The Student Room Group

LAPD shooting of homeless man

No one has made a thread about this yet? Even searched google :P

I don't know when the Americans will wake up that they not only have a gun problem but a police with guns problem.

And when justice will finally catch up with the low life scum that make up their police force.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/los-angeles-police-kill-man-in-struggle-captured-on-video-1425302531

You don't see much detail but you can hear him being shot, so be advised if you don't want to to hear this.

Scroll to see replies

I dont know the full details of THIS particular shooting, but police brutality has always been an issue in the US. Way before this or Mike Brown or Rodney King or even the 1950's or 60's.

I'd like to think in 2015 it's better now, but these incidents happen. There's always racial and socio-economic profiling.

Things are being done to try to ameliorate the situation (like trying to get NYC officers to wear cameras) but this takes time and money that no one seems to have.
The bit that got me was the slight pause before they decided that a fifth shot was needed
Original post by Brit_Miller
The bit that got me was the slight pause before they decided that a fifth shot was needed


For me it was even the second shot. I mean you really are scared for your life you panic and bang bang bang bang. But the time between shots 2,3,4 was much shorter than between 1 and 2 already. And yes, the last one was just pure overkill.
Reply 4
America are less integrated than us, and due to their wide-ranging socio-economic, political and religious backgrounds (as well as incredibly large population), this doesn't look like changing soon. The issue with the seeming over-usage of guns in the police force is due to poor training, nothing more. Ex-army members have gone on to join the police force after returning from a tour and leaving the army, and the majority have said they are shocked at not only the tiny amount of training the police have received, but also what that training has consisted of, with basic details of how to shoot to incapacitate and gun safety varying from force to force.

This can be fixed in two ways: 1. ban guns both for civilians and police or 2. Increase funding to the police force. Since freedom of gun ownership is integral to the American constitution (2nd amendment and all that), and since public opinion on police is plummeting daily due to this type of incident, neither looks likely to happen.
Reply 5
Most of the time in cases like this, once I've looked into it I side with the police. They do an incredibly stressful job, in a country where near enough anyone can be armed with an assault rifle and most of the time their actions are justified, within the law and police protocol. That isn't to say cases of police mis-justice and brutality don't occur, they obviously do, but it seems that the most highlighted cases are ambiguous whereas more clear cut cases go by unnoticed by the media.

He was resisting arrest, which no one should do even in the event of wrongful arrest. Supposedly he went for the gun as well. Watched the video, but it is a massive brawl so it is hard to see what is going on exactly. I definitely heard tazers, and it appears the officers were also using batons to try subdue him. Six bullets sounds like over-kill. But when you are pumped full of adrenaline, you don't make the most logical decisions. A lot of Police Officers experience tunnel vision during violent encounters, they aren't aware of their wider surroundings and suffer from impaired decision making. I'm sure the LAPD will launch an internal investigation, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney will look into the case and charge any officers if they broke the law. It is sad someone had to die. I'd just like to add that if the State of California, or the Federal Government, would properly deal with the homeless problem, the associated social and health problems would disappear, and cops wouldn't have to be permanently stationed in large patrols on skid row.
Looks and sounds like he was going for an officer's gun.

Original post by Arkasia
1. ban guns both for civilians and police


You really think that would work? Take five minutes to think about it and get back to me.
Reply 7
Original post by BitWindy
Looks and sounds like he was going for an officer's gun.



You really think that would work? Take five minutes to think about it and get back to me.


It would work more than it currently is. At the very least it would remove the accidental gun injuries/deaths. Banning guns after allowing them for so long is obviously not going to fully fix the issue, but I don't think anything can, so we may as well try to limit the damage if we can't prevent it.
Original post by Arkasia
It would work more than it currently is. At the very least it would remove the accidental gun injuries/deaths. Banning guns after allowing them for so long is obviously not going to fully fix the issue, but I don't think anything can, so we may as well try to limit the damage if we can't prevent it.


To begin with, banning civilian guns is an impossible task even with an armed police force. With a disarmed police force, you can completely forget it.

Let's say that all "law-abiding" citizens turn in their guns (ignoring the fact that destroying the second amendment would turn millions against the state). You are now left with a disarmed "law-abiding" population backed up by a disarmed police force. This is, of course, an untenable position given that criminals do not follow the law. Where criminals once feared a gun in the hands of a civilian or a police officer, there will now be little disincentive.

I don't think your policy would limit damage at all. It would only lead to a breakdown in law and order in cities throughout the US. This isn't even considering how despicable an action it would be to deny the innocent a chance to defend themselves, or even to enjoy the use of guns.
Which part of "drop the gun" did he not understand?
Original post by DiddyDec
Which part of "drop the gun" did he not understand?


I'm not sure if it's "drop the gun" or "he's got my gun".

Either way, if he had a gun or was going for a gun he was a threat.

Original post by Brit_Miller
The bit that got me was the slight pause before they decided that a fifth shot was needed

Original post by SarcasticMel
For me it was even the second shot. I mean you really are scared for your life you panic and bang bang bang bang. But the time between shots 2,3,4 was much shorter than between 1 and 2 already. And yes, the last one was just pure overkill.


I'd be cautious about viewing the delay in shooting as a sign of callousness. To begin with, the officer whose gun was being grasped did not shoot first, maybe not even at all. It seems as if another officer thought the homeless man was posing a threat and therefore fired, followed by at least one other officer. From what I can tell, the situation would have been unclear to the second shooter, and he may have read it as the homeless man being in possession of a gun, in which case a single shot would not be sufficient to reduce the risk.

There are very few situations where police officers, of any nationality, shoot to maim even if they're part of a specialist firearms unit.

I think the situation could have probably be handled better, but I resent the idea that they shot him out of base cruelty.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by BitWindy
I'm not sure if it's "drop the gun" or "he's got my gun".

Either way, if he had a gun or was going for a gun he was a threat.

I'd also be cautious about viewing the delay in shooting as a sign of callousness. To begin with, the officer whose gun was being grasped did not shoot first, maybe not even at all. It seems as if another officer thought the homeless man was posing a threat and therefore fired, followed by at least one other officer. From what I can tell, the situation would have been unclear to the second shooter, and he may have read it as the homeless man being in possession of a gun, in which case a single shot would not be sufficient to reduce the risk.

There are very few situations where police officers, of any nationality, shoot to maim even if they're part of a specialist firearms unit.

I think the situation could have probably be handled better, but I resent the idea that they shot him out of base cruelty.


It is illegal to shoot to maim. Shooting should only ever be used it life or death situations and the officer should always aim for the centre of mass which the body.

However he should not have been fighting with police nor should he have gone for an officer's gun.

We will find out what happened on the part of the officers' when the body camera footage is reviewed.
Reply 12
Original post by SarcasticMel
No one has made a thread about this yet? Even searched google :P

I don't know when the Americans will wake up that they not only have a gun problem but a police with guns problem.

And when justice will finally catch up with the low life scum that make up their police force.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/los-angeles-police-kill-man-in-struggle-captured-on-video-1425302531

You don't see much detail but you can hear him being shot, so be advised if you don't want to to hear this.


"Video appears to show the man reaching for an officer’s waistband, Mr. Beck said, adding that the officer can be heard saying, “He has my gun, he has my gun.”"

If that's true, I don't see why the police are being criticized so heavily by the OP and others. Every time the media gets hold of footage like this there's outcries of brutality and accusations of racism leveled at the police, rarely is there appreciation of the extremely challenging situations they find themselves in.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by pjm600
"Video appears to show the man reaching for an officer’s waistband, Mr. Beck said, adding that the officer can be heard saying, “He has my gun, he has my gun.”"

If that's true, I don't see why the police are being criticized so heavily by the OP and others. Every time the media gets hold of footage like this there's outcries of brutality and accusations of racism leveled at the police, rarely is there appreciation of the extremely challenging situations they find themselves in.


I don't know how they are going to claim racism when the black officer was allegedly the first shooter.
Reply 14
Original post by DiddyDec
I don't know how they are going to claim racism when the black officer was allegedly the first shooter.


Social media, at least, doesn't follow that logic.


Combine that with the number of people who think it was an execution and it's quite clear that anything beyond the headline doesn't influence people's opinion.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by pjm600
Social media, at least, doesn't follow that logic.

Combine that with the number of people who think it was an execution and it's quite clear that anything beyond the headline doesn't influence people's opinion.


Social Media, Logic. Pick one.

People are stupid. It looks like a lawful response to me.
Reply 16
Agree broadly with many comments above. The man was clearly fighting wildly against a large number of police - he was violent, he wasn't rational. To believe that he reached for a police officer's gun - which the officers seem to uniformly agree with - is hardly a stretch.

The problem in the US at the moment seems to be less to do with the police, and more to do with certain communities ignoring the situations criminals are in when they are the victim of a police shooting.
Original post by L i b
To believe that he reached for a police officer's gun - which the officers seem to uniformly agree with - is hardly a stretch.


Indeed.

But I find it hard to believe that, with all those police officers, the proportionate response was to put 5 shots into him.

*insert generic statement about not being there/not having all the facts etc*
Original post by InnerTemple
Indeed.

But I find it hard to believe that, with all those police officers, the proportionate response was to put 5 shots into him.

*insert generic statement about not being there/not having all the facts etc*


If the proportionate response was to shoot him at all, the proportionate response was to shoot him dead. Surprisingly, bullets don't always kill instantly.
Original post by BitWindy
If the proportionate response was to shoot him at all, the proportionate response was to shoot him dead.


I don't agree with this.

Seems to be a sad state of affairs for the US when something fairly routine looking, which if it had occurred in the UK, would have been a scuffle and one in custody, resulted in a man's death.

Quick Reply

Latest