Police shooting, people going nuts over dead idiot.

[Roccobro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

Heh heh...just lightening things up. I'll stand down for a pic of that scoot!

Biker

 

[Officers'Wife]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.....


J.C.

 

[Homerboy]

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.