles. You sure don't get 110 rounds out of nine three-round bursts. You don't even get 68 out of nine three-round bursts. So they had their weapons on full auto and unloaded nearly their entire chambers into him.

Under these circumstances police were right to shoot this dangerous man. If they tried to count the bullets they were firing to see if they are a bit overreacting, the guy perhaps could had the oppurtunity to shoot one more police as he is dying.

With 9 SWAT officers firing at him at once I don't imagine he was alive for all that long.

Now, this seriously confuses me. This guy is suspected of the killing of someone. The police attempt to arrest him; HE pulls a gun; the police shoot him in self defence.

How can this be murder, in any way?


where in the report does it say he was even armed, nevermind pulled a gun?

he got got, and even though he sounds like vermin, 68 shots is a statement

Let's see, nine SWAT members with automatic rifles. You sure don't get 110 rounds out of nine three-round bursts. You don't even get 68 out of nine three-round bursts. So they had their weapons on full auto and unloaded nearly their entire chambers into him.

I think it says in the article that they only fired 110 bullets at him because that was all the ammunition they had.

Let's see, nine SWAT members with automatic rifles. You sure don't get 110 rounds out of nine three-round bursts. You don't even get 68 out of nine three-round bursts. So they had their weapons on full auto and unloaded nearly their entire chambers into him.

Provided they checked their fire-lines and made sure nobody else was endangered, I don't see any problem with that.

This guy was out in the open and the cops were able to cover him with a lot of people. I would say it stands to reason if SWAT is going into a building, they won't have nearly the line of fire to have so many officers being able to shoot.

Hang on. It's almost like you're saying that SWAT teams would (should?) empty their chambers at any opportunity, but it's the environment that constrains them.

where in the report does it say he was even armed, nevermind pulled a gun?

he got got, and even though he sounds like vermin, 68 shots is a statement

eh, right here:
Ten SWAT officers surrounded Freeland on Friday as he hid beneath brush and a fallen tree in a rural area. Authorities say he raised the gun belonging to the deputy he had killed, prompting nine officers to fire.

where in the report does it say he was even armed, nevermind pulled a gun?

he got got, and even though he sounds like vermin, 68 shots is a statement

Authorities say he raised the gun belonging to the deputy he had killed, prompting nine officers to fire.

"I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back."


From the article.

I think it says in the article that they only fired 110 bullets at him because that was all the ammunition they had.

Bingo. It was overkill for the sake of overkill. But what else do you expect from Florida these days?

where in the report does it say he was even armed, nevermind pulled a gun?

he got got, and even though he sounds like vermin, 68 shots is a statement

Ahem:

"Authorities say he raised the gun belonging to the deputy he had killed, prompting nine officers to fire."

From the report.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?

By the thread title you seem to be strangely proud of this.

No-one else here find it frightening that the SWAT team fired 110 shots and only 68 hit the suspected criminal?
Putting aside the 62% success rate, where did the remaining 42 bullets go and what/who did they hit?

imo, that's simply appalling. I have to wonder as to their level of skill and training with firearms and what to do when confronted with an armed assailant.

Hang on. It's almost like you're saying that SWAT teams would (should?) empty their chambers at any opportunity, but it's the environment that constrains them.

If you're going to shoot someone, you are trying to kill them. That's basic weapons training, used by police worldwide. Standard procedure, for almost all cops, is to fire enogh rounds to ensure that whoever they're shooting at is quite dead. Back in the days of wheelguns, they were encouraged to empty their revolvers into the target.

The only people who fire single shots are the snipers - oneshot, one kill is their definition of perfection.

where in the report does it say he was even armed, nevermind pulled a gun?

he got got, and even though he sounds like vermin, 68 shots is a statement

Ten SWAT officers surrounded Freeland on Friday as he hid beneath brush and a fallen tree in a rural area. Authorities say he raised the gun belonging to the deputy he had killed, prompting nine officers to fire.

The police committed no wrong.

By the thread title you seem to be strangely proud of this.

He was probably aroused by the amount of shooting.

Standard procedure, for almost all cops, is to fire enogh rounds to ensure that whoever they're shooting at is quite dead. Back in the days of wheelguns, they were encouraged to empty their revolvers into the target.
A single person emptying their clip would have been enough to ensure he was dead. Nine people doing it is excessive force.

No-one else here find it frightening that the SWAT team fired 110 shots and only 68 hit the suspected criminal?
Putting aside the 62% success rate, where did the remaining 42 bullets go and what/who did they hit?

imo, that's simply appalling. I have to wonder as to their level of skill and training with firearms and what to do when confronted with an armed assailant.

Actually, 62% is very good in real life. When you compare numbers of shots fired to number of hits across the US, the average is about 32% hits.

He was probably aroused by the amount of shooting.


A single person emptying their clip would have been enough to ensure he was dead. Nine people doing it is excessive force.

I just don't see how it can be excessive, when the entire point of shooting is to make the guy dead.

I just don't see how it can be excessive, when the entire point of shooting is to make the guy dead.

This isn't a video game, people get dead pretty damn fast. Flesh and watery tissue arn't exactly bullet stoppers.

another question:

How do we handle people obsessed with biased news sites in NSG?

Actually, 62% is very good in real life. When you compare numbers of shots fired to number of hits across the US, the average is about 32% hits.
1/3 accuracy is pretty dreadful. It implies that training consists of "empty your magazine in the general direction of the perp and hope to hell that there's no innocents within 1/4 mile behind him".
I'm surprised that there's not more by-standers hurt.

another question:

How do we handle people obsessed with biased news sites in NSG?

All news sites are biased. That doesn't make them wrong.

If you're going to shoot someone, you are trying to kill them. That's basic weapons training, used by police worldwide. Standard procedure, for almost all cops, is to fire enogh rounds to ensure that whoever they're shooting at is quite dead.

that's not true at all. at least not in the uk anyway. there hasn't been a shoot to kill policy ever. the police in the uk shoot to disarm, when they get it wrong they get a roasting, as they should considering the responsibility they have with handling deadly machines.

another question:

How do we handle people obsessed with biased news sites in NSG?

We put them in giant glass jars and store them in a cool dark location. *nod*

Standard procedure, for almost all cops, is to fire enogh rounds to ensure that whoever they're shooting at is quite dead. Back in the days of wheelguns, they were encouraged to empty their revolvers into the target.



http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/firearms.pdf

Page 35, section 6.1

And:

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art2

Article 2.2

(although I'm aware that this will not carry much currency here)

that's not true at all. at least not in the uk anyway. there hasn't been a shoot to kill policy ever. the police in the uk shoot to disarm, when they get it wrong they get a roasting, as they should considering the responsibility they have with handling deadly machines.

You must read my post above.

1/3 accuracy is pretty dreadful. It implies that training consists of "empty your magazine in the general direction of the perp and hope to hell that there's no innocents within 1/4 mile behind him".
I'm surprised that there's not more by-standers hurt.

Police training consists, as I understand it (I have police friends, but I've never been an officer myself) of primarily fire/don't fire decision making and target shooting. So, out in the real world, they're pretty good at NOT shooting what they don't want to, but not that good at actually hiting a moving target.

Of course, I would expect SWAT members to have more advanced training, whaihc could account for the better results here.

I just don't see how it can be excessive, when the entire point of shooting is to make the guy dead.

but the entore pont of the discussion is that they clearly decided in advance to slot this guy because of what he was suspected of doing.

it was excessive and premeditated killing. you rednecks can get as erect as you like, the cops should not be a hit squad.

and for the record i re-read the article and whoops, the fuzz do claim he had a gun. silly hungover me.

Why can't we stop the killing? Dying is the number one cause of death in people aged 17-32.

Not everyone is a crack shot. A month ago a turkish police officer was attacked by three attack dogs of robbers and shot them once in their legs saving their lives because he is a dog owner and likes animals. Now thats rare. Unfortunately the one of dogs alter died because of wound. He visited animals at vetenerian and helped etc. You can't expect this from everyone under imminent threat of being torn to pieces. Those policemen succeeded in the end and thats what it matters. If because of their rain of fire some civillians were hurt now then it would have been a different story of needless abuse of power etc. As long as you are succesful there is no problem, when you fail you go down.

it was excessive and premeditated killing. you rednecks can get as erect as you like, the cops should not be a hit squad.
.

Yes, when someone points a gun at you don't take them down. Try to "talk" to them or something. Lets see how many cops die with this new "enlightened" policy.

I don't see why people can't understand it. Police will fire as many times as neccessary to make sure the suspect is no longer a threat. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yes, when someone points a gun at you don't take them down. Try to "talk" to them or something. Lets see how many cops die with this new "enlightened" policy.

I don't see why people can't understand it. Police will fire as many times as neccessary to make sure the suspect is no longer a threat. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

even though they had clealyt dedided to do this guy from the off?

shoot him in the soulder, use less than lethal weapons, there is always plan b

as long as the cops have blind cheerleaders like you they will continue to commit murder.

from nine officers firing UMP-40 SMG's 110 rounds is about three quarters of a second burst each, that's not overkill it's good practice.

A single person emptying their clip would have been enough to ensure he was dead. Nine people doing it is excessive force.

So what now? The SWAT team was supposed to take a vote on who should empty a clip on the guy?

When a guy takes out a gun, he is a danger to society and the cops, and must be dealt with.

even though they had clealyt dedided to do this guy from the off?

shoot him in the soulder, use less than lethal weapons, there is always plan b

as long as the cops have blind cheerleaders like you they will continue to commit murder.

Idiotic. If he wasn't such a threat then they wouldn't use so much force. Get off your moral high ground and smell the coffee.

even though they had clealyt dedided to do this guy from the off?

shoot him in the soulder, use less than lethal weapons, there is always plan b

as long as the cops have blind cheerleaders like you they will continue to commit murder.

No. Uh-uh.

When someone pulls a gun on you, you don't aim for the shoulder. You aim for center body mass. Period. You don't face a man with a gun armed with a taser or pepper spray. ANd when he's already killed two of your family members less than a day ago, you empty your weapon into him. It's not rocket science.

even though they had clealyt dedided to do this guy from the off?

shoot him in the soulder, use less than lethal weapons, there is always plan b

as long as the cops have blind cheerleaders like you they will continue to commit murder.

Nice that you can assume that they are going to kill them from the start. It is not as if they would have brought him in if he was unarmed right?

I see. Police should try to shoot suspects in the shoulder. They must all have spectacular aim. The suspect would also just have to fall or surrender after right? No chance of him being able to fire back at police. I for one am not going to risk the lives of our officers. It is shoot to kill for a reason.

It is not blind cheerleading, the police did their job. If the guy didn't raise a gun towards them he would be alive now.

So what now? The SWAT team was supposed to take a vote on who should empty a clip on the guy?

When a guy takes out a gun, he is a danger to society and the cops, and must be dealt with.

Exactly. Hard to understand why people can not understand this. You don't take chances with someone who is trying to point a weapon at you.

from nine officers firing UMP-40 SMG's 110 rounds is about three quarters of a second burst each, that's not overkill it's good practice.
Police should use surrounded suspects as target practice?
So what now? The SWAT team was supposed to take a vote on who should empty a clip on the guy?

When a guy takes out a gun, he is a danger to society and the cops, and must be dealt with.

Anyone who takes out a gun deserves to die?



Does anyone, anywhere even try to think before they post anymore?

It's worth noting that 62% success in a snapshot situation in heavy cover is some pretty awesome shooting. I'd have to say I'm impressed.

No. Uh-uh.

When someone pulls a gun on you, you don't aim for the shoulder. You aim for center body mass. Period. You don't face a man with a gun armed with a taser or pepper spray. ANd when he's already killed two of your family members less than a day ago, you empty your weapon into him. It's not rocket science.

now we are starting to get the point....

Police should use surrounded suspects as target practice?


Anyone who takes out a gun deserves to die?

Police shouldn't take chances with people pointing weapons at them.

Of course they should die. You point a weapon at police then you are signaling that they are ready to try to kill police. Are you saying they should have waited until he started shooting before killing him?

When a guy takes out a gun, he is a danger to society and the cops, and must be dealt with.
And when cops empty their magazines, causing 42 bullets to miss the intended target and fly off godknowswhere they become a danger to society.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?
Well, was his guilt proven? Was he violently resisting arrest?

I also don't agree with the death penalty, especially when applied extrajudicially, so I'm not OK.

Police should use surrounded suspects as target practice?


Anyone who takes out a gun deserves to die?



Does anyone, anywhere even try to think before they post anymore?



by "Good practice" I mean that in a live fire situation if you have LOS to a target you take your own shot. that means that nine officers obtained line of sight to the guy and each gave him a short burst from a very rapid fire weapon. This is pretty much what you would expect to happen in such a situation and actually bespeaks pretty impressive levels of tactical awareness and proficiency.

and second, it is axiomatic that one should only draw a gun when one is prepared to shoot something. If one draws a gun in the presence of the police in a threatening situation one should expect to get shot.

but the entore pont of the discussion is that they clearly decided in advance to slot this guy because of what he was suspected of doing.


Where do you get that? You have no evidence of it.

it was excessive and premeditated killing. you rednecks can get as erect as you like, the cops should not be a hit squad.



How was it excessive? What evidence is there of premeditation?

More like: Why are you making such strange leaps of logic?

There were 10 officers there and only 9 fired. I wonder why the tenth didn't fire?

Well, was his guilt proven? Was he violently resisting arrest?

I also don't agree with the death penalty, especially when applied extrajudicially, so I'm not OK.

Yes, he was vilently resisting arrest. He pulled a gun.

Read the article.

probably because he didn't have a line of sight or didn't think he could make the shot.

shoot him in the soulder, use less than lethal weapons, there is always plan b


I remember when I was at a summer camp about forensic science a police officer told us that if you actually have time to aim for the shoulder, it's not justified, and they aim for the chest because if shooting them is really necessary, then they are dangerous enough that you have to stop them.

There were 10 officers there and only 9 fired. I wonder why the tenth didn't fire?

At a guess, he didn't have a clear line of fire. Or, he was the one menaced and was taking cover.

Anyone who takes out a gun deserves to die?



Does anyone, anywhere even try to think before they post anymore?

More idiocy. You tell people to think before they post, good advice for yourself. Now don't put words into my mouth. This is what I said:
When a guy takes out a gun, he is a danger to society and the cops, and must be dealt with.

To clarify, if someone takes out his weapon, waves it around, and is a clear danger, he must be dealt with the means available at the time.

probably because he didn't have a line of sight or didn't think he could make the shot.

Probably.

now we are starting to get the point....

About freakin' time! If the guy hadn't shot at and killed anybody(let alone two police officers), there probably wouldn't have been a call for a SWAT team to begin with! They were dealing with a armed killer who showed no compunction against shooting police officers...and he was pointing his gun at...WHOA! Police Officers! Would you take any chances?

I don't think the police did anything wrong as in anything illegal - however, I do question the methods used / the training. It doesn't seem like a particularly good idea to me for all the cops to empty their guns at the same time.

Regardless, I would have expected them to take him down using more precise shooting and with less shots fired. But maybe my expectations are too high?

There were 10 officers there and only 9 fired. I wonder why the tenth didn't fire?

Good question. Maybe they ought to ask him that. :p

Well, was his guilt proven? Was he violently resisting arrest?

I also don't agree with the death penalty, especially when applied extrajudicially, so I'm not OK.

He pointed a fucking gun at police! What the hell is wrong with you?

I don't think the police did anything wrong as in anything illegal - however, I do question the methods used / the training. It doesn't seem like a particularly good idea to me for all the cops to empty their guns at the same time.

Regardless, I would have expected them to take him down using more precise shooting and with less shots fired. But maybe my expectations are too high?

No, they probably could have taken the guy out with one round apiece. But that's the point: probably. I have no problem with them making sure they were safe.

I don't think the police did anything wrong as in anything illegal - however, I do question the methods used / the training. It doesn't seem like a particularly good idea to me for all the cops to empty their guns at the same time.

Regardless, I would have expected them to take him down using more precise shooting and with less shots fired. But maybe my expectations are too high?


They didn't empty their guns. For nine officers opening fire with automatic weapons the number of shots fired is actually pretty low. As I posted earlier that is about half to three quarters of a second burst which is usual for close quarters combat,

the problem isn't the fact that guns were used it's that a 'shoot to kill' policy was used, or in this case a 'shoot til there's nothing recognisable left'. fair enough it isn't always possible to not kill someone when you're shooting at them but these police officers weren't even trying to just stop him, you don't fire 110 rounds at someone unless you want them dead.

In all fairness they did want him dead. They certainly didnt want him to kill another cop. He did not feel like surrendering and raising his hands. Unlike the guy who was killed it is likely that every cop wanted to go home alive to his family. This was his third shootout in 12 hours with the police. What would any of you have done if you were in the cop's position?

gotten the hell out of his way because i'm a lousy shot.

No, they probably could have taken the guy out with one round apiece. But that's the point: probably. I have no problem with them making sure they were safe.

Believe it or not, that's their job. ANd the police get more and more training and instruction on safeguarding themselves all the time. They don't take unnecessary chances. The guidelines for what represents a 'necessary' chance gets tighter and tighter all the time.

In all fairness they did want him dead. They certainly didnt want him to kill another cop. He did not feel like surrendering and raising his hands. Unlike the guy who was killed it is likely that every cop wanted to go home alive to his family. This was his third shootout in 12 hours with the police. What would any of you have done if you were in the cop's position?

Shot the gun out of his hand? :rolleyes:

Who knows what some people would suggest?

Yes, he was vilently resisting arrest. He pulled a gun.

Read the article.

cops would never lie....

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?

Until recently I would have been pretty OK wiht it too. But living in London recent events have kinda shaken my faith in when police claim a guy was raising a gun at them or similar acts.

As many of you probably know last year there was that brazilian guy who got shit to pieces as a suspected terrorist, the police justified their actions saying they chased him, demanded he stop, that he jumped a ticket barrier, that he wore a heavy coat in mid-summer, that he ran onto the train and that he was suspected of terrorism. later it emerged the police knew they did not ask him to stop, he walked onto the train, he went through ticket barriers normally, he wore a light denim jacket and he was not a suspect.

The truth only came out as a result of security camera evidence - if this was in some farmhouse somewhere there would be no way to ever disprove the police versio - it would be 'the truth' regardless of wether it actualy happened.

So - how do we know this guy drew his gun? well - people with a lot at stake if he did not tell us he drew his gun. People who wanted revenge and could not legally kill him if he did not raise the gun tell us he raised it.

Not the most unbaised people to ask... but they are the only ones who were there.

Personally - if it turnes out this was the guy and he did kill that cop I hope the shots were in the arms and legs and he took a while to die - wether or not he drew the gun. But I am not prepared to easily believe the police on their version anymore without asking questions.

but the entore pont of the discussion is that they clearly decided in advance to slot this guy because of what he was suspected of doing.

it was excessive and premeditated killing. you rednecks can get as erect as you like, the cops should not be a hit squad.

and for the record i re-read the article and whoops, the fuzz do claim he had a gun. silly hungover me.

Be as limp and drunk as you like. The guy even had the gun he ghouled off the officer he killed.

cops would never lie....

WHat the hell is wrong with you? If there was any...ANY hint of that, it would be the news of the day. If, in the next couple days, there is a hint of that, it will be big news. But today, I have no reason to doubt the police on the scene. And neither do you.

cops would never lie....

Ten cops? Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

Until recently I would have been pretty OK wiht it too. But living in London recent events have kinda shaken my faith in when police claim a guy was raising a gun at them or similar acts.

As many of you probably know last year there was that brazilian guy who got shit to pieces as a suspected terrorist, the police justified their actions saying they chased him, demanded he stop, that he jumped a ticket barrier, that he wore a heavy coat in mid-summer, that he ran onto the train and that he was suspected of terrorism. later it emerged the police knew they did not ask him to stop, he walked onto the train, he went through ticket barriers normally, he wore a light denim jacket and he was not a suspect.

The truth only came out as a result of security camera evidence - if this was in some farmhouse somewhere there would be no way to ever disprove the police versio - it would be 'the truth' regardless of wether it actualy happened.

So - how do we know this guy drew his gun? well - people with a lot at stake if he did not tell us he drew his gun. People who wanted revenge and could not legally kill him if he did not raise the gun tell us he raised it.

Not the most unbaised people to ask... but they are the only ones who were there.

Personally - if it turnes out this was the guy and he did kill that cop I hope the shots were in the arms and legs and he took a while to die - wether or not he drew the gun. But I am not prepared to easily believe the police on their version anymore without asking questions.

Unless you were personally be willing to be a cop and put yourself in a position of hunting in the dark for an armed guy who kills cops how would you ever know these things? Especially the "wanted revenge " partr?

Personally - if it turnes out this was the guy and he did kill that cop I hope the shots were in the arms and legs and he took a while to die - wether or not he drew the gun. But I am not prepared to easily believe the police on their version anymore without asking questions.

Pretty cynical. The questions will be asked. It's standard procedure. But unlike you, I'm prepared to believe the police on the scene until I have reason not to.

All news sites are biased. That doesn't make them wrong.

no. just most american ones. and america is not the only coutry with news sites.

No, they probably could have taken the guy out with one round apiece. But that's the point: probably. I have no problem with them making sure they were safe.
If the nine had fired a three-round burst each (= 27 rounds) it could have been sufficient. I just want to know if it's a SOP for SWAT-members to empty their magazines like this.

They didn't empty their guns. For nine officers opening fire with automatic weapons the number of shots fired is actually pretty low. As I posted earlier that is about half to three quarters of a second burst which is usual for close quarters combat,
From the article:
"I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. "We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back."
That's why I wrote what I did.

Pretty cynical. The questions will be asked. It's standard procedure. But unlike you, I'm prepared to believe the police on the scene until I have reason not to.

I am not saying I disbelieve them/think they are lying. I'm just saying that I don't think we should blindly believe what they say either. The reason there are question asked as standard when this happens is because the powers that be also feel it is prudent to not blindly trust the cop/s involved in a shooting.

Unless you were personally be willing to be a cop and put yourself in a position of hunting in the dark for an armed guy who kills cops how would you ever know these things? Especially the "wanted revenge " partr?
What? If someone shot one of your buddies you would not feel the slightest desire for revenge? I sure as hell would. Law enforcement is a close knit community - particulary in areas where the police really are going out in areas where they risk their lives. I would hope cops are human, and revenge is a normal human emotion.

Other than 'wanted revenge' - what other 'things' in my post would I have to be a cop to know?

the guy didn't know what the hell he was talking about. 9 officers will be packing 270 rounds of ammunition immediately available without reloading. Almost all modern SMGs and carbines have 30 round magazines.

the man was suspected of the crime and yet they still shot him to pieces. whatever happened to innocent til proven guilty? i'm so glad i don't live in the us.

Yeah, they surrounded him, and he raised a gun.

no. just most american ones. and america is not the only coutry with news sites.

ALL news sites are biased. Doesn't matter where they are. If you don't know that, you're a fool.

Let's do some simple math. 110 shots fired / 9 officers that fired (from full auto weapons) = 12.222 shots per officer average.


That doesn't seem like a lot of shots per officer to me, considering the weapons they were carrying. Also, what this guy did was perform what's called, "suicide by cop". He killed 2 police officers (police dogs are considered police officers), injured another, then pulled a gun on 10 heavily armed SWAT officers.

His intention was to die. No reasonably sane person with an interest in living could think they would survive being surrounded and outnumbered/outgunned 10-1.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html

Consider also that these were SWAT team members, who use fully automatic weapons, usually at very close range.



Nine officers fired at him at the same time. He probably looked like an anatomy lesson after the bursts of fire.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?
I fucking love it personally. If I were there I would've put three clips in him myself. You kill cops, this is what you get.

the problem isn't the fact that guns were used it's that a 'shoot to kill' policy was used, or in this case a 'shoot til there's nothing recognisable left'. fair enough it isn't always possible to not kill someone when you're shooting at them but these police officers weren't even trying to just stop him, you don't fire 110 rounds at someone unless you want them dead.

There were nine guys with MP5 submachine guns. They can empty a thirty round clip in like, oh, under three seconds. What most likely happened was all the cops depressed the trigger for one or two seconds, and they all hit their target.

Originally Posted by Infinite Revolution View Post
the problem isn't the fact that guns were used it's that a 'shoot to kill' policy was used, or in this case a 'shoot til there's nothing recognisable left'. fair enough it isn't always possible to not kill someone when you're shooting at them but these police officers weren't even trying to just stop him, you don't fire 110 rounds at someone unless you want them dead.

If you shoot, you shoot to kill. Anything else means you're trying to miss.

If you shoot, you shoot to kill. Anything else means you're trying to miss.

Shoot to kill does not include excessive and unnecessary force.

Be as limp and drunk as you like. The guy even had the gun he ghouled off the officer he killed.

Why would he take the gun from a guy who was chasing him in the woods? He already had a gun, which he somehow used to kill both the cop and dog. Fleeing from a traffic stop where he only wounded a police officer and then having a firefight with another officer and he had the insight to go take his gun? More suspicious shit.

Shoot to kill does not include excessive and unnecessary force.

What's more excessive than death? :p

Shoot to kill does not include excessive and unnecessary force.

If you're trying to kill somebody, how can using a lot of bullets be "excessive"? And if he's trying to shoot you, how can it be "unnecessary"?

Why would he take the gun from a guy who was chasing him in the woods? He already had a gun, which he somehow used to kill both the cop and dog. Fleeing from a traffic stop where he only wounded a police officer and then having a firefight with another officer and he had the insight to go take his gun? More suspicious shit.

Because he ran out of ammo? :rolleyes: Jeez, you have a suspicious mind.

What's more excessive than death? :p

Well, you can hang yourself. Or you can try to simultaneously hang yourself, poison yourself, and set yourself on fire. You should end up both ways, but one is a little excessive.

Because he ran out of ammo? Jeez, you have a suspicious mind.
The whole scenario reeks of bullshit. Combine that with little trust for cops and already proven untrustable Florida cops, and we come to "Why should we believe the police who riddled a guy full of wholes?"

I don't think the police did anything wrong as in anything illegal - however, I do question the methods used / the training. It doesn't seem like a particularly good idea to me for all the cops to empty their guns at the same time.
Quite right. What if there had been two or more suspects there? The cops would potentially left themselves open to fire, with empty weapons.

Regardless, I would have expected them to take him down using more precise shooting and with less shots fired. But maybe my expectations are too high?
High expectations? I don't think so.

I compare this to an incident that happened here in HK a few months back (which has all the makings of a damn good movie, but that's beside the point).
Two cops on patrol were ambushed by a gun weilding villian, who fired four rounds at the cops, hitting them four times, and killing one instantly. The other was shot in the face and leg and still managed to shoot and kill the assailant. He fired 7 times, hitting him 6. He then holstered his gun, and called for backup before passing out.
Now THAT'S training.


What makes this an ideal candidate for hollywood movie treatment was the nature of the villian: He was a cop himself. And the gun he was using had been stolen from a cop who had been killed 5 years previous in an up-to-then unsolved murder.
Also, iirc, in the 5 years between these two attacks, the gun had been used in at least two armed robberies - in one of which, a security guard had been killed.
What made it even more spectacular was that the dirty cop had been suspected of the first cop killing, but had been cleared because the killer was right-handed and he was left-handed.
After the last crime that resulted in his death, it was discovered that he was in fact right-handed, but had trained himself to be left-handed when working as a cop. He was an excellent shot with both too.


Thus, in this case we have two cops firing at each other a total of 11 times, resulting in 10 hits on target, two deaths and 1 near-death.
I call that proper training.

Quite right. What if there had been two or more suspects there? The cops would potentially left themselves open to fire, with empty weapons.


High expectations? I don't think so.

I compare this to an incident that happened here in HK a few months back (which has all the makings of a damn good movie, but that's beside the point).
Two cops on patrol were ambushed by a gun weilding villian, who fired four rounds at the cops, hitting them four times, and killing one instantly. The other was shot in the face and leg and still managed to shoot and kill the assailant. He fired 7 times, hitting him 6. He then holstered his gun, and called for backup before passing out.
Now THAT'S training.


What makes this an ideal candidate for hollywood movie treatment was the nature of the villian: He was a cop himself. And the gun he was using had been stolen from a cop who had been killed 5 years previous in an up-to-then unsolved murder.
Also, iirc, in the 5 years between these two attacks, the gun had been used in at least two armed robberies - in one of which, a security guard had been killed.
What made it even more spectacular was that the dirty cop had been suspected of the first cop killing, but had been cleared because the killer was right-handed and he was left-handed.
After the last crime that resulted in his death, it was discovered that he was in fact right-handed, but had trained himself to be left-handed when working as a cop. He was an excellent shot with both too.


Thus, in this case we have two cops firing at each other a total of 11 times, resulting in 10 hits on target, two deaths and 1 near-death.
I call that proper training.

So do I. But holding everybody to the levelof the Royal Hong Kong Constabulary may be a bit much.

So do I. But holding everybody to the levelof the Royal Hong Kong Constabulary may be a bit much.

Yeah, God forbid we expect a SWAT team to even be half as highly trained as your average HK street cop.

You can't really compare the two, the guy could have been stood at the car window for all you know.

You can't really compare the two, the guy could have been stood at the car window for all you know.

What the hell did you just say?

Well, you can hang yourself. Or you can try to simultaneously hang yourself, poison yourself, and set yourself on fire. You should end up both ways, but one is a little excessive.


The whole scenario reeks of bullshit. Combine that with little trust for cops and already proven untrustable Florida cops, and we come to "Why should we believe the police who riddled a guy full of wholes?"

There will be an inquiry. It's SOP when a policeman shoots someone under any circumstances. But 'reeks of bullshit'? I think that's pretty paranoid. Everything seems to fit to me. Well, almost everything. I can't help but wonder what the suspect was doing so close to the original crime scene.

Yeah, God forbid we expect a SWAT team to even be half as highly trained as your average HK street cop.

The "average HK street cop" is exceptionally well trained. They're kinda legendary.

But consider: in this case he hit six times out of seven shots. Multiply that by nine: 54 hits out of 63.

Less rouns fired, yes. But close to the same number of hits. Even if our guy in florida was surrounded by RHKC, he'd've still been bitsed.

There will be an inquiry. It's SOP when a policeman shoots someone under any circumstances. But 'reeks of bullshit'? I think that's pretty paranoid. Everything seems to fit to me. Well, almost everything. I can't help but wonder what the suspect was doing so close to the original crime scene.

Here's how it played out, plot holes will be picked up at the end.

Freeland, or whoever, is pulled over for speeding. The deputy who pulled him over thought he had suspicious identification. Something something, Freeland makes a run for the woods. The deputy calls for back up. A K9 unit arrives and they chase Freeland into the woods. Somehow they catch up with Freeland. The deputy and the dog are shot and killed by Freeland, who is either unharmed or not very seriously wounded. The dead depuy is shot "multiple times." The deputy who stopped him earlier is shortly there after shot in the leg. Sometime thereafter, he has a short firefight with another deputy going around to people's homes. Unknown whose gun. 24 hours later, while SWAT and cops from hours away are searching, he is found hiding under a fallen tree in some scrub which the SWAT members had "literally walked on top of." He is told to put his hands up. He supposedly raises one hand with a firearm in it, the dead deputy's .45. 110 rounds are fired, 68 hit. He is found to have the .45 in his hand and the 9mm on the ground with him.

1) He not only managed to kill an armed deputy but also a K9? And hit the deputy multiple times? Should've put him on the SWAT team.

2) I can only assume the original deputy and the K9 unit split up. That is the only way the deputy could have been shot in the leg and Freeland supposedly could have taken the dead deputy's .45.

3) The guy thinks to go back and take a deputy's gun and to not shoot from under a log at well-armed, but unknowning SWAT members, and when he is told to come out, he raises the deputy's gun as if to shoot? Seems illogical by this point.

4) Officers cam from hours away to track this guy down in the woods that an officer accidently stumbled into him around? Sounds like a grudge killing of a "cop killer," not the actions of a well-trained SWAT force.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html

Consider also that these were SWAT team members, who use fully automatic weapons, usually at very close range.



Nine officers fired at him at the same time. He probably looked like an anatomy lesson after the bursts of fire.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?


You, for one, are fucking deranged. Whatever happened to due process? 110 rounds, eh - another great day for Imperial Justice.

Go USA!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html

Consider also that these were SWAT team members, who use fully automatic weapons, usually at very close range.



Nine officers fired at him at the same time. He probably looked like an anatomy lesson after the bursts of fire.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?


DK..... 68 hits out of 110 would'nt even get me qualified to qualify...you sure about that ?:D

Really SWAT using long arms at close range should be 100 / 110 X with the ten being right outside the X and still points;)

Wher did the roundd that missed go ?

You, for one, are fucking deranged. Whatever happened to due process? 110 rounds, eh - another great day for Imperial Justice.

Go USA!

The guy was armed and he'd proved he was willing to kill cops. The police did their job.

1) He not only managed to kill an armed deputy but also a K9? And hit the deputy multiple times? Should've put him on the SWAT team.


All this means is that he's a good shot. Also, multiple shots into the deputy could have been over time - one shot incapacitates, he gets to aim carefully for the others.


2) I can only assume the original deputy and the K9 unit split up. That is the only way the deputy could have been shot in the leg and Freeland supposedly could have taken the dead deputy's .45.


Yes, that fits.

3) The guy thinks to go back and take a deputy's gun and to not shoot from under a log at well-armed, but unknowning SWAT members, and when he is told to come out, he raises the deputy's gun as if to shoot? Seems illogical by this point.

Much of what criminals do is illogical. Guy in Arizona got killed by trying to escape from the police in a high speed chase - ran head on into a semi. He wasn't wanted or anything - the cop wanted him to pull over because he had a busted taillight. He just decided to run.

4) Officers cam from hours away to track this guy down in the woods that an officer accidently stumbled into him around? Sounds like a grudge killing of a "cop killer," not the actions of a well-trained SWAT force.

Er, how are you going to find someone in a wooded area unless you search the area?

You, for one, are fucking deranged. Whatever happened to due process? 110 rounds, eh - another great day for Imperial Justice.

Go USA!


Yo Dobbstune....you realise the guy was armed and shot thee last two guys and a dog that tried to arrest him ...WTF is wrong inside your brain ?????


I guess you would have hugged and kissed him into submission with the power of love...

YOUR the one in need of a shrink and the map to the path of reality .

Here's how it played out, plot holes will be picked up at the end.

Freeland, or whoever, is pulled over for speeding. The deputy who pulled him over thought he had suspicious identification. Something something, Freeland makes a run for the woods. The deputy calls for back up. A K9 unit arrives and they chase Freeland into the woods. Somehow they catch up with Freeland. The deputy and the dog are shot and killed by Freeland, who is either unharmed or not very seriously wounded. The dead depuy is shot "multiple times." The deputy who stopped him earlier is shortly there after shot in the leg. Sometime thereafter, he has a short firefight with another deputy going around to people's homes. Unknown whose gun. 24 hours later, while SWAT and cops from hours away are searching, he is found hiding under a fallen tree in some scrub which the SWAT members had "literally walked on top of." He is told to put his hands up. He supposedly raises one hand with a firearm in it, the dead deputy's .45. 110 rounds are fired, 68 hit. He is found to have the .45 in his hand and the 9mm on the ground with him.

1) He not only managed to kill an armed deputy but also a K9? And hit the deputy multiple times? Should've put him on the SWAT team.

2) I can only assume the original deputy and the K9 unit split up. That is the only way the deputy could have been shot in the leg and Freeland supposedly could have taken the dead deputy's .45.

3) The guy thinks to go back and take a deputy's gun and to not shoot from under a log at well-armed, but unknowning SWAT members, and when he is told to come out, he raises the deputy's gun as if to shoot? Seems illogical by this point.

4) Officers cam from hours away to track this guy down in the woods that an officer accidently stumbled into him around? Sounds like a grudge killing of a "cop killer," not the actions of a well-trained SWAT force.


I checked MSNBC and CNN.com and I'm getting some mixed messages. I suspect that details are getting muddled. Let's get the story in another day or two and analyze it then. As I said before, any mistakes or misbehavior(real or imagined) will be big news.

You, for one, are fucking deranged. Whatever happened to due process? 110 rounds, eh - another great day for Imperial Justice.

Go USA!

Why don't you read the article before you come off as an idiot?

The guy was armed and he'd proved he was willing to kill cops. The police did their job.

No, they exacted revenge without due process. The only proof that matters is the proof provided in a court of Law. Those cops failed. DK fails. You fail.

You all fail. Miserably.

DK..... 68 hits out of 110 would'nt even get me qualified to qualify...you sure about that ?:D

Really SWAT using long arms at close range should be 100 / 110 X with the ten being right outside the X and still points;)

Wher did the roundd that missed go ?

That's the problem with fully automatic fire. No one is good enough to put all the rounds on target on full auto.

I'm far, far more dangerous with a proper bolt action rifle than I am with a machinegun, and to a much greater range.

No, they exacted revenge without due process. The only proof that matters is the proof provided in a court of Law. Those cops failed. DK fails. You fail.

You all fail. Miserably.

If you are unfamiliar with how the law works, when a suspect is armed, has proven that he's willing to kill cops, and is showing the intent to kill more cops, the job of the police is not to rush at him like lambs going to slaughter, but to protect themselves by any means necessarily, and if that means they have to shoot him, so be it. He was willing to kill to keep himself out of a court of law, and having more people die was totally unacceptable.

Did they exact revenge? Maybe. But was it within the bounds of acceptable police behavior? Without a doubt.

The "average HK street cop" is exceptionally well trained. They're kinda legendary.

But consider: in this case he hit six times out of seven shots. Multiply that by nine: 54 hits out of 63.

Less rouns fired, yes. But close to the same number of hits. Even if our guy in florida was surrounded by RHKC, he'd've still been bitsed.
Bear in mind that he'd been shot in the face and leg.
That might put you off your aim just a tad.

As for the HKP being well-trained I can certainly vouch for that (I know a couple of them). Well most of them are well-trained. The ones here on the island I live on...wellllll....not so good.
But then not a lot happens over here.

Off-topic a bit, but I think a major reason why HK has such a low crime rate is the visibility of it's police force. They always walking around the streets here in 2's and 3's.
The other day I was sitting in a cafe window people-watching and in the 40 minutes I was there I saw 11 cops walk past, doing their rounds - a group of 4, two pairs and one group of 3. Woe betide any person deciding to commit a crime in that vicinity I thought.
Amazing idea, eh? Higher cop visibility = less crime.

No, they exacted revenge without due process. The only proof that matters is the proof provided in a court of Law. Those cops failed. DK fails. You fail.

You all fail. Miserably.


Sometimes, just maybe, it might not be the entire rest of the world that fails a reality check...

Why don't you read the article before you come off as an idiot?

I don't care where you live, your cops would still have killed this guy. He raised a gun to police.

I have read it, and if anyone's coming off as an idiot it's DK - though you might just take second prize.

Amazing idea, eh? Higher cop visibility =
less crime.

Coming from you, that is amazing.


Police state = less crime.

I have read it, and if anyone's coming off as an idiot it's DK - though you might just take second prize.

DK's coming off as blood hungry and hyper aggressive, you're coming off as ill-informed. Neither stands good on either of your reputations.

There is no instance where this sort of police action should be lauded. And I don't care what extenuating circumstances you feel put me in the wrong on that. I am not in the wrong.

Coming from you, that is amazing.


Police state = less crime.
Where did I say having more police on the beat = being in a police state?

*literally scratches head at that one*

No, they exacted revenge without due process. The only proof that matters is the proof provided in a court of Law. Those cops failed. DK fails. You fail.

You all fail. Miserably.

So when he raised his gun toward them, they should have done... what? Reminded him that he could face additional charges if he kills any more of them?

There is no instance where this sort of police action should be lauded. And I don't care what extenuating circumstances you feel put me in the wrong on that. I am not in the wrong.

Why did the police in Canada shoot that guy who was shooting up that school in Montreal.

By your standards, the police should have walked in unarmed, and asked him to stop, and politely surrender himself so he could be brought to a fair trial.

There is no instance where this sort of police action should be lauded. And I don't care what extenuating circumstances you feel put me in the wrong on that. I am not in the wrong.

I'm not lauding it. It's a motherfucking tragedy of the first order that this shit had to happen, but necessity made it so the police had to kill the guy, lest he kill them.

That's the problem with fully automatic fire. No one is good enough to put all the rounds on target on full auto.

I'm far, far more dangerous with a proper bolt action rifle than I am with a machinegun, and to a much greater range.


Your assuming full auto....3 round burst dude even for SWAT..at least in PA. And thats all I ever trained with. Either single round or three round.( SWAT trains at the same FACILITY ..I have NO assiciation with them at all exceopt when our pistol team beats them ):D .

They either used the old M16 or the reporting is srewed up...athough more than likely a few used ssupressing fire while the others flanked the bastard and the got 68/68 X ...thats why I put up the smileys...

Poor Dobbs baby will have a coronary and an embolism if he figures out what I just wrote ...:D

DK's coming off as blood hungry and hyper aggressive, you're coming off as ill-informed. Neither stands good on either of your reputations.

DK's reputation is for being blood hungry. This is the man who has likened himself to Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich) on these fora.

I'm as informed as the original OP allowed me to be. And I don't need to have a PhD to know asshattery when I see it.

Poor Dobbs baby will have a coronary and an embolism if he figures out what I just wrote ...:D

Dobbs, that's another way to say:

The rounds that hit him, eviscerated him and blew his skull apart.

All this means is that he's a good shot. Also, multiple shots into the deputy could have been over time - one shot incapacitates, he gets to aim carefully for the others.
Still doesn't make sense.

Much of what criminals do is illogical. Guy in Arizona got killed by trying to escape from the police in a high speed chase - ran head on into a semi. He wasn't wanted or anything - the cop wanted him to pull over because he had a busted taillight. He just decided to run.
In accordance with this case, I assume he first managed to lose the cops several times before freaking out and running headlong into a semi.


Why did the police in Canada shoot that guy who was shooting up that school in Montreal.

By your standards, the police should have walked in unarmed, and asked him to stop, and politely surrender himself so he could be brought to a fair trial.
Hey, what was that? Oh wait, just an entirely different situation.

supressing fire

What were they supressing? His desire for a sandwich?

There is no instance where this sort of police action should be lauded. And I don't care what extenuating circumstances you feel put me in the wrong on that. I am not in the wrong.

Good thing you have NOTHING to do with law enforcement..no one would work for you and all you would have is a record of getting cops killed.


Stop at a gas station and buy a map to reality . If they still sell them..you may haave to try a 7-11

So when he raised his gun toward them, they should have done... what? Reminded him that he could face additional charges if he kills any more of them?

There are whole hosts of non-lethal responses that could have been employed. I hear much about tasers, glue-guns, tear gas - but I guess it's more satisfying to fill someone full of lead without due process... and then to crow over it, eh DK?

Why did the police in Canada shoot that guy who was shooting up that school in Montreal.

By your standards, the police should have walked in unarmed, and asked him to stop, and politely surrender himself so he could be brought to a fair trial.

That is the preferrable method. We just need to open up diplomatic channels with insane killers. Once their leader signs a treaty all this unpleasantness and unjust and uncalled for police brutality will be sorted.

There is no instance where this sort of police action should be lauded. And I don't care what extenuating circumstances you feel put me in the wrong on that. I am not in the wrong.

So, when do the police get to use force to protect themselves? When the guy fires? Or maybe you think he should be allowed to shoot every police officer in sight? Or maybe you want them to wait until he ran out of bulets from killing cops?

You are most definitely in the wrong, because no police, anywhere, would have, or should have, done anything except blow this asshole away the very instant he pointed a loaded gun at another cop.

DK's coming off as blood hungry and hyper aggressive, you're coming off as ill-informed. Neither stands good on either of your reputations.

Since when was being blood hungry and hyper aggressive not DK's reputation?

That's the problem with fully automatic fire. No one is good enough to put all the rounds on target on full auto.
Which a bunch of trained SWAT members should know. Another example of why this was obviously a grudge killing.

There are whole hosts of non-lethal responses that could have been employed. I hear much about tasers, glue-guns, tear gas - but I guess it's more satisfying to fill someone full of lead without due process.

In this instance the risk was immense, and knowing the capabilities of such things as tasers and tear gas, it would have been unacceptable.

What were they supressing? His desire for a sandwich?


No dope.... his ability to fire his weapons at them ...its not like a movie or video..you fire at the target to keep his head down and under cover so you can manuver to get a shot without getting shot at .

Beyond being common sense ...its one of the first tactical manuvers you learn .

There are whole hosts of non-lethal responses that could have been employed. I hear much about tasers, glue-guns, tear gas - but I guess it's more satisfying to fill someone full of lead without due process... and then to crow over it, eh DK?

He wasn't throwing rocks and bottles from a crowd of protesters. He was an armed killer! You don't use non-lethal weapons in a situation like that! My god, I'm a lunatic and even I wouldn't do anything that insane!

Since when was being blood hungry and hyper aggressive not DK's reputation?

He's gettin blood hungry aggression points in this thread though, more than he's had in the past.

Beyond being common sense ...its one of the first tactical manuvers you learn .

Too bad they must have spent extra time covering that so that they missed "full auto at 75 to 100 yards isn't the smartest tactical maneuver."
And suppressing fire is not what happens when you are firing at a non-covered target.

There are whole hosts of non-lethal responses that could have been employed. I hear much about tasers, glue-guns, tear gas - but I guess it's more satisfying to fill someone full of lead without due process... and then to crow over it, eh DK?

A few more cops might have to die to implement this but thats the price they need pay for being evil police in the first place. Cops and Killers is a game that must be played with kid gloves or not at all.

Unfortunately, here in Aus there's an idiot lobby that goes crazy every time a cop uses lethal force.

Isn't it good that that view gets heard, if not listened to? That there's someone trying to prevent excessive force?


The only good thing is that the various state police services (we don't have local cops or Sheriff's Departments) don't seem to listen. Our police are still properly armed.

Then the lobby doesn't impead the effectiveness of the police force. What's the problem?

I don't care where you live, your cops would still have killed this guy. He raised a gun to police.

You must have some holy fucking view of police or something. First off, they're people, so you should get what you get for killing anyone, and second sometimes police deserve to be shot. They're not all friendly, honest guys out to protect the community and put away bad guys. Alot are, but not all.

A police officer is a representative of law and justice hence any attack on a police officer is implicitly an attack on the law and justice of the country in addition to an attack on the officer.

Or self-defence.

I checked MSNBC and CNN.com and I'm getting some mixed messages. I suspect that details are getting muddled. Let's get the story in another day or two and analyze it then. As I said before, any mistakes or misbehavior(real or imagined) will be big news.

I suspect that the details are getting muddles somewhat on porpose. Police take care of their own. They're ganna do what they can to make hide anything that the public or news media might jump on for a (justified or not) witch hunt.

I don't know if we'll ever really know what happened, the only witnesses being the SWAT members themselves.

No dope.... his ability to fire his weapons at them ...its not like a movie or video..you fire at the target to keep his head down and under cover so you can manuver to get a shot without getting shot at .

Beyond being common sense ...its one of the first tactical manuvers you learn .

Sure. But ten guys armed with what you said were M16s versus beshrubbed man with pistol in the open. If nine of them see him and open fire at the same time (As has been the consistent interpretation during this thread) who is doing the suppressing? And why?

Why did the police in Canada shoot that guy who was shooting up that school in Montreal.

By your standards, the police should have walked in unarmed, and asked him to stop, and politely surrender himself so he could be brought to a fair trial.

Just to clear this usual bit of DK misinformation up - Kimveer Gill shot himself in the head, not the MUC police.

He wasn't throwing rocks and bottles from a crowd of protesters. He was an armed killer! You don't use non-lethal weapons in a situation like that! My god, I'm a lunatic and even I wouldn't do anything that insane!

He was not a killer 'til proven so in a court of Law. Now that he's dead, everybody gets to forego all that boring business of building a case and proving it.

He was not a killer 'til proven so in a court of Law.

He was resisting being arrested with lethal force, the police are justified in responding in kind.

Countless legislative and judicial actions have reaffirmed this sentiment.

Hmmm ...give the cops glue guns tasers and tear gas and the criminal .45 cal handguns and whatever else he had...:D


WHAT A RIOT :D :D :D :D That would make a great Python skit...

And btw place them in A HEAVILY WOODED AREA...:D :D :D

Dobbbs baby you are so ill and uniformed as to be comical..

Not to mention you crying over a stone killer that excecuted one cop and shot another..he even killed a poor little dog...

But you would handicap the cops and force them to put themselves in MORE danger than they alreadt are ..:D


Let me guess... your a liberal / left wing type thinker ?


You sure are funny though..

Glue guns taserrs and tear gas in the woods...against a killer with Firearms ...


BWAAAAAAAAhahahahahahaha


Please dont stop ...keep going you get better as you go along ..:D


Your making me cry with laughing..so go easy next one ...

I vote we ask the 10th guy what happened, as he is the only one that didn't nearly empty his clip in the guy.
In fact, the report says he didn't fire at all. I'm sure that isn't suspicious :rolleyes:.

I vote we ask the 10th guy what happened, as he is the only one that didn't nearly empty his clip in the guy.
In fact, the report says he didn't fire at all. I'm sure that isn't suspicious :rolleyes:.

I'd imagine he wasn't in a position to get a shot off.

Hmmm ...give the cops glue guns tasers and tear gas aand the criminal .45 cal handguns and whatever else he had...:D


WHAT A RIOT :D :D :D :D That would make a great Python skit...

And btw place them in A HEAVILY WOODED AREA...:D :D :D

Dobbbs baby you are so ill and uniformed as to be comical..

Not to mention you crying over a stone killer that excecuted one cop and shot aanother..hee even kill poor little dog...

But you would handicap the cops and force them to put themselves in MORE danger than they alreadt are ..:D


Let me guess... your a liberal / left wing type thinker ?


You sure are funny though..

Glue guns taaserrs and tear gas in the woods...against a killer with Firearms ...


BWAAAAAAAAhahahahahahaha


Please dont stop ...keep going you get better as you go along ..:D

You. Are. Not. Helping.

Hmmm ...give the cops glue guns tasers and tear gas aand the criminal .45 cal handguns and whatever else he had...:D


WHAT A RIOT :D :D :D :D That would make a great Python skit...

And btw place them in A HEAVILY WOODED AREA...:D :D :D

Dobbbs baby you are so ill and uniformed as to be comical..

Not to mention you crying over a stone killer that excecuted one cop and shot aanother..hee even kill poor little dog...

But you would handicap the cops and force them to put themselves in MORE danger than they alreadt are ..:D


Let me guess... your a liberal / left wing type thinker ?


You sure are funny though..

Glue guns taaserrs and tear gas in the woods...against a killer with Firearms ...


BWAAAAAAAAhahahahahahaha


Please dont stop ...keep going you get better as you go along ..:D


Shut up, Eutrusca. Don't you have some high-schoolers to persuade to join the Army, or something...

I'd imagine he wasn't in a position to get a shot off.

Sounds like bullshit. The suspect was surrounded by 10 SWAT members, 9 opened fire when he supposedly raised a gun. It sounds like all 10 were in a position to fire, you know, since all 10 were surrounding him and all. I wouldn't think it counts as surrounding him if you can't do anything but yell taunts.

There are whole hosts of non-lethal responses that could have been employed. I hear much about tasers, glue-guns, tear gas - but I guess it's more satisfying to fill someone full of lead without due process... and then to crow over it, eh DK?

Okay, no bollocks, I'm just going to assume you don't know a fair amount of this stuff. Fair enough.

We really don't have a good, non-lethal way to take someone down quickly. Tasers are very short ranged, max about ten feet, and they only work if both darts hit the target. Worse, the taser causes masive muscular contraction - which means that if he's holding a gun, he's not going to drop it, and it will almost certainly fire. So using one against a firearm-equipped opponent is against policy.
Glue-Guns are pretty much useless. They're too big, too bulky, and they won't stop a determined person from firing back. They probably have a place in riot control, but not in SWAT.
Gases are iffy. There is no gas that will knock you unconscious quickly that won't also kill you. Pepper spray and tear gas will make your eyes water and inflame your sinuses, but they won't stop you from shooting if you really want to.

If you can work out a way to render someone helpless without shooting them, the cops will be the first to applaud. But right now, the only effective response we have to someone with a gun is another gun.

He was not a killer 'til proven so in a court of Law. Now that he's dead, everybody gets to forego all that boring business of building a case and proving it.:D :D :D :D :D :D


Yep that dog and deputy and the dead guy he shot.....and the guys chasing him he shot at...should have called a judge ...



Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha


I asked you to go easy ...my ribs hurt .

Are you not against torture ????

:D :D :D :D :D :D


Yep that dog and deputy and the dead guy he shot.....and the guys chasing him he shot at...should have called a judge ...



Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha


I asked you to go easy ...my ribs hurt .

Are you not against torture ????

You. Are. Not. Helping.

Worse, the taser causes masive muscular contraction - which means that if he's holding a gun, he's not going to drop it, and it will almost certainly fire.

Well that just confirms another of my problems that I didn't bother pointing out. He was riddled with 68 bullets. He fell with the .45 still in his hand according to reports since it was found in his hand after he was confirmed dead.

Sounds like bullshit. The suspect was surrounded by 10 SWAT members, 9 opened fire when he supposedly raised a gun. It sounds like all 10 were in a position to fire, you know, since all 10 were surrounding him and all. I wouldn't think it counts as surrounding him if you can't do anything but yell taunts.



Poor cop killer...gues he didnt have a white flag to wave so he tried waving his gun...:D :D :D :D

I suspect that the details are getting muddles somewhat on porpose. Police take care of their own. They're ganna do what they can to make hide anything that the public or news media might jump on for a (justified or not) witch hunt.

I don't know if we'll ever really know what happened, the only witnesses being the SWAT members themselves.

Actually, I've noticed it a lot lately. News agencies are so rushed to get the stories out that they use an awful lot of preliminary details and statements from people who don't have the whole stories. Too many times, lately, I've seen stories change. Checking out MSNBC and CNN, I have found a couple weird details that don't jibe with Fox, but the last thing I'm going to do is feed anti-police paranoia. I'm going to wait and bring these up later.

Until then, I am going to believe the police. Why shouldn't I? I don't have a reason not to yet.

Are you not against torture ????

For you and Mr. Architect-of-the-Holocaust-wannabe, I make exceptions.

:D :D :D :D :D :D


Yep that dog and deputy and the dead guy he shot.....and the guys chasing him he shot at...should have called a judge ...



Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha


I asked you to go easy ...my ribs hurt .

Are you not against torture ????


Quit being a dick.

You're even pissing off people on your side, and you're making yourself look like a retarded middle schooler.

Well that just confirms another of my problems that I didn't bother pointing out. He was riddled with 68 bullets. He fell with the .45 still in his hand according to reports since it was found in his hand after he was confirmed dead.

That doesn't necessarilly mean anything. Bonnie Parker was still holding her gun after the ambush (you can see it in the photos), and she was hit by a lot more than 68 rounds. Death contractions can do some funny things.

You. Are. Not. Helping.



When the other side of an argument is so completely and utterly comical and just down right simple minded and based in some fantasy land enviroment..

I just cant help but laugh my poor little ass off .


This topic doesn't need help it needs a laugh track and someone to do the animation for the cartoon.:p

He was not a killer 'til proven so in a court of Law. Now that he's dead, everybody gets to forego all that boring business of building a case and proving it.

Mmm.. Yes, I'm sure that if the suspect had understood that he would have had his day in court, he wouldn't have tried to shoot any of the other cops there until after he was convicted. :p

My god, listen to yourself! You're making no sense at all!

Trolling, flamebaiting and being outright rather wrong are not things I enjoy. I'm going to go get my textbook, somewhere, someway, somehow, even if I must make the three mile trek across the river to Barnes and Noble.

Laters.

When the other side of an argument is so completely and utterly comical and just down right simple minded and based in some fantasy land enviroment..

I just cant help but laugh my poor little ass off .


This topic doesn't need help it needs a laugh track and someone to do the animation for the cartoon.:p

Go stick your hand up another puppet's ass and put on a show for kids then.

Quit being a dick.

You're even pissing off people on your side, and you're making yourself look like a retarded middle schooler.


Don't give retarded middle schoolers a bad name. I give this topic and its allusions that the cops were somehow wrong all the respect it deserves .

Mmm.. Yes, I'm sure that if the suspect had understood that he would have had his day in court, he wouldn't have tried to shoot any of the other cops there until after he was convicted. :p

My god, listen to yourself! You're making no sense at all!

By the way, LG, before I go, thank you for being so dead on in this matter.

There's too much bloodthirtyness and anti-police paranoia here, and, well, I know it probably hurts to hear this, but you seem to be one of the few sane people in this thread.

I'll leave you all to compare notes on just how impressed you are by the fearless efficiency of your thoroughly well-armed police forces, and how glad you all are that this didn't have to go to the Liberal-biased courts, or some other equally mealy-mouthed bullshit.

The stench here is overwhelming. See you someplace else.

Well that just confirms another of my problems that I didn't bother pointing out. He was riddled with 68 bullets. He fell with the .45 still in his hand according to reports since it was found in his hand after he was confirmed dead.

But he didn't fire back.


Poor cop killer...gues he didnt have a white flag to wave so he tried waving his gun...:D :D :D :D


Once more, quite being a dick.


Actually, I've noticed it a lot lately. News agencies are so rushed to get the stories out that they use an awful lot of preliminary details and statements from people who don't have the whole stories. Too many times, lately, I've seen stories change. Checking out MSNBC and CNN, I have found a couple weird details that don't jibe with Fox, but the last thing I'm going to do is feed anti-police paranoia. I'm going to wait and bring these up later.

Until then, I am going to believe the police. Why shouldn't I? I don't have a reason not to yet.

There's lots of reason not to believe the cops, history has shown us that.

I'm not saying that I nessicarily don't believe them in this case, and it's not paranoia, it's the fact that a group of people in an order like a police force with alot of conromdery will do what they can to protect their fellow officers from what they percieve to be unearned attacks from the public or news medias.

Don't give retarded middle schoolers a bad name. I give this topic and its allusions that the cops were somehow wrong all the respect it deserves .

Which is more respect than due you, now go away before you get all your puppets banned as well.

I vote we ask the 10th guy what happened, as he is the only one that didn't nearly empty his clip in the guy.
In fact, the report says he didn't fire at all. I'm sure that isn't suspicious :rolleyes:.

I wondered that myself, but as they apparently had the guy surrounded, and one officer was very close to him, it is reasonable to speculate that the one that didn't fire didn't have a clear arc of fire without risking the life of another officer.

Katzistanza
You must have some holy fucking view of police or something. First off, they're people, so you should get what you get for killing anyone, and second sometimes police deserve to be shot. They're not all friendly, honest guys out to protect the community and put away bad guys. Alot are, but not all.


Not really, though 90% of the cops I've met are good guys. But if you raise a gun to a cop, any cop, you deserve what you get, and that will probably be a bullet through the chest. The cop has EVERY right to kill someone who is trying to kill him, another cop, or a member of the community.

Which is more respect than due you, now go away before you get all your puppets banned as well.


Go make yourself usefull and find a police officer and thank him for the job he is doing protecting you and your family .

By the way, LG, before I go, thank you for being so dead on in this matter.

There's too much bloodthirtyness and anti-police paranoia here, and, well, I know it probably hurts to hear this, but you seem to be one of the few sane people in this thread.

Well, let's just say that I have a close relationship with the police, and leave it at that. :)

And yes, being called 'sane' does sting a little, but I save the last few dregs of my sanity for important things. Like worrying about the safety of my wife. I can't say I haven't been grateful that she has been off the street since she got pregnant, but I know it's driving her nuts.

Don't give retarded middle schoolers a bad name. I give this topic and its allusions that the cops were somehow wrong all the respect it deserves .

No, you're being a dick.

Go make yourself usefull and find a police officer and thank him for the job he is doing protecting you and your family .

Easier finding a needle in a haystack than finding a police officer.
The overpaid lazy bums at school don't even protect the god damn school. Unless of course it is protecting parking spaces from people who don't have the right sticker.

There's lots of reason not to believe the cops, history has shown us that.

I'm not saying that I nessicarily don't believe them in this case, and it's not paranoia, it's the fact that a group of people in an order like a police force with alot of conromdery will do what they can to protect their fellow officers from what they percieve to be unearned attacks from the public or news medias.

Of course they will. They go to rather amazing lengths to keep things handled internally. I've been privy to some of them, and I can't say I totally approve. But when taken into the perspective of the number of police, the jobs that they do, night and day every day, and the lives they protect, I don't begrudge them that. Within reason. Image is very important to them. From this thread, I think you can see why.

Easier finding a needle in a haystack than finding a police officer.
The overpaid lazy bums at school don't even protect the god damn school. Unless of course it is protecting parking spaces from people who don't have the right sticker.

They tend to hang out in the big building that says 'Police' on it. :p

Easier finding a needle in a haystack than finding a police officer.
The overpaid lazy bums at school don't even protect the god damn school. Unless of course it is protecting parking spaces from people who don't have the right sticker.

Sure seems that way at times...:rolleyes:

They tend to hang out in the big building that says 'Police' on it. :p

No, the sign says "Donuts".

I wondered that myself, but as they apparently had the guy surrounded, and one officer was very close to him, it is reasonable to speculate that the one that didn't fire didn't have a clear arc of fire without risking the life of another officer.
Maybe he just stood there thinking, "Man, are those others getting carried away!"

Only thing that bothers me about all this (aside from the 110 shots bit) is that if they were searching through a forest for him - and had been for several hours, why where 10 SWAT members so close to him, at least 9 of them were able to unload their guns into him?

I would have thought that searching a place would neccessitated being spread out a bit. Assumably still within line of sight (and in pairs), but not so close that 9 cops could all shoot at one guy without fear of hitting anyone else nor getting hit themselves.

Just doesn't sound right.


I suspect that the full story will be vastly different to the initial reports. As usual the media in their desperation to be the first one to report a story rush out some half-assed piece of bs without bothering to do any fact checking before hand.

This thread calls for a sing-along.
This next record is dedicated to some personal friends of mine, the LAPD.
For every cop that has ever taken advantage of somebody, beat 'em down or
hurt 'em, because they got long hair, listen to the wrong kinda music,
wrong color, whatever they thought was the reason to do it. For every one
of those fuckin' police, I'd like to take a pig out here in this parkin'
lot and shoot 'em in their mothafuckin' face.

COP KILLER!

Yeah!

I got my black shirt on
I got my black gloves on
I got my ski mask on
This shit's been too long
I got my twelve guage sawed off
I got my headlights turned off
I'm 'bout to bust some shots off
I'm 'bout to dust some cops off

I'm a...

COP KILLER, better you than me
COP KILLER, fuck police brutality!
COP KILLER, I know your family's grievin' ... FUCK 'EM!
COP KILLER, but tonight we get even

I got my brain on hype
Tonight'll be your night
I got this long-assed knife
and your neck looks just right
My adrenaline's pumpin'
I got my stereo bumpin'
I'm 'bout to kill me somethin'
A pig stopped me for nuthin'!

COP KILLER, it's better you than me
COP KILLER, fuck police brutality!
COP KILLER, I know your family's grievin' ... FUCK 'EM!
COP KILLER, but tonight we get even

DIE, DIE, DIE, PIG, DIE!
FUCK THE POLICE!

COP KILLER, it's better you than me
COP KILLER, fuck police brutality!
COP KILLER, I know your family's grievin' ... FUCK 'EM!
COP KILLER, but tonight we get even

FUCK THE POLICE!

FUCK THE POLICE, for Daryl Gates
FUCK THE POLICE, for Rodney King
FUCK THE POLICE, for my dead homies
FUCK THE POLICE, for your freedom
FUCK THE POLICE, don't be a pussy
FUCK THE POLICE, have some mothafuckin' courage
FUCK THE POLICE, sing along!

COP KILLER!

I'm a muthafuckin' COP KILLER!

COP KILLER!

Maybe he just stood there thinking, "Man, are those others getting carried away!"

Only thing that bothers me about all this (aside from the 110 shots bit) is that if they were searching through a forest for him - and had been for several hours, why where 10 SWAT members so close to him, at least 9 of them were able to unload their guns into him?

I would have thought that searching a place would neccessitated being spread out a bit. Assumably still within line of sight (and in pairs), but not so close that 9 cops could all shoot at one guy without fear of hitting anyone else nor getting hit themselves.

Just doesn't sound right.


I suspect that the full story will be vastly different to the initial reports. As usual the media in their desperation to be the first one to report a story rush out some half-assed piece of bs without bothering to do any fact checking before hand.

Eminently possible. Though I should point out, if I were checking out woods where a supposed killer was supposedly hiding, I'd have my men travel in squads too...

Maybe he just stood there thinking, "Man, are those others getting carried away!"

Only thing that bothers me about all this (aside from the 110 shots bit) is that if they were searching through a forest for him - and had been for several hours, why where 10 SWAT members so close to him, at least 9 of them were able to unload their guns into him?

I would have thought that searching a place would neccessitated being spread out a bit. Assumably still within line of sight (and in pairs), but not so close that 9 cops could all shoot at one guy without fear of hitting anyone else nor getting hit themselves.

Just doesn't sound right.


I suspect that the full story will be vastly different to the initial reports. As usual the media in their desperation to be the first one to report a story rush out some half-assed piece of bs without bothering to do any fact checking before hand.

The differences between the details on the various news agencies seems to indicate that's exctly what's happening. Give it a day to sort out.

What's pissing me off is how quickly some people are to assume the worst about the police in question.

The dumbass sheriff isn't helping. He has made some really idiotic statements to the press. :p

I'm not really OK with this, personally. I don't think they would have done this if he murdered a non law enforcement person, and I don't think it should make a difference whether or not someone kills a cop or a non law enforcement person. They should both be punished equally.

I'm not really OK with this, personally. I don't think they would have done this if he murdered a non law enforcement person, and I don't think it should make a difference whether or not someone kills a cop or a non law enforcement person. They should both be punished equally.

I don't entirely disagree. But I don't think it's unreasonable for cops to shoot someone who's trying to shoot them - and if you have many cops, with many automati weapons, the poor guy IS going to be riddled. Brought it on himself.

I don't entirely disagree. But I don't think it's unreasonable for cops to shoot someone who's trying to shoot them - and if you have many cops, with many automati weapons, the poor guy IS going to be riddled. Brought it on himself.

This would not have happened if he hadn't shot a cop. Numerous factors point to this being a grudge take down.

The suspect was hiding in a wooded area and was concealed from the police.

The suspect, on the run since Thursday afternoon, had dug under a fallen oak tree and covered himself with brush, Judd said, only about 75 yards from where police said he killed a sheriff's deputy.
"I was standing on top of him before I ever saw him," Judd said a SWAT team member told him.
The SWAT team members ordered the suspect to show his hands and he made only one hand visible, the sheriff said. When SWAT officers removed a cloth over the man's other hand they saw a weapon and began shooting.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/29/deputies.shot/index.html)

The SWAT team followed proper procedure and a violent murderer can no longer harm innocent people.
They did a good job in my opinion.

This would not have happened if he hadn't shot a cop. Numerous factors point to this being a grudge take down.

You know, you are absolutely right. If the guy had shot a couple civilians, killing one of them and then later pointed his gun at police officers, they probably would have SHOT HIM! :mad:

This would not have happened if he hadn't shot a cop. Numerous factors point to this being a grudge take down.


the numerous factors all being in your mind .:rolleyes:

This thread calls for a sing-along.


But the song ended really bad for this one .

But the song ended really bad for this one .

*teh shrug* It's not a very good song in the first place... it just popped into my head when I saw the thread title...

that's not true at all. at least not in the uk anyway. there hasn't been a shoot to kill policy ever. the police in the uk shoot to disarm, when they get it wrong they get a roasting, as they should considering the responsibility they have with handling deadly machines.


Wasn't there an unarmed Brazillian man executed by UK police when he was boarding the subway because the UK had implemented shoot to kill policy following the London bombing two years ago?

Some general suggestions/observations:

1) If you are going to voice your opinion on an incident, try to actually determine, to the best of your ability, what really took place with the incident

I don't know how many posts I saw that said, "I didn't read the article, but..."
Here's a tip, STFU until you do read the article. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how stupid, but you could at least attempt to be informed before you begin to judge others actions. It's difficult enough to know what actually took place in a situation like this, even after reading what has been released to the media.

2) Police in the USA are trained to defend themselves with deadly force (that means a gun) when confronted with deadly force.

According to the article:
"Ten SWAT officers surrounded Freeland on Friday as he hid beneath brush and a fallen tree in a rural area. Authorities say he raised the gun belonging to the deputy he had killed, prompting nine officers to fire."
Why did 9 fire and not 10? I don't know, we'd have to ask the guy that didn't unload on the suspect, but I would guess either from his vantage point, he didn't see the suspect raise his gun, or he didn't have a clear shot. Why did 9 unload on him, and not just one? Because that is what they are trained to do.
-Suspect Raises Gun-
-Swat Dude 1- "Hey Joe, he looks like he's gonna shoot us! You wanna pop him or should I?"
-Swat Dude 2- "Naw, you go ahead, you haven't killed anyone in like a whole week!"
-Swat Dude 3- "Hey, what about me? I haven't killed anyone in a month!"
-Swat Dude 4- "Well, ummm, he's shooting at us now, so you guys get it figured out!"
-Swat Dude 2- "I know, lets do Rock,Paper,Siscors, winner shoots!"
OR
-Suspect Raises Gun-
-All SWAT Dudes- :mp5:

3) Regarding comments about cop killers being treated as more dangerous than your average run of the mill killer.

The law enforcement/judicial community, in the USA, has a general belief that an individual that will shoot at and attempt to kill law enforcement personnel is more of a danger to society than any other law breaking individual as they have demonstrated their disregard for anything other than their attempt to escape capture. Believe it or not, there are many many criminals out there, even murderers, that will surrender and not shoot it out with the cops when they are basically caught. They may run, drive like idiots, etc. but when the gig is up, most surrender. The ones that don't are considered more of a threat to all of society, not just the police.

4) Comments with the attitude that cops should be nicer and not shoot people.

First, see #2
Second, it amazes me that people just don't seem to understand that there are actually really bad people walking around out there. I get that most would like to believe that other people are for the most part good and decent. And for the most part, they are. However, there REALLY ARE BAD PEOPLE walking around. There are also really stupid people, who may not think through their actions. Which was this guy? Don't know. Don't care. See #2.

5) Finally, comments about how cops stick together, and some are themselves bad people.
This is true. I have no idea how many certified police officers there are in the USA. But I do know that even with background checks, psychological testing, oral board testing, and even lie detector testing of potential officers, some bad apples get through. And it is also true that for the most part, cops stick together and cover each others asses. It is also true that if a cop is "bad", meaning that he is abusive, uses excessive force and abuses his/her authority, most other cops will not "cover" for him/her. The Feds take civil rights violations seriously, and do investigate allegations to the best of their ability.

In conclusion
The entire legal system of the USA is not perfect, it does in fact have many flaws. Innocent people get convicted of crimes. Police do actually make mistakes, and some abuse their authority. If you have millions of dollars, you have a much better chance of beating the system than the penniless street thug. Just ask OJ Simpson. Too often it's not about what is true or false in court, it's about who has the better lawyer.
However, when it's 2am, and you hear someone trying to break into your house, do you want to be able to dial "911" and have a bunch of pistol packing cops show up to arrest or at least run the person off? Yeah I know, a bunch of you probably don't. That's fine. Don't call 911. But most do.

[/end rant]

the man was suspected of the crime and yet they still shot him to pieces. whatever happened to innocent til proven guilty? i'm so glad i don't live in the us.

Fact is the police had evidence of his finger prints through out a rental car, there is other evidence, too. Also, note that while he was hiding in the woods behind a log and had also fired among the swat team.

I really can't believe you are having sympathy for this guy. He also killed the K-9.

Unbelievable.

All that registered from your post was a general aura of ignorance, aaand...
:mp5:

My response to you is: :rolleyes:

You know, you are absolutely right. If the guy had shot a couple civilians, killing one of them and then later pointed his gun at police officers, they probably would have SHOT HIM! :mad:

This thread of course totally disproves the idea that the use of excessive force was because he killed a cop, what with all the defense by people closely related to the police and all.

All that registered from your post was a general aura of ignorance, aaand...


My response to you is: :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific for you. See, when an armed suspect (yes, that is "suspect" he has not been found guilty) raises a weapon at police, they usually stop asking questions/issuing commands and fire their weapons, in self defense. That's what the little icon, :mp5: was intended to relay.
:)

This thread of course totally disproves the idea that the use of excessive force was because he killed a cop, what with all the defense by people closely related to the police and all.

Nothing is proven or disproven yet. What I'm saying is that I believe the police's story until I see proof to the contrary. I think it's a sign of paranoia(at worst) or cynicism(at best) that people are so quick to jump all over the police in this case.

I'm certainly not going to tell you that the police don't take this sort of thing personally, but from what I read, I don't consider the force they used to be excessive. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if my wife had been one of the police officers pointing a gun at the suspect when he revealed his gun, I would be very glad she shot and killed him immediately instead of risking her life any more than it already had been.

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific for you. See, when an armed suspect (yes, that is "suspect" he has not been found guilty) raises a weapon at police, they usually stop asking questions/issuing commands and fire their weapons, in self defense. That's what the little icon, :mp5: was intended to relay.
:)

Yeah, the word "shoot" or "gunfire" would also relay this message, and not make you look like a n00b.

I'm certainly not going to tell you that the police don't take this sort of thing personally, but from what I read, I don't consider the force they used to be excessive. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if my wife had been one of the police officers pointing a gun at the suspect when he revealed his gun, I would be very glad she shot and killed him immediately instead of risking her life any more than it already had been.

Like I said, you can hang yourself or hang yourself, poison yourself, and set yourself on fire. You should die both ways, but the latter is excessive.

No, they exacted revenge without due process. The only proof that matters is the proof provided in a court of Law. Those cops failed. DK fails. You fail.

You all fail. Miserably.

I simply can not believe this is still being thrown out into this thread. The guy pointed a weapon at police. They fired back and killed him just as they should have. The. End.

Can you, in several hundredths of a second, properly form a plan and articulate to a group of people who should and should not shoot, in the same time receiving back a proper understanding of their awareness and preparation? No? Thats why you run on instinct and training, and you pull that damned trigger until the target falls down.

See, its not "Rick, you take the Jones account, and I'll hit the photocopier with these minutes for the meeting. Sam! I want you on the coffee, make sure everyone has a clean cup too! Sally, let everyone know the meeting is starting in five minutes. Look alive people! Lets go! Move it! Move it!"

When you are in danger, its as if nothing else is there but you and the danger. Action is what saves you. Decision time is past. Discussion time is past.

If your teams training is good, you dont act just as team in that situation, you act in unison. You dont have the luxury of handing off responsibility. You are there, and you must act. You are trained to act as if no one else is going to act.

Why did 30% of the shots miss? Cause he was falling down, and they went over his head. Its not the movies people. Dead/unconscious people dont fall down slowly, they just drop, and faster than you can stop pulling the trigger.

I'm watching the news.....all nice and relaxed..comming down from football and eating some grub...some doofus asks one of the cops why they fired 11o shots...he looks at the dope and with straight face ...he says .." thats all the ammo we had " ...and walks away.... I almost choked ...:D

he gets a 'thatta guy " for that one ....:p

Like I said, you can hang yourself or hang yourself, poison yourself, and set yourself on fire. You should die both ways, but the latter is excessive.

You can also walk into the street and get hit by a car, or walk into the street and get hit by three cars, a bus and a tractor trailer. The latter is excessive too, but that's what happens when you choose to step onto an interstate highway at rush hour. If you pull a gun on a cop, you will be shot. If you pull a gun on ten cops armed with fully automatic assault weapons, you will be shot a lot.

Of course they will. They go to rather amazing lengths to keep things handled internally. I've been privy to some of them, and I can't say I totally approve. But when taken into the perspective of the number of police, the jobs that they do, night and day every day, and the lives they protect, I don't begrudge them that. Within reason. Image is very important to them. From this thread, I think you can see why.

Exactly. So us civies will probably never know the whole truth. But from what I've read, it seems to me that there is no cause for a witch hunt.

It's not like they burst into this guy's house and shot him rather then arrest him. He was evading, and shooting back, and they (claim they) saw a weapon. Personally, I'd shoot in such a situation.


Only thing that bothers me about all this (aside from the 110 shots bit) is that if they were searching through a forest for him - and had been for several hours, why where 10 SWAT members so close to him, at least 9 of them were able to unload their guns into him?

I would have thought that searching a place would neccessitated being spread out a bit. Assumably still within line of sight (and in pairs), but not so close that 9 cops could all shoot at one guy without fear of hitting anyone else nor getting hit themselves.

I'm not intimately familiar with SWAT procedure, but I'd imagine they'd be searching in squads.

As for the 10 guys there at once thing, as far as I can tell from the reports, they didn't just shoot him on sight. One dude finds him, calls over the others, dude under the log sticks out hand with gun in it (could have been taking aim, could have been crawling out of his hole to surrender, could have been about to throw the gun down), SWAT dudes see gun, SWAT dudes fire.

As far as the 110 rounds issue:

There were 9 guys with automatic weapons. These weapons have a very high rate of fire. It's not the same as 2 or 3 guys standing there blowing some dude away. Each guy only fired about 12 round which, from their weapons, is not a long burst. So many of them fired at once because they didn't exactly have time to consult as to who'd be doing the shooting. Each man saw the gun, and fired. Or, once the guy next to them fires, opened fire to support them. The 10th guy probably didn't have a clear shot.

This is the picture I get from the reports, anyway. How accurate that may be is a different discussion.

The dumbass sheriff isn't helping. He has made some really idiotic statements to the press. :p

I hadn'y heard. What'd he say?

Like I said, you can hang yourself or hang yourself, poison yourself, and set yourself on fire. You should die both ways, but the latter is excessive.

As I said, I'm not sure a 12 round burst from an automatic weapon at a target (alledgedly) pointing a gun at you counts as "excessive force"

I think they should go to jail, just like any other murderer.

I think they should go to jail, just like any other murderer.

Ah, yet another idiot is heard from...

I really can't believe some are debating this issue. A police officer was murdered, he was taken from his wife and his kids now will grow up without their father. A K-9 officer was killed (that is the same as killing a police officer.

The search began. In a wooded area the suspect hid. Still armed and very dangerous. Must I remind you that once you murder an officer of the Law, you have given rational people reason to believe that you will give yourself up peacefully. Swat was searching. They move in closer to the suspect who was hiding behind a log still armed. As SWAT moved closer, not realizing how close they were getting, the suspect raises the gun.

Conclusion: He obviously had a death wish. I only wish that he had suffered a bit more than he did. What a shame.

Bottom Line: I have no sympathy for a cop-killer and after reading through some of these posts, I have no sympathy for those who sympathizes for the suspect in this incident.

Can you even imagine a world where there is no law enforcement?

I really can't believe some are debating this issue. A police officer was murdered, he was taken from his wife and his kids now will grow up without their father. A K-9 officer was killed (that is the same as killing a police officer.

The search began. In a wooded area the suspect hid. Still armed and very dangerous. Must I remind you that once you murder an officer of the Law, you have given rational people reason to believe that you will give yourself up peacefully. Swat was searching. They move in closer to the suspect who was hiding behind a log still armed. As SWAT moved closer, not realizing how close they were getting, the suspect raises the gun.

Conclusion: He obviously had a death wish. I only wish that he had suffered a bit more than he did. What a shame.

Bottom Line: I have no sympathy for a cop-killer and after reading through some of these posts, I have no sympathy for those who sympathizes for the suspect in this incident.

Can you even imagine a world where there is no law enforcement?



You would be able to kill idiots with no fear of retribution ?

A K-9 officer was killed (that is the same as killing a police officer).

Spare me. Any 'officer Rin Tin Tin' is damaged goods, and can't be trusted by anyone other than a cop. Any animal that's as rigorously trained as a police or security accessory does not exhibit normal or predictable behaviour in general - past its' assigned tasks, anyway.

Not a cop - a dog. A seriously fucked-up dog - fucked-up 'cause that's the way the cops want 'em. No big loss, overall.

Spare me. Any 'officer Rin Tin Tin' is damaged goods, and can't be trusted by anyone other than a cop. Any animal that's as rigorously trained as a police or security accessory does not exhibit normal or predictable behaviour in general - past its' assigned tasks, anyway.

Not a cop - a dog. A seriously fucked-up dog - fucked-up 'cause that's the way the cops want 'em. No big loss, overall.

Did a cop shit on your head or something in your youth? Why all the hostility? :confused:

Did a cop shit on your head or something in your youth? Why all the hostility? :confused:

Maybe cops are honest and above-board in your neck of the woods - but where I'm from, they're either holding City Council to ransom if they don't get increased funding (even when local crime stats are on a ten-year low), sweeping police abuses under the carpet, racially-profiling suspects against orders, or they're in the back pocket of organized crime - that is, when they aren't organizing the crimes themselves. From where I stand, they're the most thoroughly well-equipped, well-armed (not to mention legitimized) street-gang out there - and they're far less likely to render assistance to those who are not themselves police officers, while they'll abandon the entire downtown core if one of "their own" gets so much as a bad look from a black teenager in a hoodie.

However "cop-killers" are handled, it should be the same for any other murderer.

Maybe cops are honest and above-board in your neck of the woods - but where I'm from, they're either holding City Council to ransom if they don't get increased funding (even when local crime stats are on a ten-year low), sweeping police abuses under the carpet, racially-profiling suspects against orders, or they're in the back pocket of organized crime - that is, when they aren't organizing the crimes themselves. From where I stand, they're the most thoroughly well-equipped, well-armed (not to mention legitimized) street-gang out there - and they're far less likely to render assistance to those who are not themselves police officers, while they'll abandon the entire downtown core if one of "their own" gets so much as a bad look from a black teenager in a hoodie.

Quite different then the Cincinnati police. Since that stupid riot in 2001, now the police are restrained from doing any real police work out of fear of looking racist. They now don't patrol high crime neighborhoods like they used to with the predictable result of a rising murder rate and general crime rate in the past few years. Police now have to tread lightly or risk getting in trouble from City Council who are scared of their own shadows from the possibility that blacks might get angry again. There are always going to be a few bent cops, human nature and all, but that doesn't mean you constrain their actions. Be nice if people just let the police do their job.

Ah, yet another idiot is heard from...

Great job simply using insults instead of offering any evidence why you disagree.

I cower before your superior debate tactics... oh please don't hurt me.

[/sarcasm]

Be nice if people just let the police do their job.

Be nice if they could be trusted to do so.

Be nice if they could be trusted to do so.

Police are not perfect but I am not going to view them with distrust. Of course I'm a white male so I guess I have less to fear then others.

A cop pooped on his head he's bitter .

shame they ran out of bullets

more perps need that treatment to fix the chemical unbalance they suffer from - 230 gr lead

Maybe cops are honest and above-board in your neck of the woods - but where I'm from, they're either holding City Council to ransom if they don't get increased funding (even when local crime stats are on a ten-year low), sweeping police abuses under the carpet, racially-profiling suspects against orders, or they're in the back pocket of organized crime - that is, when they aren't organizing the crimes themselves. From where I stand, they're the most thoroughly well-equipped, well-armed (not to mention legitimized) street-gang out there - and they're far less likely to render assistance to those who are not themselves police officers, while they'll abandon the entire downtown core if one of "their own" gets so much as a bad look from a black teenager in a hoodie.

Boy, it must suck where you live.

There have been police abuses as long as there's been police, but (at least in my area), the police seem pretty honest. Add to the fact that I have 3 relatives that are cops (and I know they're honest), and I'm inclined to believe the cops right now. If new information comes out that shows that the cops didn't act within the constraints of the law, then I'll have to adjust my opinion of the matter.

Shoot to kill does not include excessive and unnecessary force.


that does not make sense!

what part of shoot to kill do you not understand?

think about the words...SHOOT TO KILL!

i would think it would include overwhelming and excessive force.

besides,if you are being shot to be killed,does it matter if 2 bullets kill you or 50?

also remember they were using automatic weapons...he is lucky that they werent using shotguns with 00 buck.

whatever happened to innocent til proven guilty?

Presumption of innocence is a myth. We assume the police do their job correctly and thoroughly and, as such, the person arrested must've been the one who did it. Or in this case, the person shot 110 times.

Lunatic Goofballs is married to a cop?! :eek:

...what's more, he's gonna be a father?!

Aiyah...

As for this situation: I trust the words of the S.W.A.T. team, and under the circumstances, they did the right thing. I'd love for us to have nonlethal, take-'em-out-in-less-than-a-second weapons, but this isn't sci-fi. This is real life. We can't expect phasers or anything like that.

Lunatic Goofballs is married to a cop?! :eek:

...what's more, he's gonna be a father?!

Aiyah...


I'm already a father. I'm expecting two more.

If I have a fourth, I will fulfill the prophesy. :)

Boy, talk about a lack of detail in a story

I live about 30 miles from where this happened and watched the live reports as this was going on.

The first(?) officer was shot and the suspect ran into the woods

The officer that was killed was shot eight times including one shot from close range (appx. 1 foot) behind the ear.

The dog was killed with one shot to the chest.


( I am unclear the order of the shootings)

Later in the day the suspect was spotted at the edge of the wooded area in a persons yard, the suspect fire three shots in the direction of the home owner and the police ( who were going around asking residents to stay indoors for thier own safety) at the house. ( I saw the bullet holes in the house on tv)

The area that the suspect was hiding in was wild property that had not been cleaned up after the hurricanes of two years ago (fallen trees everywhere) and thickly overgrown.

The suspect was hiding under a fallen tree and the swat team member believed that the shirt that he spotted might belong to the suspect was however covering the gun and arm of the suspect. The suspect raised the gun and the swat team opened fire

A better local news story is here http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060930/NEWS26/609300403

So, out of curiosity, is your position that because it all happened on live TV and we have continuity of ID on the person who shot the cop and dog, that that makes arrest and trial moot? That we just go straight to execution?

So, out of curiosity, is your position that because it all happened on live TV and we have continuity of ID on the person who shot the cop and dog, that that makes arrest and trial moot? That we just go straight to execution?


Nope I am not making any judgement only filling in information that was left out of the stories on the national news.

However I feel that if he was pointing a gun at the swat team as reported, then they did the right thing .

And in the same situition would do the same thing myself.

Nope I am not making any judgement only filling in information that was left out of the stories on the national news.
OK, then. I can appreciate that.

LAKELAND, Fla. — Officers fired 110 rounds of ammunition at the man suspected of killing a sheriff's deputy, killing the suspect, according to an autopsy released by the sheriff's office.

Now, I'm no coroner, but if the police fire 110 rounds at a man who is brought into the morgue, I don't think an autopsy is needed to reveal the cause of death.

Well, in Germany shooting over 100 times at one suspect wouldn't be acceptable.

The SEK-teams, the German version of the SWAT-teams, try to get them alive.

I remember a case in Berlin. The local SEK lost a man the first time in their history. He had much bad luck, he was by a bullet beetwen his helmet and his west. But they still arrested the shooter alive. And they never shot any suspects before, they arrested all of them alive.

And I remember another case. Ther was a shooting at a train station beetwen a terrorist of the RAF (a leftwinged terrorist organisation) and several police officers. The terrorist shot one of the policemen, and afterwards he was shot as well. After the shooting there was a discussion in Germany, if the policemen were allowed to shoot him. (He was already lying on the tracks, but he still had his gun.)

I believe, that the police should be allowed to shoot back. But they should not perforate the suspects, even if they have a gun! It sounds more like an execution for me. Especially SWAT-teams should be able to get them alive, they are trained to handel armed criminals, and they should have the equipment to disarm them without killing them.

I wonder, what would happen, if they kill a guy with a faked gun in such a way.

Of course, there is a big difference between the US and Europe. There are much less criminals with arms in Europe because we have strict laws for weapons.

But they should not perforate the suspects, even if they have a gun! It sounds more like an execution for me.

It was.

It was an execution, but sometimes, you just have to cut loose and really paste a guy. I have no issues in regards to how Police in America are allowed to work.

Basically, the SWAT officers are human beings, and also, like all Police, they are a tight union. When somebody kills one of theirs, they get mad.

~ Romandeos.

So you're fine with the police performing executions on suspects?