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.
Have you ever fired a handgun? That's their dirty little secret.Leaving aside for a moment whether or not shooting him was necessary it's staggering how many bullets they fired and how little hit.
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.Have you ever fired a handgun? That's their dirty little secret.
What makes you think it is a vendetta rather than an example of poor judgement and poor training?
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.It seems like a vendetta, not that it is one.
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.BTW, I think jail time is more appropriate in such cases than additional training.
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?
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.It does seem somewhat like a revenge(vendetta), the murder seems totally uncalled for.
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.The least they could do was aim at the legs, but 46 shots in cold blood? How do these people sleep at night?
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
I've seen a police instructor empty 18 rounds in less than two seconds. That was with a timer and not a guess.
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.
And react in a way that works with your impulse instead of against it.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.
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.
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.
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 [Broken]
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.
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.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.
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.Back on Topic. With six officers why no taser or rubber bullets??
Police are allowed to protect themselves, y'know. :tongue:That doesn't explain why it was necessary for police to open fire when there was no hostage.