Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Good shoot / bad shoot?

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:03:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You decide.

Mr. Brunston didn't have a gun... he had a goddamn flip flop -- a flip flop that he was purposely feigning as a pistol. As you can see from the footage, Deandre was acting like an arrogant cocksucker, and it was by his actions that he's now dead.

You can tell that what happened was the dog got loose, either intentionally or unintentionally, and seeing the dog running toward him, he threw the "gun" (flip flop) away. (Nice tough talk Deandre, you're f*cking hardcore, buddy). Since the cops assumed he had a gun, when he raised his arm in their general direction, they perceived it as an imminent threat, and engaged the suspect.

On the other hand, they could not confirm that he had a gun, and his movements could not entirely be seen as a legitimate threat. Secondly, the hail of gunfire was grossly excessive. Anyone could clearly see that he went down fast, threw the "gun" and thus eliminating the threat, all the while shooting their own dog in the process. And yet they pumped round after round in to the two corpses.

Even other officers were indignant at the actions of some of the officers.

So, while it's not a case of wanton brutality, was this a justifiable homicide or reckless police?

Your thoughts?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:07:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suggest that you all watch it on YouTube itself.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:19:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
On top of that, is it just me or are they shouting over the dog and not the man they just killed? What I'm hearing around 3:07 is "The dog is f*cking dead!"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:21:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 5:16:32 PM, nonentity wrote:
The number of shots fired is disgusting.:

What's your verdict though? Good shoot or bad shoot?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:24:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 5:19:10 PM, nonentity wrote:
On top of that, is it just me or are they shouting over the dog and not the man they just killed? What I'm hearing around 3:07 is "The dog is f*cking dead!":

It seems clear that not all of the cops shot, and those that didn't were infuriated. But to answer your question, yes, they seemed more concerned over the dog than Deandre.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:27:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Good shoot.

Pretending you have a gun when people are armed and pointing their guns at you for two min is ridiculous. I mean the guy couldn't have shouted back: "I WILL SLOWLY DROP THIS GUN OK I AM GOING TO DROP THE GUN PLEASE DON'T SHOOT IT'S ACTUALLY A SANDAL AND NOT EVEN A REAL GUN BUT I WILL DROP IT PLEASE JUST DON'T KILL ME"

I'm sure he would be alive.

If someone claims they have a gun and are going to shoot me and then make a sudden movement you better believe if it comes between me and them it's going to be them.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:28:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
it was dark. he claimed to have a gun and threatened to shoot them all. the amount of time between them firing and him going down was not unreasonable in my opinion. reaction time is only so fast, and for cops if you hesitate you or one of your buddies could well end up dead. this is regretable certainly, but i don't think there was any misconduct by the cops.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:32:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Maybe I watch too much Criminal Minds. The rarely ever shoot serial killers even when the serial killer is threatening to kill someone. And even then, they only use one or two shots.

I think it was a bad shoot. If it had been a couple of shots, then that would have been completely defensible.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:34:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 5:32:10 PM, nonentity wrote:
Maybe I watch too much Criminal Minds. The rarely ever shoot serial killers even when the serial killer is threatening to kill someone. And even then, they only use one or two shots.

I think it was a bad shoot. If it had been a couple of shots, then that would have been completely defensible.

What difference does it make how many shots were fired? Dead is dead.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:36:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The killing of that man was absolutely brutal and un-nessicary. Tranquilizer darts, knock-out guns, any other method could hve been used to detain the man. Yes the hoard of bullets is absolutely unnesicary.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:36:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 5:34:31 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 1/31/2011 5:32:10 PM, nonentity wrote:
Maybe I watch too much Criminal Minds. The rarely ever shoot serial killers even when the serial killer is threatening to kill someone. And even then, they only use one or two shots.

I think it was a bad shoot. If it had been a couple of shots, then that would have been completely defensible.

What difference does it make how many shots were fired? Dead is dead.

Because firing him with a bunch of unecessary shots looks like that was done out of anger or hatred.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:44:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 5:36:17 PM, TUF wrote:
The killing of that man was absolutely brutal and un-nessicary. Tranquilizer darts, knock-out guns, any other method could hve been used to detain the man. Yes the hoard of bullets is absolutely unnesicary.

Tranquilizer darts? Seriously?

1) It takes time for tranquilizers to have an effect; enough time for him to get several shots off.

2) Do you know why anesthesiologists have to go through almost a decade of extremely rigorous training? Because administering the proper dosage of an anesthetic is incredibly difficult. Too much, and you're dead. Not enough and you're still conscious. The margin of error is minuscule.

What the heck is a "knock-out gun?" I was thinking maybe rubber bullets...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:45:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Theoretically it was a very bad shot, given that the suspect was not armed. Ignorance here, caused two deaths. (Bad shot).

If it was out of a positive attribute, like for example, the safety of others, knowing that the suspect was armed (and dangerous) then it would have been a good shot.

So my personal verdict is that it was a bad shot.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:45:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Very thoughtful answers by askbob and belle. Thanks for your input.

My professional analysis is that it was a good initial shoot, and a bad subsequent shoot. But what do I mean?

The prevailing circumstances:

1. Dark out, and not well lit
2. He repeatedly made threats to the officers and the dog (who is also an officer)
3. He did everything possible to make them think he had a gun
4. Raised his arm very quickly and in their general direction

Deandre Brunston is dead because of Deandre Brunston, no question about it. However, I seriously disagree with the amount of rounds down range and the time it took them to stop, especially given that he clearly threw the object. He was completely prostrate for 2 whole seconds until the firing stopped. The shooting last from roughly 3:01.7 to approximately 3:06.3, with at least 20 rounds down range (and that is being generous).

That's enough time to realize that you've killed your own dog, and that the immediate threat has been neutralized.

So, in summary it was a good shoot, but it definitely had a lot of errors.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:54:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 5:36:17 PM, TUF wrote:
The killing of that man was absolutely brutal

They used a gun not a dull club
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 5:57:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We're going to keep this thread fresh.

I'm going to post videos of alleged police brutality, and I want the audiences opinion on it. The reason I'm doing this is because I find it fascinating how people interpret the same images so differently.

Think of this as a social experiment. And please try and be descriptive in your assessment. Don't just say, "brutality," or "no brutality." I'd like to know how you arrive at your conclusions.

Next video

This one is going to be a little difficult because most of it is simply audio, not video.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 6:05:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
An idiot surrounded by a bunch of idiots.

Had he just stood up none of it would have happened. He tried to become a victim by just allowing himself to be tased multiple times. I don't know how many times the cops told him to stand up.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 6:23:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The first video - I'm surprised they didn't shoot sooner. That man did everything in his power to convince them that he was a potentially lethal threat. That said, the way they carried out the attack was unacceptable. For one thing, the dog was killed by friendly fire. I also see no reason to shoot the thirty or so times they did. When that many shots are fired the intent is clearly to kill and not just to neutralize the threat.

As for the tasering, that was gratuitous and unnecessary. That kid was obviously no threat to them and he seemed sincere in his desire to leave and not do anyone any harm.

I do not know about the history of either situation, but I'm always disturbed by how law enforcement often prefers a violent solution that ends in their favor to a nonviolent solution that ends on neutral grounds. If the man in the first video had not committed a violent crime, the most reasonable solution would have been to just leave him alone. Of course, I understand that is not how the US legal system or law enforcement works.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 6:44:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 6:23:49 PM, Grape wrote:
As for the tasering, that was gratuitous and unnecessary. That kid was obviously no threat to them and he seemed sincere in his desire to leave and not do anyone any harm.

meh, from what i saw, the kid said "what zomg i'm leaving!!" and then plopped his arse right back down and refused to move. they repeatedly warned him before tasering him the second time. i wonder why he was being asked to leave in the first place though...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 6:53:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 6:23:49 PM, Grape wrote:
The first video - I'm surprised they didn't shoot sooner. That man did everything in his power to convince them that he was a potentially lethal threat. That said, the way they carried out the attack was unacceptable. For one thing, the dog was killed by friendly fire. I also see no reason to shoot the thirty or so times they did. When that many shots are fired the intent is clearly to kill and not just to neutralize the threat.

Police training, you only shoot to kill. If you are not at the point where you have to kill, then you don't need your gun. Personally, I think that is a bad philosophy, but the flip side will be when officers try to use their guns to neutralize a target (like shoot them in the arms and/or legs) and accidently kill a person by missing the arm and hitting a lung, or the massive artery in the leg.

I also think that the number of shots has to do with the adrenaline of the situation, since they can never be completely prepared for such a situation.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 7:36:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 6:23:49 PM, Grape wrote:
The first video - I'm surprised they didn't shoot sooner.:

You can't legally shoot someone just because they have a gun. Imminent danger has to exist.

That man did everything in his power to convince them that he was a potentially lethal threat.:

Yes, and like I said, the reason Deandre Brunston is dead, is because of Dandre Brunston.

That said, the way they carried out the attack was unacceptable.:

Agreed.

As for the tasering, that was gratuitous and unnecessary. That kid was obviously no threat to them and he seemed sincere in his desire to leave and not do anyone any harm.:

Apparently what happened was that he wasn't an student of UCLA and was asked to leave the campus by librarians. He refused and went on a tirade about how he was being treated that way because he's an Iranian-American, when in reality it had everything to do with him not being a student.

The cops arrive and try to get him to get him up and he says he will, but you can tell this is a battle of will. He seems to have an aversion with authority in general, as evidenced by his numerous unrelated commentary about "abuse of power" and the "Patriot Act." He was definitely acting like a a cocky little sh*t who probably needed his a$$ kicked. That said, I do believe the cops (a lot of departments) are extremely trigger happy with tasers, and UCLA PD was no exception. They should have used control techniques first, had he resisted, then light him up.

And, just so you all know, courts did deem it excessive insofar that they should have used lesser means first. I agree with their assessment.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 7:44:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Police training, you only shoot to kill. If you are not at the point where you have to kill, then you don't need your gun. Personally, I think that is a bad philosophy, but the flip side will be when officers try to use their guns to neutralize a target (like shoot them in the arms and/or legs) and accidently kill a person by missing the arm and hitting a lung, or the massive artery in the leg.:

The rule of thumb is that you always aim "center mass," to minimize the possibility of an unintended stray bullet killing little Suzie on her bike, and shoot to kill for the reason you shared. The other reason it's shoot to kill is that there's always lesser means available, and the only justifiable use of deadly force is imminent death of either yourself or someone else.

Only in other rare circumstances are there reasons to kill on sight.

I also think that the number of shots has to do with the adrenaline of the situation, since they can never be completely prepared for such a situation.:

Quite possible, and I forgot to mention that. You know, it's easy for us to calmly sit here and watch the footage, but we forget how hyper-aware the officers there had to be. I'm almost certain they were tunnel-visioned. That said, it still doesn't excuse it.

I've pulled my gun on people a few times in my life, always with the possibility of using it, but I've never fired at human being ever. I can tell you that your adrenaline is pumping. While it makes it easier to understand, you have to control that an make rational and thoughtful decisions when it comes to life and death.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 7:50:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This cop needs to be sodomized with a red hot poker in the @ss for all eternity. This is flat out murder, and nothing else.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 8:02:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 7:50:56 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
This cop needs to be sodomized with a red hot poker in the @ss for all eternity. This is flat out murder, and nothing else.



yup there was no excuse for that. The officer deserves life in prison/death penalty
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2011 11:05:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 5:44:11 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Tranquilizer darts? Seriously?
1) It takes time for tranquilizers to have an effect; enough time for him to get several shots off.

It hurts like hell getting hit by a tranquilizer dart. Try firing off accurate shots after being shot with one of those biznatches. Also let's mention that the squad were equipped with sheilds to prevent taking any harm from those shots as poor as they'd be.


2) Do you know why anesthesiologists have to go through almost a decade of extremely rigorous training? Because administering the proper dosage of an anesthetic is incredibly difficult. Too much, and you're dead. Not enough and you're still conscious. The margin of error is minuscule.

Yeah, might as well just shoot the bastard, that's better then taking the time to figure out how to put him to sleep.

What the heck is a "knock-out gun?" I was thinking maybe rubber bullets...

Rubber bullets would work fine. A hell of alot better than using real bullets on an un-armed man. Oh of course they thought it was a real gun, but they seriously could have taken a better approach at finding out whether it was a real gun or not. Let's say a spotlight? Would have worked fine. Or if they just went with their original plan to just let the dog go and attack them giving them plenty of time to detain the man. I think it's safe to say the shooting was unnesicary, and wasn't thought through.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
askbob
Posts: 7,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2011 11:26:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/1/2011 11:05:08 AM, TUF wrote:
At 1/31/2011 5:44:11 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Tranquilizer darts? Seriously?
1) It takes time for tranquilizers to have an effect; enough time for him to get several shots off.


It hurts like hell getting hit by a tranquilizer dart. Try firing off accurate shots after being shot with one of those biznatches. Also let's mention that the squad were equipped with sheilds to prevent taking any harm from those shots as poor as they'd be.

Ahh well with the shields its a completely different story. They definitely didn't stand a chance then to be shot or killed with shields.
Me -Phil left the site in my charge. I have a recorded phone conversation to prove it.
kohai -If you're the owner, then do something useful like ip block him and get us away from juggle and on a dofferent host!
Me -haha you apparently don't know my history
Kohai - Maybe not, but that doesn't matter! You shoukd still listen to your community and quit being a tyrrant!
Me - i was being completely sarcastic
Kohai - then u misrepresented yourself by impersonating the owner—a violation of the tos
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2011 1:18:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It hurts like hell getting hit by a tranquilizer dart.:

He's pointing out that it's not a part of law enforcement's arsenal because it's an anesthetic. Anesthesiologists are highly trained. We can't just give out tranquilizer guns to cops. Secondly, it was a deadly force situation, not a time to use tasers and pepper spray.

Also let's mention that the squad were equipped with sheilds to prevent taking any harm from those shots as poor as they'd be.:

So because you have shields (that only slows a projectile, not stop it) somehow he was going to give up? Did you even watch the video? He was resisting. And with or without a shield, you're not going to walk up on an armed suspect, don't be ridiculous.

Yeah, might as well just shoot the bastard, that's better then taking the time to figure out how to put him to sleep.:

Let me show you what happens when cops go willy nilly with "knock out" solutions. In the Moscow Theater siege, Russian cops killed all 39 terrorists by pumping gases through the ventilation system. Probem is, they also killed about 130 hostages too.

Rubber bullets would work fine. A hell of alot better than using real bullets on an un-armed man. Oh of course they thought it was a real gun, but they seriously could have taken a better approach at finding out whether it was a real gun or not. Let's say a spotlight? Would have worked fine.:

His body was bladed away towards the building. A spotlight would have done no good. You're being ridiculous. It was a good shoot, it was just excessive.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)