All the shoot to kill people on this forum can be counted on to scoff when someone suggests a warning or disabling shot in this type of situation, but that doesn't always apply, IMO. This was a domestic disturbance, and bear jockeys and camper wranglers haven't been trained to deal with this sort of thing. They brought the same prejudice to the situation as they would have if they had encounted armed poachers who would rather shoot it out than be apprehended.
Was the guy out of control? Of course. Did he deserve to get shot (wounded)? No doubt. Deserve to die? Come on. Go on a camping trip, get into a fight with your wife, and die? I don't especially blame the rangers, but I do see it as a tragic overreaction.
One man's opinion. Please respect it as I respect yours, and understand that I do not want to get into a major debate on how people in uniform should be able to meet any threat with deadly force. The way I see it, LEOs shoot too many people they shouldn't, and not nearly enough of the ones they should.
If you ever take any gun safety classes or conceal and carry class, you will learn the real reasons why LEOs and everyone else aims for the body. We're not necessarily shooting to kill, but we are shooting to stop with as few bullets as possible. Heaven forbid somebody else dies from a ricochet when you had ample opportunity to make sure you hit your target the first time.
If you're going to defend yourself with a firearm, your object is to shoot to stop the threat.
When the man came within 10 feet of one of the rangers, the ranger used pepper spray, but the man didn't stop, and the second ranger shot him twice, Brock said.
You have a circumstance where the individual had the means (a club in his hand), the opportunity (he was ten feet away from the officers), and the motivation (he was moving toward the officer with club in hand). How long does it take to cover a ten-foot distance? Measure it off on the floor of the room you're in and try it.
In this type of scenario, if I'm armed, I'm shooting to stop the threat.
You omitted a small fact. The guy came at the two rangers with a club in hand and verbally threatening to kill both of them. He wasn't dissuaded by pepper spray. Two rounds to the chest put an end to his attack on the rangers.
As far as training goes, you have a point. Park Rangers probably aren't trained well in domestic matters. But this wasn't a running fight between two people for forgeting to bring charcoal for the BBQ. It was one irrationally behaving individual with a deadly weapon.
I'm not generally a 'shoot to kill' person. In fact, I've been called some things for not supporting a cop shooting a suspect. But this time I can see it clear that they were correct.
The standard for a threat from a knife is 21 feet. Meaning that if a suspect has a blade, and is 21 feet away making any move to get closer, you can shoot. It can take less that 1.5 seconds for a man with a blade to cut your throat from that distance.
I can't see much difference in a club. A whack upside the head can be just as deadly, and can happen as fast as a knife to the neck.
Hell, the article says the guy got within 10 feet; at that range, an upper-body shot aimed at the shoulder wouldn't be all that hard - and if he died from that, too bad. But stopping a guy with a club isn't the same as stopping a guy with a knife.
We weren't there, and if the guy was crazed on PCP or something I'd probably just want to take him down, too - 'cause I dislike scumballs. But on the face of it from this article, seems like he didn't have to die.
I carry most every day, so I think about this stuff.
Sorry, this may have been the case twenty five years ago, but not anymore. Being a park ranger has taken on the same dimensions as a big city cop and they're trained in exactly the same way and armed to meet the threat. They regularly shoot it out with large scale dope growers, and illegal aliens or the coyote smugglers who pack full auto firepower to keep the cops off their payloads. Do a search for the number of felony crimes in the national park system and get a rude wakeup call. Everything from dope smuggling, to domestic violence to rape and murder.
Thanks, John. It just seemed strange that two rangers against one guy with a stick had no choice but to kill him. Sad story.
"...bear jockeys and camper wranglers haven't been trained to deal with this sort of thing"
"The way I see it, LEOs shoot too many people they shouldn't, and not nearly enough of the ones they should."
So who is trained to your standard?
With whom was the deceased having a "domestic disturbance?"
>>This was a domestic disturbance, and bear jockeys and camper wranglers haven't been trained to deal with this sort of thing.<<
Are you sure that they didn't go through police training? I would be *very* surprised to find they hadn't.