Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Um.. did you watch the video. The police approach him and he takes the gun out of the case and points it at the cops.
Ok, so as I said, the cops were justified in shooting the man.
Quote:
If you were in that situation, what would you think was about to happen next????????
I would think that he was about to shoot the police officers, not a bunch of other people as you suggested would have happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agw123
i said if the cops did nothing, then a, b or c would have happened.
Let's take a look at a, b, and c......
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by agw123
If the cops had to wait until every bystander was out of the way before they did something, the following happens:
a) all the bystanders are shot by the criminal
And what evidence is there to suggest he would have shot any innocent bystanders otherr than the man he was after? What is there to make you think this would have happened as you suggest? Nothing, and I would wager it likely wouldn't have haoppened. If he would have wanted to shoot a bunch of innocent people, he would have had no trouble doing so in a crowded street. Instead, he had the gun in it's case. Doesn't sound like someone who is about to use that gun to "shoot all the innocent bystanders" does it? The proper assumption would have been, "it could have happened."
Quote:
b) all the cops are shot by the criminal
Thats a fair conclusion, given the fact that he pointed the gun at police.
Quote:
c) a and b happen
I don't think so. My whole point is, let's not pretend that this was another nut job who went out shooting people at random for no particular reason at all behind why he did it. He had a specific target, and a clear motive. Sorry if that dampers the message of anyones anti-gun agenda, but it is what it is. Let's not make it out to be more than it is, which was, considering all the known facts, likely a revenge killing and a suicide by cop.
Ok, so as I said, the cops were justified in shooting the man.
I would think that he was about to shoot the police officers, not a bunch of other people as you suggested would have happened.
Let's take a look at a, b, and c......
Quote:
And what evidence is there to suggest he would have shot any innocent bystanders otherr than the man he was after? What is there to make you think this would have happened as you suggest? Nothing, and I would wager it likely wouldn't have haoppened. If he would have wanted to shoot a bunch of innocent people, he would have had no trouble doing so in a crowded street. The proper term would have been, "it could have happened.
Thats a fair conclusion, given the fact that he pointed the gun at police.
I don't think so. My whole point is, let's not pretend that this was another nut job who went out shooting people at random for no particular reason at all behind why he did it. He had a specific target, and a clear motive. Sorry if that dampers the message of anyones anti-gun agenda, but it is what it is. Let's not make it out to be more than it is, which was, considering all the known facts, likely a revenge killing and a suicide by cop.
My whole point is, let's not pretend that this was another nut job who went out shooting people at random for no particular reason at all behind why he did it. He had a specific target, and a clear motive.
As I already brought up, his motive was NOT CLEAR at the time of the shooting. It's clear now, in hindsight. I'm not sure why you can't seem to comprehend that the police did not know of a motive at the time, and did not know that he was not "some nut job who went out shooting people at random"!
You simply have to be a really bad shot to fire 16 shots at point blank range and miss even once, much less injuring 9 others.
Nothing else to it, really. NYPD just needs to increase their sidearm standards.
It wasn't exactly point blank range. It was close range, but not point blank. Have you shot a gun before? Have you shot 9 rounds in the span of 5 seconds? If so, how'd you do?
Ever tried hitting a moving target that's pointing a gun back at you? I didn't think so.
The police officers approached the man, he turned and raised his gun, and the officers had to raise their own guns and fire 7-9 rounds in a very short period of time. That's not easy for anyone to do, and the fact that you think otherwise suggests that you don't have much experience with firearms, or are clueless as to what exactly happened.
You're right, at that point, they didn't. Now that we know more, why are you still asserting that he "would have shot innocent bystanders"..... In otherwords, why are you still saying that "a" would have happened? Or are you speaking from the perspective of the officers in that moment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henna
As I already brought up, his motive was NOT CLEAR at the time of the shooting. It's clear now, in hindsight. I'm not sure why you can't seem to comprehend that the police did not know of a motive at the time, and did not know that he was not "some nut job who went out shooting people at random"!
Do you not read peoples posts before replying to them? I said to you last night that I agreed with what the officers did. I am not disputing what police did. They were completely in the right. Someone points a gun at you, and you also have a gun, you shoot them, cop or not. What I am disputing, is that even now that we know more, people are still asserting that he would have shot uninvolved people in the street.
You're right, at that point, they didn't. Now that we know more, why are you still asserting that he "would have shot innocent bystanders"..... In otherwords, why are you still saying that "a" would have happened? Or are you speaking from the perspective of the officers in that moment?
It wasn't exactly point blank range. It was close range, but not point blank. Have you shot a gun before? Have you shot 9 rounds in the span of 5 seconds? If so, how'd you do?
Ever tried hitting a moving target that's pointing a gun back at you? I didn't think so.
The police officers approached the man, he turned and raised his gun, and the officers had to raise their own guns and fire 7-9 rounds in a very short period of time. That's not easy for anyone to do, and the fact that you think otherwise suggests that you don't have much experience with firearms, or are clueless as to what exactly happened.
Neither. Pistols are my favorite type of firearm. It is, in fact, point blank range. Point blank range is the range at which the bullet will hit the target without adjusting for elevation (i.e. bullet drop).
But here's the problem:
"... the officers had to raise their own guns..."
I saw the video too. They approached a known armed killer with their guns in their holsters. I don't know what the NYPD's policy is but I really hope that's not it.
And hitting a target 9 times with 9 shots from point blank range in 5 seconds is not difficult - I'd know, I do it often and I'm not even a professional policeman who carries a gun every day and (supposedly) trains with it to do exactly that as a huge part of my job.
Neither. Pistols are my favorite type of firearm. It is, in fact, point blank range. Point blank range is the range at which the bullet will hit the target without adjusting for elevation (i.e. bullet drop).
But here's the problem:
"... the officers had to raise their own guns..."
I saw the video too. They approached a known armed killer with their guns in their holsters. I don't know what the NYPD's policy is but I really hope that's not it.
And hitting a target 9 times with 9 shots from point blank range in 5 seconds is not difficult - I'd know, I do it often and I'm not even a professional policeman who carries a gun every day and (supposedly) trains with it to do exactly that as a huge part of my job.
I agree. It would be difficult to hit a target with every shot when rapidly firing. BUT, that is why they are cops, who are as you say, supposedly trained. For the average guy carrying a gun who doesn't practice much if at all, this result would have been expected. For cops that are on a police force that is supposed to be one of the best in the world? This result is shocking. It should have never taken 9 shots to begin with. That is a "spray and pray" method. Three shots at most.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
