Support NeoGAF

[NimbusD]

They told him what they were going to do, and they couldn't have done it unless he gave them his car.

And I'm sure that the State proved, without a reasonable doubt, that he gave them the car keys with the full intent of it being used to murder an 18 year old girl. (not even used, but to transport the murderers).

I mean life without parole? I'd hope we'd push for some sort of standard for proof to put someone away like that.

 

[Infinite]

Nope. The suspect put the lives of others in danger by getting police called for brandishing a weapon drunkenly and then reaching for it after being asked to comply and being tased.
He created this situation with his actions. No one else.

Call me crazy but the police are supposed to contain and secure the situation, correct? I'm not saying that the man was innocent, actually no one is, I'm just calling into question the decision making made by the officers here.

Like the other poster said if innocent bystanders were in immediate harm by the perp then definitely you do what you can to neutralize the threat. It's hard to tell that was the case here however. furthermore minimizing the chances of people getting hurt should be a top priority for the officers from their own weapons included.

 

[KHarvey16]

And I'm sure that the State proved, without a reasonable doubt, that he gave them the car keys with the full intent of it being used to murder an 18 year old girl. (not even used, but to transport the murderers).

I mean life without parole? I'd hope we'd push for some sort of standard for proof to put someone away like that.

Push for some standard of proof? What do you think the standard is in a criminal trial?

 

[dan2026]

not if that person was killed as the result of someone's criminal actions.

just like if the cops were in a high speed chase and they struck and killed someone while pursuing you, you would be responsible for that person's death.

That doesn't make a damn lick of sense to me.

It sound like some ends justifies the means rubbish. It would be like shooting through three innocent people to hit one gunman.

 

[old]

"Look what you made me do!" The hallmark of an abusive relationship.

Perhaps cops should have more training, like confirming what's behind their target, rather than giving them carte blanche to put their mistakes on others.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

That doesn't make a damn lick of sense to me.

It sound like some ends justifies the means rubbish. It would be like shooting through three innocent people to hit one gunman.

Did you quote the right person?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I believe that in most states, if someone dies as a result of you committing a crime, you can be charged with murder.

This.

An investigation should be done to see if the cops that fired shots should have made another choice but generally yea, that's how it goes. Like if two dudes rob a liquor store and one gets shot in the head by the store owner then the other assailant will be charged with murder

 

[KHarvey16]

"Look what you made me do!" The hallmark of an abusive relationship.

Perhaps cops should have more training, like confirming what's behind their target, rather than giving them carte blanche to put their mistakes on others.

How is the responsibility here not solely on the man going for the gun? Should the police have waited for him to shoot? They tried to talk to him and they even tried to tase him. He grabbed his gun.

 

[PflargBlarg]

Don't get why people are up in arms about this.
You can see my posts in other cop threads and I think I've always been 'against' the cops at those times. But this one, I don't see the problem at all.

 

[Cømet]

1. They dont stop people
2. This isnt moive or a game when you shoot you shoot to kill and the dont aim for head shot they aim for the body.

That seems like a pretty serious design flaw. I would've thought being hit by something small, relatively solid and moving at high speeds would.....what do you define stop as?

Doesn't have to be a movie, I'd have thought police officers with weapons would receive a high degree of training to ensure their accuracy with said weapons. There's plenty to the torso too, where are they aiming? Actually, has it been said where the girl was hit?

there is no such thing as shoot to wound or shoot to incapacitate.

Read that back to yourself and tell me that doesn't concern you.

Never shot a gun, but I'd guess that if somebody is pulling a gun on you you don't have the time to aim for knees. Those are small and seem really hard to hit.

Well, I totally agree but I didn't mean the knees specifically. Anywhere on the lower half of the body would have been fine really, anywhere not the head or heart I guess. Does depend on range from offender too, but yeah lol kneecaps are a bit small.

no rubber bullets because he potentially had a gun.

no shooting for the knee hand toe etc because it's a ridiculous shot. they aim for the torso because it's the best target.

the question is just shoot or don't shoot. i'd say it was premature.

Fair does I suppose. It's sad that there doesn't appear to be a better option than live ammo in this day and age.
Like I said above, don't mean any specific body part, just something non-lethal. But then I guess if you plan to shoot at the guy nine times anyway...

Because it's not a hollywood movie.

You aim for the easiest target, which is the torso. The part that is easiest to hit and moves around the least.

Nobody aims for the head except maybe a sniper who has a perch and a good shot.

Like I said to Heroman above, these guys are highly trained aren't they? Hitting somewhere that isn't likely to be lethal shouldn't be a difficult task.

I'm with you on the gun laws part. But, rubber bullets don't always work. If you are in a life and death situation, you don't want to rely on rubber fucking bullets.

Shooting someone in the knee is ridiculous (you don't aim for the head either). You aim for their center to increase your chances of actually hitting your target. Landing your shots with a pistol is a billion times harder than what you see in the movies.

You know how Jules thinks it's a miracle he doesn't get blown away at point blank range in Pulp Fiction? Him not getting blown away is actually more realistic than other movies.

Agreed, just a shame there's not a better option, as effective but not as lethal. Y'know, besides the tazer which didn't work.

I didn't mean the knee in particular, first part that came to mind. I get that, but isn't that what snipers and soldiers do? I mean, I'm assuming they were aiming for upper torso considering the girl caught in the the crossfire died from the shot, and considering they fired nine times was it really necessary to aim for upper torso on the guy?



It's a sad situation, but I do think it's a good reason to maybe give armed officers some more target practise. Can't hurt.

 

[Camp Lo]

Don't get why people are up in arms about this.
You can see my posts in other cop threads and I think I've always been 'against' the cops at those times. But this one, I don't see the problem at all.

There isn't a real issue here. I mean, I feel for that woman's family but fuck that guy.

 

[The Faceless Master]

"Look what you made me do!" The hallmark of an abusive relationship.

Perhaps cops should have more training, like confirming what's behind their target, rather than giving them carte blanche to put their mistakes on others.

cops vs civilians is an abusive relationship 'til death.

 

[KHarvey16]

That seems like a pretty serious design flaw. I would've thought being hit by something small, relatively solid and moving at high speeds would.....what do you define stop as?

Doesn't have to be a movie, I'd have thought police officers with weapons would receive a high degree of training to ensure their accuracy with said weapons. There's plenty to the torso too, where are they aiming? Actually, has it been said where the girl was hit?




Read that back to yourself and tell me that doesn't concern you.




Well, I totally agree but I didn't mean the knees specifically. Anywhere on the lower half of the body would have been fine really, anywhere not the head or heart I guess. Does depend on range from offender too, but yeah lol kneecaps are a bit small.




Fair does I suppose. It's sad that there doesn't appear to be a better option than live ammo in this day and age.
Like I said above, don't mean any specific body part, just something non-lethal. But then I guess if you plan to shoot at the guy nine times anyway...




Like I said to Heroman above, these guys are highly trained aren't they? Hitting somewhere that isn't likely to be lethal shouldn't be a difficult task.




Agreed, just a shame there's not a better option, as effective but not as lethal. Y'know, besides the tazer which didn't work.

I didn't mean the knee in particular, first part that came to mind. I get that, but isn't that what snipers and soldiers do? I mean, I'm assuming they were aiming for upper torso considering the girl caught in the the crossfire died from the shot, and considering they fired nine times was it really necessary to aim for upper torso on the guy?



It's a sad situation, but I do think it's a good reason to maybe give armed officers some more target practise. Can't hurt.

Just to put "non lethal" and gun shots into context, the woman who was killed was shot in the shoulder.

 

[Coins]

Uh, how is this a problem?

Pretty much.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

They managed to successfully taser him but managed to also miss gunshots? How do you miss from that proximity?

they weren't able to tazer him because his clothes were too baggy and the end-points didn't make contact with his skin.

Two things:

- Why not use rubber bullets?

- Why always aim for the upper body/head, surely the aim is to incapacitate so an arrest can be made? Why not blow their kneecap, or generally just shoot them in the knee, foot, or somewhere else that's less likely to be lethal? Surely that'd also lessen the risk of lethal collateral?

America, you really need to sort out your gun laws.

1. rubber bullets can kill if they hit in the right spot. and someone on PCP or Angel Dust could potentially shrug them off and not feel the pain.

2. no such thing as shoot to wound. and you can be hit in any spot and have it be fatal.

no, it's murder because the perp made the cops kill the innocent bystander.

I guess we're going to ignore the guy trying to get back in the bar with a handgun? the people that called 911 were lying then?

 

[railGUN]

Makes sense to me.

 

[Stet]

This one doesn't seem like a gotcha.

 

[Jazzy Network]

This is why we need a precrime division folks!

 

[Cømet]

Just to put "non lethal" and gun shots into context, the woman who was killed was shot in the shoulder.

Thanks for this.



I guess it really is just a case of being damn unlucky then.

This is why we need a precrime division folks!

Screw that! We just need those awesome concussion guns they use in that movie

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

The felony murder rule can produce all kinds of messed up outcomes. But this isn't one of them.

 

[Volimar]

This hard on that a lot of GAF has against all police at the moment is making for some real head scratchers as far as discussing these stories goes.

 

[The Faceless Master]

I guess we're going to ignore the guy trying to get back in the bar with a handgun? the people that called 911 were lying then?

i guess YOU'RE going to continue to ignore my previous posts.

 

[Malyse]

seems fair to me

keep trying to push that anti-cop narrative though, these threads are always a fun read

Don't ever talk to me again, thanks.

 

[Cagey]

Apparently it's already been dropped to second degree murder. Also specifies that he's charged with "resisting arrest with violence" which is a felony of the third degree in Florida. he was also charged with attempted armed burglary, but that charge was also dropped.

also here's a gif

I am ecstatic that this LOLFlorida.gif was pulled from that Clarence ep. I thought "need gif now" when I first saw it on TV.

 

[TheYanger]

Without going into the law, or doing a super analysis of what's happened given the facts of the case as we know them, I'm going to say that this "shoot first ask questions later" policy we have in regard to policing doesn't seem like it's always the best solution.

It just seems like there could have been another way to resolve this without someone being dead, especially considering that the gun wasn't loaded. I can't co-sign on this, even if I think that the police acted appropriately (and I'm not saying that I do).

Edit:

Before 15 people quote me, yes, I'm aware that they tried to taze him first. I don't think one attempt at a non-lethal solution shouldn't be the end all be all green light justification for putting someone in the ground.

The part where he's reportedly armed and reaching for a weapon is justification for it though.

 

[grap3fruitman]

Don't get why people are up in arms about this.

An innocent person lost her life?

 

[Chie Satonaka]

The part where he's reportedly armed and reaching for a weapon is justification for it though.

But that's not what the report says, right? The report says he was reportedly armed and was "reaching for his waistband" and that "he dropped a gun after he was shot". I'd like to see some video footage of the entire situation, but we don't have that.

Please understand that I'm not saying that what the police did here was wrong. My main issue with this story is the bystander being shot and the idea that lethal force is the only way out of these situations. I get that it's about minimising risk, but the weapon wasn't even loaded.

Despite the fact that I have no love for the police force, I'm not saying that they were wrong here.

 

[TAJ]

They told him what they were going to do, and they couldn't have done it unless he gave them his car.

The house was easily within walking distance. It would have happened anyway. And the friends mentioned beating someone up, not killing. He was also not in a state to consent to anything.
I'm amazed that even you would defend that shit.

 

[TheYanger]

An innocent person lost her life?

That's tragic, that's not something you rabble rouse over the law correctly handling. This thread is about a woman dying and the criminal who caused the shots being charged with it, which is EXACTLY what should happen. So no, there's no reason to be up in arms.

As much as there's a LOT to be spiteful towards police about, and even suspicious of some situations lately, this is the way that things should have been handled. It's easy to try and have hindsight and second guess all decisions, but at the end of the day they followed procedures pretty well (at least as far as we can tell) and when someone who you were called to arrest, specifically because they're waving a gun around, starts reaching for their weapon after resisting arrest, you put them down. It's a super unfortunate set of coincidences that leads to the end result here.

 

[JBourne]

Don't ever talk to me again, thanks.

This is what you wanted, though.

Also, I don't know how Fred will go on living. So cruel.

 

[Showaddy]

That's tragic, that's not something you rabble rouse over the law correctly handling. This thread is about a woman dying and the criminal who caused the shots being charged with it, which is EXACTLY what should happen. So no, there's no reason to be up in arms.

As much as there's a LOT to be spiteful towards police about, and even suspicious of some situations lately, this is the way that things should have been handled. It's easy to try and have hindsight and second guess all decisions, but at the end of the day they followed procedures pretty well (at least as far as we can tell) and when someone who you were called to arrest, specifically because they're waving a gun around, starts reaching for their weapon after resisting arrest, you put them down. It's a super unfortunate set of coincidences that leads to the end result here.

Must be a culture thing because I cannot understand this at all. An officer fires 9 times, wounds the suspect but kills an innocent woman and injures one of his colleagues. Surely there's got to be some kinds of charges against him for incompetence? Like kick him out of the job at least or something for this horror show of a result.

Like if this was a hostage situation the officer would be torn apart for recklessness but because the woman wasn't a hostage but just close to the suspect it's ok?

 

[B_Spooky13]

The cops are not at fault for this. They did exactly what they were supposed to and the man should have been charged for the death.

The victim died because of his actions. He entered that establishment with a gun, whether or not it was loaded has no bearing. The police tried to get him to comply and even tried a non lethal take down. But the man reached for a gun, so the cops had no choice to shoot.

The woman died during his criminal act, the police had to shoot because of him.

 

[grap3fruitman]

That's tragic, that's not something you rabble rouse over the law correctly handling. This thread is about a woman dying and the criminal who caused the shots being charged with it, which is EXACTLY what should happen. So no, there's no reason to be up in arms.

The entire situation was completely preventable. The only shots discharged were officers'. They had already opened fired before even seeing a gun. Cops going into every situation, guns blazing, and playing judge, jury and executioner before assessing the situation while taking innocent lives is the correct way to "handle" these types of situations? Am I mistaken for thinking there's something wrong with this picture?

 

[TheYanger]

Must be a culture thing because I cannot understand this at all. An officer fires 9 times, wounds the suspect but kills an innocent woman and injures one of his colleagues. Surely there's got to be some kinds of charges against him for incompetence? Like kick him out of the job at least or something for this horror show of a result.

Why? It's not incompetence, the onus is on the criminal not to cause the police to have to fire on them in the first place, precisely because this kind of thing CAN happen. I mean, they fired at the guy and a bullet went INSIDE a building, and hit a woman in a shoulder. A bullet ricocheted and hit his partner. these people were not standing behind the perp and he just blasted away without a care. This is the nature of bullets and what can happen and is exactly why this law exists, because this is like the butterfly effect of crimes. Punishing the police in situations like this only discourages them from actively doing their jobs.

The entire situation was completely preventable. The only shots discharged were officers'. They had already opened fired before even seeing a gun. Cops going into every situation, guns blazing, and playing judge, jury and executioner before assessing the situation while taking innocent lives is the correct way to "handle" these types of situations? Am I mistaken for thinking there's something wrong with this picture?

You are very mistaken. Guns blazing? Judge jury and executioner? what kind of fucking narrative are you playing out in your head? A guy is called to be waving a gun around outside, resists arrest, resists tazing, AND REACHES FOR A FUCKING GUN. Yes, you put that guy down. You don't wait for criminals to start firing before you end things, that's the surest way for someone to get hurt. This? A very unfortunate freak occurance, and it only happened because the suspect did everything absolutely wrong.

Shit, something like this happens in a relative instant, a cop in this situation is simply thinking "This guy isn't going down and he's reaching for a gun, there are innocent people around, I need to stop this" and fires. It's not like he pulled out an AK-47 and riddled the neighborhood with bullets. Everything else is a unlikely and sad result of this guy deciding to run around with a gun, get the police called, and resisting arrest while reaching for said gun. What else is there to say?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Sure, I could understand if the guy was waving a gun around or was in the act of harming someone, but this is unjustified. All that's cited is the old, "he was reaching for his waistband!" line that's used every time to justify a police officer's deadly shooting.

There needs to be stricter protocols in place for when to use deadly force. Right now it's a fucking free for all, ESPECIALLY since police can pretty much do whatever, whenever and not be held responsible (and now in this case, actually put blame on someone else).

Pretty sure the original call was regarding someone having a gun and waiving it around. In a bar.

 

[Showaddy]

Why? It's not incompetence, the onus is on the criminal not to cause the police to have to fire on them in the first place, precisely because this kind of thing CAN happen. I mean, they fired at the guy and a bullet went INSIDE a building, and hit a woman in a shoulder. A bullet ricocheted and hit his partner. these people were not standing behind the perp and he just blasted away without a care. This is the nature of bullets and what can happen and is exactly why this law exists, because this is like the butterfly effect of crimes. Punishing the police in situations like this only discourages them from actively doing their jobs.

I think I'd be more scared of the cops showing up and blowing me away than the actual criminal if I was the victim of an armed robbery in the US. Really can't grasp how you just unload into a building knowing full well there's innocents inside.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

That's tragic, that's not something you rabble rouse over the law correctly handling. This thread is about a woman dying and the criminal who caused the shots being charged with it, which is EXACTLY what should happen. So no, there's no reason to be up in arms.

As much as there's a LOT to be spiteful towards police about, and even suspicious of some situations lately, this is the way that things should have been handled. It's easy to try and have hindsight and second guess all decisions, but at the end of the day they followed procedures pretty well (at least as far as we can tell) and when someone who you were called to arrest, specifically because they're waving a gun around, starts reaching for their weapon after resisting arrest, you put them down. It's a super unfortunate set of coincidences that leads to the end result here.

I'm incredulous that a cop murdering an innocent can be called the "law correctly handling" a situation. I don't think the cop should be castigated for following procedure however I do think the procedure should be looked at as 9 rounds seems pretty excessive when there was a 20 year old vet on the scene who fired none. That's assuming the polices version of events is accurate.

 

[Friggz]

what are gun laws like in FL anyway?

 

[KHarvey16]

The house was easily within walking distance. It would have happened anyway. And the friends mentioned beating someone up, not killing. He was also not in a state to consent to anything.
I'm amazed that even you would defend that shit.

He was a mile and a half away. The prosecution's case was that without the car the robbery and murder never occur, and the jury was convinced of this. And to correct you, his friends mentioned committing a robbery, in which they may have to beat the person up. If he were told they were going to beat someone up, and that person ended up dead, that would make him more culpable, not less.

 

[TheYanger]

I think I'd be more scared of the cops showing up and blowing me away than the actual criminal if I was the victim of an armed robbery in the US. Really can't grasp how you just unload into a building knowing full well there's innocents inside.

I don't even know what to say to this comment. You seem to seriously think some cop showed up, aimed at a bar with a guy right in front of it, and just blasted away. Clearly the American citizenry runs around in fear of our police officers 24-7 because they just shoot anyone and everyone at any given moment.

I'm incredulous that a cop murdering an innocent can be called the "law correctly handling" a situation. I don't think the cop should be castigated for following procedure however I do think the procedure should be looked at as 9 rounds seems pretty excessive when there was a 20 year old vet on the scene who fired none. That's assuming the polices version of events is accurate.

It is not by definition murder. The number of rounds is almost irrelevent - you're putting bullets into the guy until he no longer poses a threat. If the guy went down after one it was excessive, if he was standing until the 9th shot, that's the correct number of times to load into him.

 

[Loofy]

they weren't able to tazer him because his clothes were too baggy and the end-points didn't make contact with his skin.

They still hit him. Hes asking how 1 tazer shot turned into 9 gunshots. Do police turn into retards once they hold a gun?

 

[KHarvey16]

They still hit him. Hes asking how 1 tazer shot turned into gun 9 shots. Do police turn into retards once they hold a gun?

It turned into gun shots when he went for his gun.

 

[Zoe]

And you only get one chance with a taser charge.

 

[BruiserBear]

This is another one of those cases where I just have to wonder if 9 shots were really the only option the officer had. Horrible to hear a young woman died as a result of the officer firing off like that in a public place.

It turned into gun shots when he went for his gun.

Of course we have to assume that absolutely happened, and even if it did, the officer had absolutely no choice but to fire 9 times?

 

[Javaman]

I thought that was pretty standard. I remember a video where a storeclerk fired back while being robbed by two guys killing one. The survivor was charged with the death.

 

[KHarvey16]

This is another one of those cases where I just have to wonder if 9 shots were really the only option the officer had. Horrible to hear a young woman died as a result of the officer firing off like that in a public place.



Of course we have to assume that absolutely happened, and even if it did, that means the officer had absolutely no choice but to fire 9 times.

There seems to be a few witnesses (and video is mentioned in an earlier article), and the guy even said in the interview afterwards that he would have used the gun to defend himself and shoot the police(despite it being unloaded, mind you) if, in his words, the martial arts move he had planned didn't work. The officer kept firing until he was sure the target was incapacitated. Of the 9 shots he hit him 7 times. In that kind of situation with a handgun you're unlikely to get better accuracy from anyone.

 

[Heroman]

That seems like a pretty serious design flaw. I would've thought being hit by something small, relatively solid and moving at high speeds would.....what do you define stop as?

Doesn't have to be a movie, I'd have thought police officers with weapons would receive a high degree of training to ensure their accuracy with said weapons. There's plenty to the torso too, where are they aiming? Actually, has it been said where the girl was hit?
Read that back to yourself and tell me that doesn't concern you.

Well, I totally agree but I didn't mean the knees specifically. Anywhere on the lower half of the body would have been fine really, anywhere not the head or heart I guess. Does depend on range from offender too, but yeah lol kneecaps are a bit small.
Fair does I suppose. It's sad that there doesn't appear to be a better option than live ammo in this day and age.
Like I said above, don't mean any specific body part, just something non-lethal. But then I guess if you plan to shoot at the guy nine times anyway..
Like I said to Heroman above, these guys are highly trained aren't they? Hitting somewhere that isn't likely to be lethal shouldn't be a difficult task.

Agreed, just a shame there's not a better option, as effective but not as lethal. Y'know, besides the tazer which didn't work.I didn't mean the knee in particular, first part that came to mind. I get that, but isn't that what snipers and soldiers do? I mean, I'm assuming they were aiming for upper torso considering the girl caught in the the crossfire died from the shot, and considering they fired nine times was it really necessary to aim for upper torso on the guy?
It's a sad situation, but I do think it's a good reason to maybe give armed officers some more target practise. Can't hurt.

You never shot a pistol before It is very hard to get precise shot. It take time and effort in order to be very precise . When some is about to use a gun or deadly object you do have the time to line up a shot. That why you shoot at the center of mass, even spiner aim there. Also gun are dealy forces. If you shoot them in the nee there is a good chance of them deiding or firing back.

 

[not psycho]

Of course we have to assume that absolutely happened

If it didn't that would be his defense; it would be nice to have video. Going by the article alone, it looks like the police never saw the gun before firing, and it would be plausible that they made a mistake and fired prematurely. Then again, is he denying it?

 

[TheJLC]

Nothing wrong with this. Guy committed a crime that resulted in the death of an innocent person and should be charged accordingly. It doesn't matter if the cops, a stranger, or the person committing the crime did the killing.

If your illegal actions put at risk the lives of anyone then you need to be charged for your action and for anything that occurs during your action. It's simple really.

 

[Malyse]

Because he wasn't a direct threat at that time.



I know people will dismiss this, but the elapsed time is something to consider as the main factor for why the situation escalated the way it did. If the guy reached for his gun right after they tried to taze him, then what else could they do? I agree, if it was a significant amount of time for this kind of situation (1-2 minutes) then, yeah, quickly go for another non-lethal attempt. Otherwise, there isn't a stop clock to let you know how much time you have to consider options.

That seems like a pretty serious design flaw. I would've thought being hit by something small, relatively solid and moving at high speeds would.....what do you define stop as?

Doesn't have to be a movie, I'd have thought police officers with weapons would receive a high degree of training to ensure their accuracy with said weapons. There's plenty to the torso too, where are they aiming? Actually, has it been said where the girl was hit?




Read that back to yourself and tell me that doesn't concern you.




Well, I totally agree but I didn't mean the knees specifically. Anywhere on the lower half of the body would have been fine really, anywhere not the head or heart I guess. Does depend on range from offender too, but yeah lol kneecaps are a bit small.




Fair does I suppose. It's sad that there doesn't appear to be a better option than live ammo in this day and age.
Like I said above, don't mean any specific body part, just something non-lethal. But then I guess if you plan to shoot at the guy nine times anyway...




Like I said to Heroman above, these guys are highly trained aren't they? Hitting somewhere that isn't likely to be lethal shouldn't be a difficult task.




Agreed, just a shame there's not a better option, as effective but not as lethal. Y'know, besides the tazer which didn't work.

I didn't mean the knee in particular, first part that came to mind. I get that, but isn't that what snipers and soldiers do? I mean, I'm assuming they were aiming for upper torso considering the girl caught in the the crossfire died from the shot, and considering they fired nine times was it really necessary to aim for upper torso on the guy?



It's a sad situation, but I do think it's a good reason to maybe give armed officers some more target practise. Can't hurt.

The cops are not at fault for this. They did exactly what they were supposed to and the man should have been charged for the death.

The victim died because of his actions. He entered that establishment with a gun, whether or not it was loaded has no bearing. The police tried to get him to comply and even tried a non lethal take down. But the man reached for a gun, so the cops had no choice to shoot.

The woman died during his criminal act, the police had to shoot because of him.

Without going into the law, or doing a super analysis of what's happened given the facts of the case as we know them, I'm going to say that this "shoot first ask questions later" policy we have in regard to policing doesn't seem like it's always the best solution.

It just seems like there could have been another way to resolve this without someone being dead, especially considering that the gun wasn't loaded. I can't co-sign on this, even if I think that the police acted appropriately (and I'm not saying that I do).

Edit:

Before 15 people quote me, yes, I'm aware that they tried to taze him first. I don't think one attempt at a non-lethal solution shouldn't be the end all be all green light justification for putting someone in the ground.

To be clear, y'all are saying nonlethal when you should be saying less lethal. Rubber bullets and tazers can and have killed people before. In fact, I'm kinda shocked that (considering the construction) rubber bullets don't kill more. IIRC Rubber bullets are just regular bullets with the head replaced with rubber tip. And you can google tazer kills; there's plenty of them.

And yes, it's extremely difficult to shoot to wound. You aim for center mass every time.