Police shooting, people going nuts over dead idiot.


PDA






yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 09:49 PM
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A young man carrying what turned out to be a hairbrush died Monday night in a hail of bullets fired by New York police.
art.shooting.brother.ny.jpg

Khiel Coppin's brother Joel Coppin spoke briefly with reporters saying, "We want justice."


Authorities were responding to a 9-1-1 call his mother made about a "family dispute with a gun," police said.

In the background of the call, played at a news conference Tuesday, 18-year-old Khiel Coppin can be heard saying, "I've got a gun, I've got a gun," New York Police Department Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne told CNN.

The teen put an object under his shirt and told his mother around the time she phoned 9-1-1 that he was going to say he had a gun, said New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

The teen told her, " 'I'm prepared to die,' " Kelly told reporters.

When authorities arrived at the Bedford-Stuyvesant apartment, the teenager had something stuffed under his shirt and several times showed a knife to police. "Shoot me, kill me," he shouted, according to Kelly. "Come get me. I have a gun. Let's do this."

Coppin ignored repeated commands to stop and get on the ground. Witnesses said the teen appeared to be holding an object underneath his shirt and pointed it at the officers. Coppin continued to approach officers, as they ordered him to stop, said Kelly.
Don't Miss

* WABC: Cops kill teen thought to have gun

Twenty shots were fired; Coppin was struck eight times, Kelly said.

"This was a terrible tragedy for Khiel's family, no doubt about it," said Kelly. But the commissioner stressed that officers reasonably believed they were about to receive fire.

Kelly said the teen's mother reported he had not taken his anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication.

Police have not recovered a gun and do not believe that Coppin was armed, Kelly said.

A reporter asked Kelly if it's possible the young man was goading police to shoot him, a phenomenon known commonly in law enforcement circles as suicide-by-cop.

"That's certainly a possibility," said Kelly.

"The boy didn't have no gun, he had a brush on him," said Andre Wildman, a neighbor who told CNN that he saw the shooting. Video Listen to mother's 911 call »

Another neighbor, Wayne Holder, said police should be required to see a weapon before opening fire on a suspect. "At least see a gun before you start to discharge it," Holder said. Police "don't even have to see it, [if] they think you got one, you're going to get shot."

Coppin was taken to a hospital where he was declared dead. An autopsy is scheduled for Tuesday, the medical examiner's office said.

The Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network is expected to hold a news conference on Tuesday about the shooting.

Police said they were investigating whether Coppin had a history of mental illness and whether his mother had tried to have him hospitalized earlier Monday.

The shooting came a year after unarmed groom Sean Bell, 23, was killed hours before his wedding in a shooting involving New York police. In 1999, unarmed African immigrant Amadou Diallo, 22, died when police in the Bronx shot him 19 times.

Bystander Dyshawn Gibson described Monday's shooting to CNN affiliate WABC-TV. "He dropped the brush," Gibson said. "He put his hands up. Police just started firing."

Coppin was seen pacing around the apartment prior to the shooting, according to an initial police statement issued Monday night.
advertisement

"He began screaming from the window at his mother and the police," the police statement said. "At some point, the male climbed out of the window and began crossing the sidewalk toward the police."

That's when police began firing, a police spokesman said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/13/ny.shooting/index.html


This is on CNN right now, people arguing abut shooting another unarmed black man:rolleyes: Since when can you point a dark object at cops and not expect 20 rounds. Ok the argument is getting hilarious. CNN.

If you enjoyed reading about "Police shooting, people going nuts over dead idiot." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Snake Eyes
November 13, 2007, 09:53 PM
Twenty shots were fired; Coppin was struck eight times, Kelly said.

40% hit ratio? Time for the NYPD to hit the range.

sierrabravo45
November 13, 2007, 09:53 PM
I would be going nuts too, if the police had that bad of accuracy.

Besides that it seems like a justified shooting.

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 09:59 PM
I can see cops in NY being called racist trigger happy thugs in a day or two. First they attack gun owners leaving them nothing but the police in the way of protection (and they are not even supposed to protect you), and now they are going after the cops for defending themselves against someone that wants to get shot I guess.

.cheese.
November 13, 2007, 10:02 PM
I was surprised the article mentioned suicide-by-police.

I'd say that's what it looks like though.

poor kid must have been really unhappy with life. :( it's sad really

Hokkmike
November 13, 2007, 10:09 PM
Bad things that happen are ALWAYS somebody else's fault.

yesit'sloaded
November 13, 2007, 10:12 PM
I'm just amazed at the instant hate at the LEOs involved like they were out to shoot black people. 20 rounds? I think thats a low number considering the number of officers involved. I was expecting around 60.

bluestarlizzard
November 13, 2007, 10:17 PM
+1 .cheese.
it appears to be suicide by cop. secondly, there are guns that are perfectly capible of fireing from under cover (like a t-shirt). if someone is standing in front of me screaming he's got a gun pointed at me and wants to shoot me, i'm gonna shoot first. i'll feel bad after i find out that there was no gun, but at least i'd be alive to feel bad.

Mot45acp
November 13, 2007, 10:39 PM
I saw Sharpton's name and quit reading. For an anti racist, he will turn it into a race issue. For him it is job security.

My prayers go out to the poor young man's family and to the LEOs involved. I believe they were justified, but it will not be easy for them.

Ready2Defend
November 13, 2007, 10:45 PM
The shoot seems legit, but I agree with SnakeEyes, only 8 hits with 20 shots? Where did the other 12 go? That is a lot of lead flying. I hope rule 4 is consciously practiced by police in these incidents. Since no one else is mentioned hurt it probably was practiced here.

There was a suicide by cop in Tulsa about 10-15 years ago. The decedent came out of where he was holed up with a long gun (later found to be unloaded) in a stalking mode approaching an officer taking cover. He was dropped with one shot by the designated sniper. 100% hit ratio.

In the NY situation maybe their wasn't time to put in place an appropriate SWAT team. It just seems to me that if a lot of shots are fired then there is panic going on. At least some level of panic. Unpredictable events will suddenly occur that will make the average person panic. But if there is time to institute proper STRATEGY then TACTICS might not have to degenerate to least common denominator human fight or flight reaction.

2TransAms
November 13, 2007, 11:18 PM
Black,white,purple or green,color makes no difference here. If he acted as stated in the article,he got what he had coming.

Another neighbor, Wayne Holder, said police should be required to see a weapon before opening fire on a suspect. "At least see a gun before you start to discharge it," Holder said. Police "don't even have to see it, [if] they think you got one, you're going to get shot."Here's an idea...keep your hands where the police can see them.

Crunker1337
November 13, 2007, 11:23 PM
Clearly suicide by cop. I don't think the police acted unjustly at all, they gave repeated warnings and only used firearms when they felt that their own lives were in danger. The fact that it wasn't a firearm is not relevant, the kid threatened cops and the cops had very good reason to believe he was armed with a gun.

It's always sad to see someone die, but I don't think the police were wrong to use firearms.

copper4262
November 14, 2007, 12:25 AM
again another tradgedy that will be turned around and somehow blame police and guns for all that is wrong in the world - as sad of a life as that boy might have been living he had no right to do the things he was doing and no right to make those cops kill him - from what i have heard of it that is what he did - very sad thing -

I have been in that same type of situation several times before. Never with someone that young and I thank God I have never had to pull the trigger. But i have come close. Speaking from experience its a horrible horrible situation - Until your involved in something like that you have no idea how crazy it can get. But hey - cops should be used to that right? The do that sort of thing all the time - run into crazy situations. Sadly nothing can prepare you for actually having to make that descision - and the worst of it is people who sit back and critisize and speculate about what you did wrong and what you should have done different. Yeah - its sad there isn't a higher hit ratio in LEO shootings. In fact the stats show that cops miss alot more then they hit. Let me ask you this - you can stand in front of your paper target all day long and proudly proclaim you would hit a man from seven feet with all of your bullets - but would you??? I doubt it - Yeah - i would love to hit the range more and would love to see my fellow officers hit the range more as well - sadly budget and time constraints dont allow it - so we make do with what we have - even then - there is only soo much you can train and plan for - Ask yourself what you honestly think you would do in that same situation - Would you really do anything different??

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and the cops - they both have a long road ahead of them.

IMHO

Bazooka Joe71
November 14, 2007, 12:41 AM
At least see a gun before you start to discharge it," Holder said. Police "don't even have to see it, [if] they think you got one, you're going to get shot."


This is just absolutely brilliant logic. Just priceless.
The Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network is expected to hold a news conference on Tuesday about the shooting.

Wonder what insightful words of wisdom Ol' Al will have to help line his pockets this time...He'll turn anything into a race issue to get some camera time...Anything.

Ya know so what if the police couldn't see his hands, so what if this kid had an object under his shirt that could very well have been a gun, so what if he was screaming "I have a gun, I have a gun!" The real issue is that police officers gunned down a black man and we need justice! Everyone one of these cops fearing for their lives were OBVIOUSLY racist.

Wolfgang2000
November 14, 2007, 12:42 AM
Copper, Amen Brother, Amen.

CannonFodder
November 14, 2007, 12:45 AM
40% hit ratio? Time for the NYPD to hit the range.
Actually, last I remember from the previous incident like this one, a 40% hit ratio is a marked improvement!

don
November 14, 2007, 01:01 AM
Another candidate for the Darwin award

.cheese.
November 14, 2007, 01:24 AM
Another candidate for the Darwin award

actually, I'd bet the kid knew exactly what he was doing.

That's what makes it so sad.

and if I may be so bold, could we, as members of THR, try to not to use the whole "darwin award" thing? I know sometimes some of that stuff is funny, but don't you guys think it sends the wrong message to those outside of the forum who might come in and read a few threads? They're going to get the impression we're a bunch of cold, callous, entirely insensitive individuals who laugh at death. That is not a good image to associate with those of us who carry guns every day whether it be for a job or for our own potential self-defense. It just sends the wrong message and doesn't seem "high road"... with all due respect.

Thefabulousfink
November 14, 2007, 02:08 AM
Another neighbor, Wayne Holder, said police should be required to see a weapon before opening fire on a suspect. "At least see a gun before you start to discharge it," Holder said. Police "don't even have to see it, [if] they think you got one, you're going to get shot."

I see that this person subscribes to the 4 year old's defense strategy of "If you can't see it, it can't hurt you."

I don't care who you are or where, if you tell police that you have a weapon and advance on them.....THEY WILL SHOOT YOU.

You could be the Vice President in Mayberry and Andy Griffith will take Barney's gun, load it, and shoot you dead.

And it's not just police. If you claim you have a weapon and come at me, I will shoot you.


Unfortunately, the NYPD has a history of questionable shootings and racist behavior(Not all of the NYPD, but there have been many incidents) so it is unlikely they will get the benefit of the doubt in many people's view.

JasonblkZ06
November 14, 2007, 02:37 AM
"The boy didn't have no gun," said Andre Wildman,"

That means he did have a gun? Case solved.

Al Sharpton - you ain't no reverend. I mean you aren't a reverend.

Where's Jesse Jackson? Clearly the guns involved did this on their own. It will be interesting to see if any of the police were black. Oh wait, we know the answer to that already. Al is about to get another large under the table check. Non profit my ass!

ilcylic
November 14, 2007, 02:42 AM
*shrug*

I've never made any point of hiding my general distaste for police, and even I see this one as a good shoot by the NYPD.

In this situation, I'd have probably done the same thing. I can't fault them for acting as I'd have.

garymc
November 14, 2007, 04:03 AM
Wait until they see a gun? I watched Westerns too, and I'd wait until he shot me, then I could shoot him back.

littlegator
November 14, 2007, 04:23 AM
Bad things that happen are ALWAYS somebody else's fault.

That's exactly why it's good to have multiple personalities.

Ala Dan
November 14, 2007, 05:39 AM
+1 for the NYPD, as another wanna'be thug has been removed from society~! :cool:

Mannix
November 14, 2007, 05:50 AM
The guy pointed an object at the cops and said it was a gun, and then moved towards them. This guy either wanted to die, or deserves a Darwin award. That doesn't make it any less tragic, and I can't imagine what the mom is feeling.

ForeignDude
November 14, 2007, 06:03 AM
Doesn't the NYPD carry GLOCKS with the 12-lb trigger?

If so, I'm amazed they hit anything at all.

woodybrighton
November 14, 2007, 06:20 AM
very sad all round.
the victim was mentally ill had'nt taken his medication so wouldn't be in a normal frame of mine probably highly delusional very difficult to deal with such people. Even if no threat of weapons.
Police did the only rational thing make threats follow through by making threating movements.
policemen are going to suffer knowing they shot an ill rather than dangerous person and the whole internal affairs thing :mad:

jeep-2
November 14, 2007, 07:56 AM
maybe one of the cops should be armed with a million candle power spotlight at night and they could see what they are shooting at and at the same time spin the guys eye balls around so he couldn't see them if he had a gun


in the 30s-40s the cops could plant a gun on anyone they shot, now maybe they can just plant a hair brush lol.

Geno
November 14, 2007, 08:01 AM
Twenty shots were fired; Coppin was struck eight times, Kelly said.

Wait a minute. That can't be true! :scrutiny:

cpttango30
November 14, 2007, 08:42 AM
I believe that this should be ruled a bad shoot. Because they (The Police) assumed he had a gun when hs said he had a gun correct? They should have assumed he did not have a gun because of all the gun control laws in NYC. So there for not being a prior criminal the police should have known that the suspect did not have a gun because that would have been illegal and wrong.
(Why not use there own tactics on them?)







For the record I do not feel this way. If you are yelling I have a gun and you then point something at the police i expect them to shoot.

P95loser
November 14, 2007, 08:54 AM
In a situation like this it might have been possible to use non-lethal tactics, however if they think a gun is trained on them, then they would think once he was tased he would fire.

Colt
November 14, 2007, 09:13 AM
An autopsy is scheduled for Tuesday, the medical examiner's office said.

Tax dollars well spent.

I wonder if they'll try to get blood chemistry to determine if he'd been off his meds. Not that it should matter, but I bet the family is considering all their legal options.

Sistema1927
November 14, 2007, 09:21 AM
This is a tragedy all the way around and I feel sad for all those involved.

DKSuddeth
November 14, 2007, 09:57 AM
with the record of the NYPD over the last 10 years, are you really that surprised?

StuckInMA
November 14, 2007, 09:58 AM
Bystander Dyshawn Gibson described Monday's shooting to CNN affiliate WABC-TV. "He dropped the brush," Gibson said. "He put his hands up. Police just started firing."

Maybe I'm just naive but I can't see them opening fire on the kid if he dropped the brush and put his hands up. :scrutiny:

Mr White
November 14, 2007, 10:12 AM
I saw Sharpton's name and quit reading. For an anti racist, he will turn it into a race issue. My thought exactly. As soon as Sharpton adds his name and face to a 'cause' it loses any credibility it may have had.

30 cal slob
November 14, 2007, 10:31 AM
quick, somebody give Al Sharpton a brush. :evil::evil::evil:

RKBABob
November 14, 2007, 11:43 AM
1. His own mother was scared enough to call 911.
2. The 911 operator heard him say "I've got a gun!"
3. He placed an object under his shirt, with the intent of claiming he was armed.
4. He brandished a knife in the officers' presence.
5. He screamed "I've got a gun!" to the officers.
6. He pointed an object at the police, claiming it was a gun.
7. He continued to approach officers, who undoubtedly had their pistols drawn.

Gee... I don't know how the officers could have possibly come to the conclusion that he was dangerous!

How sad, really. He turned out not to be a dangerous person with a gun, but just a peace-loving crazy
person who enjoys terrifying people with a knife.

He was just mentally ill and off his medication...
Everyone knows mentally ill people aren't dangerous!

ilbob
November 14, 2007, 11:53 AM
Cops have guns. You threaten them. They will use them. End of story.

I am always amazed at people who call the cops because they think force will need to be used on their baby, then cannot understand why the cops come and use force, since that is what they are for. Law enforcement. If your baby needs prayer, call for a priest.

People of the world. This is the way it works. If you think force is needed to handle a situation - go ahead and call 911. However, keep in mind that once you do so, you will lose whatever vestige of control you may have over the situation. The cops that come do not know your baby is just kidding about having a gun under his shirt.

It is not the cops' fault that your baby is not acting rationally.

It is not the cops' fault that they do not have ESP or whatever 6th sense it would take for them to know that your baby is armed only with a hairbrush.

I can understand in a limited way her grief and lashing out though. Very few mothers want to admit their baby is some kind of dangerous lunatic.

ilbob
November 14, 2007, 12:06 PM
He turned out not to be a dangerous person with a gun

He turned out to be a dangerous person without a gun.

S-K
November 14, 2007, 12:08 PM
I am always amazed at people who call the cops because they think force will need to be used on their baby, then cannot understand why the cops come and use force, since that is what they are for. Law enforcement. If your baby needs prayer, call for a priest.

I concur.

I feel for the mother for the loss of her son. I feel for her son being sick.

However, I also feel for NYPD in this situation, because now there are all those officers coping with the fact that they shot a kid with a hairbrush. No matter how right you were, that's not easy to deal with. Taking a person's life, regardless the circumstances, I cannot fathom to be a small matter.

RLsnow
November 14, 2007, 12:11 PM
i think the police officers will be a bit sad about this whole thing, even though they were in the right...:(

and the mother too, cant be easy loosing a son like that.

KelTecian
November 14, 2007, 12:12 PM
40% accuracy is above the national average for police shootings...mostly because police officers empty the mags in their weapons even if they arent sure why another officer is shooting or what at sometimes. Its called sympathy shooting.

Officers'Wife
November 14, 2007, 01:09 PM
OK,

Guy with a hairbrush announces to armed men he has a firearm. They take him at his word and respond accordingly. Oh well, have the coroner mark the death cert premediated suicide and move on.

Then again, had a group of civilians in the same situation expended that many rounds there would have been a murder indictment and most likely a conviction.

In short, IMHO the police acted wisely, they were not wrong the law is.

Selena

BridgeWalker
November 14, 2007, 01:21 PM
Well, strik one (more) against the argument that banning handguns will prevent suicide. Don't have a gun? Want to die a nice quick death by gunfire? Just use the cops'. Too bad those guys have to live with the aftermath of having been used as an instrument of suicide. :(

silverlance
November 14, 2007, 01:35 PM
Um..

Am I the only one who thinks that this would have been a PERFECT "less-lethal" munitions scenario? Bean bag, rubber baton, would have been perfect. Or those pepper ball rounds that were touted so much after 9/11.

I'm not entirely sorry that the guy got killed. It's very hard to deal with psychotic.

Cosmoline
November 14, 2007, 01:39 PM
40% hit ratio? Time for the NYPD to hit the range.


That's very typical these days. The amount of training isn't so much the problem, as the type of training. The emphasis seems to be on shooting posture and presentation, rather than on hitting bullseyes as it was in the old days. They take the proper stance and blast away.

realmswalker
November 14, 2007, 01:52 PM
Every time there is a police shooting someone comments on the accuracy ratio.

If you have been in a shooting, feel free to comment.

But if the only thing you have ever shot is paper or animals, do you really have ANY idea how well you would shoot in a high stress situation like that?

Now granted most LEO's are not gun people, and that's no excuse. But like I said unless you've been in it, there is no way possible you can say you would shoot better.

Phil DeGraves
November 14, 2007, 02:15 PM
"Am I the only one who thinks that this would have been a PERFECT "less-lethal" munitions scenario? Bean bag, rubber baton, would have been perfect."

If the BG says he has a gun, and he does in fact present a knife they CAN see, then it is a lethal force situation, not a "Less-Lethal". You don't bring a TASER to a gunfight! When are people going to wise up about this? If deadly force is justified, then deadly force gets used! If they start using LessLethal for situations in which deadly force should be used, two things will happen.
1. Officers will get killed.
2. Every truly good shoot will be examined under a microscope and second guessed by people who would say "They could have used LessLethal force."
Those people second guessing were not there and have no right to judge the actions of the others. Same thing goes with hit ratios. The primary concern with shooting at the range is "HIT THE TARGET!" The primary concern when you are in a confrontation is "DON'T GET SHOT!"
The things we do to "NOT GET SHOT" are detrimental to the application of marksmanship fundamentals. 40% is actually a pretty good hit ratio for an actual armed confrontation when people are moving and you are watching out for non-combabtants in the area.

Grizzly Adams
November 14, 2007, 02:17 PM
The only way they would have been satisfied was if one of the LEOs had taken a round or two before opening fire. On second thought, they probably would be saying that he was just trying to defend himself.

Officers'Wife
November 14, 2007, 02:22 PM
Hi Silverlance,

Am I the only one who thinks that this would have been a PERFECT "less-lethal" munitions scenario? Bean bag, rubber baton, would have been perfect. Or those pepper ball rounds that were touted so much after 9/11.

Usually I'm the first to criticize the police on a shooting. However in this case the personnel involved had reason to believe they were in deadly danger. I expect our employees in law enforcement to act and react as professionals. I do not expect them to put themselves at greater risk in some idiotic attempt at fairness. When you have a possibly rabid dog under an outbuilding you do not set out box traps in the name of humanity. You shoot it before it bites one of your kids. Forcing our employees to 'take a knife to a gunfight' in the name of 'fairness' is equally stupid.

So less look at your 'perfect' scenerio...

What were the light conditions?
Did the two legged animal claim to have a weapon?
Where the employees called out on a report a weapon was in the mix?
Was the two-legged animal acting in an agreesive manner?

Finally, in light of the answer to the first four would the reasonable person have reason to believe his/her life was in danger?

If you can tell me the answer to the last is 'no.' and convince me of your reasoning I will agree with you. Otherwise... have the coroner mark the death cert premeditated suicide and move on.

Selena

Red Dragon
November 14, 2007, 02:27 PM
40% hit ratio? Time for the NYPD to hit the range.

Well you have to take into account that these cops probably had pulses over 120 and they were pumping a steady flow of adrenaline. There aren't many who, with those stats combined with the fact that they are probably pulling the trigger as fast as they can, could hit the target every time.

Bazooka Joe71
November 14, 2007, 02:36 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that this would have been a PERFECT "less-lethal" munitions scenario? Bean bag, rubber baton, would have been perfect. Or those pepper ball rounds that were touted so much after 9/11.

While standing behind some sort of "shield..." Bean bag, sure. Pepperball rounds, sure. But are you trying to say that you would use a rubber baton on someone that "says" he has a gun, and you can clearly see a knife? Cally me a weeny, but I'm not getting within arms reach of a crazy person with a knife and possibly a gun.

But that's just me.:p

Officers'Wife
November 14, 2007, 02:41 PM
Hi Bazooka,

but I'm not getting within arms reach of a crazy person with a knife and possibly a gun.

Wise decision, as I told my husband before he left for the mid-east. If one of them has a knife out, empty the magazine and to hell with the Geneva Convention! People have heard all the hype about firearms being the uber-weapon forget that a knife is a most effective killing device.

Selena

Geronimo45
November 14, 2007, 02:48 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that this would have been a PERFECT "less-lethal" munitions scenario?
If they knew he truly wasn't armed, yes. It would've been a teriffic time to take out the batons and club him like a baby seal. But they didn't. He claimed he had a gun. He had something on his person.
The use of force thingamajig(continuum?) is that you go up in power, not down. Guy with a knife? Get a baton or taser, you don't use your bare hands or even another knife.
He's got a pistol? You get a dozen guys with pistols, and hope some of them brought shotguns or rifles. He's got a rifle? Everybody fetch the long guns, and see if you can get a sniper after 'im.
You endeavor to make sure your weapon is at least equal to his, preferably superior - never inferior, whether or not you see the weapon.

jerkyman45
November 14, 2007, 02:51 PM
What can be expected when you threaten officers, claim to have a gun, and then draw something from your pants at night? Sharpton will of course turn this into a race issue, because evidently the personal responsibility for ones own actions is dead in his eyes. The kid died because of his actions, its that simple. Its sad that the cops had to kill him, because they have to live with that action now, and I would imagine that will be tough, and its said for the kid's family too. Bad situation made worse by an egocentric opportunist trying to just get himself more publicity, way to go Al Sharpton.

Red Dragon
November 14, 2007, 02:56 PM
you're a weeny Bazooka Joe, and I agree with you fully :D

S-K
November 14, 2007, 02:57 PM
It's not bad enough what Sharpton will turn this into...

It's that people will actually LISTEN to him and BELIEVE him.

I quote, "quick, somebody give Al Sharpton a brush" - 30 cal slob

Biker
November 14, 2007, 03:00 PM
Bottom line? The man wanted to get dead - he got his wish.

If you tell me you have a gun and you're gonna shoot me, your word is as good as gold and you'd better hope you're not allergic to lead.

Biker

jcoiii
November 14, 2007, 03:10 PM
Last bit of statistics I heard about police shootings was that officer hit ratio during a gun fight is around 18%. Also most police gunfights take place within... 10 feet?.... does that sound right to those who have heard those stats?

Shoot, I can hit the paper 100% of the time, back to 50 yds. Doesn't mean my hit % will be 100 when I'm drawing, shooting first couple of rounds from the hip, moving, bad guy is moving, dodging, looking around for cover, diving behind said cover, etc.

Wise man once said, if you have proper stance you are not moving! You line up against a bad guy in your weaver stance, taking slow, careful aim, and you're going to get shot by the bad guy who is running, ducking, getting cover and just putting rounds down range. (might not get hit, but I'm not going to take the chance)

Roccobro
November 14, 2007, 03:11 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that this would have been a PERFECT "less-lethal" munitions scenario? Bean bag, rubber baton, would have been perfect. Or those pepper ball rounds that were touted so much after 9/11.

I did! I was thinking the 12ga Taser with a 30s-2 minute "ride." Oh, and deploy it (or a whole bunch to get a hit within 40%) right when the line of fire was clear. Don't bother giving commands, he was already suspect of having a gun (he said so himself!) This would have been perfect! And if he was just a friend/neighbor/innocent than no harm no foul. Forget about it making the 2 most painful minutes in your life. :) That would be a great way to keep all involved parties "safe" and right where you need them, and quiet too (except for some low moans).

With these thoughts and the new wireless stun devices coming out, I see our future as clear as HDTV.... Wait, that is Sly on Demolition Man! And the future cops club that puts people to sleep!! No need to figure out what is happening. Somebody yelling frantically? Just put 'em out. BG's get shot with a phaser on stun still though...

Justin

Bazooka Joe71
November 14, 2007, 03:15 PM
you're a weeny Bazooka Joe, and I agree with you fully

You agree that I'm a weeny, or that you wouldn't use a rubber baton in a knife/gun fight?:scrutiny:

Or both?




:p

ilbob
November 14, 2007, 03:28 PM
I am not convinced that non-lethal weapons are an appropriate response when deadly force is threatened. None of them are anywhere near 100% effective, and less so with crazies.

I will criticize LE excesses (or what I perceive to be excesses anyway) but the story as told, if accurate, leads me to believe there was little the cops could do but shoot.

antsi
November 14, 2007, 03:36 PM
The Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network is expected to hold a news conference on Tuesday about the shooting.


Oh, thank heavens. At least there will finally be a voice of reason in this tragic situation.

Bazooka Joe71
November 14, 2007, 03:42 PM
The Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network is expected to hold a news conference on Tuesday about the shooting.

Is there a link to this?

willbrink
November 14, 2007, 08:17 PM
"The teen told her, " 'I'm prepared to die,'"

And his wish was granted....

Cosmoline
November 14, 2007, 08:25 PM
do you really have ANY idea how well you would shoot in a high stress situation like that?

If they have too hard a time hitting with the short gun, they ought to carry carbines. A lot of other departments are. Cop or non-cop, you're responsible for each and every bullet you thrown out of the firearm. And each miss is a potentially lethal failure on your part. There really are no excuses, only solutions to improve accuracy.

Jeff White
November 14, 2007, 08:54 PM
Cosmoline,
Sounds great. Tell you what, I'll propose a tax increase to:
a) Hire enough officers to maintain coverage while the rest are training.

b) Allow for every officer in the country to get as much time behind the gun as an operator in a Tier One military unit.

You will lobby all of your legislators and get your friends, neighbors and business associates to support it. Fair enough?

In the mean time, come on down to the range with me, I have an exercise that is an rather inexact approximation of what you face. We'll see how you do.

It is really easy to sit in your warm chair 5000 miles away and pass judgment on a shooting that you don't know anything more about then what is posted in a newspaper article you read online.

What was the range from all the officers to the EDP?

What was the lighting like?

What was the elapsed time from the first shot to the last?

What was the first cue the officers had that they needed to shoot?

Were the officers and the EDP moving?

If so what direction?

How many bystanders were there and what were they doing?

What radio traffic was going on at the time?

Which officer was interacting verbally with the EDP?

How many rounds did that officer fire?

These are just a few of the hundreds of things we must know before we can begin to analyze what happened and learn from it.

Jeff

MICHAEL T
November 14, 2007, 08:55 PM
40% accuracy is above the national average for police shootings...mostly because police officers empty the mags in their weapons even if they arent sure why another officer is shooting or what at sometimes. Its called sympathy shooting.
Give them revolvers instead of hicap mags. They will learn to shoot if they only have 6 to start with.

Officers'Wife
November 14, 2007, 08:58 PM
Hi Jeff,

As much as it pains me I have to say I agree with you 100%.

Selena

Grizzly Adams
November 14, 2007, 09:27 PM
Jeff's right, a lot of us are Monday morning quarterbacking again. We should try to get out and at least see some of the situations that some these shooting occur in before we start making judgements and accusations. When you are in a situation where a loon is saying he has a gun and you can see that he has a knife and you tell him to get down and he keeps coming, let me tell you, your heart starts racing, the adrenline starts pumping, you start trying to antisipate the moves of everyone around you (your fellow officers, bystanders, etc). Brother, that came throw your aim and concentration off no matter how much range time you have or how good you are!

wideym
November 14, 2007, 10:38 PM
I have a question. Is it NYPD procedure for more than one officer to fire at the suspect? If an officer yells "GUN" do other officers on the scene have the responibilty/duty to verify before shooting?

It sounds like a lawful shooting and the kid got his wish, but when ever NYPD makes the news all you hear about is "unarmed black man shot XX times by police".

I would just like to know what are the procedures are for multiple officers drawing weapons on a suspect.

CrawdaddyJim
November 14, 2007, 10:39 PM
Authorities were responding to a 9-1-1 call his mother made about a "family dispute with a gun," police said.

In the background of the call, played at a news conference Tuesday, 18-year-old Khiel Coppin can be heard saying, "I've got a gun, I've got a gun," New York Police Department Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne told CNN.

The teen put an object under his shirt and told his mother around the time she phoned 9-1-1 that he was going to say he had a gun, said New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

The teen told her, " 'I'm prepared to die,' " Kelly told reporters.

Seems to me the decedent's mother got him killed. She could have told the officers that he didn't have a gun. And they would have most likely tazered him.

Double Naught Spy
November 14, 2007, 10:56 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-687886036633944343&q=%22Khiel+Coppin%22&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

NYPD Chief explaining the events

Mikebnice
November 15, 2007, 01:21 AM
history is not on the side of NYPD :

‘Contagious’ shootings examined
Earlier this year, the NYPD also said it had commissioned RAND to look for ways to reduce the risk of so-called “reflexive” or “contagious” shooting — the phenomenon of officers firing an excessive number of rounds in a chain reaction — after the fatal shooting of an unarmed man outside a club.

The five officers involved in that shooting fired semiautomatic pistols a total of 50 times while trying to stop a car on Nov. 25 outside a bar in Queens, killing the driver, Sean Bell, and injuring two of his friends.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17401427/

My prayer go to the mother who will more than likely have guilt that she call the cops and they killed her son and the cops with a conscience that has to deal with killing an unarmed and mentally ill person.
mental illness is a sickness not a crime. :cuss:

copper4262
November 15, 2007, 01:23 AM
Where do i start?

IMHO

This is not a less-lethal situation - Not at all. The knife alone bumps it up to a lethal situation. Hell - a screw driver in the hand of a suspect is a lethal situation. Ever seen a screw driver or a wooden dowel sticking out of someone? I have - will kill you deader then dead or send you to the ER - either way you try to stick a cop with one there's a good chance you will get shot - Yeah - we would much rather be able to Tazer everyone who threatens us - But thats not always possible. I have been Tazed in training several times - Guess what - its the worst pain i have ever felt for the longest five seconds of my life - but when the juice is gone i can get right back up and fight - what if the cop cant get the tazer on in time the second time?? you think a hyped up suspect and roll over and get a shot off before the cop can get the tazer working again? or what if the tazer doesn't work - or the pepper spray doesn't work - These are all tools - they aren't the answer for a Lethal Force situation - The Ladder of Force goes up - plain and simple - you bring a weapon against the police they are gonna step it up a notch above you - Someone pulls a knife of me Im gonna pull a gun - I dont care if theres a threat of a gun or not - Im going to do everything in my power to go home in one piece each and ever morning - Cops dont go out praying at night that they get to shoot someone - When I got to work at night I pray I will make it home safe to take my kids to school in the morning - having to somtimes hurt people at work isn't a perk for cops - its just a sad reality of where our society is at - Thats why we train and get less lethal options -to try and keep from hurting people and to keep them from hurting other people - but sometimes people dont play by the rules - its a sad reality -

Any way - sorry to rant - its just makes me defensive when anyone questions the motives of the police - No not all police are good - I wish they were - but there are going to be bad apples everywhere(ever heard of bad plumbers or mechanics or disonest carpenters or doctors or even teachers) socitety is full of bad people and yes some of them make it into law enforcement - but on the whole the LEO community is not out trying to hurt people - they have to make split second decisions that will affect their lives and the lives of others forever - Again - we can sit and analyze this all day long - in the end it comes down to this: do you honestly know what you would do in a situation like that without actually being there?? Would you have done anything different from what they did?

IMHO

bhp9mm
November 15, 2007, 04:19 AM
they need to go to the range 20 shots and the guy was not shooting back if he had a real gun and was shooting back they wood have shot like 50 or more with all that shooting they put other people in danger that did not do noting they are lucky they did not kill somebody else.

Double Naught Spy
November 15, 2007, 08:01 AM
history is not on the side of NYPD :
History isn't in question here. The shooting of the guy with the hair brush occurred in a mutually exclusive situation from those situations that occurred previously.



My prayer go to the mother who will more than likely have guilt that she call the cops and they killed her son and the cops with a conscience that has to deal with killing an unarmed and mentally ill person.

Well the mother reported on 911 that her son had a gun. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/13/ny.shooting/?iref=mpstoryview
Authorities were responding to a 9-1-1 call his mother made about a "family dispute with a gun," police said.

See the clip here that includes the 911 call...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/13/ny.shooting/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCVideo

The mother later claimed he didn't have a gun, but the shootee did.

As for being unarmed? Nope. He definitely had knives seen by cops earlier in the confrontation. He definitely claimed to have a gun. He advanced on the cops against their commands. He would not show his hands. As he approached the cops, he pulled an object from under his shirt and pointed it at them. He said he had a gun and acted like he had one and was going to shoot the cops. They stopped him.

mental illness is a sickness not a crime.
Nope, mental illness is not a crime. Threatening to hurt people and then acting like you are about to carry our your threat while refusing to abide by the lawful commands of officers is. Just because the guy might have been mentally ill does not mean the officers gave up their rights to defend themselves against him.

Officers'Wife
November 15, 2007, 12:07 PM
HI Mike,

mental illness is a sickness not a crime.

When someone mentally ill is threatening to kill or harm another the first priority is to stop the threat. It's unfortunate that illness (assuming he was ill) drove him to a situation that got him killed but officers on the beat do not carry psychs with them. (Although I could name a few that should.)

Had this person's illness convinced him he could fly would you blame the building he jumped off of or gravity? Had his illness convinced him he could wrestle a moving semi would you blame the driver that run him over? Can you really blame people that have accepted the duty to protect society for stopping him after being given evidence he was a danger not just to himself to society at large?

Police are people and people are just people. That badge does not grant them greater wisdom, courage or understanding. All it gives them is a job to do. In this case the job was done within the boundaries of a resonable person. It's a sad case, but I'll save my sympathy for the mother, the siblings and the police officers forced by circumstances to use deadly force. I'll save my outrage for when an officer fires at a fleeing car and kills a jogger or a young mother taking her baby for a walk. Mentally ill guy screaming he has a gun and threatening with a knife? Sorry, sympathy rating zero- just an unfortunate circumstance.

Selena

MASTEROFMALICE
November 15, 2007, 12:25 PM
Yes............it appears you are.

Am I the only one who thinks that this would have been a PERFECT "less-lethal" munitions scenario?

yesit'sloaded
November 15, 2007, 12:29 PM
If you can make a device with a range of at least 100 yards that can instantly stop all people 100% of the time, I'll put my guns in storage. Until then it is the best option availible for crazies with knives, guns, and other weapons.

soutex50
November 15, 2007, 12:36 PM
The media and the Sharpton types will always try to re-direct focus from the real circumstances at hand......
quote "several times showed a knife to police" and " kept approaching officers"
to me, the issue of whether he had a gun or not is no longer my greatest concern, the knife and him closing the gap between officers is.

Sad situation for all involved at the end.

MakAttak
November 15, 2007, 01:09 PM
In the mean time, come on down to the range with me, I have an exercise that is an rather inexact approximation of what you face. We'll see how you do.

I'll take that challenge!!


















... but I seriously doubt I'll do better than 40%, I'd just like to know how to train so I can should I ever be faced with a situation where it is necessary...

Roccobro
November 16, 2007, 02:32 AM
20 rounds between five officers shooting. Four rounds seems like restraint for all the trigger happy claims for this incident. Failsafe drills are two to the chest, one to the head. I might lose count and squeeze off another by accident in such a situation.

I guess they stopped shooting once he stopped advancing. Hyperactive adrenaline, coupled with poor training/habits would show phenomena like continued fire in such a situation as this. Haven't heard of any complaints of a single shot after he complied/fell down. Kudo's to the beat cops.

Justin

Mikebnice
November 16, 2007, 06:56 AM
would the views of this forum be a little different if he was a war vet. or some middle class white kid that needed help ? just a question


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/11/15/2007-11-15_cop_in_teen_shooting_in_disrespectful_ba.html


Ala dan (+1 for the NYPD, as another wanna'be thug has been removed from society):confused::confused:

Mr white (My thought exactly. As soon as Sharpton adds his name and face to a 'cause' it loses any credibility it may have had) it is really sad that we still need a AL sharpton in 2007 but NYPD keeps giving him a job.



De-Criminalizing Mental Illness
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1651002,00.html

Psycho." "Freak." "Jason from the horror movie." These are the answers that counselor Habsi Kaba gets from Miami police officers when asked to describe people with mental illness. Such stereotypes are surprisingly common, says Kaba, and not just within law enforcement



Bystander Dyshawn Gibson described Monday's shooting to CNN affiliate WABC-TV. "He dropped the brush," Gibson said. "He put his hands up. Police just started firing."

If I sound a little bias to NYPD :eek: I am just a little
I grew up in NYC and was less that impressed with them.
I have family and friends in NYPD and other police dept. so I don't think of myself as anti police but I do think a lot of NYPD is rotten to the core and bias toward minorities .

Cosmoline
November 16, 2007, 02:00 PM
Cosmoline,
Sounds great. Tell you what, I'll propose a tax increase to:
a) Hire enough officers to maintain coverage while the rest are training.

b) Allow for every officer in the country to get as much time behind the gun as an operator in a Tier One military unit.

You will lobby all of your legislators and get your friends, neighbors and business associates to support it. Fair enough?

In the mean time, come on down to the range with me, I have an exercise that is an rather inexact approximation of what you face. We'll see how you do.

Or why not just stop wasting money on new sidearms every few years and get each officer a shotgun or a mini-14?

Whether or not I can personally pass some test you have in mind is really not relevant. I'm not a peace officer. But as a matter of fact I do try to keep a long arm at hand whenever I can legally and practically do so, because I know perfectly well that even after tens of thousands of rounds out of the short gun I really don't trust one that much in a fight. I don't even trust one against a squirrel unless the animal is very close and sitting very still. But with the right long gun such as my CZ, he be dead squirrel. A squirrel is not a man, but it's about the size of a man's heart.

Telling me the officers have a difficult job is no better than Scott sitting in a tent in Antartica complaining about the weather and challenging the nay-sayers to try man hauling. Nobody is making them do it. The officers should use carbines or get a lot better with sidearms, and Scott should have used ski and dog.

These are just a few of the hundreds of things we must know before we can begin to analyze what happened and learn from it.

The bottom line is they miss almost as often as they hit. Sometimes they miss a lot more. That's a problem. You can analyze the situation all you want, but the end result MUST BE to hit more often. And from what I've seen, that just isn't happening in major departments. So they're doing something wrong or their equipment is not up to the task. Like I said, if they can't hit the target with what they've got they need something longer and more powerful.

In my few brushups with nervous LEO's, I've gotten to look down the barrel of a loaded AR. Now I was never trying to run or cause troubles in those situations I was just a witness to the usual Spenard and backwoods tom foolery. But had I wanted to dart and run at the officer I would have given myself maybe a 5% chance of dodging the aim on that beast. With a short gun, everything changes and the chance of dodging aim or absorbing .40 cal slugs long enough to get a knife in or a weapon drawn is much higher. How many handgun rounds would it take to stop me? Maybe one, but maybe a lot more. And I'm small compared with some of these Samoan boys.

Put it this way, I would never under any circumstances be an LEO for a department that restricted my ability to carry at least a carbine or shotgun as I saw fit.

As far as whether it was a lawful shooting or not, I have no idea and we don't know nearly enough facts. What we do know is that a number of officers who were NOT UNDER FIRE and had a clear shot at a man who wanted to be shot still missed an amazing number of times. Every one of those bullets that missed was a FAILURE on their part that put innocent lives at risk. That's just the way it is, and excuses about being overworked underpaid or whatever really don't cut it. They have to get better or get better and more powerful weapons.

yesit'sloaded
November 16, 2007, 02:12 PM
I don't think being mentally ill has anything to do with running towards cops with a knife. When someone runs at you with a knife you don't try and figure out why they are doing so. Flashing a "gun" at the cops on top of that was even worse. I'm usually all for restraining LEOs from using any amount of force over the minimum required, but in this situation they had no clue what was under that shirt and did what any reasonable self preserving person would do.

ozwyn
November 16, 2007, 02:13 PM
I am often very critical of LEO use of force.

But in this circumstance it is a crappy situation but given the suspect's behaviors it is a good shoot IMO. If I randomly "i have a gun" and start acting agressively to responding LEOs after someone calls 911 on me, getting shot is a reasonable outcome.

cops should bill the mother for the ammo, and then get a little more range time in. 40% hit ratio is not terrible for a real world self-defense shooting, but they could still use some work.

S&W620
November 16, 2007, 03:02 PM
ozwyn, I'm right there with you.

When you tell police officers you have a gun, after they have you on tape saying "I'm ready to die", and then you advance toward them, what can you honestly expect to happen?

It's an awful situation, no doubt, but anyone who is surprised by the outcome is a bit naive.

Here's to hoping both the officers and the family can move past this terrible incident.

Phil DeGraves
November 16, 2007, 03:31 PM
"Whether or not I can personally pass some test you have in mind is really not relevant. I'm not a peace officer. The bottom line is they miss almost as often as they hit. Sometimes they miss a lot more. That's a problem. You can analyze the situation all you want, but the end result MUST BE to hit more often. And from what I've seen, that just isn't happening in major departments. So they're doing something wrong or their equipment is not up to the task."

Since you are not a police officer, than I would guess that your realm of experience is inadequate to judge whether 40% is good or not. Believe me, trainers deal with this all the time. There are so many things that police officers are expected to learn in so little time that given the amount of training these guys probably got, 40% sounded pretty good to me.

And it is a poor sport that blames his equipment. Certainly, in a perfect world, while we're Monday morning quarterbacking we can say, they should have stayed back and shot him with a long gun. But that's what it is...Monday morning quarterbacking. You weren't there and then when someone offers you the chance to experience it yourself, you decline.

cassandrasdaddy
November 16, 2007, 03:46 PM
the best thing about being a monday morning quarterback is its safe

Officers'Wife
November 16, 2007, 05:50 PM
Hi Phil,

Since you are not a police officer, than I would guess that your realm of experience is inadequate to judge whether 40% is good or not. Believe me, trainers deal with this all the time. There are so many things that police officers are expected to learn in so little time that given the amount of training these guys probably got, 40% sounded pretty good to me.

I'm sure that you are not a cattleman, but you are still able to judge the quality of meat. I'm sure you are not a truck driver but you are still able to judge the guy messed up when your products are damaged in transit. Thin blue line aside, professionals are judged, rightly or wrongly, by the perception of their proformance. You comment(s) smacks of cop attitude 'us, perps, and civilians." Despite your apparent distain for civilians they are your employers, and have every right to criticize your performance by whatever yardstick they want to use.

Every round that did not hit the target, was a hazard to the civilian population. "But at least they stopped shooting when the target went down " sounds like something that could be used to discribe a gang-banger drive-by. The more sloppy marksmanship is defended, the more I have to wonder the diff.

Selena

Phil DeGraves
November 16, 2007, 07:59 PM
"You comment(s) smacks of cop attitude 'us, perps, and civilians." Despite your apparent distain for civilians they are your employers, and have every right to criticize your performance by whatever yardstick they want to use."

I am not a police officer. That being said I find your comment particularly offensive. I think before anyone does any Monday morning quarterbacking they at least ought to know what they are talking about. And your analogy just doesn't hold water. I do have to have driven 18 hours to have an idea what its like to do a long haul. How many of you have ever been in a gunfight or even had training in gunfight dynamics? The truth is, if you had, you would see that 40% is actually a pretty good hit ratio. So before casting aspersions on the police officers involved, at least look at it from the position they were in and not from a comfortable armchair in your living room.

Officers'Wife
November 16, 2007, 08:47 PM
Hi Phil,

I do have to have driven 18 hours to have an idea what its like to do a long haul.

You think THAT qualifies you? OK, provided you had about 16 or 17 thousand pounds behind you in the middle of rush hour traffic. But it's a moot point. It's really amazing to me the excessive cop denyier can raise six kind of perdition when soldiers in a war zone return fire (note the word return) because there were 'civilians' in the area yet give the tired old excuse of 'battlefield dynamics' when overaged boys in blue play Wild Bill Hickok on a city street. So find, since 'battlefield dynamics' make it impossible for police to use target acq then take away their semi-autos and give them single shot pistols, at least that way civilians have a chance to duck and cover. After all, if we cannot trust them to use that firepower responsiblely, be it natural reaction or attitude, it's best to take them away. Just ask the mayor(s) of Chicago, New Orleans and Los Angeles.

<sarcasm OFF/>
Selena

Phil DeGraves
November 16, 2007, 09:44 PM
What's next? Are you going to say they should have shot the knife out of his hand? The amount and type of training officers get is marginal at best. 40% under those circumstances is pretty good. If you are saying they should get more and better training, well of course, I agree. But I am also realistic enough to realize, it ain't gonna happen...

And no, I wasn't saying that that "qualifies" me. I was just trying to make a point. Perhaps I should have said, I am not a cattleman so I am not going to tell you how to herd your cattle. Unless you have some basis in REALITY instead of what you've seen on TV, don't make judgements. Shooting on a range does not approximate shooting in a gunfight. They are apples and oranges. The REALITY of the situation is that in a gunfight when you're first objective is not to get hurt and your second objective is hitting the target, there will be misses. And it's compounded when there are more than one officer involved.

"So find, since 'battlefield dynamics' make it impossible for police to use target acq then take away their semi-autos..."

Actually, it isn't impossible though it isn't intuitive either. That is what GOOD and INTENSE training will do for you. And also, I agree that there are some officers out there that shouldn't be armed at all because their skills are so poor. But you are getting into areas that have been the bane of police trainers everywhere for a long time and for which this is not the appropriate place to discuss.

Officers'Wife
November 16, 2007, 11:03 PM
Hi Phil,

Actually, it isn't impossible though it isn't intuitive either. That is what GOOD and INTENSE training will do for you.

Interesting, then NYC is allowing undertrained LEO's out on the streets while the Sullivan Act disarms the citizen at large? Interesting argument.

As for how to herd MY cattle, you could try but you would deserve only a very rude answer. Simply because you have financial basis none to be concern about MY cows. However, if I were raising YOUR cattle, everything you would tell me, no matter how idiotic it might be, would be etched in stone simply because you would be signing my paycheck. Police officers are not being paid by the government any more than I would be being paid by the bank your check was drawn from. The police are paid by the citizen, meaning the citizen has every right to criticize them for everything from excessive force to speeding on a public road.


The office of the police is to protect society by enforcing the law.
Shooting bad people when they interfere with that office is within their job description.
Blasting away at anything BUT the BG is in itself a deadly threat to society ergo the antithesis of the office. Persons, regardless of their employment, that commit acts against the peace and dignity of society- such as spraying pistol ball around a city neighborhood- need to be removed from society as much as the perp they are defending themselves against.

I do not expect any LEO to be larger than life. I do expect them to be professional in the use of their trade. Four men + one target + 20 rounds is a cluster frack not the work of professionals.

Item last, if you are trying to change my opinion please do not waste your time. I'm not much of a fan of gov agents being held to a lower standard. I am strongly opposed to those in a position of trust that violates that trust. I have nothing but contempt for those supposed to be professionals that yeild the work product of an amateur, then make excuses to justify their behaviors. You have made your case, I have made mine. You are not going to change, neither am I. You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to disagree. At this point it's probably best to move on.

Pax
Selena

jcoiii
November 16, 2007, 11:56 PM
I do not expect any LEO to be larger than life. I do expect them to be professional in the use of their trade. Four men + one target + 20 rounds is a cluster frack not the work of professionals.

btw, how long does it take you to fire four shots? (20 shots fired by 4 officers was it?) I can fire four in the amount of time it takes for the first round to have any effect on the badguy. Back at the academy (yeah, leo) when I was just learning to get better at gun handling, I drew from retention holster, fired two rounds COM in about 1.07 seconds, with most of that being the time to draw/get on target. I can do it better now. But my point is, I can shoot 5 in under two seconds. I'm sure many many here can do so much better than that.

So four officers draw and fire over a span of 2-3 seconds. 40% hit ratio is better than the average by 200% (from the last stats I read). is that good? no, for the reasons pointed out. If 40% hit, that's 8 rounds. Where are the other 12? Well, the shots will be accounted for, and the dept will be paying for any damages caused by those shots.

So, rather than debating the training habits and how the cops are unprofessional if they can't hit 100% of the time like you do on your targets, could we stick to the OP's topic about these officers shooting this kid?

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 12:16 AM
Hi jcoiii,

I can fire four in the amount of time it takes for the first round to have any effect on the badguy.

I'm happy for you, I have a Fiero at my brother's place that I can easily handle going around curves on gravel roads at 70 MPH. However, I'm prone to use my common sense.

Where are the other 12? Well, the shots will be accounted for, and the dept will be paying for any damages caused by those shots.


Wrong, the taxpayers will be paying for any damages the poorly aimed rounds caused. Now, in a city with a large population density what are the odds those 'insurance' rounds will hit a civilian? What compensation is enough for a child's life? Or that child's mother? I've heard Chicago cops making the joke 'the guy was innocent and standing by, he was asking to get shot.' The checkerboards think it's hilarious. I think it's time for them to find another line of work.

Being trained to empty a magazine doesn't really impress me that much. A double tap I can understand, four rounds? Sounds to me like an advertisement for LEO's to go back to revolvers if such abuses are part of 'training.'

Sarcasm aside, you have a difficult and dangerous job. Almost as dangerous as dangerous as agriculture. That doesn't give you a pass to put on the uniform and leave common sense behind. "the dept will pay" is far from a justification, it's an excuse. And a rather poor excuse at that.

Selena

Eyesac
November 17, 2007, 12:21 AM
40% hit ratio?
Goodness... I always have to wonder if I would be that bad...:scrutiny:

Pete409
November 17, 2007, 12:42 AM
I'll have to side with the cops on this one. Considering the circumstances as they saw it, I think they did the right thing.

As for hitting him with only 40% of the rounds, that might not be too bad. I don't know the distance that the cops were away from the guy. If I were one of the cops, I think I would try to keep considerable distance between me and the guy under these circumstances. I would also try to stay behind some cover if possible.

Roccobro
November 17, 2007, 12:49 AM
40% is pretty good on a national comparison of shootings, and some are upset that it isn't good enough. Both sides are right. What will change this? More training, more bullets, more money.

You don't think .gov doesn't know this? They KNOW it is cheaper to pay any settlement for unaccounted bullets than to put up for the training (ammo has doubled in the last few years MR. and Mrs. taxpayers). Why do you think most departments run short of full staffing levels? It is cheaper to pay 1.5-2x the regular officers rate than hire a new officer to easy the burdens. It is cheaper. Bean counters are everywhere, and money talks.

BTW, who's to say hit ratio would actually go up with increased training? How many rounds does the military expend to get their desired outcomes in a war? And boy do they train! No the streets aren't a warzone, but for every officers use of a gun, there are many other officers that haven't used theirs in the WHOLE CAREER. Had on Deputy with 20+ years on, still sporting a wheel gun, say he's never even pulled it out of his holster on duty ever. Check the amount of employed officers against annual shootings. Even with incredibly high liabilities, it isn't on the top of training lists to improve hit ratios. Cars kill more officers now days so auto training is the top of the CLEO's priority lists.

Sad? kinda. Really important? Apparently not.

Justin

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 12:56 AM
Hi Pete,

I have problem none with the idea the police shot the man. However, a 40% hit ratio means that the officers had idea none where they were shooting 6 rounds out of ten. In the case of twenty rounds fired that would be 12 rounds, nearly a full magazine of pistol ball bouncing around a heavily populated area. The population was put in as much danger by the police stopping the perp as they were from the perp himself. Am I being 'unfair' in saying an agency given authority to protect society should not abuse that authority and put that society in deadly danger?

Selena

doc2rn
November 17, 2007, 01:00 AM
Question when responding to known psychosis patient arent they supposed to use a taser? What was the use of buying them if they dont use them(tasers)?

Red Dragon
November 17, 2007, 01:10 AM
Selena,

With all do respect, it appears that, if the logic you are using were expanded a bit, you could say that anyone trained to shoot, who fires a weapon and misses a target shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Of course, this is merely my impression.

I have had a reasonable amount of firearm training and I can't say that I have hit the target every single time I have fired. Sometimes I am a little to the left, sometimes I am a little to the right, sometimes high, sometimes low, but when taking into account the stress level of these officers as well as the adrenaline effect and the presumption that the target was more than likely moving quite a bit, the chance of every bullet hitting the target is highly unlikely. Yes, the bullets have to go somewhere and more than likely they are imbedded in the floors and walls in this particular shooting.

The unfortunate truth is, any time there is a shooting involving multiple people in a heavily populated area, there is going to be a fairly significant chance that someone may be hit by a bullet that missed its target. But that is a risk one has to take in certain situations. If, based on this quote:
Blasting away at anything BUT the BG is in itself a deadly threat to society ergo the antithesis of the office. Persons, regardless of their employment, that commit acts against the peace and dignity of society- such as spraying pistol ball around a city neighborhood- need to be removed from society as much as the perp they are defending themselves against.
you are saying that any cop who can't guarantee a hit each time shouldn't be a cop, then, going along the same line of logic, anyone who can't guarantee that they will never get into a car accident of any sort (including minor fender benders) shouldn't be allowed to drive a car.

The psychology of high stess situation shooting is another thing to take into account. One of the reasons they switched most M16s to from [safe-semi-auto] to [safe-semi-burst] is because there were too many times when the stress level of combat resulted in soldiers firing of their entire magazines in one full auto burst.

When the fight or flight reaction kicks in, the body reacts. You aren't always thinking "fire, follow target, line up sights again, be sure of exactly where I am aiming, and fire again". Usually its more like "fire, fire, fire, fire, fire" until you kick out of fight or flight mode and are able to reassess the situation.

The truth is we weren't there. We only know what we have been told and what we assume happened so saying what went right and what went wrong is only speculation based on hypothetical scenerios. We just don't have all the details so this is all just back and forth debate based on assumptions.

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 01:52 AM
you are saying that any cop who can't guarantee a hit each time shouldn't be a cop,

I'm saying if s/he cannot guarentee a hit, s/he shouldn't fire until s/he can. Just as I would expect any professional to be able to use their tools. Please learn to read accurately, strawman arguments are at best boring at worst an admission of dishonesty.

One of the reasons they switched most M16s to from [safe-semi-auto] to [safe-semi-burst] is because there were too many times when the stress level of combat resulted in soldiers firing of their entire magazines in one full auto burst.

Exactly why LEO's should go back to the revolver.

going along the same line of logic, anyone who can't guarantee that they will never get into a car accident of any sort (including minor fender benders) shouldn't be allowed to drive a car.

Your logic not mine, you are coming very close to the strawman fallacy. My logic is if a person consistantly drives an auto without the use of due caution they shouldn't be allowed on the public streets. Considering most states can revoke a DL for a certain number of speed tickets and have statutes regarding reckless driving, it would appear the legislators agree with me.

Just for clarity, however, let me ask you. If a large dog were attacking your kid and you fired six rounds. Three hit the dog, two hit a tree and the last hit the paperboy would you expect to be arrested for negligent homicide and reckless endangerment? Would you expect a jury of your peers to understand the great stress of your child in danger as anything but a mitigating circumstance at your trial? If you can honestly answer no to both these questions and give me examples I'll apologize and fell better about the world in general. If you cannot I'll repeat myself again- I hold professionals to a higher standard than amatuers. The police are supposed to be professionals. If they are not willing to be professions they should find other employment were they are not as dangerous to society as the criminals they pursue.

Selena

MakAttak
November 17, 2007, 03:07 AM
So four officers draw and fire over a span of 2-3 seconds. 40% hit ratio is better than the average by 200% (from the last stats I read). is that good?

There is good discussion here, but I noticed this one.

First, where did you find these stats?

Secondly- is the national average for hit/miss ratio really only 13%? (200% better than 13 is 13 + 13* (200%)= 39, so almost 40) or did you mean it is 200% of the national average or 100% better (making the national average 20%).

Either stat is scary, but 13% would explain how I hear so many stories where 30 to 50 rounds are expended by police and criminals and no one gets injured....

Red Dragon
November 17, 2007, 04:10 AM
Well, "for clarity", if a large dog were attacking my child, I wouldn't fire any rounds because dogs tend to thrash a target around, I should know, I have 4 dogs, 3 of which are classified as large. I have the knowledge that using a firearm in a situation like that would be too much of a risk in hitting my own child in the process so that was a dumb example.

Yes, the police are supposed to be professionals, but this is the real world and there is no such thing as a robocop with a 100% accurate target aquisition system built into their head. If you have someone moving at you with a weapon intent on causing you serious bodily harm and they are not running on a rail, and you, regardless of level of training, are waiting to get a shot that you can guarantee will hit, then you will die because his whole objective is to hurt or kill you and he isn't just going to stand there so you can shoot him.

Please learn to read accurately, strawman arguments are at best boring at worst an admission of dishonesty.


Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote before you attack the way I read. The sentence started with the word "If", meaning "If this is what you are saying, because it could be interpreted that way, then going along the same skewed line of logic you are implying in situation 1, applied to situation 2 the results would likely be as such."

Your logic not mine, you are coming very close to the strawman fallacy. My logic is if a person consistantly drives an auto without the use of due caution they shouldn't be allowed on the public streets.

Using this as your arguement is implying that cops are consistantly firing wildly. In fact, it appears that your whole arguement is implying that if cops aren't hitting their target 100% of the time, then they are just firing randomly hoping a bullet might hit a badguy in the process and shouldn't be cops in the first place. This is all based on you using the phrase "Blasting away at anything BUT the BG..." which implies direct intent to "blast away" when, in fact, if cops are "blasting away" at the badguy and miss, they are still "blasting away" at the badguy. They just missed.

Human beings are not perfect. There is almost nothing in this world that can be truely guaranteed other than the fact that if you are born, you will die. There are too many factors in any given situation that are well beyond the control of any one person. Since you are so keen to ask for examples, can you give me one legitimate example of any professional that can guarantee 100% accuracy 100% of the time? I doubt it.

Exactly why LEO's should go back to the revolver.

Ok, so 4 cops firing revolvers at this guy would have ended up firing a potential 24 rounds or the same 20 that were fired to begin with. Then maybe we should just give them one round a piece, that way they have to guarantee that that one shot has to hit the target and kill him or they will die because the badguy doesn't give a damn who he hits when he fires countless rounds wildly at the cops. Or maybe we should just give the cops sharp sticks. That way, they won't have to worry that their one bullet misses and kills a schoolbus full of nuns and orphans.

If they are not willing to be professions they should find other employment were they are not as dangerous to society as the criminals they pursue.

Apparently, in your mind, real professionals are infallible so everyone else shouldn't even try because they would just be a danger to society.

Show me examples of the amount of people unintentionally killed by during a shootout with police (and killed by police) coming even remotely close the amount of people killed by criminals and maybe this won't be such an unbelievably wild exaggeration.

We could play the "What if" game until we are blue in the face but it is clear that you are already set on your opinion and no one here is going to change it.

Pete409
November 17, 2007, 10:01 AM
"I have problem none with the idea the police shot the man. However, a 40% hit ratio means that the officers had idea none where they were shooting 6 rounds out of ten. In the case of twenty rounds fired that would be 12 rounds, nearly a full magazine of pistol ball bouncing around a heavily populated area. The population was put in as much danger by the police stopping the perp as they were from the perp himself. Am I being 'unfair' in saying an agency given authority to protect society should not abuse that authority and put that society in deadly danger?

Selena"


Selena, your logic (?) is at best naive, and at worst just plain stupid. I won't try to use logic to convince you of your faulty thinking because it's pretty apparent from your posts that you don't recognize logic when you see it or hear it. Why don't you take your pot-stirring responses to the Handgun Control website where your thinking will fit right in with the rest of the warped thinking crowd?

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 10:20 AM
Hi Pete,

Selena, your logic (?) is at best naive, and at worst just plain stupid. I won't try to use logic to convince you of your faulty thinking because it's pretty apparent from your posts that you don't recognize logic when you see it or hear it. Why don't you take your pot-stirring responses to the Handgun Control website where your thinking will fit right in with the rest of the warped thinking crowd?

Very high road of you, so if I don't agree with your warped attitude I must be illogical, 'pot-stirring' and 'warped-thinking.' All because I advocate that the boys in blue be measured by the same yardstick as a civilian.

My stance is simple- had four civilians stopped that attack with 20 rounds and that 'excellent' 40% hit ratio, a prosecutor would be eating them from breakfast. And the charge would be murder since the excess would be proof they wanted to kill him. Yet I'm illogically not to lower my standards for alledged proffessionals? Thank you for proving my point.

Selena

Kindrox
November 17, 2007, 10:52 AM
My stance is simple- had four civilians stopped that attack with 20 rounds and that 'excellent' 40% hit ratio, a prosecutor would be eating them from breakfast.

Cilvilans arn't police and don't have the same mission. My mission is to save myself and family. I think it would be little consolation for my family to be harmed by a BG, then find out a cop *could* have dealt with the BG, but was not 100.000000000% he could stop the BG so let him go.

Selina gets to live in her home where perceptions and ideals can be substitutes for reality. I don't pay taxes for that.

I abhore innocents getting killed, but I recognize that except for truly negligent circumstances, it is the BG who is responsible, not the police.

Jamie C.
November 17, 2007, 11:07 AM
I'm saying if s/he cannot guarentee a hit, s/he shouldn't fire until s/he can.

With that as a requirement, I don't think anyone would ever be able to fire a shot at all.

The best one can hope for is a high probability that the shot will go where we want. There are no guarantees.


J.C.

Biker
November 17, 2007, 11:30 AM
Selena, Pete! Listen kids - stop this crap right now! I can turn this station wagon right around, you know. And don't think I won't!

Biker...Stern...Heh heh

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 11:34 AM
Hi Jamie,

The best one can hope for is a high probability that the shot will go where we want. There are no guarantees.

I stand corrected. Even with that lower standard, although the officer's had a deadly threat and were right to shoot, 20 rounds is saying they were not trying to use the least force to neautralize the threat they wanted someone to die.

Selena

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 11:38 AM
Hi Biker,

Stand down young man! Had those two wanted you in their argument they would have invited you! If you don't behave I won't show you the picture of my 1939 Harley.

If I got rude, crude and uncivilized I apologize. As you may have guess I'm a little opinionated and have been taught to stand my ground. Sometimes I go too far. I'm sorry.

Selena

Homerboy
November 17, 2007, 11:52 AM
Officer's Wife:

You are not an officer, so your opinion is totally irrelevant. How many shootings has your husband been in? If he has been in any, would you appreciate other armchair commandos like yourself counting his shots. Hitting paper and hitting people are two differernt things. Unless you have been in a shootout, kindly keep your stupid opinions to yourself.

Wonder how many shots it take to kill ONE insurgent? What about all that 5.56 MM ammo flying around those Iraqui cities? Guess you think our boys should go back to bolt action rifles?

Jamie C.
November 17, 2007, 11:58 AM
I stand corrected. Even with that lower standard, although the officer's had a deadly threat and were right to shoot, 20 rounds is saying they were not trying to use the least force to neutralize the threat they wanted someone to die.

Given that police are taught to shoot until the threat is neutralized, and that people can and do take a lot of shooting at before they fall down... especially when 60% of the bullets miss... I wouldn't necessarily say the cops "wanted somebody to die".

Oh, and Homerboy... you need to reel that attitude in a bit. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and to discuss it if others are willing. And if you can't deal with that, then maybe you should take your own advice concerning opinions.

And before you ask, yeah, I've been both a soldier and a cop, and I've been shot at.

J.C.

Biker
November 17, 2007, 11:59 AM
Heh heh...just lightening things up. I'll stand down for a pic of that scoot!

Biker:)

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 12:28 PM
Hi Homer,

Wonder how many shots it take to kill ONE insurgent? What about all that 5.56 MM ammo flying around those Iraqui cities? Guess you think our boys should go back to bolt action rifles?

I see, then American citizens are on the same plane as an enemy agressor? I understand Comrade Homer, all for the glory of the collective? As much as they would like you to believe it not many squad size groups of gang bangers in American cities with AK-47s, IEDs and RPG's. New York City isn't Bagdad and you ain't a chief of staff, painting the boys in blue in the same threat level as in a war zone is most of the reason many people have such a distrust of the police. As for my opinion being worthless... Until the United States of America and the State of Indiana declares me exempt from taxation I'm helping to pay these campus cops to shoot up neighborhoods. We fought another war some 231 years ago to give the civilians voice in how their tax money is spent and the results of that spending. Perhaps you have heard of that one, the Revolutionary War?

Now, I'm trying hard to keep to the high road here. I will not return your name calling but... had four civilians in a break in situation with the aggressor showing a weapon had fired twenty rounds at the burglar all four would be in jail and in most states the number of rounds fired would negate castle doctrine. Why should I hold professionials at a lower standard than the professionials hold amateurs? Answer that question and hold off on the name calling and you might get somewhere.

Selena

Homerboy
November 17, 2007, 12:59 PM
You won't return name calling? Didn't you just call the cops who you have never met, patrol one of the worst streets in America, and have never fired a shot between them "campus cops"? And the comparison between Iraq and this situation is valid. Fine, the guys in Iraq are facing insurgents with AK's, grenades, and IED's, but they also have full auto weapons, body armor capable of defeating that AK round, rockets, armored vehicles, etc. When YOU are faced with a threat that may end your life, you will not be counting shots. ANd since when do our soldiers only fire when they are fired upon> Are you kidding? When one squad of guys with M4's gets pooped at by one AK round, you're saying they don't all unload? A recent studt says that it takes 250,000 rounds to kill ONE insurgent! What happens to the other 249,999 rounds? Now I would imagine that study is off, but suppose it's one percent of that number? So it takes 2500 rounds to kill ONE insurgent?

Your ant-government rhetoric is blatant. People like you are the reason that cops never opt for a jury trial. Imagine 12 misinformed people like yourself who think you know how to shoot based on your paper targets at the range deciding your fate! I'm not a doctor, so I'm not wualified to comment on medical procedures. You're not a cop, and unless you've been in a shooting, sit down. Go tend to your calves or something. Leave the policing work to cops.

TCB in TN
November 17, 2007, 01:18 PM
And the comparison between Iraq and this situation is valid.

I have to agree with Selena on this one. Police work in the US is considerably different than the war against the insurgents in Iraq. To say differently is to be less than truthful, or to show a lack of understanding. There we are at war in a foreign nation against terrorist organizations. Here in the US our LEO's are supposed to be serving and protecting the citizenry.

A recent studt says that it takes 250,000 rounds to kill ONE insurgent! What happens to the other 249,999 rounds? Now I would imagine that study is off, but suppose it's one percent of that number? So it takes 2500 rounds to kill ONE insurgent?

You may be correct but are you saying that the police SHOULD be operating in that same fashion here at home? :uhoh:


Your ant-government rhetoric is blatant. People like you are the reason that cops never opt for a jury trial. Imagine 12 misinformed people like yourself who think you know how to shoot based on your paper targets at the range deciding your fate! I'm not a doctor, so I'm not wualified to comment on medical procedures. You're not a cop, and unless you've been in a shooting, sit down. Go tend to your calves or something. Leave the policing work to cops.

So you are saying that questioning why police officers are not held to the same standards for shooting that private citizens are is "anti-government rhetoric"? I would personally suggest that questioning our "government overlords" is precisely what the FF had in mind. If you don't want to, then it is your right, just as Selena's right to do so.

Now my question is that if it IS OK that 4 officers spent 20 rounds to stop this particular "threat" then why is it SOP for LEO's and DA's to question the use of multiple shots by civilians to dispatch threats to their person? (the Goose and Gander thing)

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 01:50 PM
Hi Homer,

Your ant-government rhetoric is blatant.

Keeping a government employee under if not greater than equal constraints as the citizen is anti-government? Expecting a professional to be held to a higher standard is anti-government? In that case I'm in the company of Franklin, Washington, Madison and a few other anti-governments types. More than a few that worte the document that formed this government. I won't mention the company you seem to be willing to keep.

And the comparison between Iraq and this situation is valid.

If that were the case LEO's would be higher on the hazardous occupation list than they now enjoy. (#15 IIRC) When my husband was in Iraq he faced fire an average of once a week. How often does the NYPD officer come under fire? And I don't mean investigating a civilian being shot at I mean actually under fire? Now, how many of those police go out on orders if they draw fire they are not allowed to shoot back? Last but not least if the LEO/military mission is so similar why is it that the military is banned from in country law enforcement under posse comitus?

Item last- still- Why should the alledged professionals in police uniforms be judged under a lessor standard than the people they are supposely there to benefit?

Selena

Selena

soutex50
November 17, 2007, 02:39 PM
Ok, for all that are still on the 40% issue....try this, next time you go to the range, fill up a jug with water, preferrably an antifreeze jug, then, have someone tie a rope on it and stand approximately 21 feet away from it. Lastly, have that same someone start running away from you pulling the jug, in other words, pulling the jug at you like an attacker. Now try to hit the jug and stop firing as soon as you see water come out.
Seem easy? It might be if you are highly trained and in the comfort of a range.
Now factor in adrenaline, fear, family members screaming, and the simple fact that humans are NOT water jugs being dragged on a rope and do Not stop on the first round that draws blood, do NOT move in a straight line and in fact has the capability of KILLING you.

Yes, I am an LEO, yes I train as often as I can, no, I am not justifiyng any miss on their part but what you are asking is PERFECT, and as the commercial says, "We live nowhere NEAR PERFECT.
Rafael

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 02:53 PM
Hi soutex50

On my brothers' range he has a setup where the line is on a clothesline pully and a motor on the other pully set that the target moves between two to eight ft/sec 30 yards from the firing line. He uses tennis balls for that particular game. Between the foreward motion and the 'bounce' from the fish line the balls are suspended it's an interesting challenge.

I managed to hit the target once at 2 ft/sec but it was more luck than skill. When my brother is in one of his moods or the guy shooting 'confuses mouth with talent' (his words not mine) he has air lines buried with nozzles at various places covered will powdered lime and equiped with solenoid devices. In short you are tracking the target and suddenly there is a white cloud somewhere on the range between you and it. But that's neither here nor there.

My problem, is the idea of twenty rounds fired. Once again, if an equal number of civilians in a similar situation (i.e. a bona fide self defense shooting) had used twenty rounds the prosecutors would be hanging them out to dry for excessive force. So once again I ask the question, why should we hold amateurs to a higher standard than the professions?

Selena

Jamie C.
November 17, 2007, 03:24 PM
You know, Selena, the odds of a bad guy/burglar breaking in on 4 or 5 armed people, and those people not being drug dealers, is pretty damned slim. ;)

Still, if it did happen, and all 4 or 5 fired at once, expending 20 or 30 rounds, I don't believe it would negate castle doctrine, at least not here in TN.

Now, if some of those bullets were found in the floor, under the BG..... :uhoh:


J.C.

Homerboy
November 17, 2007, 03:35 PM
IF some overzealous DA questions why you fired 15 rounds out of a semi auto, there is AMPLE precedent to back that up. Just because you HIT a guy, doesn't mean you STOP him. Sure, he might die 10 minutes later, but he's still a threat during those ten minutes. Now, if you shoot him between the eyes, and he drops dead, and you continue to shoot into him, you're guilty of shooting into a dead body. Now, if you shoot him, he drops the gun, and you continue to shoot into him, you MIGHT be in trouble, but even then, you'll beat the rap. Remember, DA's don't like to lose, and there certainly is reasonable doubt that in the heat of the incident, when adrenaline is pumping through you, the smoke of the gunfire is in the air, and your ears are ringing, there is reasonable doubt that you were unaware of the threat being over. Since you can empty a 15 round mag in 4 seconds, it is reasonable to think you had no idea the threat was over!

As for your "Bagdhad isn't NYC", I'll agree with that. never said a cop can expect the same level of opposition. But whether it's your FIRST and only shootout in Iraq or your last, you will react the same. When you feel your life is about to end, you won't be counting shots.

And the tennis ball game your brother plays is nothing more than a game. When those tennis balls start shooting back at him, talk to me then.

Seems like you're counting yourself as an expert based on other's experiences. Nothing more than a wanna-be, or more likely a never-was.

Jamie C.
November 17, 2007, 03:37 PM
Seems like you're counting yourself as an expert based on other's experiences. Nothing more than a wanna-be, or more likely a never-was.

And how 'bout you, Homerboy? What are your "qualifications"?


J.C.

Biker
November 17, 2007, 03:47 PM
Ya know, I was wondering the same thing, Jamie. It appears that someone put sand in his thong this morning.

Biker...Just Waitin'

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 04:18 PM
Hi Homer,

I'm not saying any such thing, I'm just asking a question you seem very, almost suspiciously, reluctant to answer.

Why should I hold a professional to a lower standard than an amateur?

Selena

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 04:20 PM
Hi Biker,

Careful my friend, remember the peacemaker generally finds themselves in the midst of a crossfire.

I'm used to it, I ask my brother in law the same question. He's a patrolman with the Indiana State Police.

Selena

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 04:29 PM
Hi Jamie,

<Still, if it did happen, and all 4 or 5 fired at once, expending 20 or 30 rounds, I don't believe it would negate castle doctrine, at least not here in TN.>

I'm told it happened in Indy sometime in the 90's. A homeowner emptied the magazine of a .45 into a burglar. They raked the poor guy over the coals because of firing all seven rounds and he was using hollow point ammunition. I remember my sister telling me about a case in the Quad Cities as well although I don't remember the details. I believe the homeowner got more prison time than the burglar.

Even without those examples, a civilian shooting is put under a far more powerful microscope than one by police. Which begs the question, why should professionals be judged under lessor standards than the amateurs. Just one simple little question I want the answer to. All I get is the "you have no right to ask." Makes me wonder if they have something to hide.

Selena

Jamie C.
November 17, 2007, 04:39 PM
Selena, if all the holes aren't in the front of the BG, there are going to be questions - LOTS of questions - no matter how many shots were fired.

As for being raked over the coals... all the officers I know of or have worked with get to go through the same investigation by CID that civilians do, plus a review by internal affairs that civilians don't get. And that's for what is obviously a "good shoot", and one that no charges would be filed on for a civilian.

So, at least here in my little bass-ackwards corner of the woods, the police actually get much closer scrutiny than the average person does, for the same thing, in the same ( or worse )circumstances.

Bilt4Comfort
November 17, 2007, 04:41 PM
If the dead kid was white...this wouldn't even be a story.

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 04:46 PM
Hi Jamie,

the police actually get much closer scrutiny than the average person does, for the same thing, in the same ( or worse )circumstances.

Up to a point that is true and I appreciate your candor. Rather than strech the poor moderator's patience any further and because I'm getting bored with it I won't state the obvious objections and accept that... at least until next month. :D

Selena

soutex50
November 17, 2007, 09:07 PM
My problem, is the idea of twenty rounds fired. Once again, if an equal number of civilians in a similar situation (i.e. a bona fide self defense shooting) had used twenty rounds the prosecutors would be hanging them out to dry for excessive force. So once again I ask the question, why should we hold amateurs to a higher standard than the professions?

True...but we are not. Remember, that DA or prosecutor has to take his case before a Grand Jury, composed of CIVILIANS (at least in Mother Texas it is) and those twelve civilians have to decide if excessive force was used or not. Then the case goes to trial and Oh My God, twelve more civilians are selected to decide if your civilian shooters are guilty or not. Police go through all that plus, as already mentioned, the internal affairs goon squad too. Knowing the sheep mentality (from Col. Grossman's book On Killing, good read BTW) most Americans have nowadays, yes your civilian shooters will be found guilty of excessive force.

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 09:16 PM
Hi soutex50

I understand your take, again I would point out the flaw, or rather my concerns, but in deference to our overworked moderator I'll accept it with unspoken reservations.

After all, I'm too stupid to have the right to an opinion.

Selena

cassandrasdaddy
November 17, 2007, 09:42 PM
"My stance is simple- had four civilians stopped that attack with 20 rounds and that 'excellent' 40% hit ratio, a prosecutor would be eating them from breakfast. And the charge would be murder since the excess would be proof they wanted to kill him. Yet I'm illogically not to lower my standards for alledged proffessionals? Thank you for proving my point."

could you show us an example. in real life, of that happening? the prosecutor charging a group of civilians?

Officers'Wife
November 17, 2007, 09:58 PM
Нет, это никогда не могло случаться, товарищ
No, that couldn't possibly have happened, comrade. The police were right, they are always right. They did a wonderful job and so what if a few civilians had to duck an cover. It's the price of having trained professionals on the job.

Selena

Jamie C.
November 18, 2007, 12:52 AM
Selena, I'm not trying to win an argument here so much as just trying to understand what brings you to the conclusions and opinions you have, as well as letting you know some of what goes on with the police that the public never sees.

I can think of several shootings here locally, where charges probably should have been filed against a civilian, but weren't. Even know of at least one who, in my opinion, got away with murder.

I also know of a couple of incidents where officers were reprimanded or punished when civilians wouldn't have been.

Now, I'm not saying it's like this everywhere, or with every department. But at least around here, the police are held to a much higher standard than the public is, and what's a case of self-defense for the average person can often end up being excessive force or worse for a Police officer or deputy.




J.C.

Officers'Wife
November 18, 2007, 12:58 AM
Hi Jamie,

I think I've taken enough abuse for one day. I ask questions I have my intelligence and patriotism questioned. I go for sarcasm and my husband is insulted. It would appear the only one trying to understand is me, trouble is the questions I ask seem to violate some thin blue line code. Frankly, it's not worth my time.

I do not know how to make it any clearer than that, K?

Selena

Red Dragon
November 18, 2007, 01:28 AM
After all, I'm too stupid to have the right to an opinion.

No one here is calling you stupid, Selena. It is blatently apparent that you do, in fact, have as much a right to have an opinion as any of us. Simply because some of us disagree with your opinion doesn't mean you can't have one.
Personally, I don't believe this has been an arguement. At least, not one between you and I. I have been viewing it as simply an exchange of opinions and viewpoints. To me, this has just been a debate. I enjoy debates for the intellectual stimulation. If anything I have said has caused you to get angry, that was not my intent, and I apologize, although I have found in my experience that people tend to be a little more honest when a debate becomes heated.

This forum is one for open discussion and not everyone will have the same view. If they did, it would be pretty boring. Again, I did not start my discussion with you in order to make you feel ganged up on and if that was the outcome I apologize. I fully appreciate your opinions, even though I happen to disagree with them in this particular case. I am looking forward to the next debate where, quite possibly, we may be debating on the same side.

Red Dragon

Jamie C.
November 18, 2007, 01:46 AM
No one here is calling you stupid, Selena.

Well, actually one person did, but I can't help but notice that he's fallen silent once he was called out on his own qualifications to hold and voice an opinion... And I strongly suspect that it won't go well for him if he continues with the kind of insulting behavior that we've seen here on this thread.

For myself, as I've said, I'm not trying to win an argument or competition... I'm only relating what I've experienced myself. And I'm fully aware that "here" ( where I live and have worked ) isn't the whole world, and that things are quite probably done differently elsewhere. I'm simply throwing my thoughts out there to be considered with everything else. *shrug*



J.C.

Officers'Wife
November 18, 2007, 01:51 AM
Hi Jamie,

I appreciate the benefit of your vast experience. After all, I'm to stupid to have the right to an opinion of my own. Thank God I have trained professionals to do my thinking for me.

There, that is as polite as I can manage after finally getting a feverish two year old asleep. Ten degrees is better than ninety, pin it already.

Selena

Jeff White
November 18, 2007, 01:54 AM
Ok, I think we've beaten this horse to death...

Jeff

If you enjoyed reading about "Police shooting, people going nuts over dead idiot." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!