FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!


Deadly Force at Carl's Jr.


A citizen's cellphone camera captures a Monterey Park (Calif.) Police officer using deadly force on a man with a metal bar.

January 24, 2012
23515 views

Tags: Citizen Video, Deadly Force


Comments (79)

Displaying 1 - 79 of 79

Steve E @ 1/24/2012 5:32 PM

( my view) Pro Cop: SBC > Don't listen to the officers, ignore the obvious situation, ignore the officers orders, raise that axe, make a threatening move towards the officer = light's out.

( some peoples view ) Anti Cop: Why didn't the LEO's taze him, why didn't the LEO's jump out of the way, why didn't the LEO's back off, why didn't the LEO's tackle him etc....

To answer any anti cop viewer. My 'civilian' view and answer is: You were not there, you don't know what he did just before the shooting. In any event LE does not have to and will not retreat, they have to contain and protect , protect themselves and the public. If the opportunity allows then protect the suspect from himself, ( if the opportunity allows. )

In the short time the encounter shows in the video ( video only ) the suspect shook off pepper / oc spray and advance on an officer with deadly intent. simple case of Suicide By Cop

Anyone disagree with my amateur yet ,what I believe is my common sense opinion

TimFromLA @ 1/24/2012 5:59 PM

Shot 10 times. Someone needs retraining in the academy. I thought it was three shots, assess the situation and shoot again. Or why not use the PR-24? Oh well, after Rodney King...see what happens when you politicize safety?

Bill @ 1/24/2012 6:00 PM

Moral of story....Don't bring an axe to a gunfight.

Bob@Az. @ 1/24/2012 6:08 PM

It's obvious from the commentary supplied that the video was shot by a sheep who has never been involved in any threatening encounter. That man brushed off the spray like it was nothing and the taser didn't affect his advancement on the Officer. Glad the Officers were safe. The idiot with the "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg" comment must watch a lot of CSI on TV. Gee, maybe they should have just shot the very lethal metal bar out of his hand?.

Lt. Robert Tester @ 1/24/2012 6:13 PM

Come on guys, what were you all thinking. Canine on scene! What's a dog for if not to assist with take down and control. Remember force continuim? I know the suspect threatened an officer, but use force continuim when appropriate. Good job with cover guys though.

Rick @ 1/24/2012 6:35 PM

In my opinion, to listen to people laughing while the police are in a critical situation, is just rediculous. We have become so insensitive to people being killed and maimed that it is now fodder for YouTube. What the hell have we become?

Regular Guy @ 1/24/2012 6:44 PM

Lt Robert Tester, stay safely behind the desk with your resting heart rate where you can safely quarter back how you would have done it if you didn't drive so slow to be sure you weren't first on scene.

John @ 1/24/2012 6:55 PM

If ten times is what's necessary to stop the threat, then that's how many times they needed to shoot him. Sending a dog in to get maimed by a man with an axe who isn't worth the alpo you fed that dog that day? Not hardly...the guy got what he deserved. He was clearly hostile with a deadly weapon and just before the officers shot him, he made a lunge to attack...clearly a justified shooting, even if you had all day to second guess them, which they didn't have.

Anthony @ 1/24/2012 6:56 PM

Shoot him in the leg!!!!! Lethal force is lethal force you idiot viewer!!! If he would have shot him in the leg it's still lethal force!!! Hard to watch the laughing and the stupid comments coming from the viewers. I was not there so I will not say they did bad or good. The officer obviously felt him, his partner, or the public were in immediate danger and acted accordingly.

ed @ 1/24/2012 7:20 PM

Bad guy should have listened. How hard is it to drop the axe and put your hands behind your head? Oh well he's not going to do that ever again. Heck, they keep that up maybe the crime rate will go down. Sure will keep the jails and courts emptier. All good things.

Ed @ 1/24/2012 7:24 PM

Time for most of you to go back to the academy. If the threat was no longer there after two or three shots, you stop shooting, period. Just because the first shot or two is justified does not mean you are justified to fire 8 or 9 additional shots. Yes, our job is to be safe and to go home at the end of the shift, but it's also to stay out of prison. Won't be surprised if the officer is prosecuted.

Ryan @ 1/24/2012 7:43 PM

The shooting aside, it looks like the Taser officer may need a bit of retraining. Probably, more likely, the Taser training needs to be tweaked. It looks like after the first Taser shot failed, he took his eyes off the suspect, toward whom he was still advancing, and looked down at his belt, possibly going for a second cartridge or unloading the first one in order to holster, and it was at that moment that the suspect lunged.

I bet he never does that again.

Perhaps the better idea would be to simply drop the empty Taser, and go for his primary weapon. I wouldn't want to be trying to reload at that range if I had another option.

Pete Malloy @ 1/24/2012 7:43 PM

To those who keep saying "shoot him in the leg". How many of you have EVER put a threatening object in a friends hand and had him dart at you quickly and at random while you use an airsoft or other toy gun to try and shoot only his leg. And while your friend was quickly moving and you were dancing on your heels to increase distance, did the shot land where you thought it would? Did it stop his threat or did he chop you up with the object first? . . . Thought so. . .

tim @ 1/24/2012 7:45 PM

Who ever said the dog should have been used probably doesn't know that not all K9s are attack dogs.

Jacques @ 1/24/2012 7:48 PM

Stupid comments from the peanut gallery viewers. Shoot him in the leg, come on it was deadly force all the lower means weren't working, OC, Tazer, he was going for the officer, righteous shoot.

Officer don't have wait to be assaulted they respond to the threat of violence, if they wait till the action it might be too late.

MP Mike @ 1/24/2012 7:52 PM

Lethal force is used for specific purposes. A dog is not lethal force. So, if the decision was of imminent danger being posed to any officer or bystander, then by all means, use it. No one, not even a lieutenant in a PD should try to second guess the situation and actions taken, since they were not there and since LEO training is not 100% standard across the Nation.

Randy @ 1/24/2012 8:48 PM

Hindsight is 20/20 all looked justified might be a slight adrenalin glitch on the last advancing shots but this video will not prove anything about the officer's tactical call. Was that kid high? I too noticed the background comments showing just how dehumanized our youths have become to violence, blood & horrid death? Blame it on video games?

Zim @ 1/24/2012 9:02 PM

Frist, Tim from LA, one officer deployed the taser and it did not work because the suspect had a thick jacket. And to the 10 shots, the officer had to stop the suspect from continuing what he was doing ie. attacking an officer and then fleeing to attack innocent citizens. It is not like television where people fly in the air when shot and are immediately killed. Use some common sense.

Zim @ 1/24/2012 9:08 PM

Lt. Robert Tester, if that is really who you are, you know that the force continuum does not require the officer to go through all of the force options before shooting someone. There is no reason to use the canine when the officer has to stop an immediate attack. Additionally, as a general police policy, officers do not deploy a canine in a case where they know the suspect has a deadly weapon. Maybe you are a Lt. of my local mall security firm, but not a police Lt. If you are employed by a police agency, you obviously have no patrol time or are an administrator.

Jake from LB @ 1/24/2012 9:14 PM

Tim from LA, are you serious? The cop should have used a "PR-24"? I'm surprised you didn't suggest shooting him in the leg as well. Drop the wannabe talk, it's obvious you know nothing about law enforcement.

Jake from LB @ 1/24/2012 9:26 PM

Ed, what academy do you propose we go back to? There is no academy that I'm aware of that teaches the garbage you're spewing. What an asset you are to your department - if you're really a cop - that you can say "Won't be surprised if the officer is prosecuted," after seeing part of this incident from a cellphone camera taken from the inside of a car with wet windows and a blocked view of the suspect as he is being shot and going down. You don't get the full story with this video, Ed. To say "Won't be surprised if the officer is prosecuted" is just arbitrary and not based on any California POST training or any other logic, procedure, policy, etc. By the way, I counted 5 shots, not 10, not 8, not 9, but 5. Even the fine citizens who shot this video are heard saying 5 or 6 times.

Tom @ 1/24/2012 9:34 PM

what else do you expect from gang members..... running the streets.
the officer that fired is just looking for time off with pay --- he was holding a K9 also... they dont train them in California.

These police are no better than Rampart LAPD or the Nazi sheriffs.

Anthony @ 1/24/2012 9:34 PM

I want to make it clear I was not saying to shoot him in the leg. I was saying the idiots on the video don't know what it's like to be a cop and don't know what they are talking about. As soon as you fire that gun IT IS LEATHAL FORCE whether they live or not.

Steve @ 1/24/2012 9:46 PM

Anyone who does not believe this shooting was both justified, and nessecary has no place in Law Enforcement. I sure as hell wouldn't want you as back up...Remember we could be reading about a fallen Officer here. Im sure the Officer that almost got his head split open is glad his partner didnt aim for the legs.

DaveSAM25G @ 1/24/2012 9:47 PM

What was this offender pumped up on or mental state - OMI - alcohol or drug and how much? Police had been called because Rodriguez was smashing windows at the Carl's Jr. Moments before he was shot, one of the officers tried to use a TASER, but Rodriguez seemed unfazed, pulling the wires off his face. Then he went toward officer with crowbar this is where it went to lethal force when he approached the officer off balance covered by K9 and pistol (Contact & Cover).

There will be lessons as in all UOF and life in general...Many times offender choice or action is a determining factor on end result in this case it was not good! Action was forced by offender...actions! I do not think anyone wants to use lethal force that results in death

Dustin @ 1/24/2012 10:05 PM

Absolutely disgusting that these re-treds in the car are laughing at that. Good luck with life folks....

Chris @ 1/25/2012 12:30 AM

Good shoot period. Stopped a potentially lethal attack by an active aggressive subject on an officer who unwittenly was looking at his gear when he should have had his eyes up. Quality cover by K9 officer.

Rainer @ 1/25/2012 1:14 AM

Well, Lt. Tester may be behind his desk, but he is right: canine on the scene...for what???? That was an execution!! Nothing else! And I´m on the street, every day! For now more than 30 years!

LAWALEO @ 1/25/2012 1:52 AM

Ok, what u hav to take into account, for the ignorant commentary, is this Carls is 3 steps away from East LA College, where the "students" fly their Viva Che and Viva la Revolution t shirts loud and proud at this mockery of "higher education" liberal school. I live about 15 mins from there and I am familiar with the Carls, ive stopped there after working late on my way home. And MP had an Ofcr shot on a stop not too long ago.

Ray @ 1/25/2012 4:48 AM

Initial view of video and my first reaction is excessive force. I have 25yrs in law enforcement and I am by no means a monday morning QB but it appears other force options were available in this incident. Most obvious is the cannine to subdue/distract suspect, use of cover/zone of safety from perp. It didnt seem from video that force by perp was imminent enough to warrant use of firearm.

DAVID @ 1/25/2012 5:25 AM

IN MY OPINION, AND WITH 22 YEARS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE, IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE A GOOD SHOOT. JUST WITH THE INFORMATION AT HAND ON VIDEO.POLICE PRESENCE DID NOT DETER HIM, THE SUBJECT DISOBEYED COMMANDS, TASER WAS APPLIED, AND FAILED, THE BARKING DOG DID NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE SUBJECT. WHEN THE SUBJECT POSTURED IN AN OFFENSIVE MANNER TO SWING THE WEAPON, AND YES A WEAPON CAN BE ANYTHING THAT COULD INFLICT SERIOUS BODILY INJURY, OR DEATH TO YOU OR A THIRD PERSON. IN MY OPINION THE SUBJECT PLACED POLICE IN JEOPARDY, HAD THE ABILITY, AND OPPURTUNITY, BY BEING IN HAZZARDOUS PROXIMITY TO INFLICT A SERIOUS INJURY, OR DEATH TO THE OFFICER BY EITHER A MANNER OF CLOSED HAND CONTACT WITH OBJECT, OR BY THROWING THE OBJECT. MY OPINION IS THE OFFICERS SHOWED GREAT RESTRAINT, AND GRADUATED THIER LEVEL OF FORCE, UNTIL DEADLY FORCE WAS NEEDED. IN SAYING, IN REFERENCE TO THIS VIDEO, WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS. SUCH AS WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE OF CARL JR'S, WHAT THREATS WERE MADE VERBALLY, WAS THERE A KNOWN HISTORY OF VIOLENCE WITH THIS PERSON. ONLY THE OFFICER'S ON SCENE KNOW THE COMPLETE INCIDENT. AND FOR THOSE THAT WONDER, WE ARE NOT TRAINED TO RETREAT, TO FIRE A WARNING SHOT, OR WOUND. WE ARE TRAINED TO STOP THE THREAT, AND CONTINUE IF NECCESSARY UNTIL THE THREAT IS STOPPED. AND ONE LAST THING, SHAME ON THE INDIVIDUALS RECORDING THIS VIDEO, THAT SHOW NO RESPECT OF LIFE, APPARENTLY THEY THOUGHT THE INCIDENT WAS FUNNY. WE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT DO NOT LIVE IN A VIDEO GAME WORLD, WE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD, WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE A SPLIT SECOND DECISION. IT APPEARS THESE DAYS THAT SOME OF THE PUBLIC WOULD RATHER VIDEO A BAD SCENARIO, AND RACE TO SEE WHO CAN POST IT ON YOU TUBE FIRST, INSTEAD OF BEING OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. THERE IS A SAYING IN LAW ENFORCEMENT," I RATHER BE TRIED BY TWELVE, THAN CARRIED BY SIX."

Scott in Florida @ 1/25/2012 5:29 AM

Rainer, I do not believe 30 years as a homeless person gives you any crediblity or insight concerning Police Tactics or the Use of Deadly Force. Just for your information, for future reference, Placing a K9 into a deadly force situation means nothing more than injury to a dog and a loss of a resource. To introduce a dog into that situation would have been foolish. You call this an execution? Sorry dude, but whatever substance you have been injesting for 30 years has really screwed you up. To continue the use less than deadly force in this situation, clearly would cause death or great bodily harm to the officers and the K9. The fact those officers resorted to two levels of non lethal force to subdue a person using deadly force speaks of their desire to perserve this scumbags life. For the Record, Lt. tester is not correct and if he is a Police officer, with experience, I am sure his units morale is at an all time low.

Timbo @ 1/25/2012 5:30 AM

Lt. Bob, the force continuum is a guideline, not a strict set of requirements. Jumping from the low end of the continuum, officer presence, to any other level is dictated by the circumstances. I agree with Regular Guy...stay behind your desk.....please! And to those idiots heard laughing during the taping of the incident; what a sad but not surprising reflection on society today.

jburDen @ 1/25/2012 6:13 AM

I love the stupid comment from TimFromLA. In that situation you don't count bullets. The suspect was in range to do serious injury to one officer. The K9 officer acted correctly in taking out the threat. You do what what you have to neutralize the threat. You don't shoot once and see if that shot works.

cwjjohn @ 1/25/2012 6:15 AM

See what happens when you do not obey the commands from an officer. Good job guys.

Steve @ 1/25/2012 6:26 AM

Whether justified or not the officer who did the shooting is going to have a lot of explaining to do. Was his K-9 attack trained? And I was taught that you continue to shoot until the threat is over. This 'shot' perp. falling to the ground may no longer qualify as a threat, at least to justify 5 more shots. Wouldn't want to be in that officer's shoes.

M.Conner @ 1/25/2012 6:50 AM

Was the PR-24 used? If so and the suspect did not respond, then lethal force was justified. If not, then the officer will have some serious explaining to do.

Dave @ 1/25/2012 7:33 AM

Rick, you hit the nail on the head... listening to those two chuckleheads' laughing commentary on the deadly force and the suspect is an indictment of at least part of the society in which we live and work... God help us all.

Gary @ 1/25/2012 7:38 AM

Sorry to disagree Lt. Tester. Force continuum? Dog/K-9 is equal to baton. Metal bar wielding criminal is not equal to a dog. Why would you send your K-9 into a losing battle? One strike and the dog is done. Shoot and keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. Good shoot. 0% recidivism.

Walker @ 1/25/2012 7:51 AM

Training? How about no! You shoot until the threat is no longer a threat! It's apparent from the "commentary" that he was still resisting after being shot. And to answer the Taser comment...not all departments are cleared to carry them, due to several issues/concerns with the liability. This was a deadly threat, and was handled accordingly. Anything different, then I say that training would be required. I applaud these officers for doing what had to be done!

terry @ 1/25/2012 8:28 AM

good job to all the officers involved, at the end of shift they were able to go home uninjured, thats what its all about, officer and public safety.

John Russell @ 1/25/2012 9:10 AM

Well if htey tried MACE then they should have used TASER Gun surely good use for Pepper Paint ball guns if then no compliance but this looks like flat out murder whihc could be very dangerous for COPS since gang members will see this and start firing back at any confrontation in CALIF or AZ. Even POLICe showing up at any scene?

AJ @ 1/25/2012 9:53 AM

You shoot to stop the threat, either he goes down or drops the weapon. Either way, there is NO set number of bullets. That will set you up for dead cops. If anyone here would swing a PR-24 or club against an assailant armed with a fire axe (Metal pole etc...), your an idiot. when the chief hands your wife a folded flag at your grave side, trying less lethal force against an attacker using deadly force will be little consolation to her.

Jason @ 1/25/2012 11:09 AM

Setting the example for other people that would attack an officer.

Lesson to this: You better respect the police & don't act like a fool.

D @ 1/25/2012 11:20 AM

If you look they did first try to deploy a tazer, however, it failed to make a good contact and the guy pulled the wires away. Once he turned toward the cops, they did what they needed to do. They would have done the same if he had turned toward a bystander. What people constantly fail to remember is that you are asking Cops to make a life altering choice in a fraction of a second. Everyone can second guess once it is over. If you can do better, apply, train and become a cop. Work a post car, answer up on the radio and handle just about every imaginary type of call possible. Better yet just do a ride along, because you are not strong enough to handle the job. Stop second guessing what happened, the video shows the need for force you morons, no retraining needed here. PERIOD.

MIke @ 1/25/2012 1:56 PM

To the "informed" individual" named Ed; after the first five shots the suspect is still standing and within range to kill one of the Officers if so inclined. The video does not show if he was still holding the ax or has dropped it, but the fact the Officer felt he or his partner were still in danger leads me to believe he still had it. Based only on what I see on the video I believe the Officer's actions were appropriate.

Cheese @ 1/25/2012 3:53 PM

Listen, he deserved to get Swiss-cheesed. Gesture foolishly with a deadly weapon? Really?

ROB ROY @ 1/25/2012 4:38 PM

Could have gone with out the coler comentary from the 2 stoner's. And some of the comment's on here. "shoot 3 time's asses then shoot again"? What idiot traine's thier officer's to do that. Most officer's in a shoot out usually have no idea how many round's they have fired. This will make a good training video thou and one more thing Good Job Guy's.

PATROL BEAT @ 1/25/2012 7:00 PM

Lt Robert Tester: Just keep judging from behind your desk while shuffling your papers. You probably have not seen street patrol in years. Now your on here saying a guy should send a dog into a deadly force situation to be killed by this idiot. The offender obviously raised that axe and the officers did exactly what they are supposed to do. How dare you come on here running your mouth second guessing these guys. Just sit in your cozy office and putting your time in till that retirement and let the real men deal with the armed subjects.

alex @ 1/25/2012 7:25 PM

Justifiable, but to laugh and joke about the death of an obviously disturbed human being I find disturbing. Generation Idiot is alive and well...

Lieutenant Dan @ 1/25/2012 8:22 PM

Not so fast, Jake from LB.

I have served in state and federal law enforcement for 31 years, and I agree completely with Ed. I find it disturbing that although you criticized his logic, in your words considering that the video was filmed "...from a cellphone camera taken from the inside of a car with wet windows and a blocked view of the suspect," you are somehow convinced nonetheless that he is incorrect and you are correct based on the very same video.

I have seen many young officers and agents come and go throughout my career. Without exception, those who succeed are willing to listen and also to learn from their mistakes. Those who fail tend to have blind loyalty to officers who are deviant or downright corrupt. They also fail because they are determined to defend the thin blue line no matter what. Based on the tone of your message, it is readily apparent that you probably are young and pretty tough, but also that you have a lot to learn. My guess is that ten years from now, if you stay on the right side of the bars, do not get killed, and become a veteran officer, you might look back at the comments you posted today and realize that you have since matured substantially. Blind loyalty is not the way to go, Jake, nor is your disrespectful response to Ed, who made a reasonable argument that you happen to disagree with.

And, speaking of listening, there were ten shots, not five, including a burst of five rounds followed by another burst of five, despite the comments by the teenagers in the car who are not credible witnesses.

I wish you well, Jake. Be careful out there.

Ash @ 1/25/2012 8:24 PM

I completely agree with you Steve E. I wish more people had your commons sense. Way too many Anti Cops and idiots out there.

True Blue @ 1/25/2012 8:43 PM

Really, Patrol Beat? "Let the real men deal with the armed subjects"? There sure is no shortage of testosterone around here. You and the other macho "real men" should go back to your jobs at the mall and then get your GED. You are the ones who shoot off your mouths, make professional cops look bad, and ultimately get your asses kicked!

DAVID @ 1/25/2012 8:58 PM

IT APPEARS THAT SOME NEED TO BRUSH UP ON U.S. SUREME COURT DECISIONS ON THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE, SIGN UP FOR A CLASS FOR JUDGEMENTAL USE OF FORCE FROM FLETC. CLASSES ARE PROVIDED FOR ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT LEO'S. WE ARE NOT THE MILITARY WHERE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT REQUIRE AND DEMAND THAT YOU," DO NOT FIRE UNLESS FIRED UPON. "IN OUR WORLD WHEN YOU ARE IN FEAR OF SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH TO SELF OR A FELLOW OFFICER/THIRD PERSON, YOU STOP THE THREAT WITH FORCE NECCESSARY. AND CONTINUE THE FORCE UNTIL THE THREAT IS STOPPED. BRAVO ZULU TO SCOTT IN FLORIDA ABOUT THE K'9. IN MY STATE, A TRAINED/CERTIFIED CANINE IS LEO IN A SENSE, IT IS A FELONY TO KILL, OR ASSAULT A POLICE CANINE. HE IS YOUR PARTNER. ARE YOU GOING TO PLACE YOUR PARTNER IN HARMS WAY WHEN YOU ARE JUSTIFIED IN DEADLY FORCE. ASK MARCUS LUTTRELL, A DECORATED NAVY SEAL ABOUT USE OF FORCE. I AM SURE HE WOULD ENLIGHTEN YOUR WORLD ABOUT ABOUT USE OF FORCE. YOU DON'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THE SITUATION. YOU RISE TO THE LEVEL OF YOUR TRAINING. ALL WE SEE ON THIS VIDEO IS A TWO DIMENSION ENGAGEMENT. HOW ABOUT US WAITING UNTIL THE TOTALITY OF THE SHOOTING COMES TO LIGHT, AND WE HAVE A 360 DEGREE FIELD OF VIEW BEFORE WE MAKE HINDSIGHT SPECULATION. THEY HAVE BEEN SOME COMMENTS MADE IN THIS FORUM, AND IN THAT DISCOVERY, I AM GLAD YOU ARE NOT MY PARTNER, YOU WOULD GET US BOTH KILLED. I AM SURE SOME MY REFLECT ON MY NARRATIVE. BUT NO ONE WON IN THE SHOOTING. THE OFFICERS SURVIVED, THE SUBJECT PERISHED. FAMILY'S WILL BE AFFECTED ON BOTH SIDES. THE OFFICER WILL MOST LIKEY SECOND GUESS HIM SELF, AND A FAMILY WILL MOURN. I KNOW, BEEN THERE, DONE THAT. EVERYTHING FROM A CORONER'S INQUEST, GRAND JURY, AND CIVIL. EVEN THOUGH JUSTIFIED, YOU DON'T WANT THAT NIGHTMARE. TAKE THE TRAINING YOU NEED FOR OFFICER SURVIVAL, NOT JUST HAND GUN SKILLS, BUT FEDERAL, AND STATE LAW, AND DEPARTMENT SOP. GO TO WORK, BE SAFE, DO A GOOD JOB, AND GO HOME ALIVE. AND WEAR YOUR VEST, I DON'T CARE HOW HOT AND UNCOMFORTABE IT IS.

serve and protect @ 1/26/2012 4:28 AM

Hey Lt. tester, The force continuum is elastic not rigid. Use of force is contingent upon what the actor/suspect is doing. To send a dog against an armed subject is likely just sending a police asset to its untimely death or serious injury. Not a great idea. I'm not feeling to bad for the decedant. Looks like a good shoot. I will however pray for those who loved him and the officers involved as i'm sure difficult times are ahead.

jim @ 1/26/2012 6:53 AM

This was all by the book. I am glad the officers are safe. The "bad guy" could have been safe if he wanted to be. He is the one that pressed the "GO" button for the officers. The outcome is his fault, not the officers. It is unfortunate that the bad guy's suffering is over. The officer's scrutiny, lawsuits, self-doubt, and suffering are just starting. But the officers did their job. The suspect was not free to leave and was not free to endanger anyone else. He was given orders and evidently did not want to follow them. He knew the possible consequences of carrying a deadly weapon and threatening the lives of the officers. Good job by the officers - but I think even they would agree that a good job can have a less than desirable outcome.

Jim

R. G. Montgomery @ 1/26/2012 9:56 AM

Lawful shoot. Clear danger, clear orders to submit, clear lack of proper response from subject.

No canine on site? Perhaps the responding officers failed to adequately prepare their 'magic canine wand' at beginning of shift? A responding officer deals with a situation with the materials at hand.

Ten shots fired. Was that excessive? I cannot see an arbitrary 'three shots' being valid; one makes sure the threat is stopped. Also, most training (qualification) course instill an idea of running the gun empty.

We cannot see the subject behind the car; we cannot see what the shooting officer saw. Was the subject lying quietly on the ground, or was he trying to regain his footing?

IF the officer erred (please note the IF), he erred on the side of caution. The officer needed to protect himself, the other officers on site and all the people with cameras watching the drama play out.

This maybe wasn't the 'best' possible outcome, but it looks better than some of the likely alternatives. Better than most.

Tom Tom @ 1/26/2012 10:55 AM

From the comments/story is appears the officers attempted multiple less lethal force options, short of using the K-9. I personally think the dog would have just gotten beaten anyway. This is a good shoot and the "director's" comments actually support the officer's actions. A few comments have stated the officers fired "too many" rounds??? I don't know how they were trained, but you shoot until the threat is ended. Doesn't matter if it is two rounds or until the slide locks back. Hopefully the officers won't lose a minute of sleep over this guy.

Capt David-Ret LA County @ 1/26/2012 6:07 PM

Good reactions. dog would not have done a thing. This guy was bent on hurting someone.

Jesse @ 1/26/2012 10:36 PM

There must be an IMMINENT THREAT OF DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. The primary duty of all members of the service is to preserve human life. Respect for human life requires that in all cases, firearms be used as a last resort, and then only to protect life and there is no other way to protect life.

Kurt @ 1/27/2012 5:17 AM

As a firearms instructor, you shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. If that takes one or 22 shoots so be it. I agree with the other officer, don't bring a axe to a gunfight. Good call by the officer. He went home that night.

Mark A. Brooks @ 1/27/2012 8:04 AM

Sounds like a lot of 20/20 hindsight positions here. Q: Was the force reasonable, not minimal? A. Yes. Q: Was another in danger of loss of life or great bodily harm? A: Yes. Q: Was the minimal amount of force required? A: Never.

Bevar @ 1/27/2012 8:18 AM

Get some!!! Cops 1, dirt bag 0.

Chad @ 1/27/2012 11:26 AM

All of your comments are understandable but I am going to give me opinion. I am a Army Military Police Veteran with two tours. After watching this video it is obvious that it will be ruled a justified shooting. What didn't happen was proper rules for use of force. Anyone can see that there were plenty of opportunities, for instance when the officer used the OC on him, he no doubt took it better than most but I can guarantee he shut his eyes and when he shook his head that was a moment for take down with use of the K-9. That dog would have took that man down in a second. He would have never had the chance to strike the dog with the ax from that distance. The dog would have closed on him in milliseconds. I am all for officer and public safety but when, through my experience I see a situation that could have been easily handled with out use of deadly force, it is unfortunate. That man could be sitting in jail alive today if that officer would have used his dog when the opportunity presented itself, and it did present itself. Another thing I disagree with, I understand there are liability laws, disease and other possible threats but when a man is shot 5+ times, the officers stand there and provide no assistance to stop bleeding that is asinine. Slap on some gloves and provide help until an ambulance arrives. By the way, during the 6 minutes a ton of blue showed up but no ambulance? Pathetic Law Enforcement work in my opinion based on what I viewed.

Mike @ 1/27/2012 2:15 PM

Tim from LA and Lt Tester, WTF... lethal force was clearly justified. Retraining in the academy??? Come on.. you can't possibly feel that. Five shots and the guy was still up. There was still a threat so five more were shot. Use the dog??? That's just stupid. A canine is a partner also. Would you tell your partner to go wrestle down a person holding an axe?? Regular guy hit the nail on the head. My only concern is, why did only one officer shoot? remember Graham v Connor. That case justifies the use of force. In this case, lethal force was completely justified and I say great job to the canine officer for holding onto the dog as well as stopping the threat. For anybody who says shoot him in the leg, doing that will not stop the threat. The leg is not a target to try aiming at during an intense situation like this. Center of mass. If you are trying to aim, try for a central nervous system hit (which is also difficult during this type of situation).

Officer Tribble @ 1/29/2012 8:50 PM

When it comes to the force continuum??? What’s that... That is a tool that is used by lawyers. Force Continuums should not be in place in any police department. Every situation is different. Police officers in the field have to make decisions within seconds. O okay lets use the force continuum here. Let’s have officers going in and go hands on with a subject with an axe. Send in the dog??? Really??? Send the dog in so that the guy kills the dog with the axe?? That is not what k9's are for.

J Brown @ 1/31/2012 8:12 AM

@ Robert Tester...you must not be very aware of the force continuum...it states that you are allowed to take one step higher than the perp is showing you. Meaning this was a justified shooting. Simple as that. Cops have to make an instant decision. There is not enough time to think, is he really going to swing that axe, or is he just playing. If you pull a toy gun on an officer, our training says gun, threat..neutralize the threat. Not lets sit and try to figure out for a few minutes and see if its a real threat...thats why you don't do the stupid things this guy pulled...not a smart decision on his part and he paid for it

RetMarE7 @ 2/1/2012 1:35 AM

Sad to see the morons in the "video chase car" are so dehumanized yet it is totally expected today. I'm a retired Sgt, many different assignments in 33 years, including DB and IA. I'd like to think a Lt. would have a better handle on this fairly well documented incident. At what point should the K9 have been sent to the slaughter? I believe the officer who fired first, possibly even the only one to fire (difficult to tell from the poor quality video) was clearly protecting his fellow officer who was most positively in imminent danger of death. He called it correctly and this was one of the most appropriate uses of force I have seen on video. It appears that lesser means were attempted at an appropriate time and the suspect raised the encounter to lethal levels. Steve E. called it exactly right, "suicide by cop". Another loser we won't have to support for the rest of his life. Hopefully Lt Tester won't be on any shooting investigations for his officers. And I think the academy that Tim from LA attended needs to re-examine it's shooting doctrine if he was taught to shoot three times and take a look. I've taught firearms since before "shoot till he's down" and it is the ONLY viable response to someone trying to kill you. Maybe Tim has never been in a life threatening situation; many officers haven't, no biggie, but if not, don't even TRY to second guess someone who's on the wrong end of a deadly weapon.

Drive slow...shoot fast...stay safe...

RetMarE7 @ 2/1/2012 2:00 AM

Hey Chad, Buddy... STAY IN THE ARMY!!!! You apparently know everything about law enforcement, sounds like it anyway, right where you are. Dogs fly through the air in milliseconds?? REALLY?? You actually went through Ft. Gordon? I know today's Army is smarter than you are portraying with your comments. I'm sorry, not to you Chad, but to the other readers, for turning this somewhat personal. I try to avoid that. I must have just hit your comments when I'd gotten full of all the Bull Shit flying through the air in milliseconds. Take a step back and stop being so full of yourself and all you know about the law and swift treatment of injured combatants who just tried to kill you before they are secured. Good luck with your Wal Mart greeter job when you get out...

Joe Joe @ 2/6/2012 12:28 AM

Bad guy threatened with Deadly Force, the police only did as Trained. The Threat was nutralized. The World is safe again.

deputy @ 2/22/2012 8:01 AM

The officers did what they had to...the taser obviously did not work and we are trained to go to the next level necessary and in this case it was the officers gun. just because the the bad guy didnt have a gun does not mean that he couldnt have seriously hurt or killed the officers. Well done guys!

Public Servant @ 3/4/2012 9:57 PM

The point being... The boys in blue are going home SAFE!!! No matter what the "Stoners" filming are commenting about. Idiots.

Jake @ 3/11/2012 5:49 PM

O.I.C. opportunity, intent, capability, the suspect met all three grounds for use of deadly force. As far as setting the K-9 lose for lesser force on the force continuum that's ignorant for two reasons. Reson 1) K-9 is considered deadly force, and reason 2) why put another officer in danger. From what is seen here the officer did nothing wrong, man came at his partner with an axe and he shot him.

Jim @ 3/15/2012 12:56 PM

As far as I'm concerned the suspect failed to follow commands from the Officers on scene. When the suspect raised the axe to come at the Officer that pepper sprayed the armed suspect, the cover Officer was justified in using deadly force, the actions of the Armed Suspect lead to him being shot. In this dangerous situation I would personally consider the actions of the Armed suspect as an immediate threat to the Officer that would of probably have gotten hit with the axe. The Officers on scene did what they had to do to stop the threat and If I was in there position I would have done the same thing! Job well done boys!!!

Travis Davis @ 3/27/2012 11:32 AM

I think the officer who fired saved the other from harm. If you look closely the other officer was distracted and didnt realize the guy was coming at him. He could not even of gotten his gun out fast enough before that guy could of hit him.

Mike @ 4/1/2012 5:49 PM

Good job Officers

No one special @ 1/25/2013 11:33 PM

@Jim whom posted at 6:53am. You hit the nail on the head, sir. You and a few of the others that took into consideration the welfare of the officer forced to discharge his firearm; his family and the family of the BG.
As a Citizen on the outside looking into the world of a LEO. I stand by the actions of all LEOs on that scene and glad all LEOS will be going home to their familes at the end of their tour. They also prevented the public (even the knuckleheads doing video and laughing) from injury.
Even courses I have taken before even considering carry discrete on a daily basis teach to fire to stop the threat. If it takes all 14 rounds to stop the threat then damn it I will expend all that are loaded in my firearm. You will hear many times the wording "the officer feared for his life" which goes for a citizen using deadly/lethal force.
Good job fellas, keep up the good work. Too many Honor Guard with Pipe and Drum services.

FKthePolice @ 7/3/2013 8:28 PM

That was a excessive. Obviously he was just trying to be a tough guy. He wasn't swinging that bar. We let cops get away with to much

InTheField @ 7/14/2013 4:16 AM

For all those posting comments about a use of force continuum.... This is no longer viewed as safe or valid practice. If it is still being used by your Agency/Dept. I urge you to pressure that Dept. to re-evaluate their policy and refer to current law enforcement teachings throughout the country. It hasn't been valid for years. This is what causes officers to hesitate and be killed or seriously injured. As for the comment about excessive shots.... Really? As a fellow law enforcement officer... Please guys, I don't care if you've got 20 years of experience... Keep an open mind to new training and studies. 3 rounds to the center mass will not stop an aggressor in their tracks. There is no such thing as take 3 shots and re-evaluate. I don't know what academy or Dept/Agency teaches that, but it is a suicidal practice. You shoot to eliminate the threat. The old school mindset is no longer valid. It's been proven in blood many times over. I don't want to lose another brother in blue because they were too set in their ways. Guys, this is not a dig....... We have all lost brothers. Don't let their deaths be in vein! Learn from them! Action is faster than reaction. Stay safe and keep and open mind.

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Videos


Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine