(08-18-2014 10:18 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: You are referring to the graze wound. It is quite possible that a shot was fired initially from the rear or behind.
Then, it could have prompted MB to turn around and charge the officer. Hence all the other shots were frontal entry.
Six rounds fired in a matter of 2-3 seconds. This is not excessive gunfire.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Excellent point. One law official stated however that 6 shots is not usual. It should be also noted that they said at least six shots hit Brown implying that he may have been hit more than 6 and shot at even more than that.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
I've always been told that if you have to shoot then shoot to kill. And if you have to shoot to kill then why not empty your gun into the guy? I'm not sure I entirely agree with that last part but dead mean file no lawsuits.
Nice point. But, seriously, the cop probably has a 9mm and you have to shoot someone several times to stop them with that.
(08-18-2014 10:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Excellent point. One law official stated however that 6 shots is not usual. It should be also noted that they said at least six shots hit Brown implying that he may have been hit more than 6 and shot at even more than that.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
I've always been told that if you have to shoot then shoot to kill. And if you have to shoot to kill then why not empty your gun into the guy? I'm not sure I entirely agree with that last part but dead mean file no lawsuits.
I have a feeling that cops are supposed to use far more restraint. At least Outside of furgeson.
Quote:Researcher Alexander Jason reports that even under benign experimental conditions brain programming compels roughly seven out of 10 officers to keep discharging rounds after being signaled to stop shooting. “In a real gunfight, under extraordinary stress and threat of death, an even much higher percentage would likely deliver extra shots,” Jason asserts.
On average, additional findings show, officers may “reasonably” fire six rounds or more into suspects who initially are standing and then begin falling and who, in fact, may already be mortally wounded. And that’s six rounds per officer involved in the confrontation.
The easy fix is to simply give each cop one bullet.
Cops have a right to protect themselves. They have a very difficult job. They are not however, above the law. They need to be held to a higher standard.
(08-18-2014 11:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Cops have a right to protect themselves. They have a very difficult job. They are not however, above the law. They need to be held to a higher standard.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Since you are making such a big deal about it and obviously think that six shots in this case was excessive define the higher standard.
(08-18-2014 11:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Cops have a right to protect themselves. They have a very difficult job. They are not however, above the law. They need to be held to a higher standard.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Since you are making such a big deal about it and obviously think that six shots in this case was excessive define the higher standard.
(08-18-2014 11:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Cops have a right to protect themselves. They have a very difficult job. They are not however, above the law. They need to be held to a higher standard.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Since you are making such a big deal about it and obviously think that six shots in this case was excessive define the higher standard.
Well, Obama only needed 3 shots to kill OBL.
HA!
At least you answered. I don't expect fit to answer because that doesn't go with his agenda in this case.
From the article I linked above, based upon research at least four years old since the article was published in 2010:
Quote:Time to Fall
In his most recent study, Jason measured the amount of time required for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position and explored the implications of shots fired by officers at the falling figure, whether those shots are deliberate or involuntary because of reaction time.
During a confrontation with a standing armed offender, “the most commonly understood and accepted indication that the [suspect] is no longer a threat is when that person either releases the gun from his hand(s) and/or drops to the ground” from being shot, Jason states.
He asked five volunteers (four males, one female) to stand “erect with hands out in front, as if holding a gun” and, upon verbal command, to drop to a padded mat “as quickly as possible.” This, he concedes, was an imperfect attempt to mimic a rapid collapse (“dropping like a sack of potatoes”) such as would occur from “a significant disruption of the central nervous system or sudden loss of consciousness.” Genuine collapses from such causes, of course, cannot be tested in an experimental environment.
Thirty-five drops were recorded with a digital video camera and later analyzed on a computer. Timing began “at the first detectable motion initiating the movement of the body” toward the ground and ended when the upper torso was on the mat and “horizontal to the ground.”
On average, the subjects took 1.1 seconds to fall down. During this amount of time, Lewinski’s research has shown that “four shots could be fired by an ‘average’ police officer,” Jason writes. “A crumple fall [going to the knees first, then down] will take more time and could result in several more shots fired during the movement. Additional shots could also be fired until the shooter perceives that the person is no longer a threat and is able to interrupt his shooting sequence.”
In all, Jason writes, “the total number of [rapid-sequence] shots fired at a person standing then going to the ground could reasonably be a minimum of six shots: one or more before the [suspect] begins to fall; four shots during the fall; one or more as the body contacts the floor” during the time required for the brain to recognize and process that the threat has ceased.
“In situations with more than one shooter firing, the total number of reasonable shots could be 6 x Number of Shooters; i.e., if three officers were firing simultaneously, then 18 shots (6 x 3) would be expected... etc.”
Depending on a suspect’s positioning through the fall, at least some of these shots may end up entering through his back, Jason points out, deepening the illusion that the shooting was an unjustified “execution.” In his paper, he includes graphics showing how “posterior entries” can innocently occur under these circumstances.
Damn. Looks like I just shat all upon fit's argument with effin' science.
(08-18-2014 11:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Damn. Looks like I just shat all upon fit's argument with effin' science.
To me what I would be more questioning of is the necessity of "shoot to kill" over "shoot to disable". Shooting to the head is a shot to kill, and I'd think most police officers are able to aim well in this type of situation. In this type of incident, it's important to realize all the details, which I don't have right in front of me - so I could be going off the wrong path.
What I'd ask is - what does the evidence (physical, not witness testimony) support? Are there visible signs of a close struggle (physical contact)? I said earlier I thought it was important that the kid was in fact just coming off of a robbery, since IMO that would leave one in a more aggressive state especially considering the strong-armed nature of it. Can you tell how aggressive the kid who was shot was by any bruising? Is there gunpowder indicating close-range shots? All of these questions... so few answers (that are consistent).
(08-18-2014 11:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Damn. Looks like I just shat all upon fit's argument with effin' science.
To me what I would be more questioning of is the necessity of "shoot to kill" over "shoot to disable". Shooting to the head is a shot to kill, and I'd think most police officers are able to aim well in this type of situation. In this type of incident, it's important to realize all the details, which I don't have right in front of me - so I could be going off the wrong path.
What I'd ask is - what does the evidence (physical, not witness testimony) support? Are there visible signs of a close struggle (physical contact)? I said earlier I thought it was important that the kid was in fact just coming off of a robbery, since IMO that would leave one in a more aggressive state especially considering the strong-armed nature of it. Can you tell how aggressive the kid who was shot was by any bruising? Is there gunpowder indicating close-range shots? All of these questions... so few answers (that are consistent).
When it gets to the point where gun play is involved there is no "shoot to disable". That is some Hollywood garbage that simply is not realistic.
And no, most police officers aren't trained that well. In fact I would probably win a bet if I said the only people truly trained that well to aim that precise in a gun battle would be our most highly trained military special operations forces.
(08-18-2014 11:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Damn. Looks like I just shat all upon fit's argument with effin' science.
To me what I would be more questioning of is the necessity of "shoot to kill" over "shoot to disable". Shooting to the head is a shot to kill, and I'd think most police officers are able to aim well in this type of situation. In this type of incident, it's important to realize all the details, which I don't have right in front of me - so I could be going off the wrong path.
What I'd ask is - what does the evidence (physical, not witness testimony) support? Are there visible signs of a close struggle (physical contact)? I said earlier I thought it was important that the kid was in fact just coming off of a robbery, since IMO that would leave one in a more aggressive state especially considering the strong-armed nature of it. Can you tell how aggressive the kid who was shot was by any bruising? Is there gunpowder indicating close-range shots? All of these questions... so few answers (that are consistent).
When it gets to the point where gun play is involved there is no "shoot to disable". That is some Hollywood garbage that simply is not realistic.
And no, most police officers aren't trained that well. In fact I would probably win a bet if I said the only people truly trained that well to aim that precise in a gun battle would be our most highly trained military special operations forces.
So whenever guns are involved they're always used with intent to kill? I don't really agree with that.
I have police in my family in the Midwest that are the best shooters I've ever known. That came with training. Obviously military specops are going to be able to aim precisely. Not sure what that has to do with police being trained to aim a gun at specific points in a body.
(08-18-2014 11:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Cops have a right to protect themselves. They have a very difficult job. They are not however, above the law. They need to be held to a higher standard.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Since you are making such a big deal about it and obviously think that six shots in this case was excessive define the higher standard.
Well, Obama only needed 3 shots to kill OBL.
Six shots with standard (not hollow point) 9mm ammo is not a lot. Most of these forces went to the 9mm because the ammo is cheaper and the person has a chance of making it after getting shot (I don't even think most police shooting lead to a death). Since the left always cries about number of shots, I would expect many of these departments to start switching to the 45. One or two shots with that will drop an assailant easily.
By the way, special operators use the 45 too. It is not meant to wound, but to stop.
(08-18-2014 11:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Damn. Looks like I just shat all upon fit's argument with effin' science.
To me what I would be more questioning of is the necessity of "shoot to kill" over "shoot to disable". Shooting to the head is a shot to kill, and I'd think most police officers are able to aim well in this type of situation. In this type of incident, it's important to realize all the details, which I don't have right in front of me - so I could be going off the wrong path.
What I'd ask is - what does the evidence (physical, not witness testimony) support? Are there visible signs of a close struggle (physical contact)? I said earlier I thought it was important that the kid was in fact just coming off of a robbery, since IMO that would leave one in a more aggressive state especially considering the strong-armed nature of it. Can you tell how aggressive the kid who was shot was by any bruising? Is there gunpowder indicating close-range shots? All of these questions... so few answers (that are consistent).
When it gets to the point where gun play is involved there is no "shoot to disable". That is some Hollywood garbage that simply is not realistic.
And no, most police officers aren't trained that well. In fact I would probably win a bet if I said the only people truly trained that well to aim that precise in a gun battle would be our most highly trained military special operations forces.
So whenever guns are involved they're always used with intent to kill? I don't really agree with that.
I have police in my family in the Midwest that are the best shooters I've ever known. That came with training. Obviously military specops are going to be able to aim precisely. Not sure what that has to do with police being trained to aim a gun at specific points in a body.
Because shooting at a target is an entirely different thing than shooting at a human being. There have been plenty of law enforcement officers wearing expert marksmanship badges who later get involved in gunfights and never score a hit.
When a law enforcement officer gets to the point that they are pulling the trigger they are in a situation where either their life or someone else's life is in danger and they have to take drastic action. This is a high stress situation and does not tend to lead to much accuracy. That is why officers are trained to aim for center mass, and to fire until they either run out of ammunition or the threat is eliminated.
If we were to put unrealistic, Hollywood based "shoot to disable" requirements on law enforcement you best be prepared for A. a lot more unfilled law enforcement slots and B. a lot more line of duty death funerals.
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2014 01:21 AM by Kaplony.)
(08-18-2014 11:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Cops have a right to protect themselves. They have a very difficult job. They are not however, above the law. They need to be held to a higher standard.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Since you are making such a big deal about it and obviously think that six shots in this case was excessive define the higher standard.
Well, Obama only needed 3 shots to kill OBL.
Six shots with standard (not hollow point) 9mm ammo is not a lot. Most of these forces went to the 9mm because the ammo is cheaper and the person has a chance of making it after getting shot (I don't even think most police shooting lead to a death). Since the left always cries about number of shots, I would expect many of these departments to start switching to the 45. One or two shots with that will drop an assailant easily.
By the way, special operators use the 45 too. It is not meant to wound, but to stop.
say what
certain people should not carry weapons. A lot of conservatives, a lot of liberals and some dumb ass cops
(08-18-2014 11:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Damn. Looks like I just shat all upon fit's argument with effin' science.
To me what I would be more questioning of is the necessity of "shoot to kill" over "shoot to disable". Shooting to the head is a shot to kill, and I'd think most police officers are able to aim well in this type of situation. In this type of incident, it's important to realize all the details, which I don't have right in front of me - so I could be going off the wrong path.
What I'd ask is - what does the evidence (physical, not witness testimony) support? Are there visible signs of a close struggle (physical contact)? I said earlier I thought it was important that the kid was in fact just coming off of a robbery, since IMO that would leave one in a more aggressive state especially considering the strong-armed nature of it. Can you tell how aggressive the kid who was shot was by any bruising? Is there gunpowder indicating close-range shots? All of these questions... so few answers (that are consistent).
When it gets to the point where gun play is involved there is no "shoot to disable". That is some Hollywood garbage that simply is not realistic.
And no, most police officers aren't trained that well. In fact I would probably win a bet if I said the only people truly trained that well to aim that precise in a gun battle would be our most highly trained military special operations forces.
So whenever guns are involved they're always used with intent to kill? I don't really agree with that.
I have police in my family in the Midwest that are the best shooters I've ever known. That came with training. Obviously military specops are going to be able to aim precisely. Not sure what that has to do with police being trained to aim a gun at specific points in a body.
Because shooting at a target is an entirely different thing than shooting at a human being. There have been plenty of law enforcement officers wearing expert marksmanship badges who later get involved in gunfights and never score a hit.
When a law enforcement officer gets to the point that they are pulling the trigger they are in a situation where either their life or someone else's life is in danger and they have to take drastic action. This is a high stress situation and does not tend to lead to much accuracy. That is why officers are trained to aim for center mass, and to fire until they either run out of ammunition or the threat is eliminated.
If we were to put unrealistic, Hollywood based "shoot to disable" requirements on law enforcement you best be prepared for A. a lot more unfilled law enforcement slots and B. a lot more line of duty death funerals.
In 2008
Very accurate way of putting it. This is not special forces, where you practice under pressure and the objective is to eliminate targets...and, by targets, I mean human beings. Additionally, you usually have intel on a site before you hit it. Cops, who are less trained because shooting are rare, are usual firing in unplanned and sudden instances. So, the training is definitely aim for center mass and fire until the person stops.
(08-18-2014 11:56 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: To me what I would be more questioning of is the necessity of "shoot to kill" over "shoot to disable". Shooting to the head is a shot to kill, and I'd think most police officers are able to aim well in this type of situation. In this type of incident, it's important to realize all the details, which I don't have right in front of me - so I could be going off the wrong path.
What I'd ask is - what does the evidence (physical, not witness testimony) support? Are there visible signs of a close struggle (physical contact)? I said earlier I thought it was important that the kid was in fact just coming off of a robbery, since IMO that would leave one in a more aggressive state especially considering the strong-armed nature of it. Can you tell how aggressive the kid who was shot was by any bruising? Is there gunpowder indicating close-range shots? All of these questions... so few answers (that are consistent).
When it gets to the point where gun play is involved there is no "shoot to disable". That is some Hollywood garbage that simply is not realistic.
And no, most police officers aren't trained that well. In fact I would probably win a bet if I said the only people truly trained that well to aim that precise in a gun battle would be our most highly trained military special operations forces.
So whenever guns are involved they're always used with intent to kill? I don't really agree with that.
I have police in my family in the Midwest that are the best shooters I've ever known. That came with training. Obviously military specops are going to be able to aim precisely. Not sure what that has to do with police being trained to aim a gun at specific points in a body.
Because shooting at a target is an entirely different thing than shooting at a human being. There have been plenty of law enforcement officers wearing expert marksmanship badges who later get involved in gunfights and never score a hit.
When a law enforcement officer gets to the point that they are pulling the trigger they are in a situation where either their life or someone else's life is in danger and they have to take drastic action. This is a high stress situation and does not tend to lead to much accuracy. That is why officers are trained to aim for center mass, and to fire until they either run out of ammunition or the threat is eliminated.
If we were to put unrealistic, Hollywood based "shoot to disable" requirements on law enforcement you best be prepared for A. a lot more unfilled law enforcement slots and B. a lot more line of duty death funerals.
In 2008
Very accurate way of putting it. This is not special forces, where you practice under pressure and the objective is to eliminate targets...and, by targets, I mean human beings. Additionally, you usually have intel on a site before you hit it. Cops, who are less trained because shooting are rare, are usual firing in unplanned and sudden instances. So, the training is definitely aim for center mass and fire until the person stops.
In my career I have become good friends with a number of law enforcement officers and have luckily been able to get some bootleg training from several of them who are certified instructors. I feel like I am a fairly decent shot on the range and in the field while hunting. That said because of the wisdom passed on to me a long time ago by a now retired and deceased SCHP SGT my primary home defense weapon is a 1/2 longer than legally required Winchester 12ga shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot.
If he was aggressively attacking the police officer the first thought
in his mind would be that he may not just be huge but might have
a knife or some reason for his confidence in winning such a confrontation.
(08-18-2014 10:18 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote: You are referring to the graze wound. It is quite possible that a shot was fired initially from the rear or behind.
Then, it could have prompted MB to turn around and charge the officer. Hence all the other shots were frontal entry.
Six rounds fired in a matter of 2-3 seconds. This is not excessive gunfire.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Excellent point. One law official stated however that 6 shots is not usual. It should be also noted that they said at least six shots hit Brown implying that he may have been hit more than 6 and shot at even more than that.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
I've always been told that if you have to shoot then shoot to kill. And if you have to shoot to kill then why not empty your gun into the guy? I'm not sure I entirely agree with that last part but dead mean file no lawsuits.
Nice point. But, seriously, the cop probably has a 9mm and you have to shoot someone several times to stop them with that.
Most law local law enforcement use a .40 cal. It was designed for law enforcement. Ballistics are excellent for a cop as far as penetration and damage done.
Seriously , take a look at any ammo selection. 9mm and .45 are NATO rounds and will always be available. But can be scarce on the shelf. You can always find .40 since it is primarily for police.
However, all departments ebb and flow back and forth. Now the SCHP are using .45 I believe and Greenville City had a choice of .45 or 9 mm now
Changed from a .40. So who knows.
I carry a .32 in my pocket for fun. Keep 9mm or .45 in the vehicle at all times.
(08-18-2014 11:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Damn. Looks like I just shat all upon fit's argument with effin' science.
To me what I would be more questioning of is the necessity of "shoot to kill" over "shoot to disable". Shooting to the head is a shot to kill, and I'd think most police officers are able to aim well in this type of situation. In this type of incident, it's important to realize all the details, which I don't have right in front of me - so I could be going off the wrong path.
What I'd ask is - what does the evidence (physical, not witness testimony) support? Are there visible signs of a close struggle (physical contact)? I said earlier I thought it was important that the kid was in fact just coming off of a robbery, since IMO that would leave one in a more aggressive state especially considering the strong-armed nature of it. Can you tell how aggressive the kid who was shot was by any bruising? Is there gunpowder indicating close-range shots? All of these questions... so few answers (that are consistent).
The police stated Wilson had to go to the hospital due to his face being swollen from the altercation.
There was no GSW on the skin per Baden's examination, he hasn't seen the clothing. I'm sure Case's report when completed will have that information.
Police officers in STL and surrounding areas are taught to empty the clip if they feel their life is in danger. I heard this from my neighbor who was a cop in STL for 4 years before moving to the town we're in. I said, what about in the Ferguson/Jennings area.. Same thing. If you will be working around the city you "double click".. You shoot until your gun clicks twice meaning you re-load. Again I asked what did she think of the arm shots and what not. She said to her it looks like Wilson was trying to stop the kid, and it didn't slow him down. But you have to remember this is all happening within seconds, he's not shooting, waiting, shooting again. It's rapid fire. Her guess since she was a cop in that area and knows the training. He possibly felt his life was in danger because if the kid had already assaulted him and was rushing him again. She highly doubts that any officer would see a person put their hands up and surrender, then open fire.
![[Image: That-Was-Easy-Button.png]](http://cdn.cpnwz.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/That-Was-Easy-Button.png)
