Jump to content

Change Mode

Police Shoot Man dead


Recommended Posts

I meant verbal.... I highly doubt u can get the kind of info ie: Who are u associated with .. type stuff from a forensic exame of a dead body....

 

And I am sure "stop shots" work.. Otherwise there would be alot more inquests into police shootings...

 

and

 

I never said "like in the movies" :rolleyes:

You never said anything about the movies, but I bring it up because that is the only reference that most people have for what happens when somebody is shot...and it is far from realistic in most cases.

 

 

As far as stop shots and what constitutes them and how they are used, there is an entire field dedicated to that and it is very well studied. I am fairly well read and practiced in the matter as I used to be an NRA pistol instructor and participated in training police officers with firearms. I have no idea what your comment regarding inquests and police shootings means. Can you elaborate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 682
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not much other places they could've shot to stop them like Chopdoc said. A person can take a couple shots to the chest with the 9mm firearm our police forces here use and keep running. The more damage you do in a shot, the more likely that person is to stop. And for the most part it takes a higher caliber firearm with the right ammunition to do it, which most of the officers don't have. And they don't use those kind for a reason, they want their suspect alive in most cases. Not sure what the British firearm police use though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much other places they could've shot to stop them like Chopdoc said. A person can take a couple shots to the chest with the 9mm firearm our police forces here use and keep running.

He was on the ground with 2 or 3 police officers on top of him before they pumped 8 shots into him

 

 

he wasnt going anywhere

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what your comment regarding inquests and police shootings means. Can you elaborate?

First off I already agree'd to disagree on this subject.. something caught my eye and instead of moving on I added... maybe I shouldnt have.

 

Do police not shoot to mame instead of shoot to mame rather then kill?

 

I referred to it because "in the movies" like you said it's mostly the police v suspect when it comes to the stop shots...

 

Another topic yes but I used it as an example ...I should have qouted it my bad..

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was on the ground with 2 or 3 police officers on top of him before they pumped 8 shots into him

 

 

he wasnt going anywhere

The chance of him detonating a bomb was high. He could have easily done that. I think it's a chance the police had to take. Either they'd be wrong or right. Kill the guy even though he might be innocent or hold him down and take the chance of him detonating the bomb and possibly blowing up a lot of people. He was already under surviellance and suspected of carrying the bomb which put him in an even worse position. Now instead of getting on the backs of the officers who were doing their job to their best, maybe investigate the detectives or investigators that were making the calls on the surviellance.
Link to post
Share on other sites

its going to be almost impossible to charge a officer that was doing his job with murder

Yes. We might have to enlist the help of the Brazilian government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its going to be almost impossible to charge a officer that was doing his job with murder

I agree. They were ordered to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

I am however surprised that they were ordered to do this.

 

That being the case when they had him down, they didn't really have a choice, they needed to be sure he wasn't gonna blow up a bomb. In the heat of the moment it is pretty hard to stop and count shots and say ok 3 is enough. You pretty much just unload all the shots in your gun.

 

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

that could be right....

 

 

they needed 8 to stop him

Head shots are the only shots considered 100% stoppers.

 

 

As far as eight shots, I have trouble understanding that. At point blank range, which this seems to have been, a couple properly placed shots is sufficient. That would be the back of the head in this case I am guessing from the reports.

 

I say a couple shots because FBI SOP is to "double tap". Ywo shots always. That's how I was trained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was on the ground with 2 or 3 police officers on top of him before they pumped 8 shots into him

 

 

he wasnt going anywhere

That is the report of the eyewitness. But in light of other facts I think we have to question the accuracy of the eyewitness now.
Link to post
Share on other sites

First off I already agree'd to disagree on this subject.. something caught my eye and instead of moving on I added... maybe I shouldnt have.

 

Do police not shoot to mame instead of shoot to mame rather then kill?

 

I referred to it because "in the movies" like you said it's mostly the police v suspect when it comes to the stop shots...

 

Another topic yes but I used it as an example ...I should have qouted it my bad..

The standard practice (SOP) is to shoot center mass, which is a kill shot.
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the report of the eyewitness. But in light of other facts I think we have to question the accuracy of the eyewitness now.

the police admit that they had him down. I will find the article.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The chance of him detonating a bomb was high.

If this was the case. I think its a horrible thing that they allowed him to board a bus. Amazing, in fact. Can you imagine the outcry if he blew up the bus. 'we observed him get on the bus and thought he had a bomb but didnt feel there was enough danger yet'

 

sets up a real bad situation. Now suicide bombers know that police will not interfere with them if they blow up busses full of people.

 

I know what you keep saying about this chop but I thouroughly disagree.

Edited by hftmrock
Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think they double tap anymore chop. one at the base of the skull is all thats needed.

It's possible the double tap procedure has chnged and that I am unaware of it.

 

That was developed when they moved from revolvers to the autos some years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The chance of him detonating a bomb was high.

The chances of him detonating a bomb could not possibly have been lower. He didn't have a bomb to detonate.
Link to post
Share on other sites

the police admit that they had him down. I will find the article.

I would very much like to see how they stated that. The eyewitness report was a little vague on the matter in addition to questionable veracity.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was the case. I think its a horrible thing that they allowed him to board a bus. Amazing, in fact. Can you imagine the outcry if he blew up the bus. 'we observed him get on the bus and thought he had a bomb but didnt feel there was enough danger yet'

 

sets up a real bad situation. Now suicide bombers know that police will not interfere with them if they blow up busses full of people.

 

I know what you keep saying about this chop but I thouroughly disagree.

The index of suspicion changed according to his location.

 

I doubt they could have said "we observed him get on the bus and thought he had a bomb but didnt feel there was enough danger yet" because I doubt that happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Denver Post

 

 

 

 

The officers pushed him to the floor of the car and shot him five times in the head at close range, according to witnesses, who gave searing accounts.

 

 

 

Here is one report chop

and another

 

Yahoo News

Edited by nessa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my lunchtime opinion.... but people are not disposable. Even one innocent person dying is unacceptable. I see this typed frequently that innocent people have to die in these situations sometimes just like they say this when women and children are caught in the crossfire in Iraq.

 

And no, unless people are in immediate danger here in the states they are not automatically shot when fleeing.

 

I worry that paranoia will overtake good judgement in situations like this but sadly perhaps this man dying proved a point to them to be sure without a doubt the person they are pursuing, subdue and shooting is indeed a danger to those around him...

 

They were apparently tailing this man a ways before he was subdued. If they were that concerned he had explosives why not ask him to stop and identify themselves and then when he didnt stop then shoot him as ordered... instead of subduing him and then shooting him. Thats where it starts to still be odd to me. The numbers of shots after he was already subdued. Something about shooting him so many times just doesn't sit well with me. :blank:

Edited by TracyLynn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should give Chop a thick padded jacket with wires protruding and release him in the subway system and see if the pigs kill him when he halts on command. :blank:

they will..... they had orders to neutralize... even if he stopped, if they thought he had a bomb... he would have gotten the same fate (IMO) Edited by hftmrock
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...