Too much TV for you.

Let's play what if.

I knee is a much smaller target than center of mass. What if the LEO misses. He/she shot at a downward trajectory. If the shot misses it will very likely ricochet off a hard surface such as concrete or asphalt and may strike an innocent person down range. Did that person deserve to die so the suspect can live?

When one is being charged, LEO's are taught to shoot until the threat stops. More accurately, we are taught, two shots to the body and one to the head. All this while bearing the responsibility for every shot that is fired.

There are many sound reason for that philosophy. Self-preservation is one thing to consider. In the scenario as I described in my original post, it would take the average person less than one second to cover that distance. Not a lot of time for a LEO to determine if the first shot will stop the individual charging him/her.

In fact, I would bet that even if the first round was fatal, it may take up to 30 seconds for the suspect to be incapacitated to the point that they are no longer a threat to the LEO. I know of a particular incident when a suspect took five fatal shots. He continued to fight LEO's for more than 3 minutes before he expired. Keep in mind that in most professional fights involving highly conditioned athletes the rounds only last 3 minutes.

I have to ask you this question. Do you believe the LEO should play it safe and risk being killed himself? I ask that because, Scott, you have told me that you are an engineer. As such, there is no doubt in my mind that you could not have figured this out yourself. Did you really need me to explain this? In fact, I recall you asking this same question when the Ferguson incident was a hot topic on this forum. IIRC, I gave you the same answer back then.

It reminds me of line in a popular movie, " I would rather you just said thank you and went on your way."

Abrignac wrote:

I would never expect an officer to shoot to "wound". If they are pulling a trigger, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with them continuing to pull said trigger while aiming at center mass until everything stops moving. No problem whatsoever.

I will always believe that we need to investigate what situation caused the officer to shoot a suspect. For years I've watched (and complained) about officers having a very heavy hand on taser use. For a while in the early 2000's (don't taze me bro!) tasers became a default go-to conflict resolution tool for police. But as much as I thought they were heavy handed with tasers in the past, a situation like this seems ideal for a taser.

victor809 wrote:

What I see on TV is people asking why the police keep killing black men – which is why I posted the question.

Yes Anthony, I am an Engineer. Industrial Mechanical by type, and started in the ‘80’s. And I did need you to explain it, again if necessary – You’re a Peace Officer. The trouble with engineers is they want exacting and succinct explanations. But most all folks explain things by example and allegory – not too precise. Let me illustrate; you quoted Col. Jessup from ‘A Few Good Men’, and I thought; that character was found to be criminal. And are you suggesting that the means and actions should not be questioned or explained? – No, I don’t think you meant that. Maybe you did.

Now to the matter at hand, I really don’t understand or have empathy for the rules of law enforcement, it is not my profession – and I think a lot of the Ferguson hubbub is from people really not understanding either. So someone askes “Why did the police kill the boy” and someone says “because police hate black people” and in the vacuum of information and understanding that ugly thought takes root.

I gather that the reality is this:
If you physically attack an Officer of the Law you will likely be killed in order to protect the officer and his weapon. The law deems this self-defense. The Officers legal duty to you only comes into play once you are subdued.
This really sheds light on the Arlington incident. If you’ve seen the video, the kid as a crazy as a March hair. And it doesn’t take much imagination to figure he charged the police. But without this precept clearly in mind, one would easily ask why the police men didn’t just wrestle him to the ground.

To your credit, you did a good job illustrating the issue. I wish the media did a better job explain the harsh realities of law enforcement – we might just all benefit.

Now I will say "thank you" and be on my way.

Brewha wrote:

You ran off Brewha..!! 😱





You Bassard..!! [ram27bat]

DrafterX wrote:

Too much TV for you.

Let's play what if.

I knee is a much smaller target than center of mass. What if the LEO misses. He/she shot at a downward trajectory. If the shot misses it will very likely ricochet off a hard surface such as concrete or asphalt and may strike an innocent person down range. Did that person deserve to die so the suspect can live?

When one is being charged, LEO's are taught to shoot until the threat stops. More accurately, we are taught, two shots to the body and one to the head. All this while bearing the responsibility for every shot that is fired.

There are many sound reason for that philosophy. Self-preservation is one thing to consider. In the scenario as I described in my original post, it would take the average person less than one second to cover that distance. Not a lot of time for a LEO to determine if the first shot will stop the individual charging him/her.

In fact, I would bet that even if the first round was fatal, it may take up to 30 seconds for the suspect to be incapacitated to the point that they are no longer a threat to the LEO. I know of a particular incident when a suspect took five fatal shots. He continued to fight LEO's for more than 3 minutes before he expired. Keep in mind that in most professional fights involving highly conditioned athletes the rounds only last 3 minutes.

I have to ask you this question. Do you believe the LEO should play it safe and risk being killed himself? I ask that because, Scott, you have told me that you are an engineer. As such, there is no doubt in my mind that you could not have figured this out yourself. Did you really need me to explain this? In fact, I recall you asking this same question when the Ferguson incident was a hot topic on this forum. IIRC, I gave you the same answer back then.

It reminds me of line in a popular movie, " I would rather you just said thank you and went on your way."

Abrignac wrote:

As far as my quote is concerned, it was spoken by a character in a movie who was portrayed as a criminal. But, like in so many other instances, it's the message, not the messenger, that counts.

By making the comment I made, I was referring to was the prolific belief by the untrained and un-experienced that they know better. Many in the law enforcement community realize that the average person has absolutely no idea what really happens in such situations. Instead of being happy with the job we do these critics come up with solutions that seemingly work on paper but are a failure in real life.

Don't go your own way on my account. I enjoy reading your posts. Though I don't always agree with you they are insightful.

Abrignac wrote:

You ran off Brewha..!! 😱





You Bassard..!! [ram27bat]

DrafterX wrote:

He only went to Starbucks for a cup of coffee, he'll be back.

Abrignac wrote:

No offense but I'm just not a Starbucks' kind of guy. Too much fru-fru. Vente mocha latte? Machida frapachino? Coffee should be black and bitter. Like old neighbor in Ft.Worth.

Who do you think I am? Victor?

Brewha wrote:

No offense but I'm just not a Starbucks' kind of guy. Too much fru-fru. Vente mocha latte? Machida frapachino? Coffee should be black and bitter. Like old neighbor in Ft.Worth.

Who do you think I am? Victor?

Brewha wrote:

I don't care for the taste of Starbucks coffee.

tonygraz wrote:

Hell, I grew up on Starbucks when it was still only a Seattle brand. 5 shot espressos at lunch-time from the starbucks stand in the grocery store when I was in high school.

You can pry my starbucks from my cold dead hands.

victor809 wrote:

For what it is worth, seems not a day goes by that non-engineers second guess and disagree out of hand with the decisions of our engineering staff. And often the only cure is the long and delicate process of explaining the technology, process, and methods that brought engineering to their conclusion. It's a pain in the arse.

Brewha wrote: