|
|
St. Louis Vs. The Police IV: Now it gets real!
 Lakshmi.Zerowone
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2015-01-22 10:44:58
I read it clearly.
Notice that part where I said "doesn't require skill, or much skill"
Which is implied by the phrase "you don't need to be an expert marksman", despite the need to be heavily skilled (to the point of an expert marksman, many, if not all, would say you would *need* to be at that level, and then many would still doubt themselves able to make the shot under such circumstances)
But you know, logic and all that gets in the way of saying "NO U!" sometimes.
So to put in the context of the scenario at hand and what you are trying to call me out on:
Are you saying that an armed officer would not be proficient enough to hit a suspect attempting to flee in the upper leg or buttock region with a distance of 10' or less?
Cause I would say yes they are/should be.
[+]
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-22 10:46:34
I don't much like cops, saying that foremost.
However, if I thought someone was out on the streets with a semi-automatic weapon because they were fleeing me and I was a cop, I don't think I'd hesitate long to take him down somehow.
We're all gamers. What's the oldest trick in the book when playing a first-person shooter and slightly overwhelmed? Turn a corner and start spraying fire at anything that peaks around. I can't really blame a cop for not wanting to let that possibility happen.
And that's how I feel living in a rather safe city. I used to live in a city with the highest homicide rate in the country and I can't imagine cops in the St. Louis area are feeling a lot more secure than the cops where I used to live did.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-22 10:53:52
I read it clearly.
Notice that part where I said "doesn't require skill, or much skill"
Which is implied by the phrase "you don't need to be an expert marksman", despite the need to be heavily skilled (to the point of an expert marksman, many, if not all, would say you would *need* to be at that level, and then many would still doubt themselves able to make the shot under such circumstances)
But you know, logic and all that gets in the way of saying "NO U!" sometimes.
So to put in the context of the scenario at hand and what you are trying to call me out on:
Are you saying that an armed officer would not be proficient enough to hit a suspect attempting to flee in the upper leg or buttock region with a distance of 10' or less?
Cause I would say yes they are/should be. While I agree that they should be, the majority are trained for body shots to immediately take down a serious threat/potential threat.
Static moving targets are much different than moving human targets, and thus even acknowledged sharp-shooters do not advocate a method of aiming for the smaller target, when removing a threat.
I mean, what you seem to be advocating, aside from what we agree on, is some lone ranger and/or Horatio Caine level *** that only happens in scripted scenes.
Then again, body shots need not be lethal either, dependent on the level of threat of a desperate, armed suspect, and the plausible scenario that would ultimately result in others being dragged into it without need.
In my opinion, so far as the article and information currently presented stands, is the officers did their job. If other information or evidence comes to light that counters what we know so far, that opinion may change.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-22 11:40:58
ITF: If you disagree with somebody, they are obviously trolls!
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-01-22 11:55:27
ITF: If you disagree with somebody, they are obviously trolls!
Disagreement is fine, it's the nature of society. When someone makes clickbait threads about sensitive topics without any coherent thought process and fractured contrary opinions, it's considered trolling.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-22 11:56:14
If you don't like the thread, don't post in it.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-01-22 11:58:17
If you don't like the thread, don't post in it.
It would appear that you don't like it, feel free to take your own advice.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-22 11:59:34
If you don't like the thread, don't post in it.
It would appear that you don't like it, feel free to take your own advice. How so? Because I choose to not argue with your stupidity?
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2015-01-22 12:03:32
So, to Jassik, it is perfectly ok to run away from the police, armed or not.
No its not perfectly ok to run from the police, (no one ever said that of course), but running from the police is not a capital crime, if they shot him in the back, armed or not, its a bad shooting.
[+]
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2015-01-22 12:06:18
The Supremes have already held that running from police, armed or not, is a capital offense and on the spot execution is perfectly acceptable.
Not going to look that one up at this hour.
You are going to have to look that one up at some point because it sounds like *** to me.
[+]
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-22 12:10:03
So, to Jassik, it is perfectly ok to run away from the police, armed or not.
No its not perfectly ok to run from the police, (no one ever said that of course), but running from the police is not a capital crime, if they shot him in the back, armed or not, its a bad shooting. I really can't believe I'm defending the police here, but...
What do you suggest the police do when someone takes off at a sprint into a populated area carrying what is (or appears to be) a semi-automatic weapon?
Maybe in the cold light of day I could see myself in that situation and say, "Don't chase, we'll catch him later somehow," but when the adrenaline is pumping, reactions are more like "He's going to hide somewhere and start opening fire now that we've caught him!" And with the way sentencing guidelines and actual sentences have been growing increasingly disproportionate, criminals do have an incentive to try to eradicate witnesses and pursuers. And the person in question is a teenager, a demographic not known for making optimal decisions under pressure.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-22 12:12:28
The whole "We'll catch him later" also leaves a lot of room for ***to happen - which the police will get blamed for had they not stopped him.
Granted, the majority of police officers work on a basis that catching/apprehending the suspect is the way to go, and would prefer never to have to even draw their weapons (if not to point it at another person so much as not to have to fill out a tower of paperwork)
 Bahamut.Kara
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-01-22 12:16:40
First case I came across
Tennessee v. Garner
Quote: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
It all depends on how the officers word their statements and if any video footage is released that calls into question their version of events.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 8022
By Shiva.Viciousss 2015-01-22 12:17:43
So, to Jassik, it is perfectly ok to run away from the police, armed or not.
No its not perfectly ok to run from the police, (no one ever said that of course), but running from the police is not a capital crime, if they shot him in the back, armed or not, its a bad shooting. I really can't believe I'm defending the police here, but...
What do you suggest the police do when someone takes off at a sprint into a populated area carrying what is (or appears to be) a semi-automatic weapon?
Maybe in the cold light of day I could see myself in that situation and say, "Don't chase, we'll catch him later somehow," but when the adrenaline is pumping, reactions are more like "He's going to hide somewhere and start opening fire now that we've caught him!" And with the way sentencing guidelines and actual sentences have been growing increasingly disproportionate, criminals do have an incentive to try to eradicate witnesses and pursuers. And the person in question is a teenager, a demographic not known for making optimal decisions under pressure.
Call for backup and pursue them.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-22 12:18:24
First case I came across
Tennessee v. Garner
Quote: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
It all depends on how the officers word their statements and if any video footage is released that calls into question their version of events. I think that probably cause has been established when the kid is holding a gun and running away from the officers in question. The article did state that the officers demanded that the kid drop his weapon before they opened fire.
 Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13623
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-01-22 12:20:15
So, to Jassik, it is perfectly ok to run away from the police, armed or not. Seems pretty obvious he's saying they could have shot his leg or weapon wielding arm which essentially impairs equilibrium keeping the suspect from fleeing vs shooting to death. But hey nobody really expects you to see it as anything other than all or nothing.
I'm not going to comment on the situation until I learn more about the incident, but in general I imagine that it would be really hard to shoot a fleeing suspect in the shooting arm. A leg, though easier to hit, could also be hard to hit accurately since it is moving. You also don't want to shoot a guy with a gun in the leg, since it may cause them to fire back when they otherwise wouldn't have.
The argument should be kept to whether or not the cops should have shot in the first place, not where they should have aimed at. My understanding is that cops should only pull their weapons when lethal force is necessary since any gunshot wound can be fatal, especially when the subject is fleeing and accuracy is reduced.
[+]
By Bloodrose 2015-01-22 12:20:20
So, to Jassik, it is perfectly ok to run away from the police, armed or not.
No its not perfectly ok to run from the police, (no one ever said that of course), but running from the police is not a capital crime, if they shot him in the back, armed or not, its a bad shooting. I really can't believe I'm defending the police here, but...
What do you suggest the police do when someone takes off at a sprint into a populated area carrying what is (or appears to be) a semi-automatic weapon?
Maybe in the cold light of day I could see myself in that situation and say, "Don't chase, we'll catch him later somehow," but when the adrenaline is pumping, reactions are more like "He's going to hide somewhere and start opening fire now that we've caught him!" And with the way sentencing guidelines and actual sentences have been growing increasingly disproportionate, criminals do have an incentive to try to eradicate witnesses and pursuers. And the person in question is a teenager, a demographic not known for making optimal decisions under pressure.
Call for backup and pursue them. Standard operating procedure is to call for back up, even for car chases, before things get out of hand like this.
That said, the officers on the scene have to make a judgment call to ensure their own safety, and the safety of the people in the vicinity, which often happens before back-up has a chance to arrive.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2015-01-22 12:21:59
First case I came across
Tennessee v. Garner
Quote: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
It all depends on how the officers word their statements and if any video footage is released that calls into question their version of events.
That's a masterpiece right there. The beauty is in the wording. The crux comes down to proof of intent which only the suspect can confirm. Dead suspects can't express their intent.
Beautiful example of American legal ambiguity.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-22 12:24:23
Call for backup and pursue them. So escalate the situation.
And when that results in the suspect breaking into a house, taking a hostage, and ending in a shoot-out where an 8-year-old girl catches a stray bullet in her thigh, the backlash would be ridiculous and everyone would say, "Why didn't you shoot when he ran?"
Yes, I'm using a worst-case type of scenario, but I get the impression that this particular circumstance is a classic damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't one.
In, again, the cold light of day, I think the best option would be to let the suspect get away and try to pursue by other means. It would be difficult to train away from the chase instinct, though, especially since most cops will rarely, if ever, find themselves in this kind of situation (contrary to all the reports that appear in the news media).
By Bloodrose 2015-01-22 12:24:43
So, to Jassik, it is perfectly ok to run away from the police, armed or not. Seems pretty obvious he's saying they could have shot his leg or weapon wielding arm which essentially impairs equilibrium keeping the suspect from fleeing vs shooting to death. But hey nobody really expects you to see it as anything other than all or nothing.
I'm not going to comment on the situation until I learn more about the incident, but in general I imagine that it would be really hard to shoot a fleeing suspect in the shooting arm. A leg, though easier to hit, could also be hard to hit accurately since it is moving. You also don't want to shoot a guy with a gun in the leg, since it may cause them to fire back when they otherwise wouldn't have.
The argument should be kept to whether or not the cops should have shot in the first place, not where they should have aimed at. My understanding is that cops should only pull their weapons when lethal force is necessary since any gunshot wound can be fatal, especially when the subject is fleeing and accuracy is reduced. There are also quite a few places in the human leg to hit vital arteries that could ultimately lead to the same outcome, or permanent injury for which the suspect could sue the department for, if it becomes permanent or prevents proper rehabilitation, such as hitting an Achilles tendon.
The rate at which a person can bleed out is increased exponentially by various factors such as adrenaline, alcohol, and such, meaning if you're going to aim your weapon, the intent is to put down a threat, rather than to stop a fleeing suspect, as there are far more methods, and have a highly reduced fatality rate.
[+]
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-22 12:28:31
There are also quite a few places in the human leg to hit vital arteries that could ultimately lead to the same outcome, or permanent injury for which the suspect could sue the department for, if it becomes permanent or prevents proper rehabilitation, such as hitting an Achilles tendon.
The rate at which a person can bleed out is increased exponentially by various factors such as adrenaline, alcohol, and such, meaning if you're going to aim your weapon, the intent is to put down a threat, rather than to stop a fleeing suspect, as there are far more methods, and have a highly reduced fatality rate. By the same token, a gunshot wound is not automatically fatal, even if it does hit center mass. Most people would at least stop running after being shot once.
I suspect the use of additional shots (because no cop ever tries the Hollywood *** of firing one bullet) is to ensure he doesn't fall to the ground and come up shooting.
Again, disproportionately harsh sentencing guidelines have escalated criminal violence even as the incidence of violent crime has been on the decline. Maybe attack the problem at its source rather than debate how best to mitigate the effects.
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-01-22 12:28:45
Call for backup and pursue them. So escalate the situation.
And when that results in the suspect breaking into a house, taking a hostage, and ending in a shoot-out where an 8-year-old girl catches a stray bullet in her thigh, the backlash would be ridiculous and everyone would say, "Why didn't you shoot when he ran?"
Yes, I'm using a worst-case type of scenario, but I get the impression that this particular circumstance is a classic damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't one.
In, again, the cold light of day, I think the best option would be to let the suspect get away and try to pursue by other means. It would be difficult to train away from the chase instinct, though, especially since most cops will rarely, if ever, find themselves in this kind of situation (contrary to all the reports that appear in the news media).
The greater damage from a shoot first policy could easily outweigh those possibilities.
By Bloodrose 2015-01-22 12:31:10
There are also quite a few places in the human leg to hit vital arteries that could ultimately lead to the same outcome, or permanent injury for which the suspect could sue the department for, if it becomes permanent or prevents proper rehabilitation, such as hitting an Achilles tendon.
The rate at which a person can bleed out is increased exponentially by various factors such as adrenaline, alcohol, and such, meaning if you're going to aim your weapon, the intent is to put down a threat, rather than to stop a fleeing suspect, as there are far more methods, and have a highly reduced fatality rate. By the same token, a gunshot wound is not automatically fatal, even if it does hit center mass. Most people would at least stop running after being shot once.
I suspect the use of additional shots (because no cop ever tries the Hollywood *** of firing one bullet) is to ensure he doesn't fall to the ground and come up shooting.
Again, disproportionately harsh sentencing guidelines have escalated criminal violence even as the incidence of violent crime has been on the decline. Maybe attack the problem at its source rather than debate how best to mitigate the effects. Well stated, and I think I somewhat vaguely mentioned that body shots need not be fatal either - just that the intent is to remove immediate serious threats.
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-01-22 12:34:40
If you don't like the thread, don't post in it.
It would appear that you don't like it, feel free to take your own advice. How so? Because I choose to not argue with your stupidity?
Uh, you have argued with literally everything I've posted in p&r for weeks...
By Bloodrose 2015-01-22 12:37:20
I think we can all agree, that Candlejack has gone full potato.
[+]
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-01-22 12:37:30
The greater damage from a shoot first policy could easily outweigh those possibilities. Explain further, please? Remember, I'm someone who changes his opinion on the basis of data, so one-line quips don't really say much to me.
Lakshmi.Zerowone
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6949
By Lakshmi.Zerowone 2015-01-22 12:39:07
Did he hit the wall head on?
How fast was he going on impact?
Going by the report he hit it hard enough to kill the engine.
Since there was a wall.
What direction did he run?
Obviously he couldn't run away as in having his back turned.
So he either ran to the left or the right with relation to the wall.
So did he really run?
Cause the scenario dictates profile shots if running. Which is a small target.
Also he ran into a wall, was he physically able to run or was he really stumbling?
When you put it all together:
He hit a wall. Stumbled out gun in hand. Cops were more than likely 10-15' away behind their doors. He went to make a move and he probably did try to run but was too dazes in his motions after slamming into a wall. Cops opened fire. Obviously the shots weren't fatal since he died later.
Bahamut.Milamber
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-01-22 12:40:42
OK, let's be clear:
An officer is only supposed to use their weapon when deadly force is required.
What does that mean? Well, it means for one, no trick shots. Let's make that abundantly clear.
All of this crap about "Oh, you could have just winged him". If that was an option, the gun should never have been used in the first place.
[+]
By Bloodrose 2015-01-22 12:43:41
If he ended up dying because of gun shot wounds and bleeding out, they were in fact fatal.
However, if it turned out he died due to a hemorrhage from the impact, then the gunshots were not fatal.
Gunshots need not be fatal at the scene to be declared fatal, but death as a result of said gunshots.
I do believe you're asking the right questions though.
People can do amazing ***when hyped up on adrenaline alone in situations like that.
[+]
St. Louis police kills armed African American teen after chase in a stolen car
Quote: Police officers shot dead a teenager armed with a handgun after he got out of a stolen car in St. Louis on Wednesday night, their force said.
The shooting comes five months after a white police officer shot dead an unarmed black teenager in a suburb of the city -- one of a number of racially-charged cases that have prompted protests about police tactics across the United States.
Officers were tailing the car, which was reported stolen in December, when it struck a wall and the engine stopped, St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters.
The 19-year-old passenger was carrying a Tec 9 handgun when he got out of the car to flee, and officers ordered him to drop the weapon, Dotson said. Both officers opened fire when he did not, fatally wounding him, he added.
One of the officers involved in Wednesday's shooting was white and the other black, Dotson said at a press conference broadcast online. The St Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the shot teenager was African-American.
The teenager died in hospital, Dotson said. The driver of the car, who the Post-Dispatch said was also black, was taken into police custody.
The St. Louis area has been racked with tension following the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown by white police officer Darren Wilson in August in the suburb of Ferguson.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the U.S. Justice Department would soon close its investigation into Brown's death and clear Wilson of any civil rights charges.
Cue round 2 3 4 of riots "peaceful" protests demanding to convict the officers who protected their lives murdered poor innocent thug teenager who stole a car was doing nothing more than walking down a street.
Incoming Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson inciting racially charged riots conducting peaceful protests.
|
|
