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.
If you fire a gun there is a rule that you must always be aware of where it will go. If you miss the bullet doesn't stop, it keeps going. Maybe in the ground, a wall, a tree, or innocent bystander.
I'm assuming you've never shot a handgun before. Taking your time, breathing, concentrating, it's not too hard to hit a torso sized target at say 15 to 20 feet. Make the target smaller like the body parts you mention and your accuracy will go down. Now do it in low light. Now do it while the target is moving. Now do it while you are moving.
Add those up and you will see it's extremely hard to hit those small targets. Add that if you just wound they may still be able to harm you or someone nearby. Get shot in the leg and you still can probably shoot a gun back at the cop. Get an untrained civilian who doesn't care where the missed shots go and bad things can happen.
You see it all the time on drive by shootings where the intended target is missed but a bystander gets shot and killed, often kids.
How well did Rolfe do in regard to the bolded? Referencing any mapping site shows the line of fire included a line of cars to the drive in, a row of parked cars, the only curb cut in and out of the Wendy's parking lot and the thoroughfare of University Avenue as well as a bus stop and package store across the street. Endangering the public is also a consideration here.
In addition to the above, there is no guarantee a bullet to a leg will not kill a person. The (femoral?) artery runs down the inside of both legs, and you will bleed out pretty quickly from being shot in it, I believe there was a guy walking through a National Park a few years ago that was gored by an onery mountain goat, and he bled out and died fairly quickly. Cops are trained to shoot "center mass" because it not only minimizes their chance of missing (as stated above), it is also shown to have the best chance of "stopping the threat". I'm sure if they shoot for a leg, it could be shown in court that the threat was not sufficient to shoot at all, which was not the case with Atlanta Wendy's guy. Yes, cops do make mistakes, but it is a highly stressful job with life-and-death decisions having to be made in seconds. Yet the public armchair-quarterbacks these decisions as if it is a video game, that can be replayed over and over until you get the outcome you want.
The first problem is that the narrative being repeated by BLM and others, is that there is a "genocide" going on with police killing unarmed black men - but that is FALSE, it is a LIE. In 2019, there was something like nine unarmed black males and eighteen unarmed white males that were killed by the police (in a country of what, 330 million?), feel free to look it up. Of these nine, I wish I knew the circumstances (how many were inebriated, how many were fighting with the police at the time, how many had heart attacks while fighting with the police, etc.), it's definitely something to research - a link would be appreciated if someone has one. It would be nice if NO ONE died (or were otherwise victimized) while interacting with police, and that should be our goal. Which brings us to the second problem going on in the U.S.: QUIT FIGHTING WITH THE POLICE. Maybe it's too much of a reach to expect people to start obeying the law, but it doesn't seem to be that much to ask that people, after being caught farking up, to submit to the arresting officers, and then have their case heard in court, often with a public-paid defender. WHY isn't this being taught in every school, home, church, and football practice?
Feel free to cite , source. While figures for 2019 do not seem to be available 149 of the 1147 people killed by police in 2017 were unarmed, consistent with reports from other prior years. With 1098 people killed by the police in 2019 the actual number who were unarmed is likely to be five times your number. With very inconsistent reporting by police departments around the country the actual numbers may be much higher.
Feel free to cite , source. While figures for 2019 do not seem to be available 149 of the 1147 people killed by police in 2017 were unarmed, consistent with reports from other prior years. With 1098 people killed by the police in 2019 the actual number who were unarmed is likely to be five times your number. With very inconsistent reporting by police departments around the country the actual numbers may be much higher.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myt...sm-11591119883
'"he police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015."
Interestingly, this article cites the Washington Post, but a W.P. article that came up in the same Google search listed "25 unarmed blacks killed in 2019 vs. 55 whites". Maybe that included women, who knows, but seems unlikely. But even if the number actually were five times higher, it is still TINY compared to the number of people in the U.S. and the number of arrests. Again, we need to aim for zero deaths, the same as we do in airline and auto deaths. Good Luck with that.
I believe the same article says that police officers are "18.5 times more likely to be shot by black men than black men are likely to be shot by police officers". That's the statistic that I can't get my arms around, and why I think BLM is "full of it" as they try to push the narrative that police are killing black men willy-nilly, it just isn't true. But my guess is, you ask most of the protesters, and they are completely unaware of the facts, BLM appears to be winning the propaganda war - hey worked for Goebbels, why not BLM? What I have to wonder, are BLM and the politicians kneeling before them even aware of the actual statistics? If they are, what does that make them, besides liars? The folks protesting today want to liken themselves to the folks who marched with MLK in the early 1960's, but there is no comparison when it comes to having the moral high ground; MLK was in the right.
No, the real question is why he was shot in the back and left on the pavement to bleed out.
Your hypothetical question doesn't matter, the law does.
"Georgia law allows a person to use deadly force 'only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person.'
"In addition, the Atlanta Police policy manual, which was most recently updated last week, says that an officer can use deadly force when 'He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others.'"
For us non-attorneys, the most helpful rule of thumb is to not fight the police. The second rule of thumb is to not be a criminal. If you follow those two rules, you're going to be fine.
No, the real question is why he was shot in the back and left on the pavement to bleed out.
Your hypothetical question doesn't matter, the law does.
"Georgia law allows a person to use deadly force 'only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person.'
"In addition, the Atlanta Police policy manual, which was most recently updated last week, says that an officer can use deadly force when 'He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others.'"
I agree, hypothetical's really don't mean anything.
That's good info about Georgia law and Atlanta policy, thanks!
"In addition, the Atlanta Police policy manual, which was most recently updated last week, says that an officer can use deadly force when 'He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others.'"
Tasers, also known as stun guns, can cause sudden cardiac arrest and death, researchers from Indiana University School of Medicine reported in the journal Circulation. The author explained that applying an electric shock with an electronic control device to the chest can be deadly. Sudden cardiac arrest is when the heart suddenly, unexpectedly stops beating; the patient stops breathing and loses consciousness.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myt...sm-11591119883
'"he police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015."
Interestingly, this article cites the Washington Post, but a W.P. article that came up in the same Google search listed "25 unarmed blacks killed in 2019 vs. 55 whites". Maybe that included women, who knows, but seems unlikely. But even if the number actually were five times higher, it is still TINY compared to the number of people in the U.S. and the number of arrests. Again, we need to aim for zero deaths, the same as we do in airline and auto deaths. Good Luck with that.
I believe the same article says that police officers are "18.5 times more likely to be shot by black men than black men are likely to be shot by police officers". That's the statistic that I can't get my arms around, and why I think BLM is "full of it" as they try to push the narrative that police are killing black men willy-nilly, it just isn't true. But my guess is, you ask most of the protesters, and they are completely unaware of the facts, BLM appears to be winning the propaganda war - hey worked for Goebbels, why not BLM? What I have to wonder, are BLM and the politicians kneeling before them even aware of the actual statistics? If they are, what does that make them, besides liars? The folks protesting today want to liken themselves to the folks who marched with MLK in the early 1960's, but there is no comparison when it comes to having the moral high ground; MLK was in the right.
You are confusing killing unarmed victims and fatally shooting unarmed victims. George Floyd would not show up in your figures.
Be aware that your link is not to a news article but to an opinion piece written by a member of a conservative think tank which cites no source for the "18.5 times more likely" figure which I also cannot get my hands around, having read the pieces I cited above. It does say "killed" and not "shot."
If approximately 50 police officers are killed annually by perpetrators (48 last year) and even assuming to prove a point that all are killed by black people, that would only be a third of the number of unarmed people killed by cops (149 in 2017) and less than five percent of all those killed by cops in total (1147 in 2017, 1098 in 2019).
I never let anyone with an axe to grind speak for me.
For us non-attorneys, the most helpful rule of thumb is to not fight the police. The second rule of thumb is to not be a criminal. If you follow those two rules, you're going to be fine.
Cops have rules too, if they all followed them we wouldn't be here. Garret Rolfe has now been charged with 11 felonies; a conviction on any one of them will make him a criminal.
If you fire a gun there is a rule that you must always be aware of where it will go. If you miss the bullet doesn't stop, it keeps going. Maybe in the ground, a wall, a tree, or innocent bystander.
I'm assuming you've never shot a handgun before. Taking your time, breathing, concentrating, it's not too hard to hit a torso sized target at say 15 to 20 feet. Make the target smaller like the body parts you mention and your accuracy will go down. Now do it in low light. Now do it while the target is moving. Now do it while you are moving.
Add those up and you will see it's extremely hard to hit those small targets. Add that if you just wound they may still be able to harm you or someone nearby. Get shot in the leg and you still can probably shoot a gun back at the cop. Get an untrained civilian who doesn't care where the missed shots go and bad things can happen.
You see it all the time on drive by shootings where the intended target is missed but a bystander gets shot and killed, often kids.
Are you still out there?
As a bit of an update, we now know that there was only 18 feet 3 inches between the cop and his "target," and we also know that four of the charges faced by Rolfe involve just what I pointed out earlier, innocent bystanders in his line of fire and at least one vehicle that was hit; whether by the third bullet or one that passed through the victim is unknown.
If he had followed the rule you cite above, common sense, department training and regulations and penal law Rayshard Brooks would be alive today.
"In addition, the Atlanta Police policy manual, which was most recently updated last week, says that an officer can use deadly force when 'He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others.'"
Tasers, also known as stun guns, can cause sudden cardiac arrest and death, researchers from Indiana University School of Medicine reported in the journal Circulation. The author explained that applying an electric shock with an electronic control device to the chest can be deadly. Sudden cardiac arrest is when the heart suddenly, unexpectedly stops beating; the patient stops breathing and loses consciousness.
The particular stun gun in question here has the capacity to be fired only twice and had been discharged twice, a fact the officer had known according to the DA, making it nothing more dangerous than a piece of expensive plastic.
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.
