News Is Police Use of Force Justified in Shooting a Man 46 Times?

[Maui]

Police shoot 46 times an agitated man with a knife standing 20 feet from them. Sounds rather excessive and like vendetta to me. What do you think?





I have only seen similar cases in Brazil, is there something we are missing?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What makes you think it is a vendetta rather than an example of poor judgement and poor training? This event took place a few months ago on July 1st. The result has been one officer demoted and two disciplined. From what I just read of the story (can't watch the video at the moment, no sound on my computer) the man who they shot was a mentally ill homeless man with a knife. Leaving aside for a moment whether or not shooting him was necessary it's staggering how many bullets they fired and how little hit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mich-police-supervisor-demoted-2-officers-disciplined-after-homeless-mans-shooting-death/2012/09/21/bb33bc1c-0405-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html

According to investigators, Hall refused to drop a knife and six officers fired 46 shots at him, hitting him 11 times. Video taken on another witness’s cellphone and later obtained by CNN showed Hall collapsing in a hail of gunfire after police ordered him to drop the knife.

 

[russ_watters]

Leaving aside for a moment whether or not shooting him was necessary it's staggering how many bullets they fired and how little hit.

Have you ever fired a handgun? That's their dirty little secret.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Have you ever fired a handgun? That's their dirty little secret.

No only airguns. I do appreciate that accuracy is not like it is in the movies and in many situations it's extremely difficult to hit the target*. However this situation seems not to be one and even so I would hope that police offices are A) trained to be very good shots to avoid endangering bystanders and B) trained not to shoot of the chances of missing are so high and there is no immediate danger.

*This is what often annoys me about statements along the lines of "if someone in that movie theatre/lecture hall/walmart had had a gun they could have shot that crazed gunman!" In crowded places with lots of panic, confusion, fear and noise having adrenaline pumped members of the public firing weapons really doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

[Maui]

What makes you think it is a vendetta rather than an example of poor judgement and poor training?

It seems like a vendetta, not that it is one. From the video it doesn't seem like there was an immediate danger to any of the 6 officers who were holding loaded guns and the homeless man a knife.

Just watching the video and what unfolds it's hard to say who is deranged and who is not(and if there is one who is not).

BTW, I think jail time is more appropriate in such cases than additional training.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It seems like a vendetta, not that it is one.

We seem to be using the term differently. A vendetta to me is a prolonged state of hostility towards a party with frequent attacks and counter attacks.

BTW, I think jail time is more appropriate in such cases than additional training.

Interesting that this statement reads from mine something I did not say. I did not say that the appropriate response towards those officers was more training but that problems like this come about from poor judgement and poor training.

 

[Maui]

It does seem somewhat like a revenge(vendetta), the murder seems totally uncalled for.

My comment about the additional training was in response to your comment that one of the officers had been demoted and 2 others disciplined. Both the officers and the judge seem to entice such behavior if that is their best response to the murder. The least they could do was aim at the legs, but 46 shots in cold blood? How do these people sleep at night?

 

[wuliheron]

I doubt it was a vendetta killing, but if you think cops value every life the same think again. They see the absolute worst that humanity has to offer day in and day out and it definitely gets to them. Among other problems they have a high suicide rate, high divorce rate, and high crime rate. Such things just go with the territory and is one reason for the old saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[f95toli]

Note that police officers are generally trained to fire multiple shoots, and this is for several reasons: firstly, because many bullets will miss, secondly because even an injured person can hurt you. especially if the person is on drugs which counteract the shock effect of being shot), e.g. crack-cocaine.

46 does sound like a loot, but unless I am misstaken a "by the book" shooting by six officers should results in something like 20 shots being fired (at least 2-4 per officer).

Also, normal police officers are rarely "highly trained" when it comes to handling firearms. Here in the UK there are specialist firearm-teams (since regular PCs are unarmed), but many of the incidents they are involved in are still very controversial, often because people have unrealistic expectaions due to having watched too many movies.

 

[Pkruse]

A trained law enforcement officer fires an average of 3.5 rounds for every one that hits. Once they start firing, they continue to shoot until the gun is empty. That is what I was told when I took a firearms class taught by the police department. That is consistent with their training, at least according to this class.

 

[leroyjenkens]

A trained law enforcement officer fires an average of 3.5 rounds for every one that hits. Once they start firing, they continue to shoot until the gun is empty. That is what I was told when I took a firearms class taught by the police department. That is consistent with their training, at least according to this class.

Why would you be trained to fire until the gun is empty? That makes no sense. If you fire twice and the suspect is on the ground not moving, why would you fire 10+ more shots?

 

[Pkruse]

At the time when I was taking that class, I was also working with a group of Navy SEALs so I put that question to them. They said that was good training policy, and in many cases that is the best action to take. More highly trained soldiers know when to conserve ammo and when not, but most armies and police forces are trained that if they have to fire the weapon, then they need to put a lot of lead in the air. Most people are not able to stop shooting under the pressure of the situation anyway. If you ask them immediately afterwards how many rounds they fired they will say 3 or 4, but the gun is empty.

That sent me out to research the psychology and tactical theory behind that, and found that training has always been this way since the days of the flintlock. Most people have such a deep subconscious aversion to killing anyone that it makes accurate aiming impossible in situations that require immediate action. Even people who do very well in training simulations will often miss when it is for real. When it is all done you might have a thousand shots fired by many people, nobody aiming accurately, ten hits and nobody knows for sure who made the kill shot. It is extremely rare to find someone who can be a sniper that makes one shot and one kill, even the ones who can put all the rounds in the bulls eye of a paper target at a thousand yards cannot take accurate aim and kill a person.

 

[f95toli]

Why would you be trained to fire until the gun is empty? That makes no sense. If you fire twice and the suspect is on the ground not moving, why would you fire 10+ more shots?

It doesn't take many seconds to completely empty a gun, the gun will in general be empty LONG before the suspect is on the ground.
Also, again, remember that most of the bullets will probably miss.

 

[Integral]

While I appreciate doing things by the books, do they not bother teaching the police to think?

Locally we had a incident over Labor Day weekend. The bad guy broke into the local pawn shop at 4:30am and set off the alarm, the cops arrived shortly and heard a shot. Open book, turn off mind. At 7:30am I was walking my dog in a (not to) nearby park and heard a megaphone, which suddenly became clear. "PUT YOUR HANDS UP! You are not listening! Put your hands up" This phrase was repeated several times that I heard.

What was happening? That single shot was the bad guy attempting suicide by blowing his face off with a shotgun loaded with bird shot. By 5:00am the guy was blind and totally helpless. They fired multiple canisters of tear gas, totally destroying most of the inventory of the store before finally sending in a robot to determine the bad guy was not going to harm them.

I am surprised the bad guy didn't succeed in dying while the cops stood around out side yelling at him to come out. Not clear to me why this could not have been resolved in a few minutes but then I evidently do not read the same books as the cops.

This BTW was my step sons place of employment.

 

[Pkruse]

I've seen a police instructor empty 18 rounds in less than two seconds. That was with a timer and not a guess.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

One thing that's not mentioned also is the standard issue guns used by the NY police are fitted with 12 lbf triggers, which is a very high trigger pull if you're not familiar. Supposedly this helps prevent accidental firing (dubious IMO) but more importantly has a seriously detrimental effect on shot placement. Many policemen have to resort to poor firing form including having to use both index fingers to pull the trigger.

For reference, a "standard" trigger pull on a Glock for example is about 5.5 lbf, and sig-sauers with heavy trigger pulls are about 7 lbf. Target pistols are reduced to around the 3 lbf range (because a lighter trigger means its easier to stay on target when you pull). I don't know how you're supposed to stay on target with a 12 lbf trigger!

 

[Pkruse]

A local deputy told me that they all make personal adjustments to their own gun, and they have a choice to carry what was issued or to provide their own. I guess things are different down here in the south.

 

[Hurkyl]

It was not a sporting event. It was not a gentlemanly duel. There was no relevant notion of "sportsmanship" involved.

It was a fight to kill one person before he could kill another.

There is no practical difference between killing him with 40 bullets and killing him with 400 bullets: either way, the guy ends up dead. If you're going to kill someone to protect yourself and others, it's stupid to use half-hearted measures: all that accomplishes is to make it all the more likely that two people will wind up dead that day.

 

[russ_watters]

While I would generally agree, that doesn't address the issue of bystanders. In this case, police shot nine bystanders to take down one gun-wielding man: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577611553836585324.html

 

[russ_watters]

It does seem somewhat like a revenge(vendetta), the murder seems totally uncalled for.

Your use of inappropriate words like "murder" and "vendetta" is not helpful here. The word "vendetta", I don't think you actually know what it means, while "murder" is you asserting as a fact that the killing was done purposely illegally, which is, at best, far from proven. Statements like these have a tendency to short-circuit reasonable discussion and should be avoided.

The least they could do was aim at the legs, but 46 shots in cold blood? How do these people sleep at night?

Police officers are not allowed to shoot at the legs. The reason is simple: Shooting someone may kill them, so police must assume it will and shoot only with the intent to kill and only in a situation that warrants it. Use of guns has to be treated in such a black and white way, because what you suggest would both increase the use of guns and increase the risk of injury for the police.

 

[russ_watters]

At the time when I was taking that class, I was also working with a group of Navy SEALs so I put that question to them. They said that was good training policy, and in many cases that is the best action to take. More highly trained soldiers know when to conserve ammo and when not, but most armies and police forces are trained that if they have to fire the weapon, then they need to put a lot of lead in the air. Most people are not able to stop shooting under the pressure of the situation anyway. If you ask them immediately afterwards how many rounds they fired they will say 3 or 4, but the gun is empty.

It is unfortunate, but I agree that this has to be the case. Police in particular spend most of their time on the job, not in training (unlike soldiers) and most only face such a situation once or twice in a 40 year career (also unlike soldiers, at least in wartime). It would be very difficult to train cops to be able to handle such a situation more rationally.

 

[Drakkith]

Both the officers and the judge seem to entice such behavior if that is their best response to the murder. The least they could do was aim at the legs, but 46 shots in cold blood? How do these people sleep at night?

You ALWAYS aim for center mass when shooting. This gives the highest chance to hit someone. Once you draw your weapon and start firing the time for non-lethal methods is over.

A local deputy told me that they all make personal adjustments to their own gun, and they have a choice to carry what was issued or to provide their own. I guess things are different down here in the south.

Yes, my dad did the same thing as an officer. As a qualified sniper he had a new trigger installed, as the original was extremely hard to pull and was giving him trouble during training.

 

[Drakkith]

It is unfortunate, but I agree that this has to be the case. Police in particular spend most of their time on the job, not in training (unlike soldiers) and most only face such a situation once or twice in a 40 year career (also unlike soldiers, at least in wartime). It would be very difficult to train cops to be able to handle such a situation more rationally.

Agreed. It is incredibly difficult to prepare someone for a life or death situation such as an encounter with an armed suspect. There is no reasonable amount or type of training that can make people not react with near-absolute terror when it happens. That's why training focuses on making you automatically react without having to think at all, because when the times comes you won't be able to think nor will you have time to anyways.

 

[Jack21222]

I've seen a police instructor empty 18 rounds in less than two seconds. That was with a timer and not a guess.

What kind of gun was this? And was he accurate? I used to own a 9mm Springfield, and I cannot fathom anybody shooting that thing every 0.1 seconds with the kick. Of course, I didn't have a lot of training, so there's that... but still, I'd imagine the kick would make somebody firing that fast pretty inaccurate.

There is no practical difference between killing him with 40 bullets and killing him with 400 bullets: either way, the guy ends up dead. If you're going to kill someone to protect yourself and others, it's stupid to use half-hearted measures: all that accomplishes is to make it all the more likely that two people will wind up dead that day.

You really don't want to have an extra 360 bullets flying around, ricocheting off of whatever they end up hitting.

 

[Aero51]

There is a name for this phenomenon and it is very common: contagious shooting. In a loose sense it is related to why 1 person yawning causes everyone to yawn in a room.

 

[russ_watters]

That's why training focuses on making you automatically react without having to think at all, because when the times comes you won't be able to think nor will you have time to anyways.

And react in a way that works with your impulse instead of against it.

 

[Pkruse]

Jack: I don't remember which gun he used for that. He had several with him.

Concerning hitting bystanders with rounds that richochet or pass thru a wall or something, the officers in this class had eliminated that concern by loading with frangible rounds. They are very expensive and the officers paid for them themselves. The other two magazines on thru belt had conventional bullets in them, but those also they upgraded from standard issue with their own funds. Those were for if they had to shoot thru glass or a car door.

 

[edward]

What kind of gun was this? And was he accurate? I used to own a 9mm Springfield, and I cannot fathom anybody shooting that thing every 0.1 seconds with the kick. Of course, I didn't have a lot of training, so there's that... but still, I'd imagine the kick would make somebody firing that fast pretty inaccurate.

It is called bump firing. The weapon is usually supported against an object or the hip.
The finger doesn't move the weapon does.

 

[edward]

Back on Topic. With six officers why no taser or rubber bullets??

I know 20ft away makes it difficult. I just watched a video from Germany. The bad guy was holding a knife to a woman's throat. One officer maneuvered around and used a taser to take the assailant down.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Back on Topic. With six officers why no taser or rubber bullets??

I know 20ft away makes it difficult. I just watched a video from Germany. The bad guy was holding a knife to a woman's throat. One officer maneuvered around and used a taser to take the assailant down.

I guess it really depends on the situation. It definitely would not be a wise idea for a group of policemen to open fire on a situation like that, because it would almost definitely result in injuring or killing the woman along with the assailant.

 

[edward]

I guess it really depends on the situation. It definitely would not be a wise idea for a group of policemen to open fire on a situation like that, because it would almost definitely result in injuring or killing the woman along with the assailant.

That doesn't explain why it was necessary for police to open fire when there was no hostage.

This type of incident is happening all to often. Six police officers left their common sense at home.

 

[BobG]

What makes you think it is a vendetta rather than an example of poor judgement and poor training? This event took place a few months ago on July 1st. The result has been one officer demoted and two disciplined. From what I just read of the story (can't watch the video at the moment, no sound on my computer) the man who they shot was a mentally ill homeless man with a knife. Leaving aside for a moment whether or not shooting him was necessary it's staggering how many bullets they fired and how little hit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/mich-police-supervisor-demoted-2-officers-disciplined-after-homeless-mans-shooting-death/2012/09/21/bb33bc1c-0405-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html

Only the supervisor was disciplined for issues related directly to the shooting. The two other officers were disciplined for maintaining/operating audio/visual equipment (microphone batteries dead, for example).

No only airguns. I do appreciate that accuracy is not like it is in the movies and in many situations it's extremely difficult to hit the target*. However this situation seems not to be one and even so I would hope that police offices are A) trained to be very good shots to avoid endangering bystanders and B) trained not to shoot of the chances of missing are so high and there is no immediate danger.

*This is what often annoys me about statements along the lines of "if someone in that movie theatre/lecture hall/walmart had had a gun they could have shot that crazed gunman!" In crowded places with lots of panic, confusion, fear and noise having adrenaline pumped members of the public firing weapons really doesn't seem like a good idea.

A) As others mentioned, if you're to the point where you're defending yourself with a handgun, precise aiming isn't realistic. The key is to put as many bullets in the air as possible, assuming that at close range, at least some will hit.

B) This goes into the decision of whether to shoot in the first place. Police are trained to look at what's behind their target and what/who else can be hit before they decide to shoot (russ's story isn't the same situation - in that situation, local bystanders were likely to be shot regardless of whether the police or the gunman were firing the bullets).

Given the discipline handed out, the police followed the correct procedures for the most part, but the supervisor didn't make very good decisions (two separate abilities). Given the intensity of the situation, making poor decisions is a distinct possibility for a lot of people, although you hope you're picking good decisionmakers to be supervisors.

There's nothing criminal about it and demoting the supervisor seems like the appropriate action.

 

[Mdhiggenz]

This is sickening, if he was 20 ft away they simply should have used a tazer.

 

[Jack21222]

A) As others mentioned, if you're to the point where you're defending yourself with a handgun, precise aiming isn't realistic. The key is to put as many bullets in the air as possible, assuming that at close range, at least some will hit.

I have to disagree with this. Putting many bullets in the air, particularly inaccurate ones, can lead to bystanders being hit. It seems to me like taking their time and firing a few shots each will lessen that possibility.

 

[Hurkyl]

I have to disagree with this. Putting many bullets in the air, particularly inaccurate ones, can lead to bystanders being hit. It seems to me like taking their time and firing a few shots each will lessen that possibility.

The presence of human shields makes for a very different scenario. While it is an important one, it is somewhat disingenuous to critique the use of a procedure for one situation by bringing up the drawbacks it would have in a very different situation.

Back on Topic. With six officers why no taser or rubber bullets??

From what little I know (hopefully someone will correct me if any of this is wrong), those are completely inappropriate weapons for the situation, being engineered more for deterrence and compliance than for combat.

Rubber bullets generally don't stop people: their intention is to cause pain as a deterrent. Shoot them at a knife-wielding opponent, and he probably won't even notice the pain until well after you're dead.

And the taser, as I understand, would be even less reliable than the handgun: few shots, and a shot being on target isn't enough to actually score a hit.

Also, I have some recollection that a good hit won't immediately stop someone in an intense combat situation anyways, but I am less sure about that.Of course, these would be appropriate if the situation had not yet escalated beyond the point where they are appropriate. I admit I have no inclination to watch the video, and I'm not qualified to judge anyways.Also, I would be extremely surprised if rubber bullets are a reasonable option anyways. If a cop keeps a gun so that he can use it for lethal force when needed, then he can't keep it loaded with rubber bullets. I imagine (but do not know) that keeping two guns, one with lethal bullets and one with rubber bullets is a huge disaster waiting to happen.

That doesn't explain why it was necessary for police to open fire when there was no hostage.

Police are allowed to protect themselves, y'know.

 

[Jack21222]

The presence of human shields makes for a very different scenario.

Nobody said a word about "human shields." Bullets can travel pretty far and can ricochet.

 

[MarneMath]

People hear 20 feet, knife, and think "Ok that's a safe distance, he wasn't a threat!" To those people, I ask you to get a fake gun, holster it, have someone stand 20 feet away, sprint towards you. See how long it takes you to pull it out and fire and hope for a good hit. Imagine doing that with your heart racing.

I know from personal experience how quickly a person can close on a target. I've seen people get hit by m4 rounds and still move as if nothing hit him.


However, I will say this. It's hard to justify shooting that many rounds and so wildly. I don't particularly care if that is how an officer is trained or not. I do believe that this could've been handled better, but I wasn't there so I won't state it like a fact.

 

[Hurkyl]

Nobody said a word about "human shields." Bullets can travel pretty far and can ricochet.

I'm using "shield" in the "If you shoot at this guy, you'll hit other people" sense, not the "There are people physically interposed between him and you" sense.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And when they saw what they had done, they shot another 41.

 

[Jack21222]

I'm using "shield" in the "If you shoot at this guy, you'll hit other people" sense, not the "There are people physically interposed between him and you" sense.

This happened in a parking lot with people close enough to take a cell phone video of it, and the officers only hit their target less than 25% of the time.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying they shouldn't have shot. I just think they shouldn't have used the "spray and pray" method. With my little training (half a dozen times at a range, but that's it), I'm pretty sure I could hit a target more than a quarter of a time at 20 feet (provided I only fired 4 shots, and not 8 like these officers.) These guys have gone through an official training program, surely they can be more accurate.

 

[Hurkyl]

This happened in a parking lot with people close enough to take a cell phone video of it, and the officers only hit their target less than 25% of the time.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying they shouldn't have shot. I just think they shouldn't have used the "spray and pray" method. With my little training (half a dozen times at a range, but that's it), I'm pretty sure I could hit a target more than a quarter of a time at 20 feet (provided I only fired 4 shots, and not 8 like these officers.) These guys have gone through an official training program, surely they can be more accurate.

A stationary target, in a controlled situation, that is not a live human being. And you only mention hitting the target, not stopping it.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Policemen in this country are scum. Scum and then some.

 

[turbo]

The title of this thread should be "Police shoot AT a man over 40 times." Very different. I have a Glock Model 20 chambered for 10mm Auto. It was supposed to be the "equalizer" for police departments, except most cops couldn't qualify on the range with it. The gun-rags at the time blamed it on a higher percentage of women and foreigners on the forces, saying that their "smaller hands" wouldn't let them handle the recoil. That is a fake argument. I have pretty small hands, and can handle a 10mm Auto much better than some bigger guys that have tried it.

 

[f95toli]

I'm pretty sure I could hit a target more than a quarter of a time at 20 feet (provided I only fired 4 shots, and not 8 like these officers.) These guys have gone through an official training program, surely they can be more accurate.

No you couldn't.
Again, there is HUGE difference between shooting at targets, and shooting at a person who you believe is about to atack -and possibly hurt/kill - you.

Even extremelly well trained soldiers have VERY bad hit/miss ratios under such circumstances. It takes lots and lots of training and experience before someone can be expected to react "well" in a real situation.

 

[Jack21222]

No you couldn't.
Again, there is HUGE difference between shooting at targets, and shooting at a person who you believe is about to atack -and possibly hurt/kill - you.

Do you speak from personal experience? My apartment is 20 feet across, and it looks like it would be quite easy to hit somebody on the other side. I don't see why believing my target is about to attack me would make me less accurate. I mean, maybe if you had a source or something I could look at... it just doesn't make sense to me intuitively why it should matter, particularly if the guy was coming at me. Now, if he was doing all kind of sideways ninja flips or something, I can see how it would be more difficult to hit him, but if he were standing still or coming towards me, it seems easier.

 

[TheMadMonk]

The least they could do was aim at the legs, but 46 shots in cold blood?

Shooting at the legs is difficult and can still kill people. What you see in movies isn't real, don't for a second think it is.

If you fire twice and the suspect is on the ground not moving, why would you fire 10+ more shots?

The fact that they are on the ground and not moving does not mean they are not a threat, far from it in fact.

While I would generally agree, that doesn't address the issue of bystanders. In this case, police shot nine bystanders to take down one gun-wielding man

Police cannot win in this situation. If they don't shoot and somebody gets killed they get accused of not doing enough to stop it and if they do shoot and hit bystanders people complain about how poorly they did. It isn't that simple.

Back on Topic. With six officers why no taser or rubber bullets?

Were they being carried? A Taser is not quite as effective as a lot of people seem to believe. They can and do fail which is why here in Scotland Taser trained officers are generally deployed in pairs. If the Taser misfires or the officer misses the other officer can cover them. Hitting a target at 20 feet with a Taser is very difficult.

That doesn't explain why it was necessary for police to open fire when there was no hostage.

This type of incident is happening all to often. Six police officers left their common sense at home.

So you'd stand about and let yourself get stabbed? I don't believe that for one second.

 

[MarneMath]

Do you speak from personal experience? My apartment is 20 feet across, and it looks like it would be quite easy to hit somebody on the other side. I don't see why believing my target is about to attack me would make me less accurate. I mean, maybe if you had a source or something I could look at... it just doesn't make sense to me intuitively why it should matter, particularly if the guy was coming at me. Now, if he was doing all kind of sideways ninja flips or something, I can see how it would be more difficult to hit him, but if he were standing still or coming towards me, it seems easier.

What are the three fundamentals to shooting?

1. Steady Breathing
2. Steady Position
3. Trigger Squeeze

I am very confident that you believe you could shoot at someone running at you and hit the person 25% of the time. I am not confident that you could. I shoot 40/40 nearly every time at a shooting range in the military, I'll be damn if I actually ever hit someone at 30 meters. Heck, hard enough to do it while in the same room. Something about heart racing, quick breathing, and holding the weapon tighter than usual messing with those fundamentals...but meh what do I know.

 

[Oltz]

Marne as a fellow soldier who has had the unfortunate opportunity to have fired my weapon in combat I can confirm that I have no idea weather or not I actually hit somebody. There are several reasons
1) 5.56mm ammo does not instantly put a target down even when already dead they can stay up long enough to fire another half dozen shots.

2) You are amped up and unless it is a long range shot you are not establishing a stable and consistent sight picture anything under 75-100 feet or so is typically reflex firing relying on muscle memory and experience to put shots on target rather then an truly aimed volley unless of course you are shooting at somebody who does not know you are aiming at them.

3) Many shots many hit nobody knows who hit or missed but 25% hit ratio would be well above normal.

 

[mikelepore]

I remember this clearly from the televised February 2000 trial of four New York City police officers charged in the February 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo. I watched the whole trial live on Court TV. When each of the police were on the witness stand, the lawyers asked them why they didn't stop shooting after the suspect was already down, why did they go on to fire 41 bullets, 19 of which hit the suspect. The police explained that their rule book didn't allow them to stop shooting. They said that they were required to follow a rule that one you shoot a person you have to continue shooting him until your gun is empty.

 

[edward]

Were they being carried? A Taser is not quite as effective as a lot of people seem to believe. They can and do fail which is why here in Scotland Taser trained officers are generally deployed in pairs. If the Taser misfires or the officer misses the other officer can cover them. Hitting a target at 20 feet with a Taser is very difficult.



So you'd stand about and let yourself get stabbed? I don't believe that for one second.

Watch the video again in full screen mode. The man was moving away when they opened fire.

The tasers carried by police in the USA are rated for up to 35 ft. Civilian versions only 20ft.

http://www.taser.com/products/law-enforcement/taser-x26-ecd