Cops not prosecuted for gunning down hobo, riots

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Tempest


Quote:
"I'm stunned that six human beings would stand in front of one human being and fire 46 shots," Jewel Hall said. "I just don't understand that. It's a lot of pain in that because it only takes one shot, so the question is why?"


Yeah, because the cops have a hive mind and think as one....



Probably pretty close to the truth. If a circle of cops are assessing a situation and one feels it necessary to shoot the others immediately and automatically defer judgement and start shooting as well.


This a natural reaction of people on edge. The officers are more likely to trust the judgement of their fellow officers than they are to trust the bad guy. If one starts shooting, they probably will all start shooting.

This is true of probably any police or military engagement where people are on edge. There isn't time to make an individual assessment and lethal force has already been used at the first shot.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Artem

I do have experience and your point is...?


Then you actually believe that officers should be shooting at the smallest, least vital parts of a bad guy shooting at them under extreme duress?

Vision and motor skills are severely impaired under such conditions. Targeting such small areas will decrease the hit ratio giving the bad guys more time to react, which will increase his ability to fire shots or do other damage.

If lethal force is used (as in firing a gun), then the most efficient method to end the threat should be the only goal, and that is best done by targeting vital organs.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: chiks
Originally Posted By: MuzzleFlash40
Originally Posted By: chiks
Then do not be a COP if you are scared and value going back home to your family so much. So much that you are willing to carry out stupid saneless actions in order to save your own butt. The risk comes with the territory. Now if the hobo had a AK47, I can make sense of all the cops scared [censored] and unloading all their bullets into him.

Funny question: How many cops and how many bullets does it take to kill a person?


Choosing to not fight with a man with a knife...is a saneless act? Riiiiight....
Well i'm done with this conversation. Because at the end of the day you are still talking out of the wrong hole. You are clueless and no matter what you say will change that. You are allowed to have your opinion, even though it comes from T.V. and movies.


Evidently your training course is designed to "not think. Leave the thinking to the brass. You just draw and shoot. You are trained to be robots, not thinking men".

Just cuz I do not do your job does not mean I do not have the intelligence to understand what that job demands.

I remember when I applied for the navy right out of college, the recruiting officer very clearly told me that I am too smartto be satisfied with a job like this. He escorted me out. Thankfully so.


I am thankful too...

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
This a natural reaction of people on edge.


Yes, but isn't the training given to anyone with a weapon and the authority to use it designed precisely to mitigate against the quality of judgement going down the tubes when the person is "on edge"? I have very, very little knowledge of military or police training but I hear the phrase "I fell back on my training" or "My training took over" enough to believe that the whole raison d'etre of the training is so the soldier, officer, etc. defaults to it rather than being susceptible to rash decision-making while under stress.

*If* my understanding is correct, wouldn't your rationalization/ explanation *be* the indictment of the quality of their judgement?

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Tempest
This a natural reaction of people on edge.


Yes, but isn't the training given to anyone with a weapon and the authority to use it designed precisely to mitigate against the quality of judgement going down the tubes when the person is "on edge"? I have very, very little knowledge of military or police training but I hear the phrase "I fell back on my training" or "My training took over" enough to believe that the whole raison d'etre of the training is so the soldier, officer, etc. defaults to it rather than being susceptible to rash decision-making while under stress.

*If* my understanding is correct, wouldn't your rationalization/ explanation *be* the indictment of the quality of their judgement?


I give people presented with a life threatening situation the benefit of the doubt. I have not been in their situation and most other people haven't, either. They were obviously surrounding, and ordering him to put the weapon down...he refused.

They could have simply rolled up to the scene and shot the guy right off the bat if they wanted to, but they didn't. So the idea that these are blood thirsty cops is out the window.

I have no idea what their training or department policies are, so did they act as they should? Officially I don't know but I didn't see a thing on that tape that looked out of line. The guy was aggressive, pointing a knife at several officers, not responsive to commands, and made a quick move.

That's a great recipe to get shot.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
I give people presented with a life threatening situation the benefit of the doubt. I have not been in their situation and most other people haven't, either. They were obviously surrounding, and ordering him to put the weapon down...he refused.


This is true. I guess it's just unsettling (especially in the Information Age, when we can see this type of thing within a few mouse clicks, on demand) to see how vulnerable and prone to panic those we believe we can hold to a higher standard of conduct and judgement (again: due to the training and the weighty trust granted them) are. In other words: it seems that those charged with maintaining order can be just as chaotic as the rest of us!

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
In other words: it seems that those charged with maintaining order can be just as chaotic as the rest of us!

It's been that way for all of human history.

 

[Astro14]

I wrote a bit on the training...the "I fell back on my training" is true, but it allows us to act instead of panic...the training doesn't eliminate fear or stress, and the response is always varied...people aren't robots. What the training does do is lower (not eliminate) the fear and stress, enabling better (though never perfect) performance. The degree to which training can do this depends on the realism of the training.

Punching holes in a paper target at a shooting range is analagous to combat in the same way that throwing a football to my son standing in the yard is analagous to an NFL game. Target practice only trains one aspect of combat shooting, and that aspect is in a benign environment...when the linebackers are rushing you as QB, and you're looking for who's open as the play unfolds, it's a whole different environment than the leisurely toss to a kid.

Our military has improved training dramatically since WW II, in which we used paper targets, and roughly 10% of soldiers were able to provide effective, aimed fire in combat (that statistic, while shocking, is true and validated...the reasons are complex and interesting...but too complex for this post). In the most recent war experience, over 75% of our soldiers are able to provide effective, aimed fire in combat - an incredible improvement due to pop-up, realistic targets in live-fire training that requires shooting from cover, prone, etc. That training has created a degree of de-sensitization to the stress of combat shooting that has yielded a soldier far more capable than just a generation or two ago...

Sadly, many police departments are only able to provide the target range, not the live-fire, realistic scenario-based shooting, or the full visual simulation with computer hits and debriefing capability that would best train their folks...

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Artem
I never understood why cops always have to shoot to kill... Why not shoot him in the arm that's holding the knife? Shoot him in both legs so he falls down and tackle him.

They are trained shooters yet it seems as if they always close their eyes, turn their heads and just open fire until the clip is empty

You'd think that some situations like this, death can be avoided and the criminal can be subdued with just a few NON-LETHAL properly placed shots so he can later be charged after he gets out the hospital.

Just my

Heard this same question to the SFPD chief on radio a few days ago. Here is his answer (that I can remember):

"We don't shoot to kill, we shoot to NOT MISS. Torso is the biggest target and therefore you shoot the torso. We decide whether the person should be shot base on whether he will be a danger to just himself, or whether he will be a danger to others as well. We will not shoot a person unless we believe he will be a danger to others, and when we shoot, we want to immobilize him so he will not able to attack after he is shot. I'm a pretty good shooter but even I miss in the shooting range once in a while, and when you are dealing with a real life, dynamic target, you cannot take chances by shooting and miss, so we have to aim for the biggest target."

 

[Astro14]

Panda Bear - you've hit on an essential point: you don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat.

Best way to stop the threat, as the chief explained, is a hit on center mass...

 

[MuzzleFlash40]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Panda Bear - you've hit on an essential point: you don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat.

Best way to stop the threat, as the chief explained, is a hit on center mass...


Right on the money!

 

[MuzzleFlash40]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: chiks
Originally Posted By: MuzzleFlash40
Originally Posted By: chiks
Then do not be a COP if you are scared and value going back home to your family so much. So much that you are willing to carry out stupid saneless actions in order to save your own butt. The risk comes with the territory. Now if the hobo had a AK47, I can make sense of all the cops scared [censored] and unloading all their bullets into him.

Funny question: How many cops and how many bullets does it take to kill a person?


Choosing to not fight with a man with a knife...is a saneless act? Riiiiight....
Well i'm done with this conversation. Because at the end of the day you are still talking out of the wrong hole. You are clueless and no matter what you say will change that. You are allowed to have your opinion, even though it comes from T.V. and movies.


Evidently your training course is designed to "not think. Leave the thinking to the brass. You just draw and shoot. You are trained to be robots, not thinking men".

Just cuz I do not do your job does not mean I do not have the intelligence to understand what that job demands.

I remember when I applied for the navy right out of college, the recruiting officer very clearly told me that I am too smartto be satisfied with a job like this. He escorted me out. Thankfully so.


I am thankful too...


Amen!

 

[morris]

my dad was a military policeman in WW2, RIP. he was told,as a policeman, his job was to help people. WHAT HEPPENED? piease dont make my dad scream at todays police, from his grave.

 

[MinamiKotaro]

In my opinion, the police showed amazing restraint. They had him surrounded for quite some time, gave him every opportunity to surrender, and didn't react with lethal force until he tried to leave the scene. They didn't know where he was going or who was going to be in his way. All they knew was that he was armed and dangerous. The lethal force was more than warranted at that point.

In the video, it seems as though he approached one of the cops in a very aggressive posture and even that didn't get them to open fire.

As for the hubbub over the 46 shots, that's about eight rounds per officer. That's a very reasonable amount of shots for an individual to fire in a self-defense situation. It's not as if the cops were going to take turns firing a round or two to see if he stopped.

 

[chiks]

Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro
In my opinion, the police showed amazing restraint. They had him surrounded for quite some time, gave him every opportunity to surrender, and didn't react with lethal force until he tried to leave the scene. They didn't know where he was going or who was going to be in his way. All they knew was that he was armed and dangerous. The lethal force was more than warranted at that point.

In the video, it seems as though he approached one of the cops in a very aggressive posture and even that didn't get them to open fire.


Agreed. Very good job till that time.

Quote:


As for the hubbub over the 46 shots, that's about eight rounds per officer. That's a very reasonable amount of shots for an individual to fire in a self-defense situation. It's not as if the cops were going to take turns firing a round or two to see if he stopped.


They should have stopped. How may bullets does it take to stop a man in his tracks? It is not like that person had a semi automatic that he could fire even if injured. He just had a knife.

 

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: MinamiKotaro

As for the hubbub over the 46 shots, that's about eight rounds per officer. That's a very reasonable amount of shots for an individual to fire in a self-defense situation. It's not as if the cops were going to take turns firing a round or two to see if he stopped.
So the mindset of "If he's squeezin' so am I" is fine. Eight officers and a K-9 couldn't handle him? There should be no police academy at all then. Just give 'em all a gun and tell them to fire at will. Effin ridiculous.

 

[wrcsixeight]

Looked like SBC, Suicide by Cop to me.

99.9% of us would avoid a raving person with a knife, Cops are supposed to confront them.

All the shots fired after he fell prone on the ground, IMO, seem excessive, but the results would be the same either way.

If it was SBC, the extra shots were doing him a favor.

 

[MinamiKotaro]

Originally Posted By: dwcopple
Eight officers and a K-9 couldn't handle him?


Handle him how? Wrestle him to the ground? Even with the K9 on him and the six-to-one odds, if he can still swing that knife, he can sever a femoral or a jugular.

Their job was not to make sure the man waving a knife at half a dozen armed cops got home safe. Their job was to make sure the man waving a knife didn't get away and hurt someone. They did their job.

And, since a lot of people seem to be missing this: they held him at bay for nearly 20 minutes before shooting -- and only then at his provocation. That's about 19 minutes and 59 seconds longer than his actions would have first justified shooting.

This was NOT a group of trigger-happy cops surrounding a helpless man and plugging away. It was about as far from that as you can get.

 

[Trajan]

If the guy with the knife got away or stabbed someone, then the screaming would be "Why didn't they shoot him?" Cops just can't get a break at times.

Why didn't they tazer him? They don't always work. And there have been cases where the guy died from it. So there would be more screaming.

The guy had a weapon. he didn't drop it. It isn't their job to determine if the guy is mentally ill or not.

 

[frank2009]

Deadly physical force is met with deadly force. No more, no less. A man menacing with a knife on the street has to be stopped. He refused to drop the knife after being ordered to drop it. Not sure whether there is much more to this.