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

[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

 

[edward]

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.

I wonder what their rule book says to do when all four officers are holding empty weapons and bad guys number two and three suddenly appear?

 

[TheMadMonk]

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/military/taser-x26-ecd

Looks to me like there were officers off to the left (his right) in the direction he started moving. You can see somebody step back as the red pickup truck comes into view around 1:02. Six officers involved, can only count five lined up so where is the sixth (which I assume is the one with the dog)? Watch it again and tell me if you see the same.

Got a few questions for you. Have you ever fired a Taser? Do you think you could hit a moving target at that sort of range? Were they even carrying Tasers? What would you have done?

I'm astounded in all honesty that anybody would think that shooting somebody armed with a knife is unacceptable. It wasn't as if the man was skipping along minding his own business when officers decided to kill him for kicks. May come as a shock to the squeamish amongst you but police officers sometimes have to do not so nice things so that you can sleep soundly in your bed at night.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm astounded in all honesty that anybody would think that shooting somebody armed with a knife is unacceptable.

It's understandable, I think. The idea of killing somebody is a very unpleasant one: people don't like it, or the idea that it could be the right course of action.

But few are so bold as to say flat out that you shouldn't kill people, even someone charging at you with a knife: instead, they grudgingly admit that you have to allow that it's sometimes acceptable.

But they don't really want to mentally commit to that idea: after all, it's an extremely unpleasant one. Rather than contemplate what it really means to stop someone with lethal force, it's so much nicer sounding to say that "okay, so you have to use violence... just don't use so much of it!" It's an empty comment, but it let's you stop thinking about such an unpleasant idea, and makes one sound like an enlightened, civilized person to boot.

It's a well-meaning idea, but an ultimately dangerous one, since it leads to villainizing those who would seriously weigh the costs and benefits of lethal force, and also those who would act appropriately when said action doesn't line up with the romanticized version seen in the movies.

 

[Mentalist]

That is definitely too excessive. Taser him, not shoot him.

What are the qualifications to become a police officer?

 

[Drakkith]

That is definitely too excessive. Taser him, not shoot him.

What are the qualifications to become a police officer?

Look up a local department and see.

 

[Mentalist]

I did look up the qualifications and the base requirements are an associates degree. In my lifetime I noticed that the easier of entry the lack of quality.

 

[Drakkith]

I did look up the qualifications and the base requirements are an associates degree. In my lifetime I noticed that the easier of entry the lack of quality.

Surely there are other qualifications such as not being a felon?
Honestly though, what did you expect the education qualifications to be for a police officer?

 

[Mentalist]

A high school diploma.

 

[Drakkith]

A high school diploma.

Excellent, then they are exceeding your expectations!

 

[Mentalist]

That still isn't what I'd consider, quality education.

There needs to be more stringent qualifications. 4 year degree with classes in ethics and psychology (more than just introductory courses), and more strict psych. evaluations. I also looked around a bit and found not all recruits to the police force require drug tests. Drug tests must be mandatory in my opinion, not only before, but regularly whilst on the job, as well as psychological evaluations.

It is far too lax today.