^^^LoL!

 

If more people thought like you the world be a better place. But you are right most people are so outraged that there are guidelines society has to follow and people who have to enforce those rules, that when they are confronted by the enforcers they basically refuse to recognize their authority.

Its the simple, my **** dont stink complex. IE Bob

 

Keep this thread on track please.

 

Once again you have posted a news article regarding an officer's actions. I have been on many cases already where I knew all the facts and read the paper the next day thinking to myself, "where the F do they get their info?"

This article is MUCH too brief to even bother responding to. So many things are missing. What was the full dialogue of their conversation? Was the officer leaning in the car when it took off? Did he percieve a real threat in seeing an object in the glove box that resembled a weapon? Did the suspect say he had a weapon? Did the suspect threaten to kill the officer? Were there innocent bystanders up ahead in the street who came out after hearing the crash, which the offender may be driving towards, DRUNK? Was there traffic on the residential street? Was the offender a known felon? Was he a wanted violent offender? What position was the officer in relative to the vehicle when he fired? just a few of thousands of possibilities that could completely change this scenario. The problem with news articles is they are biased and almost never fully based on facts, but loosely put together from "reliable sources".

Once again, don't respond to this. I don't want your opinion on it, forum viewers dont want to read it, and it's not worth wasting all of our time.

 

A fleeing felon may be shot if we perceive a very real threat that the individual WILL cause a threat of serious bodily injury or death to innocent civilians.


Also regarding the 5 shots being excessive. Police shoot to kill, not to injure, maim, or hinder. However, many rounds it takes to stop that person is the correct amount.

 

A legal answer, to a short news article. Clearly you have no concept of law. You would need an entire case file to make a sound and accurate judgement on something like this. Not to mention a trial with witnesses, testimonies, evidence, you know little things like that.

 

works wonders, NAHO.

Hehe, I remember the military always saying, "Shoot to stop the threat." Then they'd get mad at me for tagging a paper target in the face. Seems to me the quickest way to put a guy on the ground is with a hit to the dome, especially with that pea-shooter Beretta M9 they'd give us. Some wacko all hopped up on PCP would probably keep running at you if you hit him with that thing.

My views changed entirely when they gave me an M-60 with a 200 round belt.

 

I would block him, but I want to be able to know when he posts stupid comments on here, not so much so I can reply to him, but so I can point out to all who view this thread how wrong he is and why.


Yeah I always find it funny that military and law enforcement are trained to fire at the body because its a bigger target when head shots are so much more effective. Though I have seen some military and law enforcement people at the range that definately should Not be taking head shots because they would miss and take someone else out.

 

Body shots would work if I carried something a little more effective than a 9 millimeter with ball ammunition. Maybe a .45 or .44 magnum loaded with hollowpoints. Do you guys have any say in your sidearm?

Yeah, I've seen guys who can't shoot either. But being from Texas, I walked around with a Ruger Superhawk .44 magnum (Dirty Harry gun) onmy hip from the time I could lift one. I killed my fair share of snakes with it too, and they're pretty hard to hit.

I remember the first instructer I had for force protection (read: guarding a nuclear submarine) was a SEAL, and he always said "one in the face, two in the chest." He was an odd man. Used to talk about what it looks like when tracer rounds go through a person. He even had us point pistols at eachother (unloaded, of course) so we'd know what it was like. Heh, he got mad at me for yanking the slide off the pistol my buddy stuck in my face.

I'm digressing though. Again, do you guys have any say whatsoever in what sidearm you carry?

 

We carry a .40 cal Glock model 22, our load is Federal Hydroshock. Those are hollowpoints with center steaks designed to puncture the skin draining blood and water which enables a wider spread of the hollow point. Tactical officer's carry .45 cal. We have zero say in our sidearms on duty and have a limited list of what we can carry off duty. Officer's are required to qualify with both guns if they have a different weapon for off duty.