Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know of some guys with towels wrapped around their heads that are dangerous.

This can't be a major issue in the US being I haven't seen it all over the news
So it must have been a "good shoot"

Relapse wrote:
... that the cops should have been mind readers with X-ray vision.

Nobody has suggested this.

Just that police officers shouldn't be shooting people unless they're presented with a valid reason for doing so. 'He might have a gun' is not, in my opinion, a valid reason.


Yes, that may mean that in some situations police officers wind up getting shot at before they get to shoot back. Yes, that sucks. But that's their job.


Police are supposed to protect the public. If a 'shoot first and make sure he was actually a threat later' policy results in even one single innocent person being shot by police, then that's a bad policy.

Relapse wrote:
Let's look at the day's happenings there:

"The shooting in Los Feliz was one of two Friday in which LAPD officers shot a man who was partially concealed by a blanket or towel. Earlier in the day, LAPD officials said, officers wounded a man in El Monte after he got out of a car covered in a blanket and then brandished a gun. The man, who was critically wounded, had led officers on a two-hour chase that began in South L.A. after he allegedly assaulted a woman. "

Yep, I guess I would get a bit worried about someone pointing a towel wrapped arm at me after that earlier bit of news from the day was reported coupled with the uptick in cop killings.


With that, I am out of here, because this thread is headed for lockdown with people who have no idea what the situation was, yet are eager to say with the benefit of hind site and for the most part never having been in a situation where a split seconds hesitation could get them killed, that the cops should have been mind readers with X-ray vision.

Except for the part in the article where it states that it is currently not known whether the police officers knew of the previous shooting.

And, even if they did, that someone else shot a police officer does not give them carte blanche for the rest of the day to shoot anyone who they happen to not quite like the look of.

In one case we have someone suspected of a violent crime who had fled from police for two hours. In the other we have a man with a towel on his arm. If you cannot see a difference between those two scenarios that should alter the manner in which they are handled then I don't know what to say.

I think Frazzled nailed it best. Kinda hard to argue with that.

Relapse wrote:
Let's look at the day's happenings there:

"The shooting in Los Feliz was one of two Friday in which LAPD officers shot a man who was partially concealed by a blanket or towel. Earlier in the day, LAPD officials said, officers wounded a man in El Monte after he got out of a car covered in a blanket and then brandished a gun. The man, who was critically wounded, had led officers on a two-hour chase that began in South L.A. after he allegedly assaulted a woman. "

Yep, I guess I would get a bit worried about someone pointing a towel wrapped arm at me after that earlier bit of news from the day was reported coupled with the uptick in cop killings.


With that, I am out of here, because this thread is headed for lockdown with people who have no idea what the situation was, yet are eager to say with the benefit of hind site and for the most part never having been in a situation where a split seconds hesitation could get them killed, that the cops should have been mind readers with X-ray vision.

Firstly, a police officer should not influenced by such news. Just because an incident happened earlier today doesn't mean every guy calling for police suddenly wants to kill you, not even when they have a towel.
Secondly, police in other countries (even those with widespread gun ownership) seem to be perfectly capable of doing their job without killing a thousand people every year. The US police is very assertive and agressive, much more than in other countries. I think if police were to position themselves more calmly and passive, trying to negotiate and be friendly even if it leaves them vulnerable, it would definitely have positive results on the long term.

Easy to arm chair after the fact
I bet if you had their job you be thinking the same thing.
Threat
Remove Threat

If we start giving LEO a Rules of Engagement policy you all be screaming militarization of the force

 Jihadin wrote:
Easy to arm chair after the fact
I bet if you had their job you be thinking the same thing.
Threat
Remove Threat

I certainly might. I'm not a police officer, precisely because I have no interest in putting myself into those sorts of situations, or any of the myriad other horrible things that police have to deal with. So lacking the training to deal with that sort of situation, there's a very good chance that I would handle that situation badly.

I also wouldn't deal with, say, a patient with a complex fracture of their femur as well as a paramedic would. Or a child stuck on the 4th floor of a burning building as well as a fireman would. Because I don't have their training either.


Not having their training, though, doesn't mean I can't expect them to not kill people for no good reason.

If we start giving LEO a Rules of Engagement policy you all be screaming militarization of the force

I have absolutely no qualms with police forces being given more military-style training if it results in a police force that is more capable of dealing with the situations they are thrown into without needless loss of life.

 Jihadin wrote:
Easy to arm chair after the fact
I bet if you had their job you be thinking the same thing.
Threat
Remove Threat

If we start giving LEO a Rules of Engagement policy you all be screaming militarization of the force

You don't remove a threat by shooting at it. If you want to do so, you should be in the military, not the police. Police are there to help, to settle disputes and uphold the law, not to kill. Shooting should be the very last resort.
Being a policeman is doing everything you can to prevent others from being harmed, even if this puts you at risk. I you can't accept this sacrifice you are not fit to be in the police corps.
You can call arm chairing as much as you want, but that does not change the fact that the US police corps is the only one in the developed world unable to do its job without massive violence.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I am so gonna get flamed/insulted for this, but I am curious:

If this exact same scenario had instead played out in Iraq between a US soldier and an Iraqi civilian, what would people's thoughts be?

I'm not sure what your motivations were for asking that, but I think it makes for an interesting thought experiment. After all, Iraq is a warzone. It is a warzone where the enemy is ever-present but unseen: indistinguishable from the local population until he (or perhaps she) strikes unexpectedly. If that's not a recipe for paranoia then I don't what is? I don't really want to get into whether such a shooting would be wholly justified, but on a 1-10 scale of paranoia/danger, we 'might' (for arguments sake) put an Iraqi checkpoint at about a 9.

At the other end of the scale, we might have the cop visiting a kindergarten in a picturesque neighbourhood back in the good old USA. A kindergartener suddenly rushes into the classroom with a coat over his arm... We could put this situation down as 2. The kid actually "might" have a gun, but any cop who claimed that he had "no option but to shoot" would be certifiable. I doubt even dakka would blame the victim in such a case (though I wouldn't like to bet money on it or anything).

If anything, I think this demonstrates that the environment is a very important part of "the situation". Where on the above scale would we put Los Angeles? Kidergarten or warzone? Police feeling the need to shoot first, might just be indicative of a larger more systemic problem with the environment becoming (or being perceived as) more dangerous.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Easy to arm chair after the fact
I bet if you had their job you be thinking the same thing.
Threat
Remove Threat

If we start giving LEO a Rules of Engagement policy you all be screaming militarization of the force

You don't remove a threat by shooting at it. If you want to do so, you should be in the military, not the police. Police are there to help, to settle disputes and uphold the law, not to kill. Shooting should be the very last resort.
Being a policeman is doing everything you can to prevent others from being harmed, even if this puts you at risk. I you can't accept this sacrifice you are not fit to be in the police corps.
You can call arm chairing as much as you want, but that does not change the fact that the US police corps is the only one in the developed world unable to do its job without massive violence.

We know how old you are. If we restrict LEO's into military style Rules of Engagement we be burying a lot of cops
As for us in the military we have out body armor we can rely on. Also the many aspect of combat power to bring to the fight. Its on the individual (LEO) to make the call to either engage or not engage. Its on that individual if he choose to opt that individual out. Its on that individual to go with his training that he received. Also its on that individual to be aware of his surrounding. If there were people in the line of fire "behind him" then they, innocent bystanders, (which reminds me anyone seen D-USA?) are in danger of rounds going down range.

Everyone looking at the LEO and the Vic shooting which is inside the "Box" with your perception. No one has looked around outside the "Box" to what prompted the LEO to take out the vic

 Jihadin wrote:
Everyone looking at the LEO and the Vic shooting which is inside the "Box" with your perception. No one has looked around outside the "Box" to what prompted the LEO to take out the vic

Then I guess we'll all just have to wait for the startling revelation of just what was 'outside the box' that justified shooting a man brandishing a towel-wrapped forearm.


I'm certainly interested in seeing what that might have been, because I simply can't imagine anything that fits.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Police are there to help, to settle disputes and uphold the law, not to kill. Shooting should be the very last resort.

Generally speaking, this is false. There's a reason we call them law ENFORCEMENT officers. They are there to simply enforce the law.

Personally, I agree with many here that we (Americans) are using the police wrong. I personally think that instead of wasting a ton of money on unmarked cars designed with the express purpose of blending in (and usually driving "native" to basically trick people into driving in such a manner they get a ticket) to generate more ticket revenue, we should be marking our cars like many European countries, and they should be viewed as enforcers of the law, not a revenue stream by the various government entities.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Everyone looking at the LEO and the Vic shooting which is inside the "Box" with your perception. No one has looked around outside the "Box" to what prompted the LEO to take out the vic

Then I guess we'll all just have to wait for the startling revelation of just what was 'outside the box' that justified shooting a man brandishing a towel-wrapped forearm.


I'm certainly interested in seeing what that might have been, because I simply can't imagine anything that fits.

Did it dawn on you that the cops might have thought they were going to be next on national news of getting killed in the line of duty? Notice the upward trend of cop killing in the US lately?

No mention of the range of the Vic and the LEO. 20 yards? 40 yards?

Let's assume the LEO is carrying a 9mm Beretta
Effective range of 50m
How fast can you tell if the individual is armed at 40-50 meters? Mind you he has a towel wrapped around his arm
LEO's might have saw this pose

I think there is a lot of misconception "raise arm towards" does not mean point at. Towards could be a very minute movement.
Think about how you flag down a car, now unless i'm doing it wrong it does not involve pointing at the car but rather raising my arm about head level. Another factor that may be involved is that he may have had a wrist injury, like a cut , hence a towel and was in shock. He may have been holding his wrist out to say "help me I have a bad injury"and boy did he get fast ambulance service .

Ensis is right, the police over there are being used wrong, shooting people should be a last resort, not first option. POlice officers here are armed and shootings by cop are rare (except in Victoria ) , perhaps having many guns in society leads to police getting nervy, makes sense.

Clearly in the US you don't need a towel on head to become a law enforcement target, just a towel. Be scared coming back from the pool or beach or answering your door after your bathing was interrupted. Hell, high class waiters are in immediate danger

 Jihadin wrote:
Did it dawn on you that the cops might have thought they were going to be next on national news of getting killed in the line of duty?

I would expect that's something that runs through the minds of police officers more than once over the course of their duty.

Again, that's the job. It's a crap one, but it is what it is.

Let's assume the LEO is carrying a 9mm Beretta

Alternatively, let's not.

Because he wasn't.

He was carrying a towel.

The Vic had the towel not the LEO or did we have another cop get shot I missed?!

Edit

if it was me in the situation I get behind cover. You bet your fething ass i would move out the line of fire

 Jihadin wrote:
The Vic had the towel not the LEO or did we have another cop get shot I missed?!

Yeah, I misread your post.

Although going by these events, perhaps law enforcement should reconsider their armament options. Towels would certainly reduce ammunition expenses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
if it was me in the situation I get behind cover. You bet your fething ass i would move out the line of fire

For sure, if you suspect that he might be armed then not standing in the potential line of fire might be wise.

It's still a reasonable distance from there to 'He might have a gun, shoot him!'

 Bullockist wrote:
or answering your door after your bathing was interrupted.

Wait a minute... I've seen that movie

It's hawt! Now in the US! Hard Metal (to the) Head, starring Felicia Starr as Officer Piggins, bah, chucka, wuh, wooooow!

Bullockists' thought of the day : Living in a high density gun weilding population may keep you safe from being shot by evil do'ers (apparently) , but conversely not safe from being shot by law enforcement.

Relapse wrote:

There's more than one example of cops being killed by "subdued" suspects. .

There's more than one example of of suspects not doing too well health wise when they're "subdued" as well.

 Bullockist wrote:
It's hawt! Now in the US! Hard Metal (to the) Head, starring Felicia Starr as Officer Piggins, bah, chucka, wuh, wooooow!

Bullockists' thought of the day : Living in a high density gun weilding population may keep you safe from being shot by evil do'ers (apparently) , but conversely not safe from being shot by law enforcement.

Until we know more about the actions of the guy who got shot I am sticking with the idea that some action he took must have seemed damned threatening to the cops. Had his hands been visible and had he acted calmly he would not have been shot. And as I've mentioned before and as Jihadin mentioned, the distance involved will play a factor too. At 15 feet the decision cycle is pretty damned fast.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Handcuffing the wounded guy makes a ton of sense to me. Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.

Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.

in the Army

Therein lies the problem: police officers aren't soldiers, the sheriffs department isn't the Army.

Policing can be dangerous, but new recruits are drilled from day one to condition themselves to be warriors and that they need to be prepared go out on the front lines everyday and confront the enemy (which is anyone and everyone). This is often one of the first things that is brought up when any discussion of police tactic reform is started and I think it's pretty valid.

Exactly.

Again, the simple situation is: You think he had a gun. You blast him. He didn't have a gun. Why are you handcuffing him?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
djones, wouldn't the search of this guy have been performed while officers were cuffing him? Because before putting a bullet in this guy's head the officers thought he had a gun in his hands. So, while going to cuff the guy's wrists wouldn't the officers have noticed that there was no gun?

Why continue to cuff the guy?

"Because that is standard procedure."

Which is an unsatisfying answer for the general public. Police already have both eyes blackened lately for their repeated misuse of force across the country and incidents like this don't help. If you spill a guy's brains on the sidewalk for no good reason perhaps following procedure after the fact should be less of a concern than being a good human being and rendering aid. If only so that images of you cuffing an individual with an aerated skull don't spill out over the internet and make you look like a heartless killer.

You know. Optics.

Thats my issue right there.

 Frazzled wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Handcuffing the wounded guy makes a ton of sense to me. Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.

Heck, we trained to zip strip and secure everyone in the Army.

in the Army

Therein lies the problem: police officers aren't soldiers, the sheriffs department isn't the Army.

Policing can be dangerous, but new recruits are drilled from day one to condition themselves to be warriors and that they need to be prepared go out on the front lines everyday and confront the enemy (which is anyone and everyone). This is often one of the first things that is brought up when any discussion of police tactic reform is started and I think it's pretty valid.

Exactly.

Again, the simple situation is: You think he had a gun. You blast him. He didn't have a gun. Why are you handcuffing him?

You clearly don't like the answer you've been given several times. Your dislike of it does not invalidate it. You can keep asking, but you have been given the answer.

 Jihadin wrote:
There is such a thing as standards and procedures they follow.

Cuff the dead guy/gurl
Cuff the wounded guy/gurl
Cuff the unwounded guy/gurl
Someone getting cuffed



One train to standards
One maintains the standards

Standards not = right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Wouldn't having some guy with a towel wrapped around his hand and pointed it at you not creep you out a tiny bit?

I don't like anything pointed at me on the best of days.

Hindsight is 20-20, you expect a cop not to "deal" with this weird situation with anything less than worst case scenario?

But they said drop the gun, not drop the towel.

http://abc7.com/news/lapd-discusses-use-of-force-in-los-feliz-officer-involved-shooting/799975/

"He put his hands together and held them out in the direction of the officers and walked towards them in an aggressive manner. The officers gave him some commands, which he didn't respond to and then the officer-involved shooting occurred," LAPD Commander Andy Smith said.

Without some form of proof this statement is fairly useless.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-shooting-son-20150622-story.html

"At first, I thought it was like a random person that did it," William DeLeon said. "Then I found out it was the cops. I didn't understand why, because I know my dad wouldn't do anything to provoke it."

And I'm not surprised the son would say something like this. I'd not exactly expect him to go "Yeah, my dad would totally provoke officers."

My only hope is camera footage.

"He put his hands together and held them out in the direction of the officers and walked towards them in an aggressive manner. The officers gave him some commands, which he didn't respond to and then the officer-involved shooting occurred," LAPD Commander Andy Smith said.

Thats just funny.


This is more telling:
"An unarmed man shot by Los Angeles police after he allegedly pointed a towel-covered hand in their direction typically walked with a rag because he sweat a lot, his son said Monday evening."

and
"The officers ordered him to drop what they thought was a weapon, Smith said, but the man didn't respond to those commands. One officer then opened fire, Smith said."

Supposedly there is a witness. interesting that the police didn't say what the witness told them.

Well they have to work on the witness first to make sure he/she saw what they say.

Not that witnesses have been proven to be 100% reliable anyway! See Ferguson. Lotta lying/mistakes going on there.

I'm pretty sure that if someone in the UK flagged down some police officers with a towel on their arm, the first thing the police officers would be thinking is "Maybe this guy has hurt his arm and is using the towel to stem the bleeding", not "Gun?Gun?TOWELPOINTINGINMYDIRECTION!gonnashoothimgonnashoothim!".

This is getting ridiculous.

"The man flagged down the police officers" ...so what did he want?

"This person extended an arm wrapped in a towel." ...still no idea but why "point" his arm wrapped in a towel. (Stupid in the extreme in my books).

"The officer exited the vehicle and said, 'Drop the gun, drop the gun,'" LAPD Lt. John Jenal said."... get out of car for room to find better cover. "Drop the gun", hmmm when getting nervous what would be better to say... "drop the towel?", "Hands so I can see them!" maybe?

"Then at least one officer shot the man."... little or no data on what was the final straw.

No idea of physical condition of suspect or of arm/hand under that towel.

One officer basically determined that an unresponsive person with an obscured hand which was pointing at the officers even after repeated requests to put "the gun" down was sufficiently a threat to shoot.

I do not think it is their "job" for the police to expose themselves to that much risk of allowing this person to decide how they were going to reveal what was in/on their hand. This is not poker.

I reached for my wallet and got "drawn on", try reaching into your jacket around a cop for giggles... hidden weapons are a real fear, something was very wrong with the suspect. Easy to laugh at being aimed at by a towel, real easy to feel superior after the fact.

Hope to hear more, obviously there was more going on than what was initially reported.

How does one drop something they don't have?