Kansas Crimson

I just don’t understand why more than one thing can’t be true

1. It’s true that the victim in this shooting was the aggressor.

2. It’s true that the victim was trying to cause harm (maybe kill, we don’t know intent) another human

3. It’s true that the police officer likely acted accordingly and justifiably (I don’t know their policies) by firing his weapon.

4. It’s true that this situation could have ended without the loss of a life.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:40 am Yes, ideally that.
But the adrenaline and sudden need to take action in the moment is a factor even for the well trained.
( jeep could speak to this best )

A huge part of repetitive live fire training is reducing, as much as possible, the affects of adrenaline in response. It is basic fight/flight response for someone inexperienced to fire until empty, and certainly most of the rounds that they are throwing around are strays.

I think it relates somewhat to Marines vs. Army. Army throws a volume of lead at the enemy, where a Marine is usual single firing, or perhaps a 3 burst. They both are firing for a common goal, but the Marine is simply better trained and is more efficient with their rounds.

Once again, it speaks to the level of training that most police get, especially at the local or county level. (I have the scars to prove it).

For the vast majority of police training, their firearms training consists of shooting at paper targets and at their own pace...with no excessive stimulus.

I have been involved in several live fire incidents in real time. It is unusual that a federal officer kills someone in these situations. Not unheard of, but certainly not common.

Cascadia wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:29 am I just don’t understand why more than one thing can’t be true

1. It’s true that the victim in this shooting was the aggressor.

2. It’s true that the victim was trying to cause harm (maybe kill, we don’t know intent) another human

3. It’s true that the police officer likely acted accordingly and justifiably (I don’t know their policies) by firing his weapon.

4. It’s true that this situation could have ended without the loss of a life.

I believe all of this to be true.


I would add where we are going to disagree. When the situation is that a person is in the middle of attempting to cause death or great bodily harm, then that person can absolutely expect a consequence of lethal force to be used against him or her. That's, generally, the legal standard, and I do think it is the right and good public policy.

If you shoot a game animal out of season , even if a situation of life or death Self defense, the wildlife officer is gonna expect you to have fired a warning shot, or you’re prob facing poaching charges.

But not when it’s a black teenager, and not when it’s a cop otherwise sworn to maintain peace.

And yes my phone autocorrects to capitalize Self

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:25 am I would like to hear jeeps thoughts. He knows more about it than any of us

^^^^^^

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:49 am If you shoot a game animal out of season , even if a situation of life or death Self defense, the wildlife officer is gonna expect you to have fired a warning shot, or you’re prob facing poaching charges.

But not when it’s a black teenager, and not when it’s a cop otherwise sworn to maintain peace.

Game don't speak and understand human language. You can't yell at a bison to stop or to drop its horns.

Your analogy doesn't work here.

Cops have to ID themselves, tell the person to stop, etc.

So you can say with confidence that’s wouldn’t have mattered and no one would have relented if the cop fired a warning shot?

Game recognize game.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:49 am If you shoot a game animal out of season , even if a situation of life or death Self defense, the wildlife officer is gonna expect you to have fired a warning shot, or you’re prob facing poaching charges.

But not when it’s a black teenager, and not when it’s a cop otherwise sworn to maintain peace.

Wut.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:02 pm So you can say with confidence that’s wouldn’t have mattered and no one would have relented if the cop fired a warning shot?

It isn't the wild west. A bullet travels until it finds something to hit.

Warning shots are not a thing.

Imagine if this game animal ( please don't make the awful leap in the analogy, since it's your analogy ) was attacking someone.

You shoot that animal, you aren't facing poaching charges.
In fact, you're likely written up as a hero.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:02 pm So you can say with confidence that’s wouldn’t have mattered and no one would have relented if the cop fired a warning shot?

I can say with confidence that your analogy is a poor one.

If a cop had tasered, or just pepper sprayed the whole scene, or any other nonlethal option, couldn’t it have had the potential to deescalate without anyone actually dying?

In this specific instance, it’ll prob be justified under current laws and policies.

But at the same time, it’s still just hard to wrap my head around the idea that the cop was sooo concerned about protecting life that he went to lethal force within seconds.

in the macro, we just need to get to get away from so many cops killing so many people of color. But go figure how many are how quick to justify a cop shooting a teenager in the back.

Overlander wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:04 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:02 pm So you can say with confidence that’s wouldn’t have mattered and no one would have relented if the cop fired a warning shot?

It isn't the wild west. A bullet travels until it finds something to hit.

Warning shots are not a thing.

Ok so do you think that cop had any regard for one of his bullets ending up somewhere he didn’t intend it?

How could he be sure he wasn’t gonna hit the very people he was trying to protect?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:09 pm

Overlander wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:04 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:02 pm So you can say with confidence that’s wouldn’t have mattered and no one would have relented if the cop fired a warning shot?

It isn't the wild west. A bullet travels until it finds something to hit.

Warning shots are not a thing.

Ok so do you think that cop had any regard for one of his bullets ending up somewhere he didn’t intend it?

How could he be sure he wasn’t gonna hit the very people he was trying to protect?

I have no idea what that cop was thinking. Nor do you.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:08 pm in the macro, we just need to get to get away from so many cops killing so many people of color. But go figure how many are how quick to justify a cop shooting a teenager in the back.

Go figure?
Ous is the king of blanket statements.
There is no gray.

Overlander wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:10 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:09 pm

Overlander wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:04 pm

It isn't the wild west. A bullet travels until it finds something to hit.

Warning shots are not a thing.

Ok so do you think that cop had any regard for one of his bullets ending up somewhere he didn’t intend it?

How could he be sure he wasn’t gonna hit the very people he was trying to protect?

I have no idea what that cop was thinking. Nor do you.

I saw a girl possibly pinned up against a car, with no clear escape, with another swinging a knife.
Seconds could have gone by where no one did anything and the pinned girl could have been dead.

In that scenario, lethal force is acceptable.

I’m just upset. I dunno how it’s not more upsetting to more people. Just be glad you’re not the ones who have to bury your teenage daughter.