Police shooting caught on tape

[NineseveN]

Good shoot.

Watch their hands, hands kill.

Mistake #1: Got out of the car with a gun in his hand. (Law abiding citizens don't do that).

Mistake #2: Ignored verbal commands to put the gun down. (Law abiding citizens do not, under normal circumstances do this, especially when held at gunpoint)

Mistake #3: Brought his off-hand towards the gun. To me, this is a hostile gesture or a gesture of intent. Could have been to rack the slide and chamber a round, could have been to put both hands on the gun and bring it up to fire. (Law abiding folks don't do this).


Grand Jury said it was okay, I agree.

 

[jashobeam]

Middy

jashobeam, you think a .223 to the jaw is just going to result in some blood and smashed teeth? It knocked him out cold, friend, same as it would to anyone. His knees went out and he sat down, like Mike Tyson had just punched him in the liver. It was a lucky shot for both the cop and the perp, IMHO.

Middy, I saw the video; I know what happened to this guy when he was shot in the jaw. I have no doubt that others would also likely drop as if being hit by a knock-out punch. My only point when I made the comment you resonded to was that, as it appeared to me that the shooting officer was more or less broadside to the perp, aiming at the lips would not result in hitting the brainstem. One shot results in death, the other results in disfigurement. Also, even though you and I both agree that a jaw shot will probably knock a man down and out and diffuse the situation, the officer was doubtfully aiming at this part of his anatomy (if he was in fact standing broadside; and if he had a frontal shot why not the heart--center mass?). I do not think that anyone is taught, when a target's entire body is available, to fire at the mouth while standing broadside. I think that such instruction would lead to lawsuits from disfigured persons and outrage from the community.

I am not saying this shot was not effective. I am only saying, and have only ever said, that this shot in all probability was not what the shooter intended. I have also conceded that I agree that it was a stressful, traumatic situation and that any number of things (such as another officer bumping against the car the shooter was using as a brace, or having to fire before ready) could have resulted in the shot coming off the way it did.

I hope everyone understands my point here. Effective, yes; ideal textbook shot, no; good, justifiable shot, yes. That's it. I don't see how anyone could argue with what I have concisely stated in this last paragraph.

 

[Nimitz]

I dont see any "cop bashing" in this thread as alot of you are so quick to point.

What i DO see is a bunch of people analyzing the video from different prespectves..

i've watched the video many times...im not going to say that it was a "bad" shoot because the suspect did have a weapon.

he camly got out of his car and shut the door wasnt facing the officers and standing sideways, his off hand did go towards the gun....i think thats what made the officer decide to shoot.

I do think however that MOST other officers would of shown more restraint in a situation such as this...I have seen much more voliatle situations where the cop DIDNT shoot...

just to let everyone know...im not cop bashing

Chad

 

[NineseveN]

The cop bashing thing was quoted from me, so allow me to explain. I posted that without reading the entire thread, I erroneously assumed it would resort to that by page 4, as it always does. It did not, I was wrong, holster your sarcasm please.


About your points, no use arguing them, you're not of the mind set to understand. Not that it's a terrible thing, it's just a thing.

 

[Nimitz]

there was zero sarcasm in my post. just stating that there was no cop bashing.

and you are of the mind set to understand?...

Chad

 

[NineseveN]

Well, you used the sarcasm smiley which denotes (sarcasm).

That's the "neener" smiley, I think you get it.

And no, I am not of the mindset to understand your viewpoint on this subject either, so I wil do my best to not argue it.

 

[No_Brakes23]

I do also realize, after much thought, that this shot did effectively achieve its purpose and that there are a number of very probable causes for the bullet having deviated from the shooter's intended point of aim.

Don't get me wrong, Jashobeam. as a marksman trained on the M16A2, it bothers me too. I just don't know if I could do better. Unfortunately, I will have to wait till I get to the range again to try it out.

I will try to see if i can make the shot under ideal conditions, and then try it while jerking the trigger, (That usually puts me high and to the right,) or anticipating the shot, (That puts me low, and is a bad habit, I have.) I will also try it without breath control and see how much that affects my shot.

I suspect with the movement of the suspect put together with less than optimum shooting technique, (Due to the situation,) a jaw shot wasn't really bad shooting. But I have to try it out for myself before it will stop bothering me.

 

[middy]

I dont see any "cop bashing" in this thread as alot of you are so quick to point.

Read page 3 again. There's one post that's undeniably cop-bashing and a couple that distort and over-simplify the situation for the purpose of making the cops out to be JBTs.

 

[Nimitz]

And no, I am not of the mindset to understand your viewpoint on this subject either, so I wil do my best to not argue it.

thats not what I was saying.

you said

About your points, no use arguing them, you're not of the mind set to understand. Not that it's a terrible thing, it's just a

no use arguing them and why is that? because im not of the mind set to understand them...hmmm yet you are? (btw THAT is sarcasm)

Chad

 

[MachIVshooter]

We are not privy to pertinent details sbout this incident. Looks to me like he was given every chance to make a good decision, and failed to do so. This does not seem like any kind of encounter a CCW holder would ever have with an LEO; it appears to be someone who either wanted to be killed or didn't want to be caught.

That said, the question of a civilian CCW holder in a guns drawn encounter with LEO's has certainly entered my mind. For example, some SHTF scenario at a department store, etc., where criminals have taken hostages and a CCW holder is involved. The LEO's are not likely to know who is who initially, and it would be irrational to expect the permitee to surrender his only means of defense against the HT's. Are the police then justified in shooting the CCW holder because he did not surrender his weapon, even though he did not pose a threat to them? Because in such a situation, the permit holder inside is likely to have better knowledge of the situation than the officers outside, and may have every reason to keep his firearm in his hand. And then there is the whole issue of police impersonators, which complicates the compliance matter infinitely. Lat year, there was a guy running around in an adjascent county to mine in a new Crown Vic and complete uniform stopping people and then assaulting or robbing them. Obviously, that is the exception rather than the rule, but a matter for concern nonetheless.

OK, I'm done.

 

[NineseveN]

no use arguing them and why is that? because im not of the mind set to understand them...hmmm yet you are? (btw THAT is sarcasm)

I meant, no use for me to argue against them, you would not understand the fundamental difference of where I am coming from any more than I would understand where you are. I thought it apparent from the context, my fault.

 

[Nimitz]

nineseveN- no ones fault...just trying to understand where you were coming from...sorry if I offended you

Chad

 

[NineseveN]

Offend me? nah, just a misunderstanding.

 

[BHPshooter]

In the police academy, we were told to expect to be a federal defendant at least once in our careers if we became municipal officers in a major metropolitan area. There are criminals who will escalate a confrontation to the lethal force threshold, and there are defense attorneys who will portray those criminals as victims of everything from racism to straight-up police machismo. Even in a "clean" shoot, we were told, we should expect a long, costly civil suit from the deceased's next-of-kin.

Anyone who carries a concealed weapon should already know this, because they would face a situation just as bad as this if they were to be in a shooting.

Just something to always remember.

Wes

 

[El Rojo]

The classic, "If that was a civilian/CCW holder, would it have been a good shoot?" How many times do we have to go over this??? CCW holders and civilians do not have the job of making traffic stops on suicidal gangstas that come out of their vehicles armed. Try to make such a comparison is a classic "apples to oranges" scenario. Give it up already. I as a CCW holder will never pull a gangsta over on a traffic stop. It will not happen so why pretend like it will?

After reading Devlcl's post, I am a little disappointed I sent him a free M1 Carbine stock after reading that dribble. Hopefully he will stick around here and grow up a little bit. If he feels so strongly that police officers shold have to take some shots for the community, he should feel free to go be a police officer and take some shots for the community. I mean he is so quick to give in to this corrupt society, but the way I see it, why not join the police force in order to try and change the system, and to take a few shots for the public now and then. I personally would rather see a police officer let a gang banger take a shot for the community.

Could the cop have waited longer? Sure. Did he have to? No. Life sucks, don't exit your car with a handgun and disregard multiple officer's orders and you won't have to be a civil rights test case. This wasn't a case of fate. This was a case of the man making poor choices and having to face the consequences of his poor choices.

As far as the officer's shooting goes, get over it. Did he stop the guy's actions? Yes. That is all that is required. I have shot pigs in the head with my .30-06 before and they still keep moving. Ballistics are never a 100% sure thing. So this guy lucked out and lived. The important thing is he stopped his actions and the bullet didn't hit anything the officer wasn't willing to destroy; that is a good shoot if you ask me. Just because you didn't get your blood lust and the guy didn't die doesn't mean it was a bad shot. Quit watching so many action movies.

 

[c_yeager]

Welcome to today's America.

You do realize that the rules regarding deadly force have gotten significantly more stringent in recent years right? There was a time (not long ago) when it was perfectly acceptable to shoot unarmed persons in the back for the crime of "running away". Saying that the police have become *more* likely to shoot a suspect on the street today than in the past just shows how little one knows about the subject they are discussing.

 

[kikilee]

Link

Does anyone have another link to this? I have tried for 2 days to open this video with no luck. I have never had this problem before. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks

 

[rustymaggot]

off topic, but related. this video is a example of a leo being patient. darn funny too. warning: it has adult language.

http://consumtionjunction.com/content/downloader.asp?file=/downloadsnew/cj_49093.wmv

 

[Lupinus]

I think the police were right, but I am slightly conflicted.

IMO police should wait as logn as possible before using lethal force. There should be no hesitation when it is needed, but it should not be used untill absoloutly nessisary.

He was given clear order's several time's to drop the gun. Perhap's he was under the influence, perhap's he was crazy, perhap's he was simply stupid. He had a gun he didn't drop it, but at the same time he gave no move that he was about to shoot, the gun from what I saw was pointed at the ground.

Sure it doesn't take much time once you have a gun in hand to raise it and fire. But when you already have a gun trained on someone, it take's even less time to pull a trigger.

So I think he should have obey'd and the cop's have every right to feel a threat as he had a gun and didn't listen. But at the same time the gun was pointed at the ground.

So I think that they could have waited longer and should have waited untill he started to raise the gun. You don't have to wait for him to get off the first shot, but they should have waited untill he began to raise the weapon at them. In the end the police were right, but they could have waited longer to shoot him.

Or they could have put the bullet in his shouler. I have seen plenty of reports and such of suicidal people who had a gun to thier head and were shot in the shoulder in order to disarm them and save their live's. Perhap's that should have been used here.

 

[nyresq]

Or they could have put the bullet in his shouler. I have seen plenty of reports and such of suicidal people who had a gun to thier head and were shot in the shoulder in order to disarm them and save their live's. Perhap's that should have been used here.

that would be the worst possible thing to do for the sake of the police, and for every LEO on the planet. if you do it once, then you wil be expected to do it every time.

There was a video going around a few years ago of a police sniper who shot a revolver out of a suicidal mans hand while he was sitting in a chair. It was an incredible shot that demonstrated the marksmans ability and skill. It was impressive by any target shooters standards. But it completly screwed the cops in that area of the country because the video was played hundreds of times on TV, and the mutant walked away with only a bruised hand. For the next two years any cop who was involved in any kind of shooting was compared to that single shot and questioned "why didn't you just shoot the gun out of his hand? or maybe just wound him in the arm?" It didn't matter the marksman was shooting a rifle with .3MOA accuracy, or that the target was sitting still in a chair with the gun hanging between his legs, or that it was broad daylight, or that the marksman was laying prone on a grassy hill about 50 feet away. none of that matters to a family member because if one cop did it then every cop should be able to do it.

there is not a single police/LE agency in the world that trains to shoot to wound or trains to shoot to knock the weapon out of their hand. You shoot to stop the threat, and the only reliable way to do that is by aiming center mass or by taking a head shot.

for more info why you don'tshoot to wound, look up information on the shooting of Eleanor Bumpers in NYC about twenty years ago.

to fill in some details you may not find: Eleanor Bumpers was a 66 year old grandmother who was of considerable size (200+lbs) and had a history of mental problems. When police attempted to take her into custody, she grabbed a knife and rushed the officers. One officer attempted to shoot the arm holding the knife, which had little to no effect with a .38 pistol. Another ESU officer put one round of 12 ga. buckshot into her shoulder with little effect, finally she was stopped with a another 2 rounds of buckshot to the chest by a third ESU officer. The community went ballistic over the shooting of a black 66 year old grandmother by 3 white police officers who "gunned her down in a hail of bullets". It may or may not have been any better with a single shot to the chest or head, but it would certainly look better then "a hail of bullets" in the next days headlines. This event was described in detail to my academy class when the topic of EDP's using lethal force and shooting to stop vs. shooting to wound came up. the crime scene photos were quite harsh as this woman had sustained multiple shotgun wounds to the chest and the arm looked like it was nearly severed. From then on, all of the training was shoot center mass, no more "shoot the arm to drop the weapon". After this even the NYPD also revised all of their standards and procedures for dealing with EDP's and even invented a device called the "Bumpers bar" that is used to pin people without causing any injuries