Yes.
|
|
|
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
Yes.
As with most things, an argument regarding "raw numbers" fails to take into account percentage of population and context. When a suspect is fleeing and is shot in the back, he's not presenting a danger to police.
But could be presenting a danger to the public. I think this will come down to the details. Didn’t they recover a casing, so did he fire a weapon?
If they truly believed he had fired a weapon and they could not reasonably ascertain it was not in his hands, sadly I think the use lethal force is justified. That being said 60???? Wounds.
Reminds me of Sammy, that chap on the streetcar.
It sounds bad after but police know they suck at hitting their target, if the first round was justified, at least a few more should follow it to make sure they hit something important. Multiply that times 8 cops and I would have expected no less than 24 rounds and probably quite a few more.
Indeed.
I think a lot of people don’t quite understand that police are not trained to shoot to wound. You aim centre mass and you keep squeezing until the ‘threat’ is removed.
Saying ‘shoot them in the leg or something’ is laughable.
DownUnder
Well-known member
In the military they called it a panic mag. When the adrenaline hits some people they lose focus and mag dump, keep pulling/holding the trigger till it clicks, at which point the majority snap out of it, and regain their situational awareness.
There was a similar uproar in the US when a cop ran over a suspect with a car or when they blew one up with a bomb. Once you cross the line and deadly force is justified, the mechanism doesn't matter at that point, administer the force as quickly and safely as possible. It does make bigger headlines though if they think outside of the box as a gun is not always the safest/most effective option.
TK4
Well-known member
That's not true - as professionals they can put up a lot of yellow caution tape and little orange cones to mark the shell casings.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I think there's a different response based on the actions of the persons being chased. Personally, I'd stop, listen and follow instructions hoping that was sufficient to keep cops from shooting.
Discharging or brandishing a weapon toward law enforcement changes the rules -- every good criminal should know this.
How many good criminals are there? It amazes me how incompetent most are.
I don't see anyone else around in that video, though it's not the most clear. The measure for use of a weapon is "imminent danger", not some time in the nebulous future. This is the case for every North American police force that I'm aware of. Running away doesn't present an imminent danger. Remember how the cowboy cop was treated, some years back, when he took shots at a fleeing car in Mississauga AFTER it was past him?
*EDIT* - Ah, yes. I forgot about Sammy. That would be the case in which an officer fired at someone who was out of threat range, as determined by a more experienced officer, and then a Sergeant showed up to Taser the corpse? I was and still am firmly convinced that if there hadn't been video of that last, they would have claimed he fought off the Taser charge.
He got a commendation and promotion? (slightly tongue in cheek)
A lot of people don't even have basic experience with firearms, so that's unsurprising. I've heard people, several times, ask why police don't just shoot the gun out of the suspect's hand. I know of exactly ONE case in which that occurred and it was done by a sniper, on a stationary target, who was sitting in a chair and dangling the gun between his spread legs.
I don't recall the final outcome but he was definitely reprimanded (probably held back from promotion for years as a result) and IIRC charged. I'd post the original news stories but, unfortunately, searching for "police officer charged Mississauga shooting" turns up thousands of results and I'll need to refine my search a bit more.
*EDIT* I was incorrect. There were two officers who were reprimanded and charged. They were acquitted by an all-White jury. It was 17 year old Wade Lawson, in 1988. The charges were Murder in the Second Degree (one officer) and Unlawful Discharge of Firearm (both officers). He had driven the car at them and then, once the car was past them, they opened fire on the rear of the car.
Last edited:
Mad Mike
Well-known member
There are a few of us.
I guess you'd have to define 'good'. Is the PM a good criminal? How about Patrick Brown? Robin Hood? Al Capone?
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
Known a couple of technically proficient crooks in my time hard working very detail oriented and all but morally good not so much.
Plenty of amusing tails but generally not folk that one would want to get between and something that they want.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
So, a 17-year-old with little driving experience steals a car and then attempts to run down a couple of plain-clothed cops. Hmmm, what happens next? Do the cops use force to stop him or do they smile, wave, and hope the next two people in the driver's path are sharp enough to jump out of the way?
Yes.. but he was shot in the back with banned ammo... as the kid drove away from them.
By their own department's rules of engagement what they DON'T do, is fire their weapons at the receding target.
|
|
|
|
|