One question. Do LEOs still carry a Taser gun?

[botate]

Question #2 for those in the know

If an LEO has a Taser, and if a suspect is not complying, why would you not use your Taser?

Question #3

Are LEOs trained for a "kill shot" if they deem using their firearm is necessary?

That leads to.....

Question #4

Wouldn't shooting the suspect in the arm/arms, knee/knees be the smart thing to do IF you feel like using your firearm is the only resort if a suspect is not complying?

My take....
In a shootout/exchanging of live rounds situation I would understand the use of a firearm with a "kill shot". However, I'm not understanding how 4-5 LEOs pointing guns at a man that appears to be unarmed resulted in decision that the suspect must be killed.

 

[coryfly]

Yeah, I'm with you. In the recent one, it certainly makes no sense. I don't understand it at all.

 

[tarheel0910]

Question #2 for those in the know

If an LEO has a Taser, and if a suspect is not complying, why would you not use your Taser?

Question #3

Are LEOs trained for a "kill shot" if they deem using their firearm is necessary?

That leads to.....

Question #4

Wouldn't shooting the suspect in the arm/arms, knee/knees be the smart thing to do IF you feel like using your firearm is the only resort if a suspect is not complying?

My take....
In a shootout/exchanging of live rounds situation I would understand the use of a firearm with a "kill shot". However, I'm not understanding how 4-5 LEOs pointing guns at a man that appears to be unarmed resulted in decision that the suspect must be killed.

1. Some carry Tasers
2. Depends on the situation. For example, if the person has a weapon and you are a long distance away then it might not be possible to use a Taser.
3. Not a hundred percent sure, but I believe they are.
4. Not necessarily. It's easier to miss an arm, leg, etc. You aim for the chest you are less likely to miss. Also, just because you shoot someone in one of their limbs doesn't mean that they still can't attack. You might not get a second chance. Also, if you aim for a small target, you run the risk of a through and through which could result in someone else getting hit.

I'm assuming that you are referring to the shooting that happened a couple of days ago. From what I understand one officer used a Taser and the other one fired shots. From what I saw it looked like it would have been more appropriate to use the Taser. I don't know all of the information, but the video looked bad.

 

[botate]

From the most recent unwarranted killing that took place in Tulsa. When the man started walking away from the LEOs, they had a chance to stop the situation at that exact moment with a Taser. Especially knowing the situation in America, when you have a chance to end non-compliance quickly without a loss of a life, why not do that? I seriously do not see where anyone can legitimately say that the LEO should have shot and killed this man. I know that not all officers are bad(not even the ones that make the mistakes that kill innocent people), but let's be real.....this ish is happening way too much.

 

[tarheel0910]

From the most recent unwarranted killing that took place in Tulsa. When the man started walking away from the LEOs, they had a chance to stop the situation at that exact moment with a Taser. Especially knowing the situation in America, when you have a chance to end non-compliance quickly without a loss of a life, why not do that? I seriously do not see where anyone can legitimately say that the LEO should have shot and killed this man. I know that not all officers are bad(not even the ones that make the mistakes that kill innocent people), but let's be real.....this ish is happening way too much.

I'm not sure using a Taser on someone who was walking away would have been appropriate. Walking away poses no threat. Once he started to reach in the car then he became a possible threat and should have been hit with the Taser I think. One of the officers did that. For some reason the other one didn't. I don't know the whole story, but it appeared to me that there wasn't a reason to shoot him. As far as how often it is happening, the stats show that it's not happening in huge numbers. People think that because it's being played up by the media and made into a political issue.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

I thought you might be referring the one that kicked off the riots in Charlotte last night. Supposedly, they were looking for a man for an outstanding warrant or whatever, went to an apartment complex, thought they spotted the guy in a car in the parking lot, told the man to exit his vehicle, the man's family say he had a book in his hand, the cops say he had a gun, but nevertheless the man gets out of the car and he is shot immediately because they see something in his hand.

The community started rioting in the streets over it. We have a problem that seriously needs to be addressed here because this happens too often. I get it that sometimes it is warranted but too many seem to be unwarranted and we need some retraining, definitely need body cameras and perhaps something to protect the cops more so there is less shoot, kill, ask questions later going on.

ADDENDUM: They had the wrong guy too, so an innocent man died.

 

[botate]

Let's be honest. One unjustified death is too many. I understand the law of averages and in the overall grand scheme of the numbers it appears "small, but IMO this is a huge issue. I am white and will never be able to understand how it feels to be a minority, but seeing what I saw from that video really helps me understand where the Black Lives Matters movement (when used peacefully) is needed.

 

[tarheel0910]

the cops say he had a gun

Apparently other witnesses say he had a weapon as well. The cops also said they recovered a weapon from the scene.

Let's be honest. One unjustified death is too many.

True, but expecting there to be no unjustified deaths is being unreasonable. Mistakes are going to happen no matter what you do.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

@botate I've been arguing the "they should shoot to wound not shoot to kill" thing for a long time and people just brush it off as "meh, they're taught to shoot to kill." This is what I've never understood.

Like you said, if it's a shootout, then by all means shoot to kill. But if it's just a dude not complying and he's one of him and you have three of y'all, why on earth do you need to put six bullets in his chest and two in his dome?

This may be an unpopular opinion but here goes.....yes I know they make shit money, but police signed up to protect civilians. They know the risks. If anyone ends up hurt in a civilian vs. cop exchange, it needs to be the policeman who gets hurt. They may seem cruel or harsh, but they signed up to put themselves at risk. They are the defenders of the public. Pumping an unarmed man full of lead is not protecting the public.

True, but expecting there to be no unjustified deaths is being unreasonable. Mistakes are going to happen no matter what you do.

Right, and I'm saying the mistakes need to be a cop getting injured/dying instead of a civilian. Sorry, I know that sounds harsh, but that's how it needs to work. Policemen signed up for the risk. I'd be all for substantially upping their pay in exchange for them accepting that risk.

 

[tarheel0910]

Right, and I'm saying the mistakes need to be a cop getting injured/dying instead of a civilian. Sorry, I know that sounds harsh, but that's how it needs to work. Policemen signed up for the risk. I'd be all for substantially upping their pay in exchange for them accepting that risk.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you can't eliminate human instinct no matter how much training you have or how much money you make. Human instinct is to protect yourself and if you think someone is going to hurt you then you will protect yourself without even thinking.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you can't eliminate human instinct no matter how much training you have or how much money you make. Human instinct is to protect yourself and if you think someone is going to hurt you then you will protect yourself without even thinking.

Totally agree that instinct will more than likely take over. A counter to this is to expedite all killed-by-cops cases to the front of the line in our justice system. Let it be known if you kill while on duty, your case will be heard swiftly and justice will be doled out, if applicable, swiftly.

Cops need to remember they aren't the fuggin military. These are U.S. civilians they're killing, not enemy combatants.

 

[tarheel0910]

A counter to this is to expedite all killed-by-cops cases to the front of the line in our justice system. Let it be known if you kill while on duty, your case will be heard swiftly and justice will be doled out, if applicable, swiftly.

Given the fact that it takes a month or more for a speeding ticket case to get through the system I doubt anything in the justice system could ever happen quickly, but I get your point.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Cops are taught the "shoot to kill" policy - and its a great policy, if actually followed properly. Shooting to injure doesn't make any sense, as it would actually result in more deaths.

As of now - a cop is only authorized to use his/her firearm if deadly force is needed - which means they are shooting to kill. Granted, many cops fire their guns when deadly force isn't needed - but that's a problem with the officers, not with the policy. If we then said "sure go ahead and clip a leg or arm if they're running away from you" that opens up many more scenarios in which cops are using their firearms. And contrary to popular belief, cops in general aren't always the best shooters - so if they're trying to hit a fleeing target in the leg or arm, they could very easily miss and hit the target in a kill zone, or worse - hit a bystander and kill them.

Also - you're never going to get anyone to sign up for being a cop if they have to ensure they themselves are hurt/killed in lieu of a civilian. I do agree that right now it seems cops are trigger happy and shooting people that are no threat to them - but there needs to be another solution. Maybe it's just that they need better training, or more backup, or something along those lines - but I'm not gonna tell a cop that if they're responding to a call of a potentially armed man, and that man is hiding one hand from view, that they need to wait until they actually see a gun before they take action. Because once they see the gun, it will probably be fired at them before they have time to react.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

Another thing to note on the Charlotte case is it was a black cop, as well, that shot the man. If he did have a gun that should be easy enough to show people. I haven't heard about witnesses yet.

 

[tarheel0910]

Another thing to note on the Charlotte case is it was a black cop, as well, that shot the man. If he did have a gun that should be easy enough to show people. I haven't heard about witnesses yet.

"Putney said both evidence and witnesses support the officers' claim that Scott was armed."

 

[botate]

After reading about Charlotte and listening to the Charlotte Police Chief's statement I believe that the Charlotte situation is not in the same category as the Tulsa situation. I have no problem with any officer black or white shooting someone black or white if that person is deemed dangerous, has a gun and not complying to the point to where the LEO feels like their life is in danger. The Tulsa situation IMO appears to be that the LEO made a very bad decision and the result is that the man was killed. I personally think that swift justice by firing the LEO and charging her with at least Manslaughter is needed. I'm not saying the man was innocent, but he could have been detained without being shot.

 

[gteeitup]

this s i'm watching in charlotte is disturbing...even the cnn reporters are getting wrecked.

 

[UNC71-00]

Shoot to injure is only proposed by people who don't know how to shoot.

If you shoot at someone, the object is to put that person down. Because if the person is a legit threat, he may have another weapon. And even more importantly, margin of error is much smaller if aiming for an extremity. If you miss, the target then has a chance to shoot back. All shots are aimed center mass.

Shoot to injure is Hollywood bs.

 

[Grayhead]

Shoot to kill. Better education and training on when to shoot is more like it. If the person being targeted has a gun, innocent or not, then they bring this on themselves. Cops aren't trained to give people the benefit of doubt. But they also have not been sworn as judge jury and executioner. As this progresses more and more, the populace will start looking at the victims as martyrs for the cause. Something has to be done, but how do you implement it? When the media fuels the conflict, it just further divides every side. The media could assist in solutions for this. Rather than do us on the evil cops or the thugs that perpetuate situations like this

 

[heelbent]

Only TV shows and comic book heroes shoot to wound. I am a Close Quarters Battle instructor. I have never been taught nor have I ever instructed anyone to target anything other than center-mass or, in the case of body armor, head shots. Neither has any other instructor I've ever encountered or worked with. And JFTR...we train law enforcement on a regular basis. My only objective when firing a weapon is to remove a threat as quickly and efficiently as possible.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Your local police department is always taking applications.

 

[tarheel0910]

Here's the officer's side of the story. Assuming she is being truthful his actions do seem suspicious, but I'm not sure if it warranted him being shot. I think the Taser was more appropriate.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/tulsa-pol...y-terence-225515468--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[heelmanwilm]

Just freaking obey the cops. Thats it. Wtf is wrong with these dumbasses. I've parked my car blocking all lanes of traffic, i refuse to talk to the cops,
I keep reaching into my pockets, i walk away to the drivers side of the car refusing several commands to stop. Yea dumfuk, you're making someone pointing a gun at you very nervous. Autopsy will show drugs in his system. I admit its not justified and should be manslaughter on the cops part. But if u jump a fence and kick a pit bull in th nuts i aint gonna cry if he rips your face off.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

Shoot to injure is only proposed by people who don't know how to shoot.

If you shoot at someone, the object is to put that person down. Because if the person is a legit threat, he may have another weapon. And even more importantly, margin of error is much smaller if aiming for an extremity. If you miss, the target then has a chance to shoot back. All shots are aimed center mass.

Shoot to injure is Hollywood bs.

They should have used the shoot to kill in NYC with the terrorist the other day then. He is still alive.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Just freaking obey the cops. Thats it. Wtf is wrong with these dumbasses. I've parked my car blocking all lanes of traffic, i refuse to talk to the cops,
I keep reaching into my pockets, i walk away to the drivers side of the car refusing several commands to stop. Yea dumfuk, you're making someone pointing a gun at you very nervous. Autopsy will show drugs in his system. I admit its not justified and should be manslaughter on the cops part. But if u jump a fence and kick a pit bull in th nuts i aint gonna cry if he rips your face off.

/thread

Great poast.

 

[heelbent]

They should have used the shoot to kill in NYC with the terrorist the other day then. He is still alive.

They did. They missed. It happens.

 

[tarheel0910]

I personally think that swift justice by firing the LEO and charging her with at least Manslaughter is needed.

I admit its not justified and should be manslaughter on the cops part.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/2...anslaughter-in-shooting-african-american.html

 

[duckfook]

Wait for the facts smdh! You couldn't pay me enough to be a cop these days.

 

[botate]

As corrupt as we all know things are in this day and age, the only "facts" you can count on are the ones that you see with your own eyes. At the moment we have yet to see any "facts" that support the two deaths that just happened. However, you do state a fact that it takes a special person to do the LEO job. Accountability and good judgment are two of the highest qualities that make up a great LEO. God Bless America!!!!

 

[strummingram]

As corrupt as we all know things are in this day and age, the only "facts" you can count on are the ones that you see with your own eyes!

Amen!