Posted on 08/20/2014 6:25:16 PM PDT by TigerClaws
“I don’t have any misconceptions.” We all do, about many things. The point is to find them and address them where applicable.
My inquiries as to your experience were not an offhand attempt to belittle you personally, they were meant to ascertain precisely where I should start speaking from. It’s a lot easier to find out by asking where someone is coming from, rather than having to start with the basics of physics, anatomy, firearms, and going up the list from there until you reach a common level of understanding with one another.
“The guy was on the ground, stopped, and the shots kept coming.”
That’s interesting, because what I saw in the video was a man taking a lunge towards the officers, getting shot, stumbling, getting shot some more as his forward momentum carries him closer, and rolling into one officer’s legs as the shooting ends.
That’s a bit different than being on the ground, stopped, as the shots keep coming. From what I saw, the last shot happened before he stopped moving. He was on the ground, naturally, but a stumbling, wounded man with a knife on the ground can still be dangerous if he ends up wrapped around your legs with an intent to do some hedge-trimming.
When a man with a knife is within a quick step or two from you, or rolling into your legs, you’re going to be asking a HELL of a lot of millisecond level judgement of people. What’s more, a misjudgement there, such as trying to ascertain when someone is actually stopped and when they’re stumbling into you with continued intent and ability to cause severe bodily harm, has some very real and very costly consequences.
From what I saw, it looked like the officers did the best they could with the hand they were dealt. It looked like the shots stopped in the fraction-of-a-second that they should have, when the fellow was obviously staying down and not moving towards the officers any more.
Autoloading drum-fed shotgun would be my choice. Lethal or less lethal rounds, doesn’t really matter, he’s going to feel it.
In any case, the Taser isn’t all it’s cracked up to be but in fairness I do have to point out the weapon’s good points. When it works, i.e., the target is a person or animal with a compatible nervous system, it will actually incapacitate faster than a firearm. It’s practically instantaneous - when it works (you can probably guess what the operative words are there, based on my above posts). Tasers intended for police use can include relatively tamper-proof automatic audio-video recorders so any question about who, what and under what circumstances the device was used are much easier to sort out. The weapon also has an automatic logging feature so it is possible to determine if the officer has been practicing, charging the weapon and maintaining it or not, and whether the guy was just holding down the trigger to torment the person at the other end of the wires, etc.
It’s a valuable tool - but it’s less-lethal, not non-lethal. It doesn’t always work even if it functions to design, and if it doesn’t work at all the first time, you’re pretty much just standing there with a stupid look on your face and a worthless piece of plastic and batteries in your hand.
Exactly how many would be necessary or enough?
Who decides that?
“I react with “more civility” if I weren’t treated as though you’re only one with any real world experience.”
As I mentioned in my last post, my inquiry was not some passive-aggressive attempt to belittle you, merely a necessary expedient to arrive at a common point of reference. It’s a lot quicker, to say nothing of less condescending, to ask where you’re coming from rather than just starting by explaining the basics to you as if you were a child.
“I know what a skilled person with a knife who’s already been shot twice and is on the ground can do.....not much.”
Where did “already been shot twice and is on the ground” come from? Certainly not the article or video.
And if I’ve been winged twice in somewhere besides the brain or heart and am laying on the ground, trust me, I could still gut my assailant if he got close enough. It is not like in the movies. It takes people time to die unless hit in one of those two places.
I take it you have never been in a real world confrontation such as a mugging or had to take a gun away from someone who was pointing it at you? Yeah, thought so.
Well said. Also, you are being kinder to this fool than I am. Respect that. Just tired of fools lately. Sigh.
Thanks. I’ve had enough... ill-informed and ill-willed debates recently about shootings recently that this conversation is, by comparison, rather civil and intellectual. It’s refreshing actually.
Trading words back and forth over whether someone on the ground is a continuing threat or not is infinitely more rational than some of the insane crap I’ve heard people spout recently.
The Tueller drill was really an eye-opener for me, too!
“From what I saw, the last shot happened before he stopped moving. “.
______________________________________________________
In this close up view, the suspect did not actually stop moving until about 30 seconds or so after the last shot was fired. No other shots were fired, but he clearly kept moving for about 30 seconds after the last shot. He was likely taking is last breaths, but he was still moving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SfdQGNIX90
Thanks for the link
He was shot 11 times.
My point is that the last few shots were overkill.
Quit trying to project the limits of my life experience.
The "crazy guy" had "put one over on the Man" (the clerk). Crazy. Over a couple of cans of drink.
The cameraman is surprised that the police would shoot him over that. I've seen cases where a robber shoots someone over a couple of drinks (or $2).
I was robbed at gun point for less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.