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.
It's easier when you are not under threat, not under attack or in fear for your life, and can plant your feet and take your time with no distractions, and shoot like you are in shooting range.
That's right. The cop appeared to be using what's known as the "Weaver stance". This stance is used for aimed precision shots. I use this stance myself when shooting at my local range. The alternative is the "isosceles" stance, or point shooting. This is the defensive stance to use when you have less than a second to save your hide.
Many police officers say that, "We don't shoot to maim. If there is a threat that requires lethal force, we shoot to kill."
Many receive this type of training,
“Lower your weapons and quickly scan your environment. When it is clear, holster your weapon. Now let’s move downrange and look at your shot placement. People, I want you to remember — we don’t shoot to kill... we shoot to stop!”
To me, the problem is not "train to kill" or "train to stop" The problem is "threat."
Does "threat" have a clear definition, or the word "threat" depends on individual police officer's personal judgment?
Because stopping and killing are different things, is it not dangerous to tip-toe around this issue in what seems to be a perpetual state of denial? When we use deadly force, should it be surprising to anyone that one likely outcome is death?
If cops always shoot to kill, they're overly denying judges their day in court.
Prepare to post the shocked emoticon in a year or so then if your still posting here.
It's going to happen barring any surprising new evidence that might still be lurking out there.
Doubt it.
There's no way I can see a jury in South Carolina convict a white cop and send him to jail in that situation. I just can't.
Bottom line is that a black suspect is running away and you can infer a million different things from that when the victim is dead and the cop is alive. Dead men can't give their side of the story. The cop's lawyer will play this for all it's worth. And it's worth a lot.
I hope I have to eat crow casserole, but until I do....
There's no way I can see a jury in South Carolina convict a white cop and send him to jail in that situation. I just can't.
Bottom line is that a black suspect is running away and you can infer a million different things from that when the victim is dead and the cop is alive. Dead men can't give their side of the story. The cop's lawyer will play this for all it's worth. And it's worth a lot.
I hope I have to eat crow casserole, but until I do....
I don't think we are seeing the entire video. I think the guy assaulted the cop before the shooting.
If the victim is a convicted felon, assaulted the cop, correct if I'm wrong but if that happened it's open season on him right?
Your "ifs" don't hold up but even if they did the answer is no.
What we have is a 50 year old Coast Guard veteran, behind in child support, with an alleged broken tail light, resisting arrest and running away from police.
On the other side we have a lying police officer, planting evidence, who has been accused of lying and using excessive force in the past.
The unreleased dash cam footage does not show the shooting but will show the initial encounter.
The cop killed a man who was no threat and running away, stopped for a broken tail light. I don't see this as a racist crime. I see this murder as an abuse of power by a police officer.
This murder makes everyone wary of cops.
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.