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.
May I ask why, if the shooter was only 8 feet away, why over a dozen shots needed to be fired? What is it with cops literally pumping suspects full of lead when a couple of shots to the vitals is enough? I find this to be a strange phenomenon indeed.
You shoot to stop the threat, that could be 1 shot, 10 shots, heck a 1,000 shots. You shoot until the threat is stopped. This is not TV land.
From what I read most of the people were hurt from flying debris. The man was standing a very short distance from the officers. Bullets tend to go through a person at this distance. They hit things, shatter, go in all sorts of directions.
He pulled his gun on them. They had no option other than to fire first to make sure he was no longer going to be a threat. Yes, it's too bad they couldn't have asked him to wait until they cleared the area but I can't really see him going along with that.
And how many were people who didn't think to get themselves away from the scene quickly? Were some of them curious bystanders? Why would police have to clear the area, people should think to do that on their own.
May I ask why, if the shooter was only 8 feet away, why over a dozen shots needed to be fired? What is it with cops literally pumping suspects full of lead when a couple of shots to the vitals is enough? I find this to be a strange phenomenon indeed.
Lester Gillis was shot 17 times. At least 6 times in the chest and stomach. He was still able to return fire and kill an officer and escape. Yes, he did end up dying from these wounds, but one can not make statements as absolute as yours in a situation like this.
And how many were people who didn't think to get themselves away from the scene quickly? Were some of them curious bystanders? Why would police have to clear the area, people should think to do that on their own.
From the video it appears to have all happened too fast. It looks like the cops aren't even aware who the shooter is until he starts to raise his gun in their direction.
I suspect there are an awful lot of people here who have never been in a gunfight, and especially one at close range. Y'all seem to think that everybody can remain cool as a cucumber and do such silly things as count the other guy's bullets. Most people cannot. They react, instantly and without thought. You have NO idea about the emotions generated in such an incredibly short time and no understanding of what that sudden jolt of adrenaline does to you.
Y'all can Monday morning quarterback the whole incident from the comfort and security of your computer if you like, but until you've BTDT, you really should just sit back and listen, rather than talk.
I suspect there are an awful lot of people here who have never been in a gunfight, and especially one at close range. Y'all seem to think that everybody can remain cool as a cucumber and do such silly things as count the other guy's bullets. Most people cannot. They react, instantly and without thought. You have NO idea about the emotions generated in such an incredibly short time and no understanding of what that sudden jolt of adrenaline does to you.
Y'all can Monday morning quarterback the whole incident from the comfort and security of your computer if you like, but until you've BTDT, you really should just sit back and listen, rather than talk.
On the internet, everyone can do anything better than the people that actually have to do it.
Actually, what should have been done was the media should have shut up first and gathered all the facts before publishing their facetious articles trying to demonize the 2nd Amendment by calling this another mass shooting that turned out to be police misfire.
Very true.
If you check my post history I'm pretty harsh against police abuses of power. However, I don't feel that the police were trying to hit innocent victims. Should there be a policy change? Probably not. You hear gunshots, you get down and get outta the way.
There should be an investigation along with a reconstruction of the scene.
Any cop found to be firing randomly and innacurately should be fired.
Of course this wont happen as the state protects its own.
I disagree with this. This wasn't a case of the police firing on an unarmed man. This was the case of the police stopping a confirmed threat. I think its best to seperate the two issues so that we're not demonizing good police officers.
I'm curious on a legal basis I wonder if the cops can be held civilly liable.? I suspect and hope not.
Also I'm wondering do folks think shooting a gun is like some sort of video game where 100% accuracy is assured?
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.
