Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ellesu

There is not quite enough information about this in the article. And it may be simply unknown. The officer was well within his rights to shoot someone trying to poke him with a bayonet. I would question whether putting 4 shots in the kid was excessive. It may have been, it may not have been. If the kid kept coming, the officer certainly should have kept firing, but if the officer was at all careful in where he shot kid, the first three should have been sufficiently debilitating to eliminate the threat.

That said, I don't think there is any criminal liability it the officer's actions. He faced a deadly threat with deadly force. But it is possible that better training could have led to a better outcome.


25 posted on 12/20/2004 8:39:28 AM PST by blanknoone (The two big battles left in the War on Terror are against our State dept and our media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: blanknoone
I would question whether putting 4 shots in the kid was excessive. It may have been, it may not have been. If the kid kept coming, the officer certainly should have kept firing, but if the officer was at all careful in where he shot kid, the first three should have been sufficiently debilitating to eliminate the threat.

If it is still standing it is a threat.

27 posted on 12/20/2004 8:41:43 AM PST by cpdiii (If you do not believe in entropy and enthalpy, look at government by liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: blanknoone
teen jumped out of the bushes, repeatedly charging the officer with a bayonet and rifle ....
The officer was well within his rights to shoot someone trying to poke him with a bayonet.

The officer also couldn't have known the kid wouldn't shoot him with the rifle, too, not just poke him with the bayonet.

28 posted on 12/20/2004 8:44:23 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: blanknoone
There is not quite enough information about this in the article. And it may be simply unknown. The officer was well within his rights to shoot someone trying to poke him with a bayonet. I would question whether putting 4 shots in the kid was excessive. It may have been, it may not have been. If the kid kept coming, the officer certainly should have kept firing, but if the officer was at all careful in where he shot kid, the first three should have been sufficiently debilitating to eliminate the threat.

I just read a good article in Combat Handgun magazaine by Massad Ayoob. He states that when shooting a person in the torso, the strike of the rounds are not immediately evident. Unless, the person is immediately incapacited such as with a head shot a defensive shooter may not even know if he hit the perpetrator. This is one reason mulitple shots are fired. The idea is to keep pumping out rounds until the perpetrator is no longer a threat.

37 posted on 12/20/2004 9:09:18 AM PST by Ajnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson