LA Police shot suspect
 

Did a search, couldn't find anything.

Apparently, this was all over the news in United States and I'm surprised that nobody mentioned this yet:

Video Coverage
Note: If you get taken to the front page of Ogrish, just click on accept and scroll down little bit on the main page and find "Suspect shot by Police in Los Angeles"

Warning, the video posted is kinda graphical, so don't be blaming me if you didn't like it.

My beef is this: It looks like the police went too far.

They shot him 5 or so times, they could've fired off a warning shot and still be protected by hiding behind the crusier's door but instead, they figured that it'll be safer to pump him full of bullets because it looks like he was getting something in his pocket. Yeah, it could've been a gun but aren't they're suppose to be trained for this kinda of situation where they don't overreact and kill people?

Without having looked at the video yet, but afaik they are trained to shoot if they fear for their own lives. The article states that the suspect brandished a gun. That right there gives them the ok to do what they feel is necessary.

How much longer would you have preferred that he endanger everyone around him?

I've got a different beef as well, I keep hearing about this on the radio and they keep acting like him getting shot on camera was the officers fault, as if they'd called in the news crews to watch this. It's despicable that situations like this occur, but it is not the officers fault that the news gets ratings off sensationalism and I would be a lot more worried if this officer allowed the presence of the news crews to affect the execuation of his training and his job.

I'm sorry, this guy FUCKING EARNED IT, especially with the gun in the car. As I've said in other threads if it gets to the point that I'm going to have to shoot the person I'm not stopping until I'm damned good and sure that he's not going for his gun again, and given the 16 rounds in a standard police issue semi-automatic, 5 rounds is extremely restrained in my opinion, as skewed as it may be.

If you don't want to get shot:

A) Don't invade someone's home and steal their fucking car.
B) Don't run from the police.
C) Don't point your gun at an officer who is most likely a better shot than you are and trained to respond to your bullshit!

My problem with people saying that this is excessive is that if the guy had fired off at the police and accidentally shot a bystander most people would be bent out of shape that they hadn't taken him down sooner, before "innocent people" got hurt.

Edit: Having watched the unedited footage I have to add some respect for the newscaster that once it became apparent that he had been shot he reprimanded the camera-man telling him to back off the shot and did not again show the body.

Yeah, another case of karma. Lead cops on a high speed chase in a stolen car, exit the car with a weapon in your hand - what else are the cops going to do?

NBC4

You pull a gun on a cop, they're going to shoot to kill. I'm fine with that.

This was about 20 minutes away from me...and the guy had it coming considering he was putting others in danger through out the entire chase with his suicidal driving. The video isn't bad though because the cameras pull out when the cops kill him, so you can't see any blood or anything. And yes, he was carrying a gun, you can see it fly out and slide underneath a parked car when the officers take the first shot.

Compare and contrast to our February thread Police shoot and kill 13-yr old boy. I expect that it'll generally break down the same, without the "he's just a kid" sympathy elements.

Also, the FARK headline is excellent:

looking at the video you can clearly see he was shot in the leg in pain grabbing his leg when they continued to shoot him.

maybe he got what he deserved maybe he didnt who knows.

if i was a news station and i said he had 20 guns on his body you would believe me

or maybe he was trying to get that 2nd gun. who knows.... no one does and no one will

I've seen police brutality first-hand, and this isn't it. That guy needed to be brought down. You pull a gun on me, I'm going to try to kill ya. I feel sorry for those cops who are going to have to go through a bunch of BS paperwork now.

Hmmm.. it was pretty clear that the first shot stopped him and he lost his gun, but they kept shooting anyways. The guy had it coming, but the cops could have stopped after the first few shots.

The shots were fast, it isn't like you can risk him turning over and firing back.

I feel bad though, this could have ended with out blood had the guy just stoped running.

Another piece of human shit has been flushed away. Good work, police.
Our 'eye in the sky' view let us see the crim lost his gun, but down at ground level it would have been different.

No they could not have fired a warning shot. firing a warning shot is strictly against policy, and for good reason. if a warning shot is fired that bullet will end up somewhere, would you prefer it wound up in the suspect, or in an innocent bystander. had they fired a warning shot this thread could very likely have been titled "warning shot strikes and kills innocent young child".

Now as far as the police shooting and killing this guy, he got what he was asking for. Plain and simple, he put several lives in danger and continued to after he stopped, he played with fire, and he got burned.

They fired 5 warning shots......into him

The bastard got what he deserved, dumbfuck should have learned not to draw a weapon when you have several policemen with guns trained on you.

It kind of looked like he feel and droped his gun, or whatever was in his hand.

Then was reaching for something in his pocket.

First of all, warning shots are a bad idea because the bullet will end up somewhere it should not be. Secondly, police are trained not to fire their guns unless they absolutely need to; being able to fire a "warning shot" indicates you are not really in enough danger.

Police are not trained to shoot at the legs, at the arms, at the guns, at bystanders, at trees that might be persuaded to fall on the suspect. They are trained to shoot at the center of mass until the threat is ended, and if the threat is still rolling around on the ground grabbing at things the threat is not ended. Do you really expect them to "shoot once and check"?

Cruiser doors are not invincible bastions of strength. It is quite possible that both the police and the suspect's weapons could shoot right through them, certainly the glass part would not stop a bullet. Even if they could effectively hide behind their doors, the suspect was armed and moving. What if he was to run into a building and find a hostage?

The police did the right thing by shooting the guy, and while I admit that it is too bad it took lethal force to stop him it is not like he was not given a chance.

Well, it looked like they shot him the 2nd he got out of the car (to disarm him), then proceded to kill him after he fell to the ground.

Brutal? Probably.

The suspec was a class-a asshat though,and he got what he deserved.

He was shot through the window of his car, that is when he fell down (and also droped his gun: note that the police don't have this angle).

After that he got up and went for something in his pocket, what could it have been other then a weapon?

Do you think he was going to make a cell phone call?

This is a no gray zone, the police did not go overboard.

Hmm... unless, do you think he was grabing the first gun shot wound?
Even if so I have to side with the police, but it would be a small amount of redeeming for the 'suspect'.

Curious about if there was something in his pocket I did a quick google.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1...865349,00.html

Looks like the police were right to shoot. What we can worry about is that stray bullet.

How come a warning shot isn't fired into the ground? Shooting into the air would obviously be dangerous but why not shoot into the concrete? Is it to make sure they don't blow of a toe, or is it more because of what Phage said?

I don't think a warning shot was necessary here anyway. Even if the guy had five kilos of dynamite strapped to him and a dozen handguns, if the police weren't aware of it then it shouldn't matter. I don't think it's good enough to say 'We thought he might have had a gun, so we killed him and turned out we were right.' I think knowing he has one gun and is drawing it like that, that's enough to warrant the shooting I think.

when the cop tells you to stop, you stop. if not you face the punishment. kinda like when the wife asks you to take out the garbage.....

this guy got what he deserve. people who lead cops on high speed chases need to be charged with attempted murder, as that is what there driving is like most times. anyone on that road is in danger.

how the hell do you late recover a second gun from his pocket. if its there you pull it out on the spot none of this later shit

Well, "on the spot" involved a good bit of running and shooting so I think they had to wait.

I'm sure "later" refers to after the suspect was down.

Props to the police here. They have a hard job, especially in LA. They did what was needed to be done in order to stop the threat. Whenever anyone pulls a weapon on the police, death of the suspect should be assumed to be immenent.

I would like to note that bullets do not always stick into what they are fired at, and can bounce around quite a bit. I suspect that firing into the pavement would have a very good chance of ricocheting and if made common practice would result in numerous injuries and perhaps deaths. The less shooting the better, so it should all be directed at the suspect.

Is a warning shot really useful? Surely it is not news that police carry firearms, and after a long car chase it is unlikely that he did not know they wanted him to stop.

I've watched the video, the police did nothing wrong.

"how the hell do you late recover a second gun from his pocket. if its there you pull it out on the spot none of this later shit"

No, after the suspect is dead the police are not able to touch him. There is another person who comes and checks for evidence etc. At least that is what I thought the process was.

Shootings are a big deal, lots of people are called and a huge investagation happens each time.


I think if you want to argue police shootings are wrong, you will not want to use this case. This is truely black and white, the police were right, the man was a danger to everyone.

Would you argue this was wrong by police had the man hit and killed that man and child?

[B]The guy asked for it and he got it. The whole thing was his fault!

I saw this chase and shooting live on Channel 7 here in the LA area as it happened, and I thought I would chime in with a couple points. That station had 2 helicopters following the chase so had multiple angles on the shooting.

1. The guy was going to hurt or kill a innocent bystander eventually. As is mentioned in the articles, earlier in the chase he nearly ran into a liquor store hitting a young child and potentially others.

2. He pulled into the parking lot of a fast food restaurant (El Pollo Loco I believe) and it was obvious that he was going toward the front door of the establishment to possibly take hostages. He was running with gun in his hand at that point.

I think the cops reaction was justified. The fact that no one else was injured is a testament to that.

It couldn't have been much more obivous that he was going for another gun. That turned it into a "shoot or be shot" situation. Cruiser doors cannot stop bullets. the only part of a car that can protect you is the engine block, and that's not big enough to conceal a body.

Five shots from multiple officers is not "pumping him full of bullets." After one shot the suspect was still moving, and if the first shot fails to produce reflexive neurocirculatory shock, the only options are to wait and see if a second does it, shoot again in center of mass and then in the head, or keep shooting at center of mass until there is no question about whether an armed criminal will be getting back up and shooitng back.

If you hop over to the Weaponry forum and check out a few self-defense threads (there's one on hydrostatic shock still on the front page that gets into technical details about how a bullet stops a target,) you'll find that the officers did nothing more than what was necessary to be sure that a threat was neutralized.

[QUOTE=Rlyss]How come a warning shot isn't fired into the ground? Shooting into the air would obviously be dangerous but why not shoot into the concrete? Is it to make sure they don't blow of a toe, or is it more because of what Phage said?[QUOTE]

There is no such thing as a warning shot from police. The time it takes to find a safe target (when there most likely is not one,) aim the gun, an dpull the trigger gives an armed criminal at least a full second in which to take aim and shoot the cop. Shots should only be aimed at center of mass, not in the air, not at the ground.

The ground is not a magical bullet absorber. While some shots may fragment on impact (even this creates shrapnel,) many are fully capable of ricocheting and killing an innocent bystander or law enforcement officer who is trying to rectify the situation.

one less meathead taking up a prison cell, works for me...not sure what the issue is.

After endangering many others, and watching him run from the vehicle gun in hand. This does not surprise me. Props to the cops for being a good aim, and hitting him (knocking the gun out of his hand) before he brought the weapon up and started shooting.

Monday morning quarterbacking a life and death situation is foolishness to the extreme.

He willingly endangered literally hundreds of people and showed no intention of stopping.

He got what he deserved.