Little Brother is watching you.

[Bronzeage]

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.

It's preferred by the Pope's personal bodyguard.

If the civilian population gets the idea in their head that a policeman's training dictates "shoot first and ask questions later," being a policeman will become much more hazardous than it is today. As stressful as it is to be a policeman, it is always more stressful to be confronted by a policeman.

Imagine anyone, whether criminal or law abiding NRA member, who is carrying a concealed weapon. A policeman approaches and begins to draw his pistol. The citizen's first thought is, "I am about to be shot." What would anyone do in this situation?

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.)

So, Mace has never disabled a person, or prevented their movement? The cops didn't even try. Was this person on PCP? The cops didn't bother to even find out.

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????

I watched the video and heard at least 10 gunshots. I'm assuming that both officers fired 5 shots, not just the one closest to the man approaching him.

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

And note that the guy wasn't armed.

Neither was Michael Brown.

Honestly, your comments always frighten me. I really do not wish to live in a country where the police are acting in a manner where their very first instinct in the face of any level of danger, real or potential, is to unload their pistol into a person. If that's the way we are headed, then I weep for the future.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

In this case, taser would have been perfect though. The range was maybe 10-15 feet, they had a clear shot, and the end result would have been exactly the same except that the target would be alive.

 

[Deepak]

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.

And this is the conundrum of the Tazer. Once an individual is within the effective range of it the situation has become 'dynamic' and 'rapidly evolving' and the since the LEOs fear for their life their only choice is to use deadly force. So, even though it's use in such a capacity is forbidden, it effectively becomes a pain-infliction and compliance-generation device which is only used on individuals who are not threats like the old ladies or the handcuffed suspect.

One wonders why we even have them (rhetorical - Ike could certainly answer that).

So, Mace has never disabled a person, or prevented their movement? The cops didn't even try. Was this person on PCP? The cops didn't bother to even find out.

Is PCP even a thing anymore? Last time I remember hearing about someone taking PCP it was from a guy selling quaaludes.

 

[Bronzeage]

Whether every person in the world would be incapacitated by pepper spray or mace is not really relevant. Even if a PCP(there are a few PCP equivalent street drugs around today) crazed maniac is not dropped to his knees, his eyes will be closed. That is always an advantage.

If we exclude the PCP crazed maniacs and consider the more rational people who have close contact with the police, what such a person really wants is an easy way out of the situation. This is why people run. It seems like a good choice at the time, even if the odds aren't very good. The choices are plain, either remain free or go to jail.

If we add a third choice and now death competes with remain free or jail, the equation shifts dramatically. The go to jail option was once the most likely outcome of any encounter, but is now a distant third possibility, as jail space is reserved for living suspects. This make it much more unlikely a policeman will encounter a docile compliant suspect.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

What bothers me most about the language you use when discussing this issue is that it's the kind of language I would expect one to use when describing what to do when a wild animal attacks. That one would address dealing with a human being this way is frightening.

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.

But, according to your logic, I would assume that the police could not have known whether he was armed or not -- who knows what kind of weapon he could have picked up in the cellar -- so it was actually irresponsible of the police to not automatically fill this suspect full of bullets. He did, after all, assault the officers, and there clearly couldn't have been enough time given the close range (the officer's hand was broken) to go through any kind of risk assessment process beyond mortal fear. This is where your logic leads. Yet, the police did not do this, they risked injury and subdued a suspect without emptying their guns into him.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

I can't say to a certainty, it's not like I've read their rules of engagement. I am extrapolating rules from the military and applying them as I think there is commonality. If the deadly weapon (knife) is out but the individual is not coming at you or another, your weapon is drawn, pointed up, finger outside the trigger guard. Once the individual with the deadly weapon comes at you, the finger goes inside the trigger guard and it's well, go time.
This rule does not differentiate with regards to who is coming at you. Suspected terrorist, unknown individual, drunken sailor.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Just to quibble. Tasers are not single shot weapons. Once the prongs are applied, the electrical shock can be applied numerous times.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

They didn't really have much of an option there.

The guy wasn't interested in being talked down. He was armed and advancing--he got close enough, they fired. Had they not done so the news report would likely have been "Officer stabbed". (And remember, even if they're wearing them their vests offer almost no protection against being stabbed.)

They were definitely right to come out armed--at the starting range it was dangerously close if their weapons were still holstered. Besides, there's the intimidation factor--by having their guns out they are less likely to have to use them because they don't look like an easy target.

The only possible option I see is the taser/gun combo. However, that requires coordination between the officers, I don't think there was time to set it up. Remember, the taser was intended to replace the nightstick, not the gun.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

And they're not going to let the guy get that close. The nightstick is completely useless in this case.

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.

The appropriate reaction is to cease any threatening behavior. If you're not sure what's wanted freeze and drop anything you're carrying.

You don't threaten the cops and advance on them.

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.

I see no fuck-up here. The guy didn't leave them time to do better.

I've seen someone describe it as suicide-by-cop, that very well might be the case. If it wasn't the guy was seriously unhinged.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Just in case you're being serious here:

A spear would be worse than useless in this situation. Spears are for use against animals, or else used in a group. A lone spear is far too easy to evade.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, Mace has never disabled a person, or prevented their movement? The cops didn't even try. Was this person on PCP? The cops didn't bother to even find out.

Against a charging opponent mace is categorically useless--it takes longer to work than the time from maximum range to contact.

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????

I watched the video and heard at least 10 gunshots. I'm assuming that both officers fired 5 shots, not just the one closest to the man approaching him.

So? The guy wasn't actually charging. How many feet he covered is absolutely no indication of how many he could have covered. The officers fired because he approached the distance where a charge would get him there before they could shoot him, not because he was actually charging.

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

And note that the guy wasn't armed.

Neither was Michael Brown.

And the cops knew that how??

Honestly, your comments always frighten me. I really do not wish to live in a country where the police are acting in a manner where their very first instinct in the face of any level of danger, real or potential, is to unload their pistol into a person. If that's the way we are headed, then I weep for the future.

It's not a matter of where we are headed. It's a matter of reality. It's just the prevalence of cell phone cameras means a lot more people get to play Monday morning quarterback with police incidents.

While there are very disturbing trends with the police they involve raids, not encounters on the street.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

In this case, taser would have been perfect though. The range was maybe 10-15 feet, they had a clear shot, and the end result would have been exactly the same except that the target would be alive.

Even at that range it's no certainty. There also wasn't time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And this is the conundrum of the Tazer. Once an individual is within the effective range of it the situation has become 'dynamic' and 'rapidly evolving' and the since the LEOs fear for their life their only choice is to use deadly force. So, even though it's use in such a capacity is forbidden, it effectively becomes a pain-infliction and compliance-generation device which is only used on individuals who are not threats like the old ladies or the handcuffed suspect.

The taser has always been a replacement for the nightstick, not the gun. A compliance device, not a defense against lethal force.

 

[Cobalt]

I watched the video and heard at least 10 gunshots. I'm assuming that both officers fired 5 shots, not just the one closest to the man approaching him.

So? The guy wasn't actually charging. How many feet he covered is absolutely no indication of how many he could have covered. The officers fired because he approached the distance where a charge would get him there before they could shoot him, not because he was actually charging.

If we just go with your narrative for a moment, why are you not suggesting that the police start parking their squad cars a little farther away from the suspect to avoid this deadly 'charging' risk that they put themselves into?

- - - Updated - - -

In this case, taser would have been perfect though. The range was maybe 10-15 feet, they had a clear shot, and the end result would have been exactly the same except that the target would be alive.

Even at that range it's no certainty. There also wasn't time.

Is it your contention that a taser takes significantly longer to un-holster than a pistol?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What bothers me most about the language you use when discussing this issue is that it's the kind of language I would expect one to use when describing what to do when a wild animal attacks. That one would address dealing with a human being this way is frightening.

The mechanics are basically the same. Whether or not you like that doesn't change the mechanics.

All that differs is what threat level we require before considering it a proper option.

But, according to your logic, I would assume that the police could not have known whether he was armed or not -- who knows what kind of weapon he could have picked up in the cellar -- so it was actually irresponsible of the police to not automatically fill this suspect full of bullets. He did, after all, assault the officers, and there clearly couldn't have been enough time given the close range (the officer's hand was broken) to go through any kind of risk assessment process beyond mortal fear. This is where your logic leads. Yet, the police did not do this, they risked injury and subdued a suspect without emptying their guns into him.

Except they did--he attacked unarmed, thus showing he wasn't armed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Just to quibble. Tasers are not single shot weapons. Once the prongs are applied, the electrical shock can be applied numerous times.

You miss and pulling the trigger again does nothing. They take several seconds to reload.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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????

I watched the video and heard at least 10 gunshots. I'm assuming that both officers fired 5 shots, not just the one closest to the man approaching him.

So? The guy wasn't actually charging. How many feet he covered is absolutely no indication of how many he could have covered. The officers fired because he approached the distance where a charge would get him there before they could shoot him, not because he was actually charging.

Then why were you questioning the 10 bullets? You made it sound like there was no way they could have gotten that many bullets off given the range, but now you admit he wasn't charging, so they could get that many bullets off in that range.

And note that the guy wasn't armed.

Neither was Michael Brown.

And the cops knew that how??

I guess the same way that the other cops who subdued the guy in the cellar knew he wasn't armed. You state in a later post that the reason he didn't get shot was that he wasn't armed. So, you aren't being consistent here. I would claim that in the cellar case, they couldn't have known whether he was armed or not, so they should have shot, like with Michael Brown, according to your logic.

I don't believe that anybody has claimed that Michael Brown was armed. What's in the police report??

While there are very disturbing trends with the police they involve raids, not encounters on the street.

Like the raid in which a flash grenade was thrown into an infant's room and he was sent to the burn unit and now the city won't pay for his medical expenses?

 

[Jayjay]

In this case, taser would have been perfect though. The range was maybe 10-15 feet, they had a clear shot, and the end result would have been exactly the same except that the target would be alive.

Even at that range it's no certainty. There also wasn't time.

If they had used tazers, they could have done so earlier and from a better position. The cops could have shot him as soon as they got out of the car, which would have been be irresponsible to do with a gun, but less so with a non-lethal weapon.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

They didn't really have much of an option there.

The guy wasn't interested in being talked down. He was armed and advancing--he got close enough, they fired.

they had no intention of even trying any other way. They got out of the car with their guns drawn and had killed him before 30 seconds had even passed. The guy was not advancing at any kind of a rate that posed an immediate threat. Both police officers had the option of retreating to their vehicle is they were so damned scared.

Instead, they gunned him down within 30 seconds of arrival.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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????

I watched the video and heard at least 10 gunshots. I'm assuming that both officers fired 5 shots, not just the one closest to the man approaching him.

So? The guy wasn't actually charging. How many feet he covered is absolutely no indication of how many he could have covered. The officers fired because he approached the distance where a charge would get him there before they could shoot him, not because he was actually charging.

What you don't seem to realize is that things can change very quickly.

And 10 bullets into the abdomen--we just had a woman die from *ONE* bullet in the abdomen in a home invasion a month ago. (While they didn't say what happened what little the article said makes me think liver damage.)

While there are very disturbing trends with the police they involve raids, not encounters on the street.

Like the raid in which a flash grenade was thrown into an infant's room and he was sent to the burn unit and now the city won't pay for his medical expenses?

Yup. I think there's a major element of blame for the occupants but the cops are still guilty of overlooking the obvious.