My kind of America

[Kingpatzer]

Oh horrors! 99% of cops are pretty damn capable with firearms and the mature use thereof.

A statement not backed up by the facts available or the statements of those who train officers.

The majority of incidents requiring the use of lethal force take place at a range of less than 7 yards. When such an incident arises the time that an officer has to react is usually measured in fractions of a second. Point and shoot. No time for lovely little range shooting and perfect little double taps. Geez, clueless, totally clueless. Only hope you never have to use your superior firearm capabilities in a real life and death situation.

First, given the speed that bullets travel it really doesn't matter what the range is.
Second, as has been pointed out, even at those very close ranges, officer miss more often than not.
Third, there is no reason for your derisive tone.
Lastly, I have been in real situations, thanks, and i assure you that properly trained people can and do have time to do the right thing.

 

[vshearer]

Actually pretty well established fact.

I agree with this. It stands to reason that someone on death row is going to run up a considerable expense in legal appeals (all paid by the taxpayers). Probably in excess of a million or two dollars. Putting someone on life probably only costs a half or 750K for thier lifetime incarceration. So what these cops did saved the taxpayers a bundle.

 

[BHB ScubaTroll]

Actually pretty well established fact.

I always like that this "pretty well established fact" never takes into account the average "12" lawsuits brought by "lifers", the cost of burial and the fact that violent offenders will still be segregated from the rest of the inmate population...

... and, once again... I am done with this thread. There appears to be a very small minority who contradict the majority, and it is not worth hashing over, and over, and over, and over, and over... since that minority will never change their minds....

 

[Skull]

Why do I have to know the name of every guy who's ever fired a gun? I've seen that video before, but I'm really not all that interested in the "sport" of shooting pieces of paper really fast so I don't bother to remember names like that.

Yes, in a controled environment someone who practices this type of shooting can fire a lot of rounds on target. But a firefight isn't exactly the same as a nice controled range now is it? And besides, I go back to my original point. Why fire six rounds into a guy when two will do the trick? Actually, one usually does the job, the second round in the double tap is your insurance.

Plus, you seemed to have missed the part of this thread where two people who have trained officers (myself being one of them) have pointed out that your average cop really isn't that great of a shot. Not their fault really, they don't have the time, but its true.

And your point is what? First you say cops shouldn't be judge and jury because they aren't trained properly to apprehend suspects. Second you say they are not properly trained in live/dynamic firing situations. You make a enormous leap in logic here, there are times that officers are judge and jury and this occasion was one of them. A reasonable person would conclude they made the right decision because the officers took decisive action in the field and neutralized an actively violent armed suspect. Or perhaps a well placed head shot from a concealed sniper would be more to your liking. Oh but wouldn't that sniper be acting as judge and jury ...at the very least it would have saved 109 bullets-eh? ...but judge and jury none the less!

What I conclude from your logic is that police officers shouldn't be utilized to confront anyone with a gun since they are not properly trained to handle the situation and due to the fact they are not perfect they are by default not the proper force to accomplish this duty. So then who do you suggest should be used to confront and apprehend criminals with firearms in a hostile situation? Maybe we should call in the Navy SeAL's from Coronado or a Force Reconn team from Camp Pendleton everytime a criminal is cornered with a firearm ready to do great violence. That certainly would be cost effective (TIC) and OBTW completely unconstitutional.

Frankly, Nick and Kingpatzer ...to paraphase a very intellegent man ... me thinks thou doest protest too much...

Finally just so you know the point of the thread was not the actions of the officers but the remark of the sheriff to the press ...maybe both of you guys should shimmy down from the ivory tower you both obviously have constructed around yourselves and take a basic rheatoric course in college ... oh yea I'm the OP..

 

[Nick_W]

And your point is what? First you say cops shouldn't be judge and jury because they aren't trained properly to apprehend suspects. Second you say they are not properly trained in live/dynamic firing situations. You make a enormous leap in logic here, there are times that officers are judge and jury and this occasion was one of them. A reasonable person would conclude they made the right decision because the officers took decisive action in the field and neutralized an actively violent armed suspect. Or perhaps a well placed head shot from a concealed sniper would be more to your liking. Oh but wouldn't that sniper be acting as judge and jury ...at the very least it would have saved 109 bullets-eh? ...but judge and jury none the less!

What I conclude from your logic is that police officers shouldn't be utilized to confront anyone with a gun since they are not properly trained to handle the situation and due to the fact they are not perfect they are by default not the proper force to accomplish this duty. So then who do you suggest should be used to confront and apprehend criminals with firearms in a hostile situation? Maybe we should call in the Navy SeAL's from Coronado or a Force Reconn team from Camp Pendleton everytime a criminal is cornered with a firearm ready to do great violence. That certainly would be cost effective (TIC) and OBTW completely unconstitutional.

Frankly, Nick and Kingpatzer ...to paraphase a very intellegent man ... me thinks thou doest protest too much...

Finally just so you know the point of the thread was not the actions of the officers but the remark of the sheriff to the press ...maybe both of you guys should shimmy down from the ivory tower you both obviously have constructed around yourselves and take a basic rheatoric course in college ... oh yea I'm the OP..

I tried to address the comments of the sheriff to the press when I said they were stupid comments.

The officers in this case did not in fact act as judge and jury, they acted to protect their lives. If it was discovered that their lives were not threatened and they had acted as judge and jury and executed the guy, I would hope they saw the inside of a prison cell very, very quickly.

All I'm asking is for officers who are a little better trained (more funding) and a sheriff who isn't a blowhard and a moron. Is that too much to ask?

Oh, and as for the ivory tower. I'm sorry if my desire to have those who are authorized to carry and use firearms in the vicinity of my wife, kids, sister, mom, dad, friends, etc. receive just a little better training than they currently do is just this hoity toity little idea to you. Like I said, I've trained cops, I've seen them shoot. And frankly, every time I see a cop with a gun I think about the large number of them that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from two yards and it is a bit frightening.