The Police Brutality Thread

[cougjunkie]

The Police Brutality Thread

I was told by a Lehi police officer that they are taught to fire until empty.

[Bo Diddley]

I was told by a Lehi police officer that they are taught to fire until empty.

If you see him again, ask him how many feet should someone with a knife have before they empty on them. Just curious.

[Topper]

I was told by a Lehi police officer that they are taught to fire until empty.

Fascinating. If true, they have policies and procedures which might not be defensible in a civil rights claim.

[Bo Diddley]

And the smear campaign against police officers continues.

[thesaint258]

I was told by a Lehi police officer that they are taught to fire until empty.

Which makes sense. Unless you're an on TV or in a movie, one or two bullets doesn't necessarily kill or incapacitate. When an officer is in a situation where he's being threatened, whatever accuracy he displayed at the range goes out the window when being attacked and the adrenaline is pumping. When it's a kill-or-be-killed scenario, you take the other guy out. I don't know enough about the situation that's being discussed to comment on it, but the training you describe makes sense.

[Commando]

I don't see a problem with fire until empty. I do see a problem with how select officers have chosen to apply the deadly force standard, though. That officer who emptied into that guy's back running away and then while lying on the ground was just goofy.

[old_gregg]

good solution to this problem: don't do pcp and go break into cars with a knife

[Bo Diddley]

Which makes sense. Unless you're an on TV or in a movie, one or two bullets doesn't necessarily kill or incapacitate. When an officer is in a situation where he's being threatened, whatever accuracy he displayed at the range goes out the window when being attacked and the adrenaline is pumping. When it's a kill-or-be-killed scenario, you take the other guy out. I don't know enough about the situation that's being discussed to comment on it, but the training you describe makes sense.

You shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. Sometimes that will be an empty magazine, but I suspect most times it is not--especially once you've sent the guy with knife to the ground.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't see a problem with fire until empty. I do see a problem with how select officers have chosen to apply the deadly force standard, though. That officer who emptied into that guy's back running away and then while lying on the ground was just goofy.

Yeah...goofy...

good solution to this problem: don't do pcp and go break into cars with a knife

Another solution would be to expect cops to not kill needlessly.

[Topper]

Which makes sense. Unless you're an on TV or in a movie, one or two bullets doesn't necessarily kill or incapacitate. When an officer is in a situation where he's being threatened, whatever accuracy he displayed at the range goes out the window when being attacked and the adrenaline is pumping. When it's a kill-or-be-killed scenario, you take the other guy out. I don't know enough about the situation that's being discussed to comment on it, but the training you describe makes sense.

If you do a Mozambique drill, all you need is three shots.

If you have a 40 cal or 45, it should be sufficient, and 16 shots is extremely excessive.

[Eddie]

I've got a buddy who is a cop in Ogden.

A few years back they went in to arrest a guy in the middle of some DV stuff. He was in his bedroom in the dark when they arrived. The cops entered the room, guns drawn, and told him to put up his hands. Instead, he lifted a weapon as if to point it at them, and the cops opened fire.

The guy was was sitting or lying on a bed had a mirrored headboard. So as the cops fired they saw the muzzle blast reflected in the mirror. Of course, they identified it as muzzle blast from him firing at them, so they continued firing until the threat was neutralized, which resulted in continued reflected muzzle blast, etc. In the end, I think he told me there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 shots fired at this suspect - as you can imagine, he did not survive.

And the officers involved were initially raked over the coals for firing that many shots and continuing to fire when the first volley likely killed the man.

Obviously this is not what happened in Chicago. But when people talk about police firing a seemingly unnecessarily large number of times at a suspect, I always remember this story. So I figured I'd share.

[old_gregg]

who cares how many bullets cop shoot? outrage over that point in particular makes zero sense.

[Bo Diddley]

who cares how many bullets cop shoot? outrage over that point in particular makes zero sense.

For one, every bullet sent downrange carries a risk of collateral damage. For two, I expect those who we authorize to use such force to be disciplined in the wielding of that force. Third police shoot to stop, not to kill.

[Commando]

who cares how many bullets cop shoot? outrage over that point in particular makes zero sense.

[old_gregg]

For one, every bullet sent downrange carries a risk of collateral damage.

is there any evidence that collateral damage is more likely to occur on, say, a 15th shot vs a 3rd shot? it seems like nonsense to me that a non-negligent discharge of a gun by a properly trained cop is riskier when he shoots one more shot. the risk of not putting the guy on the ground far outweighs that risk by a lot.

For two, I expect those who we authorize to use such force to be disciplined in the wielding of that force.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/member.php?73-Non-Sequitur

Third police shoot to stop, not to kill.

and sometimes it takes a magazine to "stop" a guy on pcp.