|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 4, 2021 9:36:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 4, 2021 9:51:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Apr 4, 2021 12:19:44 GMT -8
If I remember my crime reports right (why have they disappeared from the GT?), this guy had a long, long history of contact with law enforcement before Sunday morning, dating back to his teens. I think his brother or a relative with the same last name also has been involved with law enforcement on many occasions.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Apr 4, 2021 14:34:54 GMT -8
I don’t understand why, as in this situation, the officer has to unload 5 rounds into the guy. I understand why he drew his weapon and why he fired it, but not why he had to fire it 5 times. You can hear the first three go off, and then a pause before the next two rounds are fired. Obviously, this means that the guy was still alive. Which begs the question: Is the purpose of shooting a perpetrator to bring him down or to kill him?
I guess, like my neighbor says, it saves the taxpayers the cost of a trial. 🤷♂️
|
|
|
Post by beaver94 on Apr 4, 2021 14:51:47 GMT -8
I don’t understand why, as in this situation, the officer has to unload 5 rounds into the guy. I understand why he drew his weapon and why he fired it, but not why he had to fire it 5 times. You can hear the first three go off, and then a pause before the next two rounds are fired. Obviously, this means that the guy was still alive. Which begs the question: Is the purpose of shooting a perpetrator to bring him down or to kill him? I guess, like my neighbor says, it saves the taxpayers the cost of a trial. 🤷♂️ There was about a second between the first three rounds and the last two. The officer is going to fire until he feels that the person is no longer a threat. Not being able to see the victim, or know how many rounds actually hit the target, I’m going to assume the officer used the correct amount of force until evidence shows otherwise. Their purpose is not to kill the person. Charging an officer with a deadly weapon unfortunately often doesn’t leave much of a choice.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Apr 4, 2021 17:11:04 GMT -8
I don’t understand why, as in this situation, the officer has to unload 5 rounds into the guy. I understand why he drew his weapon and why he fired it, but not why he had to fire it 5 times. You can hear the first three go off, and then a pause before the next two rounds are fired. Obviously, this means that the guy was still alive. Which begs the question: Is the purpose of shooting a perpetrator to bring him down or to kill him? I guess, like my neighbor says, it saves the taxpayers the cost of a trial. 🤷♂️ There was about a second between the first three rounds and the last two. The officer is going to fire until he feels that the person is no longer a threat. Not being able to see the victim, or know how many rounds actually hit the target, I’m going to assume the officer used the correct amount of force until evidence shows otherwise. Their purpose is not to kill the person. Charging an officer with a deadly weapon unfortunately often doesn’t leave much of a choice. And this is the problem. Don’t hold the person that disregarded cops orders, threatened to kill the cop. charged the cop with a deadly weapon, but focus on why the cop shot 5 times! I’m sure the guy would have been fine after only taking 3 bullets. A few band-aids and you’re back to the nuthouse. Like idiots who say the cops should shoot guys in the leg. (Sadly this includes our President) It’s not a movie you knotheads. You shoot center mass! Get the AK-47’s off the street! Oye
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Apr 4, 2021 17:28:18 GMT -8
I don’t understand why, as in this situation, the officer has to unload 5 rounds into the guy. I understand why he drew his weapon and why he fired it, but not why he had to fire it 5 times. You can hear the first three go off, and then a pause before the next two rounds are fired. Obviously, this means that the guy was still alive. Which begs the question: Is the purpose of shooting a perpetrator to bring him down or to kill him? I guess, like my neighbor says, it saves the taxpayers the cost of a trial. 🤷♂️ There was about a second between the first three rounds and the last two. The officer is going to fire until he feels that the person is no longer a threat. Not being able to see the victim, or know how many rounds actually hit the target, I’m going to assume the officer used the correct amount of force until evidence shows otherwise. Their purpose is not to kill the person. Charging an officer with a deadly weapon unfortunately often doesn’t leave much of a choice. I am simply curious. I recognize that there are many factors involved. As a longtime martial artist, I really understand what happens to people in these kinds of situations. And of course, the guy could’ve been on drugs that kept him from feeling much. But as a martial artist, I look for ways that this could’ve ended without the loss of life. So I wonder why five bullets? I’m not criticizing the cop. That’s not my purpose. I would love to see a way for the police to use deadly force less often. Will it happen? Maybe. With better tasers and more non lethal options available. And training. Is that wrong to hope for?
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Apr 4, 2021 17:36:59 GMT -8
There was about a second between the first three rounds and the last two. The officer is going to fire until he feels that the person is no longer a threat. Not being able to see the victim, or know how many rounds actually hit the target, I’m going to assume the officer used the correct amount of force until evidence shows otherwise. Their purpose is not to kill the person. Charging an officer with a deadly weapon unfortunately often doesn’t leave much of a choice. I am simply curious. I recognize that there are many factors involved. As a longtime martial artist, I really understand what happens to people in these kinds of situations. And of course, the guy could’ve been on drugs that kept him from feeling much. But as a martial artist, I look for ways that this could’ve ended without the loss of life. So I wonder why five bullets? I’m not criticizing the cop. That’s not my purpose. I would love to see a way for the police to use deadly force less often. Will it happen? Maybe. With better tasers and more non lethal options available. And training. Is that wrong to hope for? Thanks Bruce Lee?
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 4, 2021 17:39:18 GMT -8
There was about a second between the first three rounds and the last two. The officer is going to fire until he feels that the person is no longer a threat. Not being able to see the victim, or know how many rounds actually hit the target, I’m going to assume the officer used the correct amount of force until evidence shows otherwise. Their purpose is not to kill the person. Charging an officer with a deadly weapon unfortunately often doesn’t leave much of a choice. And this is the problem. Don’t hold the person that disregarded cops orders, threatened to kill the cop. charged the cop with a deadly weapon, but focus on why the cop shot 5 times! I’m sure the guy would have been fine after only taking 3 bullets. A few band-aids and you’re back to the nuthouse. Like idiots who say the cops should shoot guys in the leg. (Sadly this includes our President) It’s not a movie you knotheads. You shoot center mass! Get the AK-47’s off the street! Oye Administering justice is the job of the judicial system, not law enforcement. Their job is to apprehend suspects. They are given lethal force to use in self defense and in defense of the public while carrying out those duties. It appears in this case they were justified in using that force to protect themselves against a potentially deadly threat. But when deadly force it used in the public name, it is always appropriate to examine whether or not it was properly applied. The reasons why should be obvious.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Apr 4, 2021 18:27:05 GMT -8
And this is the problem. Don’t hold the person that disregarded cops orders, threatened to kill the cop. charged the cop with a deadly weapon, but focus on why the cop shot 5 times! I’m sure the guy would have been fine after only taking 3 bullets. A few band-aids and you’re back to the nuthouse. Like idiots who say the cops should shoot guys in the leg. (Sadly this includes our President) It’s not a movie you knotheads. You shoot center mass! Get the AK-47’s off the street! Oye Administering justice is the job of the judicial system, not law enforcement. Their job is to apprehend suspects. They are given lethal force to use in self defense and in defense of the public while carrying out those duties. It appears in this case they were justified in using that force to protect themselves against a potentially deadly threat. But when deadly force it used in the public name, it is always appropriate to examine whether or not it was properly applied. The reasons why should be obvious. So yeah. What I said.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Apr 4, 2021 18:32:03 GMT -8
I am simply curious. I recognize that there are many factors involved. As a longtime martial artist, I really understand what happens to people in these kinds of situations. And of course, the guy could’ve been on drugs that kept him from feeling much. But as a martial artist, I look for ways that this could’ve ended without the loss of life. So I wonder why five bullets? I’m not criticizing the cop. That’s not my purpose. I would love to see a way for the police to use deadly force less often. Will it happen? Maybe. With better tasers and more non lethal options available. And training. Is that wrong to hope for? Thanks Bruce Lee? The movie thing again. I’m sure police spouses and children everywhere would be super happy that their loved one put the gun down to try to karate chop the deranged 270 lb dude coming at them with a knife. Cato! Maybe the police could all wear top hats like Oddjob in the Bond movie and slice the dudes hand off that had the knife in it! cdn3.volusion.com/stlse.vzhek/v/vspfiles/photos/BCGFOJ-2.jpg?v-cache=1567748470
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Apr 4, 2021 18:45:31 GMT -8
Administering justice is the job of the judicial system, not law enforcement. Their job is to apprehend suspects. They are given lethal force to use in self defense and in defense of the public while carrying out those duties. It appears in this case they were justified in using that force to protect themselves against a potentially deadly threat. But when deadly force it used in the public name, it is always appropriate to examine whether or not it was properly applied. The reasons why should be obvious. So yeah. What I said. Happy Easter.
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Apr 4, 2021 18:55:52 GMT -8
Irimi has his points, but he has a totally different perspective. Just a couple of his early posts nailed Irimi's identity down to the 98% level. And he is a true self defense expert. I have zero doubt that he could and would approach the Corvallis situation differently. At the same time, and even with the self defense classes most LEOS take, they aren't even close to that level of self defense.
The first 2 officers in the clip had body cams. Most law enforcement personnel recognize that body cams are actually their best friend rather than an enemy. Did the 3rd officer have a body cam?
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Apr 4, 2021 18:56:54 GMT -8
I am simply curious. I recognize that there are many factors involved. As a longtime martial artist, I really understand what happens to people in these kinds of situations. And of course, the guy could’ve been on drugs that kept him from feeling much. But as a martial artist, I look for ways that this could’ve ended without the loss of life. So I wonder why five bullets? I’m not criticizing the cop. That’s not my purpose. I would love to see a way for the police to use deadly force less often. Will it happen? Maybe. With better tasers and more non lethal options available. And training. Is that wrong to hope for? Thanks Bruce Lee? lol Nope. Different lineage.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Apr 4, 2021 19:21:29 GMT -8
The movie thing again. I’m sure police spouses and children everywhere would be super happy that their loved one put the gun down to try to karate chop the deranged 270 lb dude coming at them with a knife. Cato! Maybe the police could all wear top hats like Oddjob in the Bond movie and slice the dudes hand off that had the knife in it! cdn3.volusion.com/stlse.vzhek/v/vspfiles/photos/BCGFOJ-2.jpg?v-cache=1567748470I am not talking movies. I had a teacher that used a real knife in knife defense, but I took that as showmanship. I applaud the first officer for running away and regrouping. I hold no ill will toward the officer who gunned down the man wielding the knife. But killing another human being is not easy. The officer will have trauma. The logical thing to do is to minimize situations like this. Better training, better non lethal weapons. Speaking from a martial arts perspective, an attacker coming in a straight line out of control is the easiest attack to deal with. As such, I wonder how we can improve our law enforcement so that something like this doesn’t have to happen. And timing is critical. I think the officer could’ve done less harm by shooting him earlier, rather than waiting to pull the trigger. The gun is a weapon of distance, while the knife is a close up weapon. At the close quarters the perp was still able to pose a threat which prompted the additional two shots. If he had fired sooner at more of a distance, he wouldn’t have felt as threatened. It is called Ma-ai, or kind of an awareness of space and time. This isn’t movie stuff. It’s practical.
|
|