Little Brother is watching you.

[Shadowy Man]

I'm no gun expert, but every time I've heard someone describe proper fire arm usage by police or anyone they say to shoot at the center of mass.

Is that the recommended procedure, above all else, for when a person is walking towards an officer holding a knife? Are the police instructed to shoot at least 5 bullets (each) if the person doesn't stop walking when told to do so?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why don't policeman assume everything they do is being filmed?

A perusal of Youtube or sites like Photographyisnotacrime.com would indicate that they're acutely aware of the increased level of recording that's happening (I wouldn't say everything though). They seem to be very opposed to the notion.

But don't they know that if they've done nothing wrong then they've got nothing to fear from this surveillance?

Or do they know that they've only got nothing to fear as long as they've done nothing wrong?

 

[Bronzeage]

A perusal of Youtube or sites like Photographyisnotacrime.com would indicate that they're acutely aware of the increased level of recording that's happening (I wouldn't say everything though). They seem to be very opposed to the notion.

But don't they know that if they've done nothing wrong then they've got nothing to fear from this surveillance?

Or do they know that they've only got nothing to fear as long as they've done nothing wrong?

I would be happy to have some independent evidence which would exonerate my actions, but in general, police do not like independent supervision. This is especially strange when we consider that nearly every patrol car has a dash cam installed and running. A lot of the embarrassing cop videos one can see on youtube came from police records.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'm no gun expert, but every time I've heard someone describe proper fire arm usage by police or anyone they say to shoot at the center of mass.

Is that the recommended procedure, above all else, for when a person is walking towards an officer holding a knife? Are the police instructed to shoot at least 5 bullets (each) if the person doesn't stop walking when told to do so?

They shoot center mass to hit the intended target and not a bystander. Pistols are harder to aim. The gun is deadly force. One round does not drop the person dead unless it's primetime TV. And consider having to do this during an adrenaline rush. Heart rate up at 250, tunnel vision sets in, you're breathing like a race horse, you're at the point of passing out. You can experience loss of motor skills, short term memory loss, loss of coordination. These aren't robots. I can't imagine firing just one round. You fire until he drops. Then the rush starts to subside.
The I just like shooting black people hypothesis is really kind of silly. I'm sure there are people like that. I can't imagine they go through the trouble of becoming cops just to slake their blood thirst.
I can't imagine they are thinking much about cell videos either.

 

[Shadowy Man]

They shoot center mass to hit the intended target and not a bystander. Pistols are harder to aim. The gun is deadly force. One round does not drop the person dead unless it's primetime TV.

Are you saying that the recommended action for an officer when approached by someone with a knife is to shoot to drop them dead?

 

[fast]

A perusal of Youtube or sites like Photographyisnotacrime.com would indicate that they're acutely aware of the increased level of recording that's happening (I wouldn't say everything though). They seem to be very opposed to the notion.

But don't they know that if they've done nothing wrong then they've got nothing to fear from this surveillance?

Or do they know that they've only got nothing to fear as long as they've done nothing wrong?

What are you talking about? The saying, "you don't have anything to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not "any distance" but a distance where a knife is definitely dangerous. Especially in the hands of someone with death wish.

There is a difference between "justified" and "necessary." Why aren't police gunning down "open carry" advocates who show up on the street with AR-15s? If a knife is a dangerous weapon at 10 ft, what's to be said of a rifle that fires as fast as the trigger can be squeezed.

The difference is what they are doing with the weapon, not merely possessing it.

Don't point your weapon at people!!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The real question is whether there's any middle ground between a police officer having to let a man with a knife stab him to death and the police officer emptying his gun into the man. Does anyone here seriously believe that there wasn't another option?

Facing a knife your only defense option is the gun.

Do you think mace to the face of the guy with the knife wouldn't have at least slowed him down enough for the officers to subdue him? There were two officers -- they couldn't have figure out a way to subdue him without using 10 bullets to his torso? How about ten bullets in the legs and feet? At least one should have hit and seriously slowed his advance. I'm just astounded by the number of people who feel that the police have no responsibility at all for figuring out how to not apply a death sentence for the crime of threatening an officer.

Mace? Completely useless. The bad guy crosses the effective range in under 1 second, it's not going to disable that fast even if the guy is vulnerable. (Someone on PCP is pretty much unaffected by it.)

10 bullets? Look at the video above--21 feet gives a trained person time to get off two rounds. Adding in human sprinting speed you're up to about 65 feet for a trained person to get off 10 rounds. How many engagements start at that range????

Furthermore, 10 hits that touch nothing vital are unlikely to stop the attacker.

Realistically, if you want to stop someone quickly there really only three hits that will do the job:

1) Circulatory: Stop the blood flow, the brain shuts down. Such a hit is almost certainly lethal.

2) CNS: Note that such hits do not heal. At a minimum you end up with a paraplegic.

3) Mobility: Disable something they need to move.

Note that the only one of these that has any reasonable chance of hitting is the CNS hit--headshots. As I said, they don't heal--if such a shot disables it kills.

Thus in practice the approach is to cause enough trauma that shock causes a shutdown.

Look at the following link, which gives information about a burglary suspect in St. Louis who was subdued without gunfire, even though he assaulted both police officers, breaking the hand of one of them:

http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Poli...ans-basement-assaults-officers-271009211.html

And note that the guy wasn't armed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm no gun expert, but every time I've heard someone describe proper fire arm usage by police or anyone they say to shoot at the center of mass. I don't think that shooting at the perps' legs to incapacitate is in the manual or their training.

Exactly. If it's an emergency situation you shoot center of mass. If you need an instant kill you go for a headshot. (This normally happens in standoff situations. The hostage fares better if you drop the guy instantly even if the odds of a hit aren't as good--although generally those are done by snipers that will generally not miss.)

One thing that strikes me is that the cops pull their guns out first, before the guy pulls the knife from his pocket. Ok maybe it was threatening to keep his hand in his pocket like that, but maybe the cops could have defused the situation by not brandishing their weapons as soon as they got off the car. Maybe try talking to the guy first?

Yes, they draw first. It gives them slightly more reaction time if things go badly. Look at that video, the difference between the cop starting with the gun out vs the gun in the holster.

Furthermore, defusing the situation by talking takes too long.


This is a case where there is *NO* good answer. Berating the existing answers as bad isn't evidence there is something better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They shoot center mass to hit the intended target and not a bystander. Pistols are harder to aim. The gun is deadly force. One round does not drop the person dead unless it's primetime TV.

Are you saying that the recommended action for an officer when approached by someone with a knife is to shoot to drop them dead?

It depends on the range. If they neither stop nor drop the knife there will come a point where the officer shoots them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But don't they know that if they've done nothing wrong then they've got nothing to fear from this surveillance?

Or do they know that they've only got nothing to fear as long as they've done nothing wrong?

What are you talking about? The saying, "you don't have anything to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong"?

I'm implying that there is a reason they detest surveillance.

 

[fast]

What are you talking about? The saying, "you don't have anything to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong"?

I'm implying that there is a reason they detest surveillance.

Oh. Yes, that's true. I never have been too fond of reporters on the battlefield either.

 

[Deepak]

I'm implying that there is a reason they detest surveillance.

Oh. Yes, that's true. I never have been too fond of reporters on the battlefield either.

Any LEO who considers the streets of the US a battlefield has no business retaining a badge or a gun. Citizens have a first amendment right to record, and cops shouldn't be able to prevent the exercise of that right simply because they detest citizens recording.

 

[fast]

Oh. Yes, that's true. I never have been too fond of reporters on the battlefield either.

Any LEO who considers the streets of the US a battlefield has no business retaining a badge or a gun. Citizens have a first amendment right to record, and cops shouldn't be able to prevent the exercise of that right simply because they detest citizens recording.

no argument here

 

[repoman]

I think that when there are 2 officers, one should get out the taser or rubber bullets and the other a gun. They should have fired a non lethal weapon when he was much further away.

The whole thing was a mess that they should have not allowed to progress to that level, but once it had, they had not much choice.

 

[rousseau]

The real question is whether there's any middle ground between a police officer having to let a man with a knife stab him to death and the police officer emptying his gun into the man. Does anyone here seriously believe that there wasn't another option? Do you think mace to the face of the guy with the knife wouldn't have at least slowed him down enough for the officers to subdue him? There were two officers -- they couldn't have figure out a way to subdue him without using 10 bullets to his torso? How about ten bullets in the legs and feet? At least one should have hit and seriously slowed his advance. I'm just astounded by the number of people who feel that the police have no responsibility at all for figuring out how to not apply a death sentence for the crime of threatening an officer.

Look at the following link, which gives information about a burglary suspect in St. Louis who was subdued without gunfire, even though he assaulted both police officers, breaking the hand of one of them:

http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Poli...ans-basement-assaults-officers-271009211.html

He is facing charges of felony assault and trespassing. Should I assume then, using the logic applied in these shootings, that he will face the death penalty for his assault of the officers?

Yea but if you're a cop and have an excuse to use a gun, killing people can be a great time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that when there are 2 officers, one should get out the taser or rubber bullets and the other a gun. They should have fired a non lethal weapon when he was much further away.

The whole thing was a mess that they should have not allowed to progress to that level, but once it had, they had not much choice.

Rubber bullets: They're about riot control, not about effectively stopping someone.

Taser: Max range is 35 feet and hits at that range aren't too likely. There also wasn't much time. Remember that they are single-shot weapons also.

 

[RavenSky]

I think that when there are 2 officers, one should get out the taser or rubber bullets and the other a gun. They should have fired a non lethal weapon when he was much further away.

The whole thing was a mess that they should have not allowed to progress to that level, but once it had, they had not much choice.

Rubber bullets: They're about riot control, not about effectively stopping someone.

Taser: Max range is 35 feet and hits at that range aren't too likely. There also wasn't much time. Remember that they are single-shot weapons also.

No one suggested that these particular police officers should run 31 feet away and then try to Taze the guy. Their excuse for shooting nine bullets into him (in a location where others could have been hit) was that he was getting too close (report claims 4 feet away). Are you claiming that these police officers are so incompetent that they couldn't hit the man with the Tazer at that range? If so, they shouldn't have guns either.

I wouldn't even have a problem with one officer using the Tazer while the other officer has his gun out just in case. The problem here is that they didn't even TRY to talk the man down or to use non-lethal methods. They came out of their vehicle with guns drawn, then both emptied their guns into him and killed him in less than 30 seconds of arrival.

Police seem to have no problem using their tazers on kindergarten children, middle school girls running in the opposite direction, people in wheelchairs, etc. but they don't even seem to use them in the situations the tazer was designed for. And the constant claim of "fear for my life"... makes the police sound like a bunch of sissy cowards.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think that when there are 2 officers, one should get out the taser or rubber bullets and the other a gun. They should have fired a non lethal weapon when he was much further away.

The whole thing was a mess that they should have not allowed to progress to that level, but once it had, they had not much choice.

Rubber bullets: They're about riot control, not about effectively stopping someone.

Taser: Max range is 35 feet and hits at that range aren't too likely. There also wasn't much time. Remember that they are single-shot weapons also.

And billy clubs have a range of an arm's length, but have infinite capacity.

Which is why police officers are supposed to be trained to take control of a situation, not let the situation control them.

Lets suppose these officers performed true to their training. They arrive on the scene and immediately pull their pistols and point them at the closest person. This person senses a threat and reacts accordingly. The police officers open fire and kill him.

Who created the situation in which killing a citizen was the only possible outcome? How much time was taken to evaluate the situation? Was this the result of following standard procedure, or was this a colossal fuck up, by two police officers who reacted in exactly the same way.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think that when there are 2 officers, one should get out the taser or rubber bullets and the other a gun. They should have fired a non lethal weapon when he was much further away.

The whole thing was a mess that they should have not allowed to progress to that level, but once it had, they had not much choice.

Rubber bullets: They're about riot control, not about effectively stopping someone.

Taser: Max range is 35 feet and hits at that range aren't too likely. There also wasn't much time. Remember that they are single-shot weapons also.

You need a weapon that isn't as final as a gun and doesn't allow your opponent to get in close without risking serious motherfucking injury to himself. In short the officer needs to be trained and armed with something that gives him more options. A nice long stick with something deadly sharp at the end would work.

So along with their tasers and handguns, they should carry a spear.