Does this look justifiable to you?

[tomwaits]

I wish I could remember the CT I read about that years back when I believed such garbage. It had some "explanation" of why the NWO promoted that look to urban teenagers, and I'm almost sure it WASN'T because it made them easier to catch.

From what I've heard, it's a style that simulates the clothes they give teens in jail, which are usually way too big for the teen. This outfit, ironically, makes it easier for cops to chase the teen and send him back to jail.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Yes, it looks like you have the right story there. In which case the guy was unarmed, but I think it would have been a difficult call for the police to make.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosear...q=shreveport police shooting 2003&hl=en&emb=0

It seems to be the right case, dates match from the video.

Police Chief Jim Roberts says that after ignoring several commands to stop, Hudspeth, who stood "4 or 5 feet" from the officers, turned and pointed a "chrome, shiny" object that appeared to be a gun but was later discovered to be a cell phone.

"He was holding it like you'd hold a pistol in your hand," said Roberts. The officers then fired multiple shots from their Glock .40-caliber handguns.

Videotape from the dashboard-mounted cameras in the patrol cars revealed that 15 shots were fired, eight of them hitting Hudspeth in the back. The tapes show him falling to the ground, at which point the officers stopped shooting.

 

[Madalch]

Arms and legs are harder to hit because they are thinner, and more likely to be moving.

If you shoot someone in the leg, they can still shoot back.

I've never touched a pistol, and I live in a country where guns are for filling the freezer with venison, and even I know that.

 

[tyr_13]

Well if more police adopted the FN Five-seveN system, this would be less of a problem. Although I know some prefer a shorter pistol for faster draw.

EDIT: I mean with respect to shoot-through, not mistaking people acting like they have a gun with people who actually have a gun.

 

[Uncayimmy]

From that close range they could've hit the leg. The guy wasn't running fast.

Think this through...

First, any gunshot to the body can be lethal. Thus, one doesn't undertake shooting at a human unless death is to be considered a legitimate outcome. The only exception is a sharpshooter shooting at a stationary target, but that's rare.

Second, how do you know the cop wasn't aiming at the leg and missed?

Third, most shots fired at armed humans miss. Firing a pistol under stress is exceedingly difficult. This brings us back to the first point in that a shot aimed at the arm could just as easily hit a spot much more likely to be lethal. So, don't shoot unless death is reasonable outcome. In this case we had a moving officer and a moving suspect, so hitting a specific target would be even tougher.

Fourth, by definition an armed suspect fleeing the police is a danger to the public. They were at a gas station, and the lights appeared to be on inside. It was clearly a populated area not a remote field, so the assumption for public safety is to stop someone who is armed.

Fifth, the guy aimed once at a cop and was prevented from firing by a second cop. A few seconds later he appears to turn and fire at the pursuing cop. If the cop stopped the pursuit, the suspect could have easily turned and fired again. The expectation then is to kill him before he kills you.

Sixth, why kill rather than just stop? An armed man shot in the leg or arm can still fire his weapon. If anything you've given him a stable platform from which to fire. How would this make the situation any better?

 

[Drudgewire]

Sixth, why kill rather than just stop? An armed man shot in the leg or arm can still fire his weapon. If anything you've given him a stable platform from which to fire. How would this make the situation any better?

What was stressed to us over and over again was "you're not NECCESSARILY shooting to kill. You shoot and keep shooting until there is no longer a threat." What this means is "until he's no longer capable of raising a weapon or advancing towards you."

If you can shoot accurately, it's basically nothing more than a matter of semantics.

 

[Tapio]

Thanks ya'll for baring with me and helping me realize what the case was about.

I'm now more certain than in the beginning of this thread, that it was murder. Knowing that by firing a weapon towards a person one can kill that person, and still doing it, is murder to me.

Call it justified in the name of self-defence, call it the wrong thing to do...it's all the same to me. It was murder.

Back to the OP. Can it be justified? In the Wild Wild West, seems to me that most definetely. In Finland, not so easily. After this small dialogue with you people, I'm glad (once again) I'm living on this side of the ocean.

Good night, sleep tight. Don't forget the tazers and talons and whatnot from under your pillow. Maybe you'll get lucky...

 

[Drudgewire]

Good night, sleep tight. Don't forget the tazers and talons and whatnot from under your pillow. Maybe you'll get lucky...

Hey now, the tazer under my pillow is just to help me wake up after an especially hard night of boozing.

 

[cwalner]

Thanks ya'll for baring with me and helping me realize what the case was about.

I'm now more certain than in the beginning of this thread, that it was murder. Knowing that by firing a weapon towards a person one can kill that person, and still doing it, is murder to me.

Tapio,

I believe that my signature applies to you.

murder is a legal term that refers to the unjustified taking of a human life (many societies may differ on what is considered justified but that does not change the meaning of the word) not simply intentionally killing another human being.

By your defenition, the US currently has about 30,000 murderers in Iraq fighting against several thousand (estimates vary) other murderers. Since justification is irrelevant, what side of a war one is on is also irrelevant and anybody who ever put on a soldiers uniform and fought in a war is therefore a murderer (or at the very least a conspiritor to commit murder). Since this assertion is patently ridiculous, this is why justification (or lack thereof) is a critical part of determining whether a homicide is a murder or not.

Similarly by your defenition, intentionally shooting and killing somebody who is brandishing a knife and charging you is murder. Thankfully, most of the civilized world recognizes self defense and defense of others as justifiable homocide, and not murder.

 

[tyr_13]

Thanks ya'll for baring with me and helping me realize what the case was about.

I'm now more certain than in the beginning of this thread, that it was murder. Knowing that by firing a weapon towards a person one can kill that person, and still doing it, is murder to me.

Call it justified in the name of self-defence, call it the wrong thing to do...it's all the same to me. It was murder.

Back to the OP. Can it be justified? In the Wild Wild West, seems to me that most definetely. In Finland, not so easily. After this small dialogue with you people, I'm glad (once again) I'm living on this side of the ocean.

Good night, sleep tight. Don't forget the tazers and talons and whatnot from under your pillow. Maybe you'll get lucky...

Thank you for clearing up your extreme views. We will know in the future that on this subject you are extremely biased towards the uber-pacifist ideology and address you accordingly. We will also keep in mind your apparent bias towards the US.

 

[Uncayimmy]

What was stressed to us over and over again was "you're not NECCESSARILY shooting to kill. You shoot and keep shooting until there is no longer a threat." What this means is "until he's no longer capable of raising a weapon or advancing towards you."

If you can shoot accurately, it's basically nothing more than a matter of semantics. [qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif[/qimg]

I'm gonna have to disagree. What does it matter if the person is incapable of advancing towards you? An immobile yet armed person can still present an imminent deadly threat, so throw out the second half of your statement.

The key here is the perception of threat and the consequences of your perception being wrong. If you need to discharge your weapon, the goal is to incapacitate the other person. And the reality is that one common symptom of being incapacitated by gunshot is death. Therefore, when firing your weapon, your expectation should be to kill. If the other person is fortunate, they survive. But that's not your concern. Well, it could be if you're willing to sacrifice your life for someone you perceive to be willing to take yours or that of someone else.

Now, as much as I have issues with the police abusing their power, I cut them an enormous amount of slack when it comes to shootouts. If the suspect has his weapon out and is conscious, he is still a potential threat. Therefore, I don't expect a policeman (or anybody for that matter) to back off until the other guy is not an imminent threat.

If the other person is in an unmoving heap *and* you can with reasonable certainty easily fire another shot if that person moves, then I expect you to stop firing. Likewise, if the other person's weapon is no longer available to them, stop firing. It's a judgment call about the imminent danger.

It's utter nonsense to talk about being a good shot. Check out this article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n21156072) which states, "Even within a range of 6 feet or less, the police miss more often than they hit -- 57 percent of the shots at that distance miss and 43 percent hit."

With that kind of accuracy the only prudent course of action is to go for the torso repeatedly until the other guy goes down in a heap.

 

[Drudgewire]

I'm gonna have to disagree. What does it matter if the person is incapable of advancing towards you? An immobile yet armed person can still present an imminent deadly threat, so throw out the second half of your statement.

In a perfect world I'd agree with you 100%. In the real world douchebag lawyers WILL try to convince a jury shooting a guy on the ground is excessive use of force, whether it's civil or criminal court.

 

[Uncayimmy]

In a perfect world I'd agree with you 100%. In the real world douchebag lawyers WILL try to convince a jury shooting a guy on the ground is excessive use of force, whether it's civil or criminal court.

Better to be alive in court to defend yourself than dead or maimed.

 

[Drudgewire]

Better to be alive in court to defend yourself than dead or maimed.

I know, judged by 12 or carried by 6 and all that. Still, if you can stay out of the gray area completely you've truly won the day.

 

[Abooga]

Cops should be issued gun-tazers, guns with a disabler implement (tazer). And only allowed these type of handguns. This way they´s have more "options". At least at short range situations like the one of the OP.

 

[luchog]

FWIW I did work for Victoria Police, so can say with absolute assurance that this is how they are trained, and I would be astounded if it were different anywhere else.

Every cop I've ever known was trained that way; and I was trained that way in the National Guard.

 

[luchog]

Ha...I must've poked at some really sore spot. Go on. Eye for en eye.

Nope, just trying to point out your profound ignorance.

From that close range they could've hit the leg. The guy wasn't running fast.

1) The leg is a very difficult target to hit, it's small and moves fast. It's very difficult to hit someone full in the body. Actually learn how to shoot, under those circumstances, or STFU.
2) A leg shot is every bit as potentially lethal as a body shot; thanks to happy little biological bits known as the "femoral artery", "popliteal artery" "femoral vein", and "great saphenous vein". A round which hits one of these will cause a body to bleed out within minutes; possibly less than a minute. Learn some anatomy or STFU.
3) Probably the most important: A CRIMINAL WHO WILL SHOOT AT AN ARMED COP WILL NOT HESITATE TO SHOOT AT AN UNARMED CIVILIAN. I don't know if you'ld be happy about having that kind of person running around the streets, but I certainly wouldn't be; and I'm sure there are plenty of your countrymen would would agree with me.

Regarding the OP, I think it is murder. Legal or not, that depends on the country and the court.

Fortunately, that's only your opinion. The rest of us deal in provable fact.

 

[luchog]

In Finland, if a person shoots at you (like in this video) and misses, as a police officer, you are not allowed to open fire. The first thing you have to do is to verbally order the person to stop the illegal action. If the person does not obey the repeated orders and continues to act dangerously, by pointing his gun at the police for example, the police are now allowed to shoot a warning in the air. If he still doesn't obey the orders or does not change his behaviour, the police are forced to "suppress the resistance" by "using their own best judgement". They are allowed to shoot towards the criminal only as the very last possible option. They are instructed to shoot in the leg first. Even in situations with a bad visibility. They definitely train this in Finland.

If this is true, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

What kind of mental defective requires a warning shot? People get killed by warning shots. That bullet has to fall somewhere. American cops are not allowed to shoot warning shots because of the risk to innocent bystanders. That's something that only happens in the movies. In the US, cops are trained that they only fire if the suspect proves a clear and present danger, and must be stopped, not "suppressed".

Leg shots are stupid as well. They're harder to hit, and are just as potentially lethal as a body shot. Doesn't anyone in Finland responsible for making these policies know anything about human anatomy?

Not to mention the fact that every shot that misses the target has the potential to hit an innocent bystander. Police are trained to minimize this risk to the maximum extent possible, but sometimes circumstances can cause some pretty bizarre things to happen. That's the reason real cops don't all carry .357 and .44 magnum firearms like they do in the movies -- the dramatically higher risk of overpenetration and injury to bystanders.

 

[luchog]

I'm just amazed that many criminals wear their pants in a fashion that makes it impossible for them to run away.

For some people, fashion always trumps common sense.

 

[luchog]

What kind of moron doesn't have hollow points in his carry weapon in this day and age.

Hollowpoints are not magic. Like everything else, they can, and do, fail to work as intended. There are numerous examples of hollowpoints failing to expand, and over-penetrating their targets.