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.
I watched the video. The shot placement introduced a psychological aspect (pain) that slowed the guy with the knife down and allowed the officer to distance himself from the threat. As the video goes on, the man has some issues with balance which is the hydraulic effect (blood loss). If the first shot did not have the desired effect then additional shots would have been warranted.
This is covered in many advanced handgun training classes.
It's low. It doesn't then make it not a problem. The number of people that kill another is low also. I hope you aren't arguing that because the number is low that we should just ignore it when it happens or allow the police to lie and cover it up?
Why is it that so many (yes on both sides) either want to exaggerate a problem or pretend it doesn't exist?
I see it as being similar to when a person gets attacked by a shark and you hear people calling for sharks to be killed and beaches netted when it the events are statistically tiny and not much would really change.
I'm not too worried about it due to it being extremely rare and that you're not going to change much in regards to these "rogue" cops that turn up from time to time. As long as humans are used for policing, you're going to have these events regardless.
Police are trained, rightfully so, that if they have to draw their weapon to shoot, they are to aim at the chest.
That is the largest target, and the easiest one to hit.
IF they are shooting a suspect it SHOULD be because that suspect was presenting an imminent threat to the police officer or others. "Shooting to wound" in either case is foolish and not recommended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Once hit and down there is no reason to empty your gun into them.
These are not mutually exclusive propositions.
I personally would not have fired once and stopped to observed the effect, but having determined that firing was necessary in the first place, I'd have fired twice (missing the first round is more common in gunfights than hitting with the first round).
And there are often as many as 15 rounds between firing twice and "emptying the gun."
If that had occurred when I was an LEO that POS with the knife most likely would have been dead as a door nail. Three to five shots in two seconds at 7 yards as I consistently practice to this day.
Then I would have gone home, had a nice steak dinner, little drink, hugged the kids and had great sex with the wife. Then enjoyed my paid time off and free sessions with the shrink.
All the while him lying cold in state at the morgue.
Ohio police officer Joshua Hilling applies enough deadly force to stop a suspect, survive the encounter and make the arrest of a man suspected of murder.
So he is preserving the criminals life so that he can be convicted and we, as taxpayers, can support him in prison with free food, shelter, and medical care? And this is a good thing?
1. The suspect was shot in the abdomen. By inches he could have just as easily died as survived.
2. Your use of the word "execute" is a deliberately loaded word
Oh, most definitely when one considers the actions of officers who believe in the necessity of discharging every round in the their weapon, even after the suspect is stopped, submissive and near death.
Had the this officer fired his weapon and killed the suspect, I wouldn't have the least bit of concern because it would have been completely within his right, duty, and the within the law. What was remarkable and outstanding about this officers actions was his restraint once he had fired, stopped the attack and even though the suspect was down but still active, the officer moved beyond harm while still keeping the suspect in check.
In numerous videos, we've seen officer demonstrate very similar acts of restraint which stand in direct contrast to the narrative of officers whose actions show little to no restraint whatsoever.
Do I need to remind this thread of those examples?
The moral to the story....if the bullet had been an inch in another direction he'd have died and it would have just been another "police execution" apparently.
Is this some attempt to be as silly as absolutely possible?
Oh, most definitely when one considers the actions of officers who believe in the necessity of discharging every round in the their weapon, even after the suspect is stopped, submissive and near death.
Had the this officer fired his weapon and killed the suspect, I wouldn't have the least bit of concern because it would have been completely within his right, duty, and the within the law. What was remarkable and outstanding about this officers actions was his restraint once he had fired, stopped the attack and even though the suspect was down but still active, the officer moved beyond harm while still keeping the suspect in check.
In numerous videos, we've seen officer demonstrate very similar acts of restraint which stand in direct contrast to the narrative of officers whose actions show little to no restraint whatsoever.
Do I need to remind this thread of those examples?
Just like we can post examples of police that hesitated and paid for it with a stabbing or death would mean you are wrong?
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.
