Police in Utah gun down black cosplayer

[Nexus]

I can think of exactly *one* case where shooting by a cop was meant to do anything other than to kill. And it was a guy with a gun, sitting in a chair in public. And the cop was a military-trained marksman, using a sniper rifle from a rooftop. And this was considered high-risk. Far more common are stories where cops shoot at someone, and hit a bystander.

I've seen a few other stories on real police documentaries type tv shows and the only times disarming shots were fired was from snipers. Someone with a hadgun making a shot like that under direct imminent threat forget it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, no, no.

I can think of exactly *one* case where shooting by a cop was meant to do anything other than to kill. And it was a guy with a gun, sitting in a chair in public. And the cop was a military-trained marksman, using a sniper rifle from a rooftop. And this was considered high-risk. Far more common are stories where cops shoot at someone, and hit a bystander.

Two basic rules:

1) if you shoot to "disable", and the person is not disabled, then you now have a very angry person with a weapon, who will consider you to be a deadly threat, and correctly so.

2) a so-called "disabling shot" is very likely to kill the person who was shot. If you paralyze someone, you've likely hit something very important. A "disarming shot" at someone, with a relatively low-accuracy weapon like any handgun, at a fleeing person, is Calamity Jane - level marksmanship at the very least, and actually, I don't recall even her pulling that off.

"Shoot at center mass." is probably Rule #3 for general handgun training, right behind "Always treat a gun as if it's loaded." and "Never point a gun at anyone you don't intend to kill." Again, shooting at someone with a handgun is deadly force, always. And the majority of cops only have the most basic training, because most cops never pull out their guns in the line of duty.

Second this. I've heard of a disabling shot in a different scenario but again it was a marksman against a basically stationary target and it was a case where it was judged to be a lower risk than taking the kill shot. (The gun was taped to the guy's hand and taped to the hostage. If it fired the hostage was dead. Simply dropping the guy risked the gun firing.) I wouldn't be surprised if there have been other cases like this where the threat is a stationary attacker with his finger on a trigger of some kind.

The only scenario I can think of where a disabling shot with a handgun makes any sense at all is if you are hiding from an attacker armed with a melee-only weapon. You have some freedom of movement but can't outrun the guy. If he's searching (slow movement, pauses) you might be able to hit him in the legs and deny him mobility allowing an escape. If you miss you still have time for a normal shot. (And such a scenario would be very rare indeed--such an attacker would almost certainly flee a gun-armed defender.)

 

[Malintent]

I stand corrected... You are right and I am wrong... Police are taught to "shoot to stop", not to disable, not to kill... to "stop". I still suspect that the cop was trying to disable without killing, or else how the hell did all of the shots pass through the suspects arms? you can't do that unless you are really trying to not hit center of mass.. talk about precision without accuracy...

 

[Sabine Grant]

I am still perplex as to :

A black man who was shot by Utah police while armed with a samurai-style sword as part of a Japanese anime costume died of multiple gunshot wounds, including several in the back of his body, according to an autopsy released Tuesday.

The state autopsy documents six gunshot wounds on the body of 22-year-old Darrien Hunt and finds at least four of the shots entered his body from behind.

From the link provided in the OP.

Further, is there any justifiable reason as to why a law enforcement officer, if equipped with a taser, in the same situation would use a fatal weapon(firearm) rather than a taser?

 

[laughing dog]

I stand corrected... You are right and I am wrong... Police are taught to "shoot to stop", not to disable, not to kill... to "stop". I still suspect that the cop was trying to disable without killing, or else how the hell did all of the shots pass through the suspects arms?

Because all of the shots did not pass through his arms. According to the person who conducted the autopsy:

While Skyes contends five of the six wounds were from the back, Dr. Graham told FOX 13 News that he can only conclusively say three of them came from behind. More testing is required to confirm the others.

(http://fox13now.com/2014/10/17/family-releases-autopsy-results-of-darrien-hunt-who-was-fatally-shot-by-police/)

 

[bilby]

I stand corrected... You are right and I am wrong... Police are taught to "shoot to stop", not to disable, not to kill... to "stop". I still suspect that the cop was trying to disable without killing, or else how the hell did all of the shots pass through the suspects arms? you can't do that unless you are really trying to not hit center of mass.. talk about precision without accuracy...

Handguns are very inaccurate. The bullets that missed altogether won't be on the autopsy report at all. The bullet wounds that are on the report are found in the places that were hit. There is no reason to expect these to be the places that were aimed at.

A good shot might well group his hits closely; but with an inaccurate weapon, the group may well be some distance from the point at which he aimed.

Any pattern of hits is consistent with inaccurate fire, except a close grouping in the centre of the target.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am still perplex as to :

A black man who was shot by Utah police while armed with a samurai-style sword as part of a Japanese anime costume died of multiple gunshot wounds, including several in the back of his body, according to an autopsy released Tuesday.

The state autopsy documents six gunshot wounds on the body of 22-year-old Darrien Hunt and finds at least four of the shots entered his body from behind.

From the link provided in the OP.

Further, is there any justifiable reason as to why a law enforcement officer, if equipped with a taser, in the same situation would use a fatal weapon(firearm) rather than a taser?

When are you going to understand that a cop will not use a taser in response to a lethal threat unless backed up by another cop with a gun? Tasers are for stopping resistance, not for self defense.

 

[laughing dog]

I am still perplex as to :



From the link provided in the OP.

Further, is there any justifiable reason as to why a law enforcement officer, if equipped with a taser, in the same situation would use a fatal weapon(firearm) rather than a taser?

When are you going to understand that a cop will not use a taser in response to a lethal threat unless backed up by another cop with a gun? Tasers are for stopping resistance, not for self defense.

Perhaps when you stop confusing your assumptions with reality.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I am still perplex as to :



From the link provided in the OP.

Further, is there any justifiable reason as to why a law enforcement officer, if equipped with a taser, in the same situation would use a fatal weapon(firearm) rather than a taser?

When are you going to understand that a cop will not use a taser in response to a lethal threat unless backed up by another cop with a gun? Tasers are for stopping resistance, not for self defense.

Really?

http://www.stun-gun-defense-products.com/buy-stun-gun/TASER-Versus-Stun-Gun.html

TASER devices are electroshock weapons that use electrical current to disrupt muscle control, stopping an attacker dead in their tracks. TASER devices can be used both close and far range. Upon firing, TASER devices shoot two metal probe darts a distance of 15 feet to reach an attacker before he reaches you. The TASER can also be used as a direct contact stun gun, allowing for close proximity self defense.

Will you care to explain why tasers are consistently described as a tool for self defense? In this specific situation had the LEO used a taser versus a lethal weapon, explain how and why he would not have been able "to stop the attacker dead in his tracks". How and why it would have been ineffective in disabling the attacker long enough for the LEO to get hold of the sword, disarming him? Was that LEO somehow a physically handicapped person or physically disabled person that while the attacker is disabled he could not go through the process of disarming the attacker from his sword?

Or are we back here to a trigger easy mentality where the loss of life must be justified while claiming there is no other alternative but relying on a lethal weapon which can only inflict grave injury or death?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When are you going to understand that a cop will not use a taser in response to a lethal threat unless backed up by another cop with a gun? Tasers are for stopping resistance, not for self defense.

Really?

http://www.stun-gun-defense-products.com/buy-stun-gun/TASER-Versus-Stun-Gun.html

TASER devices are electroshock weapons that use electrical current to disrupt muscle control, stopping an attacker dead in their tracks. TASER devices can be used both close and far range. Upon firing, TASER devices shoot two metal probe darts a distance of 15 feet to reach an attacker before he reaches you. The TASER can also be used as a direct contact stun gun, allowing for close proximity self defense.

Will you care to explain why tasers are consistently described as a tool for self defense? In this specific situation had the LEO used a taser versus a lethal weapon, explain how and why he would not have been able "to stop the attacker dead in his tracks". How and why it would have been ineffective in disabling the attacker long enough for the LEO to get hold of the sword, disarming him? Was that LEO somehow a physically handicapped person or physically disabled person that while the attacker is disabled he could not go through the process of disarming the attacker from his sword?

Or are we back here to a trigger easy mentality where the loss of life must be justified while claiming there is no other alternative but relying on a lethal weapon which can only inflict grave injury or death?

Self defense in a fistfight. Not against a sword or gun.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Really?

http://www.stun-gun-defense-products.com/buy-stun-gun/TASER-Versus-Stun-Gun.html

TASER devices are electroshock weapons that use electrical current to disrupt muscle control, stopping an attacker dead in their tracks. TASER devices can be used both close and far range. Upon firing, TASER devices shoot two metal probe darts a distance of 15 feet to reach an attacker before he reaches you. The TASER can also be used as a direct contact stun gun, allowing for close proximity self defense.

Will you care to explain why tasers are consistently described as a tool for self defense? In this specific situation had the LEO used a taser versus a lethal weapon, explain how and why he would not have been able "to stop the attacker dead in his tracks". How and why it would have been ineffective in disabling the attacker long enough for the LEO to get hold of the sword, disarming him? Was that LEO somehow a physically handicapped person or physically disabled person that while the attacker is disabled he could not go through the process of disarming the attacker from his sword?

Or are we back here to a trigger easy mentality where the loss of life must be justified while claiming there is no other alternative but relying on a lethal weapon which can only inflict grave injury or death?

Self defense in a fistfight. Not against a sword or gun.

Can you document that the use of a taser is only for a fist fight as self defense? That it does not apply against a gun or sword?

 

[marc]

Self defense in a fistfight. Not against a sword or gun.

Can you document that the use of a taser is only for a fist fight as self defense? That it does not apply against a gun or sword?

If so, I don't think all cops got the memo:

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Gunman_Tasered_in_Ingham_County_145959875.html

http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...officer-TASERs-gunman-who-tried-to-shoot-him/

http://www.bbc.com/news/10585521

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can you document that the use of a taser is only for a fist fight as self defense? That it does not apply against a gun or sword?

If so, I don't think all cops got the memo:

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Gunman_Tasered_in_Ingham_County_145959875.html

http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...officer-TASERs-gunman-who-tried-to-shoot-him/

http://www.bbc.com/news/10585521

#1: He wasn't armed at the time.

#2: Inoperative gun.

#3: The guy was trying to commit suicide, not attack the officers.

Thus you have given three examples in which the police were *NOT* under any real threat at the time.

 

[ksen]

wasn't one of your claims that this guy was just going for suicide by cop?

 

[laughing dog]

If so, I don't think all cops got the memo:

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Gunman_Tasered_in_Ingham_County_145959875.html

http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...officer-TASERs-gunman-who-tried-to-shoot-him/

http://www.bbc.com/news/10585521

#1: He wasn't armed at the time.

#2: Inoperative gun.

#3: The guy was trying to commit suicide, not attack the officers.

Thus you have given three examples in which the police were *NOT* under any real threat at the time.

You are missing the point. If looking at the incidents after the fact you conclude those police were not under any real threat at the time, then consistency requires you to concede that the two Utah police officer were not under any real threat at the time. On the otherhand, if you conclude that the two Utah police officers had reason to believe they were under a real threat at the time given the information available to them, then intellectual consistency indicates those police also had reason to believe they were under a real threat at the time given the information available to them.

 

[Jarhyn]

#1: He wasn't armed at the time.

#2: Inoperative gun.

#3: The guy was trying to commit suicide, not attack the officers.

Thus you have given three examples in which the police were *NOT* under any real threat at the time.

You are missing the point. If looking at the incidents after the fact you conclude those police were not under any real threat at the time, then consistency requires you to concede that the two Utah police officer were not under any real threat at the time. On the otherhand, if you conclude that the two Utah police officers had reason to believe they were under a real threat at the time given the information available to them, then intellectual consistency indicates those police also had reason to believe they were under a real threat at the time given the information available to them.

Maybe if the police didn't lie about what happened, about conversing with the cosplayer, and given an account corroborated by witnesses, I'd side with you and the cop, Lauren, but they DID lie. That means they have something to cover up. Since they won't come Clean with what really happened, I have to assume they're lying about everything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

wasn't one of your claims that this guy was just going for suicide by cop?

Suicide by cop != suicide with one's own weapon. To accomplish the former you must pose a threat (or an appearance thereof--you can suicide by cop with a fake weapon) to the cop.

 

[ksen]

not sure how running away is a threat or symptomatic of suicide by cop, but ok

 

[Loren Pechtel]

not sure how running away is a threat or symptomatic of suicide by cop, but ok

He attacked the cop. He then ran towards other people. The cop has to assume violent intent.

 

[laughing dog]

not sure how running away is a threat or symptomatic of suicide by cop, but ok

He attacked the cop. He then ran towards other people. The cop has to assume violent intent.

Your narrative assumes facts not in evidence. Attacking a cop does not require a reaction of lethal force as marc's evidence shows. Nor is it clear he ran towards anyone else. So the police did not have to assume any violent intent.