Posted on 08/17/2014 8:19:23 PM PDT by icwhatudo
And some pansy over on the IBD comments section was decrying the 10 rounds fired.
What’s the point of decrying shooting someone 10 times?
That the cop was wasting ammo?
Is the point the pansy is trying to make that the cop was intentionally trying to kill “big Mike”? Yeah, that’s the point of using “lethal force”.
I doubt it. Assuming police are trained to aim for center mass, he was pulling the trigger (rather than squeezing it) and his breathing was way off. He was obviously in the middle of a stressful shooting situation. Again, it depends on training, but in the Army we're trained to shoot until the target goes down, so it's likely that it took that many hits before Brown was down and no longer a threat.
7mm? Isn’t that about the equiv of a .22 magnum?
0.275 based on my conversion program. I would’ve been asking for a 40/45 cal or somesuch.
-——I doubt it.-—
I said it can be argued...... as a lawyer presenting the evidence can make the argument and then prove it with the wound chart.
Reality and convincing court room argument or even press release argument are not the same
Well I know a lot of handgun calibers: But not 7mm.
There is the antiquated 7.65×21mm Parabellum which I believe is not chambered in any firearms anymore. And the .32 ACP which is a 7.65 caliber in a metric configuration. 7.65 (.32)is only chambered in small backup guns as is .380, though .380 is used by police in Europe as a main carry pistol.
I have no idea what they can actually be carrying.
The witness should be charged with inciting a riot.
>>’In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, “You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,”’ Dr Baden told the New York Times.<<
.Pure political commentary. Not what he was paid to do for the NY state police and not what he was “asked” to do now.
Taints his credibility on this case as far as I am concerned.
Who paid to fly him in and paid his fee? Hmmmm?
I want an explanation from anyone that asserts that there is a “reasonable” number of shots the police “should” take.
Both words imply a standard, and I want that standard defined and an explanation of the reasoning behind it.
What they are really implying is that they want there to be a chance that the “victim” of a shooting be given a chance to survive.
In a situation where the police resort to lethal force,
YES, they INTEND for the target to BE DEAD.
But...But...But... the media kept telling us here on the West Coast that Michael Brown was shot from behind, on his knees with his hands raised high in the air and yelling “don’t shoot.”
They wouldn’t lie to us, would they??
//extreme sarc.
Of course. But, even so, I think the officer was aiming to disable rather than kill. That was the point I was trying to make.
I am sure he was much better trained and a better shot than I could EVER be! :-)
It makes perfect sense.
But all the proof in the world (photos of head wounds, etc) didn’t help George Zimmerman. Once the race baiters get a narrative going, who needs facts?
Isn’t a 7mm about as powerful as a .32 cal? That isn’t very powerful.
Exactly right. There is no limit to rationalization and self delusion when there is no fear of consequence.
All of this will be spun to support victimhood and hatred.
Someone ought to tell the examiner to get the word out to his own police force in NY regards how many rounds to fire at the suspect.
That would require that the shooter hit a target moving toward him linearly plus falling in an arc toward the ground — a difficult shot under the best of conditions. Unless it was purely accidental ... and coincidence is a pretty shaky defense.
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.