Cops not prosecuted for gunning down hobo, riots

[MolaKule]

Quote:
but do have a problem with such reckless firing. In the mid 1990s, I went to seminary with a NYPD. I asked if what he carried, he said a .45 revolver. I asked if he would like more rounds than six. He said, "If I ever thought I would need more than six shots, I would be going the other direction." He only had 20 years of experience in NYC. It is not the use of lethal force, it is the manner that makes this outrageous.



How do you now this incident was reckless firing? What is the definiton of reckless firing?

How would you know if you needed more or less than 6 shots?

You fire enough rounds to bring the perp down. Many PD's now carry a GLock or similar weapon in 0.40 S&W with more than 6 rounds because a drug-crazed perpetrator can still come at you after six rounds.

I say enough of this armchair quaterbacking of the police. They have a tough enough of a job protecting the public without inaccurate media reporting and sensationalism.

 

[OVERKILL]

Sometimes some funny pictures of the police in action are caught though:

 

[Trajan]

Those that were part of the North Hollywood shootout needed far more than six shots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

In this case, approximately 650 rounds were fired at two very heavily armored men, who had fired approximately 1,100 rounds. The responding police officers directed their fire at the "center of mass," or torsos, of the two perps. Each man was shot and penetrated by at least ten bullets,( AR-15 rounds) yet both continued to attack officers.

Yeah, sure, 2 shots, six shots.....

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
How do you now this incident was reckless firing? What is the definiton of reckless firing?


Agreed. Of course, it would be nice if every police officer were extremely accurate all the time, even if they could do so under great stress.

The reality is that a police officer rarely has to fire his gun at someone. Most never do. Firearms training is important, but the dangerous weapon that police officers routinely wield are their vehicles, and any safety focus should be placed there.

Far more innocent people are killed on roads in vehicle collisions (by police, by drunks, by the general public) than are killed by shootings.

Speaking of the case that was just mentioned of the suspects with body armor, take a look at Youtube for some of the Soviet and Russian traffic stops. See if you can find the video of the vehicle that was being pulled over and the driver looked like he was reaching into the back seat for something. That vehicle was peppered with AK-47 rounds in response. I bet there were more than 46 rounds fired. It was on John Bunnell's show a number of years back.

 

[Trajan]

Six shots didn't put this guy down either.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120916_Man_shot_6_times__drives_himself_to_hospital.html

A 24-year-old man was hospitalized after being shot six times on a street in the Olney section Saturday afternoon, authorities said.

According to police, the man was shot in the 5100 block of North Second Street about 3 p.m. He then drove himself to Albert Einstein Medical Center, where he was listed in very critical condition with wounds to the thigh, back, right arm, and groin.

 

[The_Eric]

While researching various handgun calibers, I happened across a verified account of a Trooper (Virginia or one of the Carolinas) in the 80's that fired all 6 rounds from his .357 Magnum into the chest area of a perp, who then returned fire killing the Trooper. The perp is still alive and well, serving out his prison sentence. The point is - I can see needing to fire multiple shots to stop a given threat... The count, while seemingly high, is believable if all the cops made the decision at or about the same time. Each firing multiple shots and evaluating the need for more. Maybe some hard facts will come out later and shed some more light on exactly what the shot count was and why they fired as they did.

On the comparisons of Marines doing better, maybe one of our LEO members can confirm, but I'd imagine that they (Marines) have more training of various forms and intensities?

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: chiks

46 rounds, 10 hits.
hmm...


I'm more concern about the other 36 rounds hitting bystanders than the psycho guy getting 10 hits instead of just 1.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: dwcopple
If you didn't get it, the point I was making about the Marines was that they would've taken this guy without mindless, wildly inaccurate shooting.


Depending on ROE, the Marines would have shot him dead, most likely, but it would have been fewer rounds. This goes back to my point about training...our Marines are among the best trained people of any profession...

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
While researching various handgun calibers, I happened across a verified account of a Trooper (Virginia or one of the Carolinas) in the 80's that fired all 6 rounds from his .357 Magnum into the chest area of a perp, who then returned fire killing the Trooper. The perp is still alive and well, serving out his prison sentence. The point is - I can see needing to fire multiple shots to stop a given threat... The count, while seemingly high, is believable if all the cops made the decision at or about the same time. Each firing multiple shots and evaluating the need for more. Maybe some hard facts will come out later and shed some more light on exactly what the shot count was and why they fired as they did.

On the comparisons of Marines doing better, maybe one of our LEO members can confirm, but I'd imagine that they (Marines) have more training of various forms and intensities?


This is very true - you fire until the threat is stopped. How many rounds is that? Might be several good shots to the center mass...that's why the high-capacity autos have become standard issue for police departments.

There was an FBI shootout in Miami in the 80s - the perps were strong, young, former army, wearing winter clothes. They took several rounds of 9mm and .357 to the head, to the chest and body, they were bleeding, they were wounded, but still firing - still lethal and took out 2 agents during the shootout in which over 145 rounds were exchanged.

Forensic analysis on that event led to the development of the FBI 10mm round - which proved to be too hot for some agents, so it was shortened, and the .40 S&W was created, but that's another story...

Multiple rounds on target and the perps were still firing...that's why you fire, on target, until the threat stops.

Personal approach is two to the center, one to the head, sights back on center, repeat until threat is down/stopped...might empty the whole magazine before I see threat stopped...might reload and keep firing...depends on the THREAT.

Folks don't understand - you can be shot, but you don't always die or stop moving instantly. Even people with fatal gunshot wounds (major organs/blood vessels) can still be firing at you, still standing, still wielding a weapon...they won't live long, but they still present the same threat...there have been plenty of Texas Border Patrol (I'm thinking of Bill Jordan..."No Second Place Winner"...great book) and other LE who have taken a round in a gunfight, returned fire, killed their assailant and lived to tell about it.

Good thing for those officers that their assailants didn't have LE training (shoot until the threat is stopped)...good thing, for them, that their assailants had a Hollywood approach - "I shot him, I won".

 

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: chiks

46 rounds, 10 hits.
hmm...


I'm more concern about the other 36 rounds hitting bystanders than the psycho guy getting 10 hits instead of just 1.
me too. Don't they have a 12ga on the dash? One 00buck could've done the job.

 

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: dwcopple
If you didn't get it, the point I was making about the Marines was that they would've taken this guy without mindless, wildly inaccurate shooting.


Depending on ROE, the Marines would have shot him dead, most likely, but it would have been fewer rounds. This goes back to my point about training...our Marines are among the best trained people of any profession...
My point stated the Marines were unarmed. A knife is a simple thing for an infantry Marine to disarm.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dwcopple
My point stated the Marines were unarmed. A knife is a simple thing for an infantry Marine to disarm.


That's too hypothetical, though. Heck, police "could" disarm people with knives without reverting to lethal force. That's simply not a prudent or safe policy.

Personally, I haven't seen a lot of Marines sent into combat situations unarmed, so sending them into a law enforcement situation unarmed is extremely hypothetical. I suppose we could have a bunch of riot police with shields push him towards the entrance to the crocodile cage at the local zoo and see what happens when a man with a knife faces a crocodile, but that's pretty hypothetical, too.

 

[Trajan]

Marines are prohibited from such by the DoD anyway. So his scenario is fantasy anyway.

 

[bigmike]

Mental illness should be the subject addressed. We, as a country, handle it extremely poorly, especially amongst the homeless population.
It's how we treat those that are poor, either be it physically, mentally, or spiritually that we should improve upon.

I'd have never shot that man, based upon watching the video and the distance he'd need to cover. That's my own judgment and it's mine to keep.

I appreciate Astro's posts because it sheds light into the training, methods of response, etc. I learned alot from it, but nonetheless I couldn't bring myself to change my mind of my own response. Had the circumstances been different, then that would change probably.

I live by the idea that my mouth is probably the #1 avoidance to becoming a victim. Rule #2 is an armed weapon, sure, but that's a last course measure. I do not want to harm or kill someone if I don't have to.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
While researching various handgun calibers, I happened across a verified account of a Trooper (Virginia or one of the Carolinas) in the 80's that fired all 6 rounds from his .357 Magnum into the chest area of a perp, who then returned fire killing the Trooper. The perp is still alive and well, serving out his prison sentence. The point is - I can see needing to fire multiple shots to stop a given threat... The count, while seemingly high, is believable if all the cops made the decision at or about the same time. Each firing multiple shots and evaluating the need for more. Maybe some hard facts will come out later and shed some more light on exactly what the shot count was and why they fired as they did.

On the comparisons of Marines doing better, maybe one of our LEO members can confirm, but I'd imagine that they (Marines) have more training of various forms and intensities?


This is very true - you fire until the threat is stopped. How many rounds is that? Might be several good shots to the center mass...that's why the high-capacity autos have become standard issue for police departments.

There was an FBI shootout in Miami in the 80s - the perps were strong, young, former army, wearing winter clothes. They took several rounds of 9mm and .357 to the head, to the chest and body, they were bleeding, they were wounded, but still firing - still lethal and took out 2 agents during the shootout in which over 145 rounds were exchanged.

Forensic analysis on that event led to the development of the FBI 10mm round - which proved to be too hot for some agents, so it was shortened, and the .40 S&W was created, but that's another story...

Multiple rounds on target and the perps were still firing...that's why you fire, on target, until the threat stops.

Personal approach is two to the center, one to the head, sights back on center, repeat until threat is down/stopped...might empty the whole magazine before I see threat stopped...might reload and keep firing...depends on the THREAT.

Folks don't understand - you can be shot, but you don't always die or stop moving instantly. Even people with fatal gunshot wounds (major organs/blood vessels) can still be firing at you, still standing, still wielding a weapon...they won't live long, but they still present the same threat...there have been plenty of Texas Border Patrol (I'm thinking of Bill Jordan..."No Second Place Winner"...great book) and other LE who have taken a round in a gunfight, returned fire, killed their assailant and lived to tell about it.

Good thing for those officers that their assailants didn't have LE training (shoot until the threat is stopped)...good thing, for them, that their assailants had a Hollywood approach - "I shot him, I won".


You are now being completely ridiculous in an attempt to justify this shooting. You continue to use examples which have absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand. You're as off-base as those with whom you're arguing, even though you're doing it with better grammar...

This guy didn't have a gun. He wasn't shooting back. He wasn't shooting anything. You seem bent on obfuscating the facts of this case (which are more clear than you'd like to admit) in an attempt to convince either others or yourself that this was an appropriate response.

BTW, I'm all for finding out all of the facts in the case, but the biggest issue is that there doesn't appear to be much transparency in the investigation (at least that I've been able to see). When you have government entities investigating themselves, releasing limited information and then saying "it's OK", it's not surprising that people have questions.

 

[Trajan]

The guy had a knife. You can kill someone with a knife. He was told over and over again to drop it. He refused. He said someone is going to die today. Eithr him or one of them.

He made his choice.

 

[chiks]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
but do have a problem with such reckless firing. In the mid 1990s, I went to seminary with a NYPD. I asked if what he carried, he said a .45 revolver. I asked if he would like more rounds than six. He said, "If I ever thought I would need more than six shots, I would be going the other direction." He only had 20 years of experience in NYC. It is not the use of lethal force, it is the manner that makes this outrageous.



How do you now this incident was reckless firing? What is the definiton of reckless firing?

How would you know if you needed more or less than 6 shots?

You fire enough rounds to bring the perp down. Many PD's now carry a GLock or similar weapon in 0.40 S&W with more than 6 rounds because a drug-crazed perpetrator can still come at you after six rounds.

I say enough of this armchair quaterbacking of the police. They have a tough enough of a job protecting the public without inaccurate media reporting and sensationalism.


Molakule, as much as I respect you and your contributions to BITOG, I am apalled by your viewpoint. It seems that you are pushing the idea that the general public has not an iota of common sense and it is beyond their brain capacity to understand the situation these cops were in. Apalling.

 

[chiks]

These are my conjectures, and any one of them or all of them can be true.

1. All 6 cops were rookies
2. The cops are in dire need of firearms training
3. This was a political killing

Why do I say this? This is why

Quote:
SAGINAW, Mich. (AP) — An autopsy determined that a mentally ill homeless man killed by Michigan police this summer was shot 11 times.

Prosecutor Michael Thomas said Wednesday that no charges will be filed against the Saginaw officers. They say Hall was shot after he refused to drop a knife while threatening police. Nearly 50 rounds were fired by six officers.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Autop...p#ixzz26lmWU92Z



and this

Quote:
Channel 12: ABC12 News has learned that approximately 46 gunshots were fired at Milton Hall. It’s still not clear how man times Hall was hit. And while investigators have some video of the incident, most of the high-tech audio and video equipment on the officers and their cars didn’t work properly.

The officers involved in the shooting incident were wearing lapel microphones, microphones that would pick up their conversations and possibly whatever Mr. Hall was saying back to police. We’ve learned those lapel microphones were not working.

Several Saginaw Police cars were equipped with cameras at the scene, but law enforcement officials say only one of the cameras captured the shooting. It’s not clear why the microphones didn’t work, or why the other car cameras didn’t capture the incident.

State police detectives working on the case were unavailable for comments today, a state police representative said. The Saginaw News could not immediately reach Saginaw police officials.
http://birchrunchamber.org/report-homeless-man-killed-by-saginaw-police-was-shot-at-46-times/

 

[dwcopple]

well now they just flew his mom in from New Mexico, she is giving speeches at churches and some politician (also black) is coming to rile things up even more...uh oh
http://www.wnem.com/story/19559352/milton-halls-mother-returns-to-saginaw

 

[morris]

well according to the pic the criminals are dressing better.