EPTRetired cop shoots son, mistook him as burglar - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CounterOrder
Canada457 Posts
| ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On October 12 2012 16:03 Shady Sands wrote: That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill. Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass. Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either. Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard. | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
| ||
|
gm.tOSS
Germany898 Posts
On October 12 2012 15:50 armada[sb] wrote: He was a homicide detective, they investigate death scenes, they don't patrol, they sit in an office and wait for a call, and then go investigate the body. If you're interested in the subject, I recommend Homicide by David Simon. Also, who are you to diagnose the man? It could be just as easily blamed on advanced age as it could on PTSD. There will be a reasonable explanation for sure. Maybe he's a victim too. But that doesn't mean that there is something fundamentally wrong there. At some point you have to ask yourself what circumstances enabled this situation to happen. | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
On October 12 2012 16:31 Twinkle Toes wrote: Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard. Nobody shoots for the head for the same reason that they don't shoot for the limbs, it's a smaller target. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On October 12 2012 15:36 Kommatiazo wrote: This has to be considered. There just isn't enough evidence (we may never get it as members of the public) to say whether he went crazy, was already crazy, just wanted to shoot someone, had a snap reaction that turned out badly, or if the son came in pretending to be a burglar, or if he simply could not judge the situation properly due to age/PTSD/etc and pulled the trigger, maybe he meant it to be a warning shot, or any number of other factors. A jury will decide if he is innocent or guilty. It's not for a bunch of people who read the hastily written aftermath article to make a snap call on whether or not this guy was an idiot for carrying a gun or not. Personally I agree with VanillaCoke in this instance, probably highly trained, however old/retired, and not some fool who only ever went to the shooting range to shoot until the one night when he killed his own son. So that's an excuse now? Its quite possible that this guy is kind of a weirdo, a broken man, a man with a possible psychic condition? Maybe that shit would not have happened if there were actually some laws in place who check up on people that own weapons, just saying? If you have psychos running around which can snap at any point in time, just because someone did or said something that remembered him of something, the last thing a ->sane<- person would do is give that guy a gun. That should actually be common sense. And btw, he killed his son with a headshot. I dont know about you, but i know for a fact, that a warning shot does NOT include aiming for the head. And further, before a warning shot, you actually fuckin warn your "enemy". You know, just in case. If the highly trained police-officer wanted to "warn", he would have warned him. That was a shot intended to kill. Question is, was the son a target all along, or did he snap and went fubar. Nobody shoots for the head for the same reason that they don't shoot for the limbs, it's a smaller target. True, for the states at least. Over here, the police shoot limbs (just happened rougly two weeks ago). In general, you do not aim for the "biggest target", but where you get the most "stopping power". Thats chest/torso/center of mass in general, which also happens to be the biggest target. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On October 12 2012 16:33 m4inbrain wrote: So that's an excuse now? Its quite possible that this guy is kind of a weirdo, a broken man, a man with a possible psychic condition? Maybe that shit would not have happened if there were actually some laws in place who check up on people that own weapons, just saying? If you have psychos running around which can snap at any point in time, just because someone did or said something that remembered him of something, the last thing a ->sane<- person would do is give that guy a gun. That should actually be common sense. And btw, he killed his son with a headshot. I dont know about you, but i know for a fact, that a warning shot does NOT include aiming for the head. And further, before a warning shot, you actually fuckin warn your "enemy". You know, just in case. If the highly trained police-officer wanted to "warn", he would have warned him. That was a shot intended to kill. Question is, was the son a target all along, or did he snap and went fubar. True, for the states at least. Over here, the police shoot limbs (just happened rougly two weeks ago). In general, you do not aim for the "biggest target", but where you get the most "stopping power". Thats chest/torso/center of mass in general, which also happens to be the biggest target. im pretty sure if he really had a psychic condition he would have known it was his son and not headshot him. | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
| ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On October 12 2012 16:31 Twinkle Toes wrote: Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard. You're right, I stand corrected. But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury? | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
On October 12 2012 16:41 Shady Sands wrote: You're right, I stand corrected. But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury? It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't). | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On October 12 2012 16:44 armada[sb] wrote: It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't). Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" | ||
|
jobebob
30 Posts
On October 12 2012 15:22 Inori wrote: I wonder if there's a comparison somewhere between causalities from shootings, accidents, etc and successful self-defense (in a situation where's it's actually needed) There is! Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf Table 10. Suicide: 18,735 Homicide: 11,493 Legal intervention: 395 Operations of war: 25 There is more on there, I would urge people to check it out. Also from http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf: During the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI and UMI countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries. | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
On October 12 2012 16:31 armada[sb] wrote: I'm more afraid of police here than civilians. Shit, and I live in Baltimore. Murdaland streets be tough.. Go O's! :D | ||
|
armada[sb]
United States432 Posts
Yeah, hon! | ||
|
blug
Australia623 Posts
Another reason why the public shouldn't have guns. | ||
|
WetSocks
United States953 Posts
| ||
|
Twinkle Toes
United States3605 Posts
On October 12 2012 16:45 Shady Sands wrote: Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass. | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
| ||
|
JackReacher
United States197 Posts
On October 12 2012 16:03 Shady Sands wrote: That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill. Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass. Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either. You are completely wrong. I went through state police academy; we are trained that if you discharge your firearm at a suspect, it is because you have no choice but to kill. Police officers NEVER shoot to wound, because of the use of force continuum; if you aren't 100% certain you want to kill someone, you never, ever discharge a firearm. If wounding is the intent, you wrestle them to the ground, or perform a takedown, or strike them with the hand, or strike them with a baton, depending on the amount of force the situation dictates. A firearm is only ever involved if an immediate threat to life is present, and when this is the case, training dictates that (with a handgun) one aims and fires at the assailant's center mass until he is on the ground. I don't know where you got your information from, but it is completely inaccurate. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On October 12 2012 17:18 Twinkle Toes wrote: Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass. Twinkle, this was the argument: essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs. Then you said I was wrong and I agreed. E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol | ||
| ||
