Another incident with black men getting shot by police

[Volourn]

Because cops should be better trained to handle these things than some random yahoo on the damn internet. There have been plenty of cases where cops have capture perps who had weapons without killing them or being killed themselves. the problem is the trigger happiness.  Cops should have more respect for human life than your random sreet thug. The motto of the police USED to be 'to serve and protect' now its 'kill first, cover up later'.

 

EVIL.

 

Yet, people continually defend the horrible coppers which only hurts and condemn the good coppers.

 

SICK.

[Woldan]

Police officers have exactly the same rights as all citizens to defend their lives. 

if someone would pull a knife on me and I had a gun I would kill him.

If you shoot somebody with the intention of killing you're killer, even if said person is attacking you. In a self defense scenario you shoot till the threat is incapable of continuing the assault. Incapacitation is the goal, not ending someones life. 

Edited January 31, 2015 by Woldan

[HoonDing]

[Orogun01]

 

Police officers have exactly the same rights as all citizens to defend their lives. 

if someone would pull a knife on me and I had a gun I would kill him.

If you shoot somebody with the intention of killing you're killer, even if said person is attacking you. In a self defense scenario you shoot till the threat is incapable of continuing the assault. Incapacitation is the goal, not ending someones life. 

 

What a rational well thought out post, you should release a wild carnivore in your room and make another one.

It really behooves me that people seem unable to practice the most basic form of empathy; or if you lean the other way, of rationale. People in high stress situation don't make the best choices and don't think things through. Heck, people have difficulty keeping their manners when faced with some belligerence. 

[Hurlshort]

This sounds a lot like a suicide by cop scenario.  

[Woldan]

I'm not shooting with intention to kill, you mistake me for the other guy who ATTACKS ME, I'm shooting with intention to defend myself from being killed.

if someone would pull a knife on me and I had a gun I would kill him.

You shoot center mass until the threat does not pose any danger anymore, anything else is secondary. Sometimes thats lethal for the attacker, sometimes it isn't. Some people will stop attacking you after receiving a non lethal hit because of pain and shock, others will soak up a magazine till they stop attacking you and die. Shooting until someone is dead has nothing to do with self defense because your goal is to end the attack, not to end someones life. Saying ''I'll kill anyone who attacks me'' does not make any sense in the context of self defense. 

 

And just for your information, 80% of the people shot with service pistols survive because pistols are very weak. If you want to kill that person you'd probably have to execute the attacker point blank which is homicide or exaggerated self defense, even under those circumstances. Telling the jury that you wanted to kill the attacker wouldn't be all that smart either, even if your life was at stake at some point. 

 

Edited February 1, 2015 by Woldan

[Woldan]

 

You shoot center mass until the threat does not pose any danger anymore, anything else is secondary.

Wrong. You shoot until you are safe. Anything else is secondary.

 

 

Thats exactly what I wrote. You are safe when the attacker does not pose any danger anymore.

This does not have anything to do with the attacker surviving - or not. I don't get why you are insisting that you have to kill the attacker to be safe, even if you can repel the attack and be safe without having made lethal shots. Shoot until the threat is gone, this can be lethal but its doesn't have to be. Even the police is trained to shoot till they're safe, not till the attacker is a flatline.

 

I guess you're the kind of person who'd curb-stomp somebody who is unconscious or surrendering just to be safe?

Again, in the real world such attitude will make you go to prison for a looong time.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Woldan

[Woldan]

You really have some problems...

When people defend themselves they should not be concerned in any way if the attacker survive or not. 

If he survives then fine, but otherwise there is no pressure, and should not be, on the person defending him or herself to make sure the attacker didn't get hurt.

*sigh* Thats exactly what I've been saying all along, you were the guy who said you want to kill the attacker which does not make any sense in the context of self defense and indicates that you might have some problems.

if someone would pull a knife on me and I had a gun I would kill him.

In a self defense scenario you shoot until the attacker does not pose a threat anymore, no more no less. 

Edited February 1, 2015 by Woldan

[BruceVC]

 

Dude seriously that must be one of the funniest but symbolic photos 

 

 

Dude seriously that must be one of the most symbolic and funniest photo's I've ever seen in my life  

 

Look at the faces of the kids...hilarious

 

Where is that? Northern Ireland ?

[Volourn]

"It really behooves me that people seem unable to practice the most basic form of empathy"
 

Says the guy who shows no empathy for the dead person. LMFAO

[213374U]

 

You shoot center mass until the threat does not pose any danger anymore, anything else is secondary. 

Wrong. You shoot until you are safe. Anything else is secondary. 

 

You shoot until the *imminent* threat to your or someone else's life is stopped. That may result in the attacker's death, but resorting to deadly force at the drop of a hat and beyond the immediate protection of your own or someone else's life will land you in jail. Remember that aggressors also have rights, even if they are acting unlawfully. As far as I know, the law generally doesn't permit you to arrogate for yourself the right to kill someone (except perhaps for soldiers in combat), though death may be an unfortunate consequence of the use of force in self-defense. Using force with the intent to "permanently incapacitate" (i.e. kill) is murder. We have some actual lawyers and prosecutors here so perhaps one of them can explain it better and share some experience with actual deadly force cases.

 

In all fairness, you don't "shoot to incapacitate", as far as I'm aware. When I was trained to use firearms, both in the military and as a bodyguard, it was made very clear to me that I should never draw a gun and point it at somebody unless I was prepared to and justified in killing that person. Not threaten, not incapacitate, not grievously injure, but kill. Not because killing the target was the goal, but because as a firearm is by its very nature deadly, death is a likely outcome, and therefore resorting to it must not be trivialized. The bottom line is that firearms are good for killing — under what circumstances killing is and ought to be a part of law enforcement are different issues.

 

In this particular case, it's hard to judge. Personally, I'd hope that if a teenage daughter of mine, deranged or no, threatened someone with a knife, attempts would be made to resolve the situation without deadly force. Again, without details, it's all pure conjecture.

[Woldan]

So now you are changing your statement to mine and pretend that I'm in the wrong here? Get real.

No, its actually you who is changing his opinion. Its amazing you still don't get it and that you're now trying to twist what I wrote around. Read it ten more times: ''You shoot until the threat does not pose any danger anymore.'' You want, however, kill anyone attacking you for some reason which does not make any sense. Killing somebody can be the result of your self defense but it cannot be your goal in self defense. Get it now?

 

I'll give you a practical example what that means, maybe you get it that way: Somebody attacks you with a knife, you pull out your gun and shoot till the threat is down and does not attack anymore. You are safe, the attack has been repelled, you have defended yourself, everything else is secondary. 

 

Now according to your logic if the attacker would survive even though he clearly does not pose any danger anymore since he is gutshot writhing on the floor in pain you'd want to shoot him on the ground till he is dead since you want to kill him. This has nothing to do with self defense. 

 

You know how the effectiveness of self defense calibers is rated? In STOPPING power, not killing power. Says it all, doesn't it? 

 

You are the one that claimed there is a necessity for the person that is DEFENDING to make sure the ATTACKER is not hurt, which is preposterous. 

There is no such thing.

I never said such thing. I give you 1 point for trying though. 

 

 

 Not threaten, not incapacitate, not grievously injure, but kill. Not because killing the target was the goal, but because as a firearm is by its very nature deadly

Remember, 80% of the people shot with service pistols survive because pistols are very weak. If you shoot to kill you better be prepared to execute the person with multiple point blank head shots, and thats exaggerated self defense. When pulling a gun you have to be aware of the fact that this can result in the death of a person. 

 

 

And here is incapacitation chart for popular handgun calibers: 

 

 

See the difference in incapacitation and actual lethality? Shooting and stopping somebody without killing is as very likely outcome. 

 

 

I know if I had to defend myself in my home I'd do it the way as I described,  if the target has stopped attacking me I have reached my goal of keeping myself safe. No need to continue shooting if it has not resulted in the immediate death of my attacker.  (However, I'm using a shotgun with 1 1/4 ounce soft lead magnum foster slugs so...     )

Edited February 1, 2015 by Woldan

[Woldan]

You shoot until the *imminent* threat to your or someone else's life is stopped. That may result in the attacker's death, but resorting to deadly force at the drop of a hat and beyond the immediate protection of your own or someone else's life will land you in jail. Remember that aggressors also have rights, even if they are acting unlawfully. As far as I know, the law generally doesn't permit you to arrogate for yourself the right to kill someone (except perhaps for soldiers in combat), though death may be an unfortunate consequence of the use of force in self-defense. Using force with the intent to "permanently incapacitate" (i.e. kill) is murder.

Exactly.

 

What?! Yeah, and if he survives the shot to the head (not multiple as one is clearly survivable for you :D) I will track him down and kill him during the surgery or after in his room. Cuz that's how I roll.

You are really troubled person with some reading disorders. I'll just put you on ignore list.

You were the one dead set (no pun intended) on killing in a self defense scenario, not me. I simply told you what that immature and ill-thought through statement means in real life.

I can quote you once more if you like but I'm not sure if you understand your ramblings yourself.

 

What?! Yeah, and if he survives the shot to the head (not multiple as one is clearly survivable for you :D)

That just shows how little you know about terminal ballistics, head wounds from handgun calibers are survivable with immediate medical care, there are many cases where the victim survived a complete pass through through the brain.

I could explain how bullets work when hitting soft tissue and everything about permanent plus temporary cavity, secondary projectiles, yawing, hydrostatic shock, velocity, jacket separations, bullet design and so on, but that would be a waste of time for me.

Also, read the statistic I posted (if you can), most of the calibers have a 30% lethality ratio on torso and head hits.

 

Most people only having experience with movies and video games don't know anything about terminal ballistics and the human body, it can be really hard to kill somebody with a handgun. People think of handguns as lethal death rays, which is far from the truth. Those usually also believe you can choke somebody to death in 60 seconds like they do in movies.

 

I'll just put you on ignore list.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Woldan

[213374U]

Unless you show me an actual case in which a defendant was convicted for shooting an attacker who pull a knife on him, I'm calling shenanigans on this.

I talked about specific situation:

Guy pulls a knife on me. I pull out my gun. If he attacks I shoot. I don't think how to not injure him, how to safe his life. I'm thinking about saving MY life. As I said if he survives then his luck, but that is not my priority at any time during the assault.

I don't need to show you any such cases because that's not what you originally stated. Going back just one page:

 

if someone would pull a knife on me and I had a gun I would kill him.

And the best incapacitate state of my attacker is permanent incapacitate.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

You were talking specifically about ending the aggressor's life. Not dissuading, not stopping, not dropping. Killing. You are now shifting your position, which is a good thing, I suppose. Just don't pretend that you said something else earlier.

 

If it's hard to find an example of what you are asking it's most likely because police officers don't walk up to and kill assailants execution-style once they are down. Which is just about the only way to prove the "killing intent" you were describing earlier.

 

 

You just contradicted everything you wrote above.

I'm not contradicting anything. When you pull a gun you must be fully aware that doing so may result in the death of the person facing the business end, statistics notwithstanding. This does not mean you intend to *kill* them, only that it's a very real possibility of this particular use of force to end an imminent threat. And given the serious consequences of that outcome, you must only do so when you are absolutely sure that it is warranted.

Edited February 1, 2015 by 213374U

[Valsuelm]

 

 

You shoot center mass until the threat does not pose any danger anymore, anything else is secondary. 

Wrong. You shoot until you are safe. Anything else is secondary. 

 

You shoot until the *imminent* threat to your or someone else's life is stopped. That may result in the attacker's death, but resorting to deadly force at the drop of a hat and beyond the immediate protection of your own or someone else's life will land you in jail. Remember that aggressors also have rights, even if they are acting unlawfully. As far as I know, the law generally doesn't permit you to arrogate for yourself the right to kill someone (except perhaps for soldiers in combat), though death may be an unfortunate consequence of the use of force in self-defense. Using force with the intent to "permanently incapacitate" (i.e. kill) is murder. We have some actual lawyers and prosecutors here so perhaps one of them can explain it better and share some experience with actual deadly force cases.

 

In all fairness, you don't "shoot to incapacitate", as far as I'm aware. When I was trained to use firearms, both in the military and as a bodyguard, it was made very clear to me that I should never draw a gun and point it at somebody unless I was prepared to and justified in killing that person. Not threaten, not incapacitate, not grievously injure, but kill. Not because killing the target was the goal, but because as a firearm is by its very nature deadly, death is a likely outcome, and therefore resorting to it must not be trivialized. The bottom line is that firearms are good for killing — under what circumstances killing is and ought to be a part of law enforcement are different issues.

 

In this particular case, it's hard to judge. Personally, I'd hope that if a teenage daughter of mine, deranged or no, threatened someone with a knife, attempts would be made to resolve the situation without deadly force. Again, without details, it's all pure conjecture.

 

 

What the law is, is going to depend on where you live. In the US, different states have different laws in regards to what you're supposed to do if someone comes after you with a knife, a gun, or whatever. In some states, there's a 'castle doctrine' or a 'stand your ground' law, where you have the right to use deadly force if you reasonably believe your life or someone's life that you care about is in immediate danger. In other states, you are generally obligated to retreat if at all possible (even in your own home). An example of the former would be Florida, and you might recall reading or hearing about that law there coming under critical fire when the Zimmerman-Martin fiasco happened. An example of the latter would be the wonderful communist state of NY that I live in.

 

Both types of laws have their problems, which come to light when they are enforced (or aren't). A bad side of the 'castle doctrine' or 'stand your ground' laws is that some police and DAs will just allow a person to murder someone and get away with it if they say they felt threatened. As we know, police do this fairly often, and regular citizens do it as well.

 

On the other end of the spectrum where such laws don't exist or the law states you must retreat if possible or some such thing there are some insane examples of people using force or threatening force in the face of imminent danger being jailed out there. ie: I recall reading of a semi-famous story a few years back of a guy in England who was sentenced to jail time after firing upon some thieves in his house (he killed one), and another story here in NY where a guy was arrested and charged (not sure if he ended up going to jail) because he fired a rifle into the ground as a warning to a large group of gang members who began congregating in front of his house (he was understandably concerned for his family inside). That was downstate, you aren't as likely to find such insanity upstate as you will in and around NYC. Which brings up the fact that the discretion of the local district attorney is going to matter a lot in cases involving one person using or threatening violence against another in self defense, as well as the fact that some cities (generally the very large ones like NY or Chicago) have their own laws in regards to what you're allowed to do with a weapon and how much force you can or cannot use (generally speaking the larger cities will forbid rather than allow).

 

You are 100% correct in that you shouldn't be pointing a weapon at anyone unless you already have justified reason to use it. Cops are about the only group of folks I know of that handles weapons regularly that thinks it's ok to point a weapon at someone or threaten using it pretty much whenever they feel like it. That said, of course there are some good cops, but they really seemingly are outnumbered, or at least as has been previously mentioned over and over the would be good cops don't speak out against the bads ones, which makes them bad themselves.

 

@Woldan - I'd love to see the statistics of how many people are shot by police and actually live to tell about it here in the US (the statistics for this are available nowhere that I'm aware of). While anecdotal, I don't read too many news stories where the cops shot someone and they live to tell about it. More often than not it's a case like the one with this girl, where multiple cops fire multiple rounds at the person. I imagine it has a lot to do with which police department we're talking about though, as some certainly are more trigger happy than others.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Woldan]

@Woldan - I'd love to see the statistics of how many people are shot by police and actually live to tell about it here in the US (the statistics for this are available nowhere that I'm aware of). While anecdotal, I don't read too many news stories where the cops shot someone and they live to tell about it. More often than not it's a case like the one with this girl, where multiple cops fire multiple rounds at the person. I imagine it has a lot to do with which police department we're talking about though, as some certainly are more trigger happy than others.

Maybe this is such a common occurrence that only the real dramatic cases make it into the news? I really can't say anything about that.

 

I recall a couple of cases where Police -in my country- had to use their guns to stop an attacker. One with a crazed woman attacking 2 police officers with a butchers knife, she was shot 7 or 9 times and still managed to injure a female officer. She survived. I vaguely recall several similar incidents but I'd have to look for sources to refresh my memory.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Woldan

[Gromnir]

is semantics. you train cops to aim for center-mass. you train cops to instinctive reach for firearm when an individual presents a situation whereby they could cause serious injury to bystanders or the cop. in point o' fact, in many jurisdictions, cops can, and is s'posed to, shoot fleeing suspects who is NOT immediate threat to bystanders or cops. you give cops firearms and you has steadily increased lethality o' the firearms available to cops since the early 80s. stopping or disabling a suspect with undeniably deadly force v. train to kill?  *snort* is silly semantics.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

I know what I said and still am saying. When someone attacks me I pull my gun and I intent to kill that person first. "Not dissuading, not stopping, not dropping. Killing." He may survive as I'm not a professional gun user, but again this is not my concern. My concern is my life not the attackers safety.

I never said that I will do anything else than shoot, but you and your ignored alter account insist I will shoot, beat, dismember and set on fire the remains and track down the family of my attacker which I didn't said.

 

First you say: "When I was trained to use firearms, both in the military and as a bodyguard, it was made very clear to me that I should never draw a gun and point it at somebody unless I was prepared to and justified in killing that person. Not threaten, not incapacitate, not grievously injure, but kill." Which I agree as it sums up my statement.

But immediately after that you say exactly the opposite. I don't understand what is your final stand on the pulling a gun on a attacker.

 

"I never said that I will do anything else than shoot"... but you did, in the previous paragraph, and in not one but two posts before. Shooting at someone until they no longer immediately threaten you is not the same as killing or permanently incapacitating.

 

And the lesson I recounted regarding firearms training was meant to make me consider the full scope of the possible consequences of pulling a gun, not just the likely or even necessary consequences. Treating the former as the latter is inteded to give pause to someone who bears arms if and when the impulse to draw one arises. Killing someone is kind of a big deal, y'know? Big enough that even the possibility should be considered carefully. My stand is exactly as Woldan explained. If I see myself in a situation where myself or someone else is threatened with deadly force* and I carry a gun (which I don't), I pull it and shoot until the immediate threat passes, not until the attacker is dead. Despite what you may have been led to believe, people tend to go down *before* they die, when fired at.

 

Other than that... I think it's time for me to come clean. You have finally unmasked me. Woldan is indeed an alt of mine, and I'm part of a conspiracy of knife-carrying forum users out to get you. Please don't kill us! I mean... me.

 

 

*in my particular jurisdiction, force employed in self-defense must be "proportional" to the threat, so simply being in danger of being injured doesn't justify retaliating with deadly force. I could not, for instance, lawfully repel an aggression from Woldan, if he were charging at me unarmed, with a firearm, because even though he completely outweighs me and could probably break my neck if he wished (would that count as suicide, I wonder), it's not a very likely outcome. It's a very ambiguous rule which is neither here nor there because this thread is about 'Murica. But you asked....

 

 

in point o' fact, in many jurisdictions, cops can, and is s'posed to, shoot fleeing suspects who is NOT immediate threat to bystanders or cops.

 

What?

Edited February 1, 2015 by 213374U

[Volourn]

Even true, that just proves that cops are trained to be cold blooded murderers. Yet, people wonder why  these so called 'good guys' have bad reputations with the general public. LMAO

 

They're just another gang full of thugs with a fancy uniform.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Volourn

[Volourn]

Don't be a toolbag. The better option would be to make sure the police are doing the atcual job they are meant to be doing - protecting and serving the public nto killing anyone theywant, covering it up, and getting away with it simply because of the uniform. The standards for police should be HIGHER for the general public NOT lower.

\

\Defend murderous piece of crap cops does a disservice to the good cops.

 

Capiche? Comprehende? Understoodio?

[Valsuelm]

Police are not allowed to fire upon fleeing suspects in any jurisdiction in the USA unless the police have probable cause to believe that the fleeing suspect poses a real deadly threat to themselves (which generally isn't the case with a fleeing suspect) or others.

 

That of course doesn't stop police from making stuff up and/or shooting people anyways, or DAs looking the other way. Here's two examples of that:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/police-aggressive-action-mother-kids-resist-arrest-20911308 (the case against the mother is still pending last I looked, though the officer firing the shots was at least fired, and the felony charges against the teenage son were dropped).

 

http://gawker.com/dad-calls-cops-on-son-to-teach-him-a-lesson-cops-shoot-1460159897 (in this one however the cop got away with murder)

 

People (including cops and DAs) watch too many TV shows and movies.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

in point o' fact, in many jurisdictions, cops can, and is s'posed to, shoot fleeing suspects who is NOT immediate threat to bystanders or cops.

 

What?

 

shouldn't be a surprise. a suspect who has committed a violent crime runs away from cops without pulling a weapon and aiming at cops or bystanders. the suspect later shoots some old man or rapes an old lady... or the reverse. how many times does that happen before folks change laws applied to cops use o' deadly force on suspects who is reasonable suspects o' violent crimes but who is not immediate threats?

 

*shrug*

 

aside, the Court upheld the fleeing felon rule back in 1985.  the rules for cops to use deadly force is not the same as for ordinary citizens.  have seen that bit o' myth used multiple times in this thread and others like it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 1, 2015 by Gromnir

[Marcvs Caesar]

I think the world has a lot to learn from Japanese law enforcement. Crime rates in Japan are among the top lowest in the world and the public often turn to the police for aid.

 

The American police look more like thugs than anything else, at least that's the impression I get.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Marcvs Caesar

[Valsuelm]

Crime rates in Japan have exponentially more to do with the culture there than the way laws are enforced. This is generally true of anywhere.

[Marcvs Caesar]

Crime rates in Japan have exponentially more to do with the culture there than the way laws are enforced. This is generally true of anywhere.

 

True, the culture is a major reason but so is the law and the way it is enforced.