There are 80+ posts here, I read them all over and the closest anyone came to discussing sentencing was the guy with "clearly a case of excessive force".
Cops kill Costco pizza lady....
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
Look, in Belgium there was some days ago also a guy who was wielding a knife and charging at the police. They shot him in the stomach and the guy died on the way to the hospital. There was criticism from bystanders that the police could have shot him in the arm. I don't know. I do know that whenever they draw their gun and shoot, they'll have to justify themselves. I also do know that Filipino woman, the possibility of pizza knife and that no other known customer has declared on TV she threatened any of them rings a number of alarm bells. The police can ofcourse be in the right, but they have some explaining to do and cameras better be functioning instead of mysteriously off.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
You paid to see an overpriced circus with no animals in it? Maybe you deserve stabbing!
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
It's surprising that this still comes up. "Why didn't the officers just shoot him in the leg." Or the arm, or whatever.
After all, this worked perfectly well for The Lone Ranger or Roy Rogers....Why, they hardly ever killed anyone. And the bad guys, neatly shot through the leg (with nary an artery severed...) simply fell down and lay helplessly till the sheriff came along.
Alas, it doesn't work that way.
First, under the stress of a shooting incident, it's about average for officers to achieve 25% hits. That's hits on the entire bad guy... Not a particular body part.
I have written before as to why this is the case. Neurological and physiological and psychological effects come into play, and fine motor control goes out the window.
Second... Handguns are not particularly good stoppers. Even with modern ammunition, it's unusual for someone taking a peripheral hit to actually stop their attack. Under whatever stresses THEY are experiencing...They may not even be aware.
Handguns "stop" people by disrupting the central nervous system, or by causing them to bleed out. This may or may not be instantaneous, but likely not.
Third. The above "double tap and access" has been abandoned. Too many people getting shot during the "access" period as the bad guy was not "stopped".
Now, the paradigm is that one fires, center-mass of the target, until the threat is ended.
Period.
After all, this worked perfectly well for The Lone Ranger or Roy Rogers....Why, they hardly ever killed anyone. And the bad guys, neatly shot through the leg (with nary an artery severed...) simply fell down and lay helplessly till the sheriff came along.
Alas, it doesn't work that way.
First, under the stress of a shooting incident, it's about average for officers to achieve 25% hits. That's hits on the entire bad guy... Not a particular body part.
I have written before as to why this is the case. Neurological and physiological and psychological effects come into play, and fine motor control goes out the window.
Second... Handguns are not particularly good stoppers. Even with modern ammunition, it's unusual for someone taking a peripheral hit to actually stop their attack. Under whatever stresses THEY are experiencing...They may not even be aware.
Handguns "stop" people by disrupting the central nervous system, or by causing them to bleed out. This may or may not be instantaneous, but likely not.
Third. The above "double tap and access" has been abandoned. Too many people getting shot during the "access" period as the bad guy was not "stopped".
Now, the paradigm is that one fires, center-mass of the target, until the threat is ended.
Period.
Do you have any idea how police are trained? It is not to shoot at the arm or leg. Perhaps you know better than police trainers around the world. But I seriously doubt it.
I did not make any claims with regards to how they are trained. I make claims it is not impossible to shoot in the arm and/or leg. Those claims are true unless if you can point out the link I provided was completely wrong. But I seriously doubt it.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
What makes you think you know more about law enforcement than all these armchair police officers?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
That was a colorful way of saying that some seem to have already decided the guilt of the involved officers. Meaning that sentencing is the next step (it was a reference to a court of law).
And if that's the only one you've found, you aren't looking hard. There are multiple posts that strongly imply that the fault for this was on the officers. We simply don't have the data to determine that at this point.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
From the article:
See, now she's gone and ruined it for everyone.
See, now she's gone and ruined it for everyone.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Who ever said it was impossible?
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,095
Not in reference to this case, as the facts are unclear, but in a situation where your life is in jeopardy, would you elect to reduce your chances of hitting which, as noted above, are already only 25% if you're aiming for the middle?
Nobody. It's not impossible to try and shoot someone in the arm. Just stupid and dangerous, and something trained police do not attempt.
I didn't know there were still people out there who believed in the viability of "shooting to wound."
vi·a·ble (v-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable: a viable plan; a viable national economy. See Synonyms at possible.
That guy.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
No, it was correct the way I initially wrote it.
ETA: To borrow your tactic:
im·ply
1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.
2. (of words) to signify or mean.
3. to involve as a necessary circumstance: Speech implies a speaker.
Synonyms
assume, include.
Specifically 1 and 3. The criticisms of "why didn't they shoot in the arm", for example, clearly imply that an action was not taken that should have been taken on the part of the officers. The fact that you view this as a liklihood instead of a conclusion has not shown in posts I referred to. Since positions had not been stated clearly, the only thing left was that which could be garnered from the posts made and questions asked...which focused on the percieved failures of the officers. Almost one-sided, in fact. From that, the implication was that the officers were guilty.
Whether that implication was correct or not is a different question, but the implication was there.
Last edited:
Post #56. And Dutch police are not trained.
Sorry, you're right. I do get the impression that the number of posts finding it LIKELY they're at fault is far greater than the number that strongly implies they are at fault. I don't feel like reading them all over again.
A serving police officer commented in detail in #84. How about responding to that.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Thank you.
I would note, however, that I said nothing about the frequency or number of posts. Only that mine was a counterweight to a specific subset. I never claimed a majority of anything.
Pissed off you made the demonstrably wrong statement of "nobody"? What is there to respond to? Did I make any claims police officers are trained to shoot in the arm or leg? Or did I make claims it IS possible for them to do so and to do so successfully (I can also give a link where a guy was shot in the arm and leg and bled to death)? Why don't you just accept I'm right? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?