I so sorry for being off topic but...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man, and I thought a local Sheriff's deputy was something when I was put on call for jury duty. He wants to play offensive lineman. When people lined up to talk to the judge to ask a question, he stood between the line and the judge. It's like he is the lineman and the judge is a pocket passer. Until the judge gave him the nod, he stepped in the way about knocking anyone off balance that approached the bench.
 
the Doubletap: Its an emergency and thats why your using your gun and not your cricket bat so why skimp? One bullet more in the head will go a long way to ensuring your survival.
 
MHill said:
"It was senseless to shoot him twice."

No joke. From that range, you wold think a trained marksmen could have finished it with one. Haven't these guys seen the price of ammo?
Click to expand...

With the price of ammo and overtime, few departments have trained marksmen.
 
mlrs said:
I would like to see video or hear from more people. The way it sounds right now, the second shot was not needed.


mlrs
Click to expand...

Our local news channel said that the defendant was reaching for an officers sidearm.

That pretty much negates any escalation of force protocol.
 
Guy's on crutches, unarmed, shot twice at what I assume to be point blank range inside a building, and still alive.

And people wonder why no one fears the cops. My little sister is a better shot.
 
adaman04 said:
Home defense, self-defense shooting as a CCW holder or LEO, whatever it may be. We shoot to immediately stop a threat from doing us serious bodily harm or killing us. It is not my (or our) intent to take that persons life, but if they expire as a consequence of their actions, it’s out of our control.
Click to expand...

Meh, you shoot someone, it's to kill them. And if you're shooting them, screw 'em they needed it. But to the point of it being odd to help someone you just shot, it's not. He can't hurt you anymore. Whatever his intent was, the theory is that once he can't hurt you, you have to be the bigger man, and help him. My theory is that's bullshit, and don't miss.

harley3 said:
My thoughts exactly. That office needs to be reprimanded for having to shoot a second time. :D
Click to expand...

I was under the impression officers are trained to unload on target. This is probably due the crap sidearms they're given, lack of rangetime, and to increase odds they get the target down. I'm no expert, but I'd rather just have well armed, cool headed marksmen doing the shooting.

messer454 said:
With the price of ammo and overtime, few departments have trained marksmen.
Click to expand...

Then take away their guns. Cost is a BS excuse with something like this. If you're not qualified to shoot, no gun for you. Here's your baton, may god be with you.
 
I am sorry but I have no pity for criminals. First-he wouldn't be in court if he did not commit anything against the law, second - he wouldn't have been shot if he did not try to grab the gun, third-the second shot would have not been fired if he did not swung his crutches. Now tell me who's to blame? Democracy is great but the problem is people abuse it or use it against law abiding citizens.
 
bladebuster said:
I am sorry but I have no pity for criminals. First-he wouldn't be in court if he did not commit anything against the law, second - he wouldn't have been shot if he did not try to grab the gun, third-the second shot would have not been fired if he did not swung his crutches. Now tell me who's to blame? Democracy is great but the problem is people abuse it or use it against law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

1- I've been in court SEVERAL times for things I didn't commit. I'm not the only one.

2- eh, was it a valid attempt?

3- if the first shot put him down, thats the end of legal shooting. whatever he did, if in fact the second shot was while he was on the ground, it's not clean.
 
Sounds like a real southern smackdown. Seriously, it reads real bad but I've learned not to second guess the officer. I've never been involved in an officer involved shooting, but we've had 5 since I've been with this department. It's a crappy thing for the officer to go through. In the People's Socialist Republik of Kaliforniastan, they are huge deals due to the litigation.

We had a bad guy with an AK folder stuck in his waistband. He tried to pull it out to shoot my buddy. My buddy shot him a number of times dropping him. They guy was still trying to raise the AK to shoot, so my buddy reloaded lickety split and shot him some more. The family members of the dirtbag heard it second hand that my buddy stood over the guy and executed him. They were nowhere near the incident, but rather heard it from a "witness". Of course the liberal papers repeated what the grieving family told them. My buddy started drinking a lot and eventually quit law enforcement.

They'll get the whole story ironed out eventually. Meanwhile, every Bubba who heard it from his second cousin twice-removed will be quoted in the paper while the taxpayers pick up Mr. Crutches medical bills. And Mr. Crutches probably has 5 lawyers already lined up to file a suit for him.

It'll come down to the officer's state of mind, perception of the threat, and his training. If he felt that he was in danger of great bodily harm, then he was justified to use deadly force. It doesn't matter what any of us think. It comes down to him convincing a grand jury. And as long as he was within department policy, the department will have his back. Was the cop always trained to fire two rounds and then assess? Did he fall back on this muscle memory that was ingrained through his training, as infrequent as that may have been? Probably. And of course, Mr. Crutches will file a civil suit, and the county will settle because it's cheaper to go that route than to litigate it.

Most of the time it seems the criminals have more rights than the cops. These are crazy times we live in.
 
Last edited:
Dizwolf said:
1- I've been in court SEVERAL times for things I didn't commit. I'm not the only one.

2- eh, was it a valid attempt?

3- if the first shot put him down, thats the end of legal shooting. whatever he did, if in fact the second shot was while he was on the ground, it's not clean.
Click to expand...

You shoot to neutralize a threat, not to put them "down". Not one of us was there, so who is to say the threat stopped after the first shot?
 
CrimsonTideShooter said:
You shoot to neutralize a threat, not to put them "down". Not one of us was there, so who is to say the threat stopped after the first shot?
Click to expand...

down is neutral. Don;t create a fight where there isn't one. And we weren't. I merely said If he was down, on the ground, and unarmed, shooting should have stopped. That's pretty simple.
 
Okay - agreed that people who didn't necessarily commit anything illegal can be in court but would you grab a gun while in court? Would you swing crutches while in court? For every action there is consequences and in his case he got shot. Whether the 2nd shot was legit or not I can't comment since I wasn't there but the consequences of him trying to grab a gun/swinging crutches was him getting shot.

Ah...this is no fun. Let's get back and talk about ESEE knives.
 
Dizwolf said:
down is neutral. Don;t create a fight where there isn't one. And we weren't. I merely said If he was down, on the ground, and unarmed, shooting should have stopped. That's pretty simple.
Click to expand...

I guess that when you lay prone there is no way that you can hurt anyone huh? Neutral isn't down, and down isn't nuetral. Whatever constitutes "neutral" changes with every situation.
 
Dizwolf said:
down is neutral. Don;t create a fight where there isn't one. And we weren't. I merely said If he was down, on the ground, and unarmed, shooting should have stopped. That's pretty simple.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on with this shooting. I will hold off any judgment until an official report is put out.

There is a pretty good read on proned subjects and how fast they can react.

Police are trained to "Shoot to Stop, Not to Kill". If it take a full mag of rounds to stop a suspect....so be it.

http://blog.cuttingedgetraining.org/?tag=/armed+prone+suspect
 
All this talk about the "court-house-shooting"..... the most disturbing thing I read was in Mikes second post:
"original story I heard on NPR...."
:D

Seriously though... if he first shot was "needed" than the next 1,2,5 etc. are freebies... a little NSR. Especially if it's true that the perp was reaching for an officers gun.
 
CrimsonTideShooter said:
I guess that when you lay prone there is no way that you can hurt anyone huh? Neutral isn't down, and down isn't nuetral. Whatever constitutes "neutral" changes with every situation.
Click to expand...
i agree we dont know enough here to comment....but the assumption that just because he was shot means he needed it...is BS

But he's a cop, that means he must be in the right.
 
Dizwolf said:
i agree we dont know enough here to comment....but the assumption that just because he was shot means he needed it...is BS

But he's a cop, that means he must be in the right.
Click to expand...

No not at all. I hate it when people justify their actions just because they are a police officer. I'm not a cop basher, but I don't blindly support them either. I just don't agree with the opinion that shooting him more than once was unnecessary and criminal.

They shoot until the recipient no longer is a threat. That cop decided that 2 was the number. Was he jusitified? Who knows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top