- #36
Jack21222
- 212
- 1
Hurkyl said: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.
Hurkyl said:The presence of human shields makes for a very different scenario.
Jack21222 said:Nobody said a word about "human shields." Bullets can travel pretty far and can ricochet.
Hurkyl said: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.
A stationary target, in a controlled situation, that is not a live human being. And you only mention hitting the target, not stopping it.Jack21222 said: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.
Jack21222 said: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.
f95toli said: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.
Maui said:The least they could do was aim at the legs, but 46 shots in cold blood?
leroyjenkens said:If you fire twice and the suspect is on the ground not moving, why would you fire 10+ more shots?
russ_watters said: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
edward said:Back on Topic. With six officers why no taser or rubber bullets?
edward said: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.
Jack21222 said: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 said: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.
mikelepore said: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 said: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
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.TheMadMonk said:I'm astounded in all honesty that anybody would think that shooting somebody armed with a knife is unacceptable.
Mentalist said:That is definitely too excessive. Taser him, not shoot him.
What are the qualifications to become a police officer?
Mentalist said: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.
Mentalist said:A high school diploma.
There's no need to be so patronising, especially when you're addressing a man made of straw. I don't see that anyone in this thread has argued that there is no circumstance in lethal force is acceptable, instead they are discussing whether or not it was acceptable in this case and highlighting potential improvements in equipment that may render it less necessary to use lethal force in the future. That's a perfectly normal and reasonable discussion, stop trying to derail it with this absurd statements against arguments no one is making.TheMadMonk said: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.
Mentalist said:Tax payers. I'd rather have more competent police officers on the street.
Mentalist said:Yes, I am willing to pay more taxes for more competent police officers.
Or, taser. If the taser hadn't worked, one shot to the leg and the dog would have been all that was needed here.
They had enough time to pull out their tasers, so I am not buying the old "tough situation" or, "not enough time to think". Police are supposed to be taught to remain level-headed. I'd expect a civilian to shoot the knife-weilding individual not a level-headed police officer.
Ok. But realize that not all cities can afford to increase their taxes. Some may be so small that it simply won't do any good. For example my father was an officer for a very small town in Texas for a decade or so. They could only afford about 2-3 officers at a time, even with him just working weekends. He even had to provide his own weapon.
Never EVER shoot someone unless you intend to kill that person. It is one of the cornerstones of firearms training. NEVER aim to wound. Aim for center mass. Anything else is likely to get you or someone else injured or killed.
You can't be taught to remain level headed, only how to deal with stressful situations that arise. This training is not always successful. It isn't a black and white concept you aren't "level headed" or "not level headed". The officers in this case probably could have handled the situation better, but I feel extremely little pity for the knife wielder.
I don't understand what you think this video has to do with anything; the news report describes a someone who was not a threat to a police officer or a bystander. It does not describe a situation where a (potential) assailant needs to be reliably and quickly physically incapacitated to prevent lethal harm to another.Mentalist said:Yes, I am willing to pay more taxes for more competent police officers.
But to the point on using a different method of suppressing would-be violent offenders:
Bean-bag shotguns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE766ybH4x8
"This is a win-win for us because we got the man safely into custody without seriously injuring him," Rud said.
Mentalist said:To me, that seems rather archaic.
You can be conditioned to deal with similar situations so that you aren't so apt to make rash decisions so to speak. That is what training is for from what I have gathered in terms of police.
As for my issues concerning the deceased man, I feel that his agitation resulted in his own death, but I do have some sympathy for him though, not little just enough to warrant my response in this thread about police incompetence. He was being shot when he was down. If you look closely he begins to go down after 1-3 shots, but they kept shooting.