Police shoot man as he beats toddler

zombieturtle01 said:
I hope you are kidding? The guy was refusing to listen to anyone, he was beating a child to death. If anything, they should have shot him earlier, because apparently, they were a little to late.

I would have shot the guy in a heartbeat after not responding to the first warning.
Click to expand...

So, anybody who beats kids to death should be shot? Well, I guess lets get me up on the Firing Range!
 
CyberPitz said:
So, anybody who beats kids to death should be shot?
Click to expand...

A sheriff's helicopter responding to emergency calls from the area landed in a cow pasture at 10:19 p.m. carrying a Modesto police officer who shot the man to death after he refused an order to stop beating the child
Click to expand...

He refused to stop beating the child, says right there. So what are you suggesting the cop do? :rolleyes:

Officer Steve: "Hey, Officer Dan, he won't stop beating this child to death, I gave him an order, but he won't stop. What should I do?"

Officer Dan: "Did you try 'please'? Or any of the other magic words? 'Pretty Please With Sugar on Top'?"

Officer Steve: "Oh! No, hold on............ Hey! HEYY! STOP BEATING THAT CHILD TO DEATH PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP?"

*man continues beating child to death*

Officer Dan: "Hmm... a tough one to crack... Warn him about Santa, tell him he won't get any presents this year"
 
I can see what they're saying, ZT. My revenge and eye for an eye side agrees with the shooting, but what happened to tackling the guy, tasing the guy, or any other forceful means of taking him down?

"They tried to intervene and get involved, but their efforts really didn't have an effect. The suspect was engaged in what he was doing. He just pushed them off and went back to it."
Click to expand...

What the ****? Beat the mother****er down with your ****ing billy club, asshole. If he was still alive, the court system would through the book at him, he would never see free ground outside the prison and he would most definitely be someone's (if not more than one) bitch when they found out what he did.
 
zombieturtle01 said:
He refused to stop beating the child, says right there. So what are you suggesting the cop do? :rolleyes:

Officer Steve: "Hey, Officer Dan, he won't stop beating this child to death, I gave him an order, but he won't stop. What should I do?"

Officer Dan: "Did you try 'please'? Or any of the other magic words? 'Pretty Please With Sugar on Top'?"

Officer Steve: "Oh! No, hold on............ Hey! HEYY! STOP BEATING THAT CHILD TO DEATH PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP?"

*man continues beating child to death*

Officer Dan: "Hmm... a tough one to crack... Warn him about Santa, tell him he won't get any presents this year"
Click to expand...

There are more options between an order and the use of a firearm. I know, it's terrible what he was doing, but as already said, he could of been tackled, subdued, brought down by forces such as a baton, tazar...
 
The use of lethal force here was completely justified IMO. Sure, you could argue that non-lethal alternatives were available at the time. But I'm not going to fault anybody for pulling the trigger in this situation.

Bye, scumbag.
 
TheAntipop said:
There are more options between an order and the use of a firearm. I know, it's terrible what he was doing, but as already said, he could of been tackled, subdued, brought down by forces such as a baton, tazar...
Click to expand...

Yeah they could have, but who cares? One less sick bastard in this world taking up tax dollars and filling more prison space is how I see it. The officer deserves a medal
 
Oh yeah, I'm pretty supportive that this guy was brought down in such a way, it just seemed that ZT, from his post, wasn't aware of these other options.

EDIT: I only just saw Qonfused's post. New page n' all...
 
The lack of respect for justice and the rule of law is astounding in this thread.
 
Absinthe said:
The use of lethal force here was completely justified IMO. Sure, you could argue that non-lethal alternatives were available at the time. But I'm not going to fault anybody for pulling the trigger in this situation.
Click to expand...

^This.

TheAntipop said:
Oh yeah, I'm pretty supportive that this guy was brought down in such a way, it just seemed that ZT, from his post, wasn't aware of these other options.
Click to expand...

This is not some situation in which I would waste time tackling a grown man holding a child.

How the hell is one officer supposed to successfully tackle a grown man while protecting a dying child, the people around, and himself?
The Cop had every right to shoot him and I'm glad that was the choice made in the end. Sometimes I don't think people realize some of the shit cops have to deal with. It's easy to look at it from your computer and say "Oh, wrong thing to do Officer", but it's a lot different in his shoes. I think the majority of us put in the cop's position would have shot him too. It's always easy to say you'd do "the better thing" (but personally I believe the better thing was done in this situation)
 
theotherguy said:
The lack of respect for justice and the rule of law is astounding in this thread.
Click to expand...

That you even care about that considering what the man was doing is what I find astounding.

And I'm sure the rule of law will find the officer's behavior perfectly acceptable. Is there actually a solid case against him? Even if there is, I applaud the man any way.
 
zombieturtle01 said:
^This.



This is not some situation in which I would waste time tackling a grown man holding a child.

How the hell is one officer supposed to successfully tackle a grown man while protecting a dying child, the people around, and himself?
The Cop had every right to shoot him and I'm glad that was the choice made in the end. Sometimes I don't think people realize some of the shit cops have to deal with. It's easy to look at it from your computer and say "Oh, wrong thing to do Officer", but I'm sure it's a lot different in his shoes.
Click to expand...

He still should have tried. The point of law enforcement is to subdue criminals and bring them to justice, not kill them.

However, I don't know anything about the situation. It may have been the case that the only hope of saving the child involved shooting the man.
 
Absinthe said:
That you even care about that considering what the man was doing is what I find astounding.

And I'm sure the rule of law will find the officer's behavior perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the court would see it as an act of self-defense on the officer's part, considering that the child's life was in danger.

But to apprehend a criminal and bring him to justice is always preferable to simply killing him. Without this, there would be anarchy and vigilante justice.
 
ZT; I'm pretty sure officers are trained to deal with much more tougher situations than that. Officers are trained to bring down suspects with a weapon or manner of agrivation, so I'm pretty sure he could of brought down a man with his mind preoccupied (sadly, on the child) elsewhere.

I'm going to presume that at the time of when the officer shot the suspect that the child was out of his arms, otherwise he wouldn't of taken the shot because of the risk it would of posed to hitting the child instead. Or maybe he did fire regardless and got lucky, but still could of potentially hit the wrong person which would of been my main concern if I was the officer.
 
theotherguy said:
He still should have tried. The point of law enforcement is to subdue criminals and bring them to justice, not kill them.

However, I don't know anything about the situation. It may have been the case that the only hope of saving the child involved shooting the man.
Click to expand...

See, you are assuming the cop has the option to "try". "Oh, well he could have tried to tackle him" Key word their is tried, which implies that the attempt might not be successful.

When a man is beating a child to death there is no time for trying to stop him. A gun does not try to stop a man, it does stop a man. And in this situation that's what was important. Doing, not trying.
 
Hes lucky I wasn't that ****ing police officer or bullets would have the least of his problems. I'm thinking a long slow painful death with various tortures along the way. For a start.
 
zombieturtle01 said:
He refused to stop beating the child, says right there. So what are you suggesting the cop do? :rolleyes:

Officer Steve: "Hey, Officer Dan, he won't stop beating this child to death, I gave him an order, but he won't stop. What should I do?"

Officer Dan: "Did you try 'please'? Or any of the other magic words? 'Pretty Please With Sugar on Top'?"

Officer Steve: "Oh! No, hold on............ Hey! HEYY! STOP BEATING THAT CHILD TO DEATH PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP?"

*man continues beating child to death*

Officer Dan: "Hmm... a tough one to crack... Warn him about Santa, tell him he won't get any presents this year"
Click to expand...

The hell, is your damned Sarcasm detector off?
 
zombieturtle01 said:
See, you are assuming the cop has the option to "try". "Oh, well he could have tried to tackle him" Key word their is tried, which implies that the attempt might not be successful.

When a man is beating a child to death there is no time for trying to stop him. A gun does not try to stop a man, it does stop a man. And in this situation that's what was important. Doing, not trying.
Click to expand...

Thats a shit argument. The only reason the gun worked was because he "tried" to shoot him in the same way he would "try" to tackle him.

Im with Theotherguy here. The man should have faced justice, and the cop should have tried to subdue the man before killing him.

That said, im not sad to see him gone.
 
Krynn72 said:
Thats a shit argument. The only reason the gun worked was because he "tried" to shoot him in the same way he would "try" to tackle him.

Im with Theotherguy here. The man should have faced justice, and the cop should have tried to subdue the man before killing him.
Click to expand...

Alright, lets weigh the probability here.

A cop successfully stopping a man by tackling him before he further injures an already severely beaten child< A bullet successfully stopping a man by being fired by a cop before he further injures an already severely beaten child.

No time to waste, and a bullet wastes no time.
 
I think you mis-understand the time it takes between the two actions. Police are trained to take down suspets with their hands by means of force, and yes, it involves a bit of rough and tumble but done correctly it's over in a matter of seconds.

To raise your firearm and take a shot takes a reasonable amount of time, too - perhaps more. For starters he had to make sure the child was out of the shot, and then he'd have to take into thought the people around him. On top of that he's obviously got to make sure the shot will actually hit and count. Steadying your weapon in a situation like that... well, I can't talk from experience but I imagine it's very different from lining up a weapon in a relexed environment like a firing range. Very different.

No one knows the full detail of what happened, but for any of this to make sense I'd presume the child was out of his arms. The article says the child was being dropped and stomped on, perhaps this was then the time the officer took the shot. That would be the ideal time to take a shot because the child is out of the upper-torse area, but it would of also been a good time to intervene with a different kind of force.
 
You're assuming a cop can hit the suspect with the gun with more ease than tackling him. I've seen plenty of videos where cops shoot dozens of bullets at someone and they hit the guy like once if they're lucky.

Not to mention using a gun is a more dangerous option than tackling. What if he'd missed? There were 2 or 3 cars there they said, which meant there was 2 or 3 bystanders, plus an elderly couple.

You're also assuming the cop's only alternative was to tackle the man. Cops have tazer guns, pepper spray and nightsticks. All of which would have been just as successful in stopping the man as a gun, but without the dangerous lethality of it.
 
You can't second guess him you weren't there. He obviously did what he thought was right at the time in order to try and save the kid's life.

I'm against capital punishment but killing as punishment for crime is entirely different from killing to prevent a murder.

(All hail the Age of Kali.)
 
Hey, lets also not forget you know, that the crazy guy beating a 2 year old to death on the side of the road might have a knife or a gun on him, and judging from the story I don't think would hesitate to use it on a cop trying to tackle him.
 
Except for that the man was preoccpied beating said poor child to a pulp. A baton puts a man to the floor when it comes into contact with the body with enough amount of force behind it; pepper spray disables the uses of the persons eyes and puts them into a world of disorientation; a tazer is a **** load of pain, enough to severely stop someone in their tracks.

Officers under go crowd control, riot control and situation control. They are trained to handle these types of people.
 
zombieturtle01 said:
Hey, lets also not forget you know, that the crazy guy beating a 2 year old to death on the side of the road might have a knife or a gun on him, and judging from the story I don't think would hesitate to use it on a cop trying to tackle him.
Click to expand...

Others had already tried to stop him, why would he have hesitated then?
 
We also shouldn't forget that someone who has lost mental stability can have the strength of 5-7 people, and someone who's beating a toddler to a bloody mess clearly has more than a few screws loose. It was a good thing he was shot, and the right thing to do.
 
Mental stability has nothing to do with physical strength.
 
My father worked security for years and that was part of his training, so I'm afraid you're wrong. A vast degree of our strength is limited by our conscience and our self preservation. Once those decay, a person can become nearly unstoppable by normal force.
 
Apparently a bullet works well too.


Best way to handle it quickly and effectively. I am willing to bet anyone else here in the situation of the cop would have done the same.

GreatBlackthorn said:
My father worked security for years and that was part of his training, so I'm afraid you're wrong. A vast degree of our strength is limited by our conscience and our self preservation.
Click to expand...

Quite True.
 
zombieturtle01 said:
Apparently a bullet works well too.


Best way to handle it quickly and effectively. I am willing to bet anyone else here in the situation of the cop would have done the same.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that taking a life is a simple decision, a simple action? Don't get me wrong, I'd be sickened by the sight of this nutjob doing what he was doing but I'd still like to think I could retain my anger from having to kill somebody.

Though, I suppose some people can tolerate taking a life which is why we have soldiers killing others. Some of which go into the armed forces with that mentality, some of which have came out of training like that. But this is the police force - killing is not the first and foremost option.
 
Life of a murderous scumbag<life of a dying innocent child.
 
At what point does a man stamping a toddler to death not warrant the last option?
 
In the time he took to ready his weapon he could have tackled him or stopped him an a non-lethal fashion. All it would have taken is a shove the cop would have all the time he needed to subdue him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
11K
Barnz
B
B
The other cancelled ports of Half-Life
Replies
3
Views
7K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Half-Life 2: Episode Two - Cyril, Fred, and friends
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
Back
Top