NationStates Jolt Archive

I came across this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15262111/site/newsweek/

As a liberal, I frequently have a less than rosy image of law enforcement. But I totally disagree with the idea that this was excessive force. The guy already demonstrated he was willing to use deadly force. Why shouldn't the cops say "Right back at ya."?

The only problem i see here is economic... that much ammo costs big time.

You shoot at anyone and if they're not morons they'll shoot back. I see no problem here. It was a perfectly acceptable ammount of force.

Wouldn't have taken so many bullets if cops could aim.

Wouldn't have taken so many bullets if cops could aim.

It's hard to find cops who can aim though. I heard that only about 25% of the time will a cop's first bullet hit the guy he's aiming at.

It's hard to find cops who can aim though. I heard that only about 25% of the time will a cop's first bullet hit the guy he's aiming at.

Whats the percentage on average for most shooters?

Whats the percentage on average for most shooters?

I forget.

The intent was to defend themselves against this guy, although it is wasteful, it doesn't make a difference whether they used 11 or 110 bullets, so the idea that this was excessive force doesn't make much sense to me (how was it any more forceful than killing him with 2 bullets? or 20? etc.)

However, I think lethal force is unacceptable in law enforcement and most military situations, when non-lethal armaments like beanbag shotguns can be made available. This situation will of course not change anytime soon, but I can be hopeful.

I forget.

Not that it would be possible to get figures for that kind of thing I suppose. Never mind

...when non-lethal armaments like beanbag shotguns can be made available...

You mean these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_baton_round)?

I forget.

Extremely low, if I recall correctly. I believe the 25% number for cops is accurate.

Competition pistol shooting, with a stationary target, at fairly close ranges, with a low caliber, small recoil handgun is reasonably tough. Using a large caliber weapon, against a moving target, while under pressure, and in danger, is probably a whole hell of a lot harder, I'd imagine.

You mean these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_baton_round)?

Yeah, and I'm aware that there are fatalities involving those, but the problem is, electrical weapons still have problems with implementation to make them as effective as a firearms. So the beanbag is a compromise between the two.

EDIT: And surely there are other less-lethal weapons out there two. I know they have looked into disorienting people using lasers.

The man had already killed one policeman and injured another, and when the SWAT team found him he had a gun in his hand. While I disapprove of killing, what they did was absolutely understandable and could well have saved one or more of them from death. I'm also not sure why they make such an issue of them firing 110 times: a tenth of that number would have killed him, and while I'm not sure about this, it seems likely that SWAT members are trained to open fire in a situation like that, and are also trained to fire several times to make sure that the suspect can't return fire. No excessive force, no race discrimination. Just some fucking idiot who decided to kill a cop for pulling him over and failed to get the drop on the reinforcements.

I came across this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15262111/site/newsweek/

As a liberal, I frequently have a less than rosy image of law enforcement. But I totally disagree with the idea that this was excessive force. The guy already demonstrated he was willing to use deadly force. Why shouldn't the cops say "Right back at ya."?

Freeland shot and killed the police dog, then quickly pumped Williams full of bullets, one of which penetrated his spine. Freeland then shot Williams twice more in the head at point-blank range.

Then Freeland appeared over a ridge and fired at him.

the man has been proven dangerous. he fired upon officers with no warning and no reguard except to kill.

he was found by SWAT where "He was hunkered down under another fallen oak, " which is a defendable position.

of 110 shots, 68 hit him.

no it was not excessive.

I came across this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15262111/site/newsweek/

As a liberal, I frequently have a less than rosy image of law enforcement. But I totally disagree with the idea that this was excessive force. The guy already demonstrated he was willing to use deadly force. Why shouldn't the cops say "Right back at ya."?

In that case, I see no reason why not.

Yeah, and I'm aware that there are fatalities involving those, but the problem is, electrical weapons still have problems with implementation to make them as effective as a firearms. So the beanbag is a compromise between the two.

It also seem to only have about a 3 meter range of effectiveness in the nonlethal respect.

EDIT: And surely there are other less-lethal weapons out there two. I know they have looked into disorienting people using lasers.

By causing seizures?

It also seem to only have about a 3 meter range of effectiveness in the nonlethal respect.



By causing seizures?

Blinding, loss of balance, and nausea, seizures too depending on the victim, but the point is, although I don't feel that they have effectively used any more force than they would otherwise have used, I don't think they should be killing at all if they can help it. My basic feeling on this is that killing people is always unethical (it isn't as bad as sacrificing law enforcement officers, though.)