Off Duty Cop Shoots Another Black Teen in St Louis

[vrsick]

Stabdard protocol is what allows cops to enforce the Texas sodomy law and shoot kids 17 fucking times.

Seriously, 17 fucking shots. I could understand if the cop shot once or twice, but 17 times? That goes beyond just trying to stop someone, that is murderous intent. It's one of the reasons why I refuse to travel into the states for any reason.

As a Canadian, I have genuinely feared for my life every time I am in your countey, because everyone is either fucking nuts or so on edge that the littlest thing will cause me to get shot 17 times.

Judging for how completely crazy you come off from this post, I am glad you don't visit our country. I am assuming all you "knowledge" of guns comes from movies and tv.

[Herecius]

Not too long ago there was an incident where police had to shoot at a man here in Finland where it's very rare that guns are ever drawn, the cop shot him in the leg and no one died. Of course not in all cases is this possible but to me it's pretty stupid to shoot to kill even when there would be a chance to only incapacitate.

You never, ever, ever 'shoot to incapacitate.' Ever. In fact, you pretty much never aim anywhere but bodyshots, because trying to 'aim' at a specific body part in an effort to shoot-to-maim typically just means you miss.

Moreover, shooting somebody in the leg doesn't actually stop them. You shoot them in the leg, they still have their hands in perfectly functioning condition and are liable to shoot you anyways. And you can say 'shoot them in the hand' but that is an incredibly difficult thing to actually do. Life isn't a movie or an anime, cops aren't trained or even capable of shooting a suspect's hand to disarm them or some crap. If you shoot at somebody, it should be in defense of your life or the lives of others, and 'shooting to incapacitate' is just asking to get yourself and others nearby killed.

[Polarthief]

You never, ever, ever 'shoot to incapacitate.' Ever.

When the target doesn't have a deadly weapon, they're SUPPOSED to, and only if actually necessary, but let's be honest, they never do.

[Ghostpanther]

Not too long ago there was an incident where police had to shoot at a man here in Finland where it's very rare that guns are ever drawn, the cop shot him in the leg and no one died. Of course not in all cases is this possible but to me it's pretty stupid to shoot to kill even when there would be a chance to only incapacitate.

Was the man whom the police shot, shooting back at the officer or attacking him with a knife or other deadly weapon?

[tj119]

WTB some threads about blacks killing other blacks and less about cops and white people killing black people.

[Herecius]

When the target doesn't have a deadly weapon, they're SUPPOSED to, and only if actually necessary, but let's be honest, they never do.

Well this target was armed with a gun (a gun he/she was firing), which typically qualifies as a deadly weapon according to even the narrowest definitions of the term.

Whether or not excessive force is used against people who do not pose a deadly threat isn't what I'm addressing, however. I'm addressing the fantasy that there is room to shoot somebody in the leg to incapacitate them, or even more ridiculously, perhaps shoot them in the hand to disarm them. That's the kindof crap that gets a pass in an anime where marksmen have superhuman aiming ability, but in the real world it just does not fly.

[Deleted]

You never, ever, ever 'shoot to incapacitate.' Ever. In fact, you pretty much never aim anywhere but bodyshots, because trying to 'aim' at a specific body part in an effort to shoot-to-maim typically just means you miss.

Never? Clearly in this particular instance you do.

[vrsick]

When the target doesn't have a deadly weapon, they're SUPPOSED to, and only if actually necessary, but let's be honest, they never do.

Well, think people think like "well just shoot him in the leg or something" as shooting to incapacitate and i dont think anyone is ever trained to not shoot for center mass.

[Ichifails]

Not too long ago there was an incident where police had to shoot at a man here in Finland where it's very rare that guns are ever drawn, the cop shot him in the leg and no one died. Of course not in all cases is this possible but to me it's pretty stupid to shoot to kill even when there would be a chance to only incapacitate.

Well that's why I said in most countries I know off. I wouldn't put nordic countries with the rest of the world:P.
Even so, I bet the guy shot in the leg didn't have a gun he pointed/shot at the police officers.

[Herecius]

Never? Clearly in this particular instance you do.

It's poor practice and in this incident the police officer is in the right. He was being shot at. Shooting the suspect in the leg or something is not the correct response and would have quite possibly gotten the officer killed if he'd tried it.

People also fail to understand that shooting people in the body typically doesn't kill them, but it does tend to 'incapacitate' them WAY THE HELL BETTER than trying to shoot them in the leg. People have survived being shot dozens of times in the body. The human body is incredibly resilient in many ways.

[Wikko]

Was the man whom the police shot, shooting back at the officer or attacking him with a knife or other deadly weapon?

The article says that the man was acting aggressively with a gun and that the police came at a range with a shield and after repeatedly telling him to drop the weapon they shot him in the leg. Afterwards the man was taken to a hospital. The shooting incident was then taken to be investigated at the highest level of government attorney (Basically the same as US attorney general if I'm not mistaken)

[tj119]

As a Canadian, I have genuinely feared for my life every time I am in your countey, because everyone is either fucking nuts or so on edge that the littlest thing will cause me to get shot 17 times.

Please stay in your country do not come here...ever. We dont need more ignorance like this in the U.S.

[Polarthief]

Well this target was armed with a gun (a gun he/she was firing), which typically qualifies as a deadly weapon according to even the narrowest definitions of the term.

Oh I'm not denying that this is a different case. If someone has a GUN pointed at me, and I have a gun and a license to kill if needed, I'm going to. If possible, I'd try to disarm them, but if I can't, then down they go.

Whether or not excessive force is used against people who do not pose a deadly threat isn't what I'm addressing, however. I'm addressing the fantasy that there is room to shoot somebody in the leg to incapacitate them, or even more ridiculously, perhaps shoot them in the hand to disarm them. That's the kindof crap that gets a pass in an anime where marksmen have superhuman aiming ability, but in the real world it just does not fly.

... Do people actually expect someone to disarm/incap someone else with a gun? I only expect this level of at least trying to against targets who DON'T have a deadly weapon. If a target doesn't have a deadly weapon, pulling out your gun in the first place is automatically a red flag in my book.

[Giscoicus]

WTB some threads about blacks killing other blacks and less about cops and white people killing black people.

I mean we could have a thread on how terrible Chicago is...

maybe this 4th of July they will break 100 homicides

[tj119]

Never? Clearly in this particular instance you do.

You shoot to kill and aim for the mid area of the body, always. Shooting to just disable someone greatly increases the risk of a bystander being shot.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean we could have a thread on how terrible Chicago is...

maybe this 4th of July they will break 100 homicides

Exactly, im in Atlanta its same shit here people in the neighborhood where i grew up die daily, no news stories or forums threads for them.

[Herecius]

... Do people actually expect someone to disarm/incap someone else with a gun? I only expect this level of at least trying to against targets who DON'T have a deadly weapon. If a target doesn't have a deadly weapon, pulling out your gun in the first place is automatically a red flag in my book.

There are plenty of folks who genuinely believe that you could just shoot somebody in the leg or hand or something and it will somehow make the crazy person with the gun less likely to shoot and kill whoever is standing in front of them.

Probably comes from playing lots of games with hitboxes that encourage gameplay where shooting an enemy in the limb stumbles them or something. It just doesn't really work in the real world.

[Ghostpanther]

Well, think people think like "well just shoot him in the leg or something" as shooting to incapacitate and i dont think anyone is ever trained to not shoot for center mass.

Correct. You shoot to stop the attacker and the center mass of the target is the easier section to hit. That is how they are trained. Maybe if you are a sniper, far away and the one you are going to shoot is not trying to kill someone, then you can go for a wounding shot. But shooting a moving target with a hand gun and hitting only wounding shots such as a leg or arm is very hard. Not to mention the fact the target has a weapon too and is shooting back.

There are very logical reasons a soldier is given a rifle to use rather than a handgun. A lot more accurate is one of them.

- - - Updated - - -

The article says that the man was acting aggressively with a gun and that the police came at a range with a shield and after repeatedly telling him to drop the weapon they shot him in the leg. Afterwards the man was taken to a hospital. The shooting incident was then taken to be investigated at the highest level of government attorney (Basically the same as US attorney general if I'm not mistaken)

So, in essence the officer had some protection as he was behind a shield. If the guy was shooting at the officer whom had no such protection, then if the officer did not shoot back to stop the threat to his life, he is ether dumb or his training is not correct.

[Polarthief]

There are plenty of folks who genuinely believe that you could just shoot somebody in the leg or hand or something and it will somehow make the crazy person with the gun less likely to shoot and kill whoever is standing in front of them.

Probably comes from playing lots of games with hitboxes that encourage gameplay where shooting an enemy in the limb stumbles them or something. It just doesn't really work in the real world.

Which is crazy, but less crazy than the "Shoot first, ask later" mentality that cops have been getting towards people without even being armed with a remote controller in their hands.

[Herecius]

Correct. You shoot to stop the attacker and the center mass of the target is the easier section to hit. That is how they are trained. Maybe if you are a sniper, far away and the one you are going to shoot is not trying to kill someone, then you can go for a wounding shot.

The irony there being that most modern sniper rifles are of such ridiculous power they'd decimate a limb, if that's what you were aiming for anyways. Probably still kill whoever is shot, just... way more horribly and painfully.

[Wikko]

Correct. You shoot to stop the attacker and the center mass of the target is the easier section to hit. That is how they are trained. Maybe if you are a sniper, far away and the one you are going to shoot is not trying to kill someone, then you can go for a wounding shot. But shooting a moving target with a hand gun and hitting only wounding shots such as a leg or arm is very hard. Not to mention the fact the target has a weapon too and is shooting back.

There are very logical reasons a soldier is given a rifle to use rather than a handgun. A lot more accurate is one of them.

- - - Updated - - -



So, in essence the officer had some protection as he was behind a shield. If the guy was shooting at the officer whom had no such protection, then if the officer did not shoot back to stop the threat to his life, he is ether dumb or his training is not correct.

Of course, like I said earlier, I dont expect them to always try to incapacitate the person, only if it's possible. In a case where the possibility is I dont understand why only try to kill.