Opinions on Ferguson MO

[Blanca BusaLess]

Just a side point for those who don't know... A human body has a lot of soft tissues. Believe it or not, most people who are shot survive with minor injuries. When a person is on drugs or adrenalin is running high, such person may not feel/realize that he/she has just been shot, and therefore continue to act for many seconds like nothing happened. Police officers are aware of this phenomena, and if it comes to the use of a deadly force to stop someone they will continue firing until that someone is stopped. Also, some shots can miss. That's why most of the time we hear about multiple shots fired by a police officer.

I once was at a shooting range and saw UN security officers participating in some sort of training. I spent a few minutes observing. Once they got OK to fire, they all aimed at their targets and shot multiple times. I observed similar practice patterns among other types of officers.

Unless you shoot someone in the brain or impact a part of their central nervous system they will still be able to function.
The amount of their ability will be determined by the already received gunshots and the damage they have done. So you could blast somebodys arm off with a .12 gauge and still be killed from strangulation by their other. Also depends on their amount of mental toughness. Some can continue to fight with great damage done to the body. Drugs and alcohol can increase their durability. This is why police are taught to shoot center mass and keep doing it until threat is either stopped or dead.

 

[fallenarch]

Yawn.

 

[mysql]

Wasn't he 300lbs? Im not saying cop was wrong just 1 shot by 9mm its pretty much game over isn't it?
I don't know guns that well im just asking. TO me a 40 caliber is a hand cannon.

The size of the bullet doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

The size and shape of the bullet does other things though.

Handguns all carry small loads, so the size of the bullet will determine things like velocity, speed, and penetration.

A round like a .45 generally won't travel as fast or as deep, it will have a lower ballistic coefficient than a 9mm. In a cold region, where people are wearing multiple layers of clothes, I'd prefer a 9mm over a .45 simply because the bullet won't travel as deep. In fact, with enough layers in the right spot, you could come out no worse for wear after being shot.

Also it should be noted that the bullet composition can also vary a great deal - the style of tip matters, as does the amount of gunpowder.

Finally, the idea that bigger is better is a fallacy that shouldn't be applied to handguns. Try unloading a S&W500 on a target and see if you're more accurate than using a 9mm. Recoil is a huge factor in accuracy.


But yes, cops are trained to keep shooting at a target till it stops moving. They aren't trained to do that to be mean; if the situation calls for you to use the gun, you use it to kill.

 

[Lycan6]

The size of the bullet doesn't mean as much as you think it does. The size and shape of the bullet does other things though. Handguns all carry small loads, so the size of the bullet will determine things like velocity, speed, and penetration. A round like a .45 generally won't travel as fast or as deep, it will have a lower ballistic coefficient than a 9mm. In a cold region, where people are wearing multiple layers of clothes, I'd prefer a 9mm over a .45 simply because the bullet won't travel as deep. In fact, with enough layers in the right spot, you could come out no worse for wear after being shot. Also it should be noted that the bullet composition can also vary a great deal - the style of tip matters, as does the amount of gunpowder. Finally, the idea that bigger is better is a fallacy that shouldn't be applied to handguns. Try unloading a S&W500 on a target and see if you're more accurate than using a 9mm. Recoil is a huge factor in accuracy. But yes, cops are trained to keep shooting at a target till it stops moving. They aren't trained to do that to be mean; if the situation calls for you to use the gun, you use it to kill.

This is informative. I think this is where the problem is, the shoot to kill part. If you can shoot to wound or to stop without leaving yourself in a dangerous predicament why wouldn't you? I get the safety of the officer. I'm asking if you can shoot someone without killing them wouldn't that be better?

 

[mysql]

Laws are weird. There was a lady in FL that recently got her ass handed to her in court.

She had a situation in her home with her husband. She claimed to fear for her life and grabbed a gun. Instead of shooting him, she shot into the ceiling in order to frighten him. It worked.

The problem? Use of a gun is limited in use. You can't use it to scare people away, you can't use it to show off, and you almost always have issues if the target survives the attack (after the criminal case, you're open to civil cases where burden of proof is lower).

End result is, if she feared for her life enough to pull out the gun, she should have shot and killed him. Her actions of firing a warning shot proved (to the court) that she had time to take other actions, and thus wasn't in immediate danger to justify its use. Thus the discharge was not legal.

She got 20 years jail for it:

Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots - CBS News

PS: There were other facts to the case, like her having time to go to her car to get the gun, but it really boils down to how she fired it. Always shoot to kill. You're ****ed if you don't. Real life doesn't work like the movies.

 

[RedBusarider]

This is informative. I think this is where the problem is, the shoot to kill part. If you can shoot to wound or to stop without leaving yourself in a dangerous predicament why wouldn't you? I get the safety of the officer. I'm asking if you can shoot someone without killing them wouldn't that be better?

If you are in fear of death or great bodily harm you have the right to stop the attack anyway you can up to and including death.

It you shoot someone and the attack is stopped and they survive then that would be a good thing as MOST people don't want to kill someone.
With that being said - no one is trained to wound someone as it has been pointed out many times that someone wounded can still do a lot of damage.
If you were really afraid for your life you would do anything you could to stop the attack.
It also has been proved over and over that the average person can cover 21 feet in under 2 seconds which is barely enough time to get a gun out.
If you were that worried about killing someone you could carry pepper spray - but that only works up to about 10 feet or so and you would have the same
problem of getting it out of your pocket before you were attacked.
If you have read this thread in full you should have seen that all police are trained to shoot center of mass multiple times.
Have you ever heard of a homeowner emptying their gun when shooting an intruder and not remembering anything after the first shot? It happens.

So your question was "if you can shoot someone without killing them wouldn't that be better?" I don't think you understand your question.
If you purposely shoot someone only to wound them there would be a good chance you were not in fear of your life and you would end up in jail.
If you were a poor shot and the person lived - OK they got lucky. It's hard enough to shoot someone to kill them, it's even harder to shoot to wound them.
I've never heard of police or anyone else doing training to wound someone. Have you?
So in a nutshell - shoot to kill is common sense - shoot to wound basically means you should not have shot them at all. That only happens in the movies.

 

[GNBRETT]

This is informative. I think this is where the problem is, the shoot to kill part. If you can shoot to wound or to stop without leaving yourself in a dangerous predicament why wouldn't you? I get the safety of the officer. I'm asking if you can shoot someone without killing them wouldn't that be better?

no one shoots to wound. a GUN is a DEADLY weapon. and if you use it ur intention is to stop them by killing them.

ur intention is never to wound anyone. u hope thats what the result is but that is not ur intention. if it is then a GUN is not the tool you wud be using. a Taser, mace or baton wud be to wound someone.

 

[IG.]

mysql, this is an excellent point and to the contrary of what you see on TV and in the movies... a gun to the head, a long dialog or a monologue about life... but the winner of silliness is when I see a part where two guys point guns at each other and discuss their differences... just laughable.

Brutal reality is a lot simpler: a gun is out when a decision to shoot has been made. If there is no such decision, a gun should not be drawn. Period.

The "movie approach" can get you killed in a second, because an intruder will react to a gun in only one way, and without any talking.

I disagree with "shoot to kill" argument. What was probably meant was "shoot to stop". I think every police officer would rather have a suspect stop by himself, and not to start shooting as a last resort method to stop a suspect. If it is proven in a court of law that a police officer meant to kill a suspect and not stop him, I would imagine such police officer would be in big trouble with the law.

 

[IG.]

Yawn.

arch, this is the shortest and the sweetest thing you said lately. I am concerned about you. Are you alright?

 

[fallenarch]

No IG I'm not back in the hospital. Just getting sick of this on every news channel all day and all night and this thread too. Funny how all this talk and i bet not a single mind was changed on either side.

 

[RedBusarider]

I disagree with "shoot to kill" argument. What was probably meant was "shoot to stop".

I'll agree with this statement to a point.
Many times stopping and killing are the same thing.

But if you shot someone running at you and they dropped even 5 feet in front of you That should be the end of it.
If he is still moving - that would be the time to run away - unless he was pointing a gun at you - so if you ran he could still shoot at you.
But if his head was down with no weapon in his hands then you are done.
If you keep on shooting just to make sure he is dead - that is wrong.

Now are we off topic?
I thought it was about Ferguson.
Now it appears to be shifting towards guns
and the use of them -
Not related directly to Ferguson.

It appears that Ferguson is calming down some as I haven't heard of any more buildings being burned.
I know the winter they get there, is a lot less then other places - but it seems like it is going to suck having to
start rebuilding in the winter time. Although I have to wonder how many will just walk away?

 

[Lycan6]

I understand how law enforcement is trained. My question is if the threat has stopped with one shot is there a need to keep shooting? If the perp is down without a weapon (other than their hands, I have to clarify this point apparently) is there a need to continue shooting?

 

[IG.]

Lycan6, have no doubt that if a perpetrator is down after one shot, no police officer is going to continue shooting. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy land, and watched too many movies. While I am not a police officer, I know enough to say that this is simply a part of their training. They always try to strike a reasonable balance between the use of a deadly force and non-use of a deadly force, and it's not always perfect, but none of them goes to work thinking that today I am gonna kill a criminal cause I hate criminals. I think any of us personally dealing with crime for a week would be tempted to use excessive force. never mind dealing with that for years. While there are always "bad apples", I sincerely believe that 99.999% of LEO's are exactly as I described.

 

[IG.]

RedBusarider, we are humans, and our minds often wander. As one topic gets exhausting , we gladly switch to something else.

 

[skydivr]

Lycan, the police are taught, and so is any civilian going to a CCW course, that, once you DECIDE to shoot (and believe me, that is a HUGE deal as that is supposed to be FINAL solution after all other options are gone - FOR A CIVILIAN), you don't stop until the threat is removed i.e. down and can't harm you any more. You don't put one in his leg (if you were that good a shot in that terrifying moment) and wait to see if he falls. It don't work that way. For the police, they have to put down the threat - running away for them is NOT an option as they are charged to make sure there is not threat for anyone else either. Jeez, if I had to shoot someone, I'd hope I could even hit them, let alone in the arm to 'wound' them i'd be so scared. Lastly, the courts and criminal justice system has used the 'shoot to wound' against the shooter, as his intent to wound meant that he had OTHER options, ie the shoot is not justified and the shooter is open to blame/suits/actions against them.

We are taught: "if you have to shoot with no other options remaining and you are in fear of your life, you shoot center of mass until your target is down, and that is the ONLY justification for shooting"...And, if you do shoot someone and the threat is gone, immediately try to get him help and/or provide medical assistance if you can.

 

[skydivr]

Wow...I think Joe's almost ready to join the NRA...and he's calling his own network and the other liberal media to task - which they totally have coming to them...Michael Brown was the totally WRONG horse for the liberals to hook their cart to....

Now, eventually, odds are you ARE going to find an example of where LE actually DOES over-react outside his bounds - will they wait for a grand jury or court to do the right thing, or will they riot again anyway? Will they riot even if the officer is found guilty? How much would you like to bet they'll 'riot for riot's sake'...?

 

[IG.]

No IG I'm not back in the hospital. Just getting sick of this on every news channel all day and all night and this thread too. Funny how all this talk and i bet not a single mind was changed on either side.

Amen to that, brother! I switch to another channel after a couple of minutes of watching. I am getting a sense that media is "milking the cow" by trying to capitalize on the issue and trying to get our eyeballs glued to the screen.

 

[Lycan6]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152790165516084
Any comments on this?

 

[RedBusarider]

I understand how law enforcement is trained. My question is if the threat has stopped with one shot is there a need to keep shooting? If the perp is down without a weapon (other than their hands, I have to clarify this point apparently) is there a need to continue shooting?

If you understand how law enforcement is trained - then you should know that most police (civilians too) are trained or taught to shoot
multiple shots as one shot rarely ever will immediately drop someone. OK if it was summertime and the suspect was shirtless and you shot him
directly in the heart and could see the blood flowing out then one shot might do it, but the result is probably going to be the same DEAD.
But because it's very hard to hit someone directly in the center of the heart and have them fall on the spot - multiple shots are used.

So my question to you is do you shoot? IF so, shooting at targets, do you always hit the center of the targets say in a circle the size of a half dollar?
Now can you do that one handed? Can you do it while running? Can you do it with a heart rate of 150+ ? All the time?
So now can you admit that under the pressure of shooting someone (something most people don't want to do) that multiple shots are normal?
What if only one shot was used - could you tell right away that they were hit? If they are running at you are you going to
hope they drop after 1 shot before they get to you?

I doubt very much if you were really in fear of a viscous attack and you fired up to 4-6 shots that a prosecutor would charge you just
because you fired multiple shots. OK if you emptied a 20 round clip and every one of the bullets hit the suspect then there is a problem.
But you were asking about a single shot and if that would stop someone, so that no more were needed. Very unlikely and not something
most people would bet their life on.

 

[skydivr]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152790165516084
Any comments on this?

These officers showed an incredible amount of restraint. That guy yelling FU with his camera phone trained on the officer, DARING him to do something....In most EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, the police would not have tolerated that crap. But taunting the officer to get him in trouble...that's asking for a taser 'experience'....that little punk disgusts me. I'd really love to say, "excuse me officer" and punch that little self-absorbed twit in the face....