The head is not the largest body mass. The question is not "was the officer prepared to use the gun" but "should the gun have been used in the first place, and in the way that it was." I don't care if he was 100% prepared to use it if it was an unlawful use.My husband was a cop for 20 years, and he was always told that you never pick up your gun unless you are prepared to use it. Cops are trained to shoot at the largest body mass, which is the torso. You can't aim to shoot smaller masses, because when you are in a situation to have to fire upon a suspect, you are under an extreme amount of stress. Most shootings are instantaneous. It's not like you have 5 minutes to stand there and try to determine the best place to shoot. When you are in that kind of situation, you do what you are trained to do.
The evidence at this point does not support either narrative. You are assuming the narrative given by the police officer is true, and then twisting the autopsy results to match that narrative when they really shed no light either way.I'm making no assumptions, I'm just saying what narrative the evidence supports.
Also, here is a summary of the LAPDs policy on lethal force. I'm guessing that the po po in Missouri probably have a similar one:
LAPD officers’ use of force is concise, consistent with prevailing law, and based on best police practices. Officers are permitted to use force that is objectively reasonable to defend themselves or others, to effect an arrest or detention, and/or to prevent escape or overcome resistance,” Izen said. “Officers are taught to evaluate a suspect’s behavior, the severity of the crime a suspect is committing or about to commit, and whether it is reasonable to conclude that the suspect’s behavior might cause serious injury to an officer or another person.
“If a suspect’s behavior is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, an officer can, by law and under LAPD policy, use deadly force,” Izen added. “In using deadly force, officers can fire their weapons only to stop deadly threats to keep themselves and the public safe, and can continue to fire until the threat has ended.”
The autopsy did not determine that the officer was being charged. And as the doctor performing it noted:
"The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body."
"“In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,’ ” said Dr. Baden"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/u...-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0
If you teach someone something, that isn't encouraging it? Really? Sounds like doublespeak to me.Did you read any of the links? And not encouraged, but taught.
However, there is a germ of a solution there. Advertise to the public daily that police are trained to shoot for the berries. Most suspects will surrender immediately. A guy might take the chance with possibility of losing his life, but not his beanie weenies.
And I never said shooting to wound is taught. I said shooting to kill (which the officer did) and shooting 6 times is generally not acceptable. Since there has been no hard evidence that this was a special case where such force was necessary, it is only fair to say the officer likely acted improperly.
And I never said shooting to wound is taught. I said shooting to kill (which the officer did) and shooting 6 times is generally not acceptable. Since there has been no hard evidence that this was a special case where such force was necessary, it is only fair to say the officer likely acted improperly.
We should listen to them, but no we should not draw any conclusions from them. All we know is that this guy was shot 6 times. We also know that shooting somebody that many times is unusual and generally a questionable if not unlawful use of force.So by that token, then, we shouldn't listen to those who are giving any statements. I mean, by what you are saying, of course. It's not a fair assumption to make to say that the officer wasn't rushed, either. :shrug:
A doctor who deals specifically with this sort of situation involving police. A doctor who files reports and understands the legal framework surrounding them and his job. And actually, the doctor is not being paid by the victims family--he is not charging anyone anything in this case.Never said that he wasn't. But either way, the man is a doctor. He cannot, should not, say that the officer shouldn't have fired upon the suspect as many times as he did, because he is simply a doctor, and nothing more. A paid doctor - paid for by the victim's family. He's not even LEO.
If you teach someone something, that isn't encouraging it? Really? Sounds like doublespeak to me.
No, you were answering me, and I responded that 6 bullets itself is overkill regardless of the age of the person shot. You then said "if the suspect continues to charge, the officer will continue to shoot." Your assumption is that the officer was being charged. I pointed out that we do not know that to be true, and the autopsy does not verify that claim either.Who said it did?
I was answering another poster that said 6 bullets was overkill in this situation because the suspect was 18 years old.
We should listen to them, but no we should not draw any conclusions from them. All we know is that this guy was shot 6 times. We also know that shooting somebody that many times is unusual and generally a questionable if not unlawful use of force.
A doctor who deals specifically with this sort of situation involving police. A doctor who files reports and understands the legal framework surrounding them and his job. And actually, the doctor is not being paid by the victims family--he is not charging anyone anything in this case.
No, you were answering me, and I responded that 6 bullets itself is overkill regardless of the age of the person shot. You then said "if the suspect continues to charge, the officer will continue to shoot." Your assumption is that the officer was being charged. I pointed out that we do not know that to be true, and the autopsy does not verify that claim either.
The evidence at this point does not support either narrative. You are assuming the narrative given by the police officer is true, and then twisting the autopsy results to match that narrative when they really shed no light either way.
We should listen to them, but no we should not draw any conclusions from them. All we know is that this guy was shot 6 times. We also know that shooting somebody that many times is unusual and generally a questionable if not unlawful use of force.
A doctor who deals specifically with this sort of situation involving police. A doctor who files reports and understands the legal framework surrounding them and his job. And actually, the doctor is not being paid by the victims family--he is not charging anyone anything in this case.
No I didn't. Here was what you first responded to that I said "The shooting someone 6 times is the problem, not the age." I said shooting someone 6 times is the problem. In the post you just quoted, I gave the reason for my original claim--"shooting someone 6 times is generally unacceptable."?? You just backpeddled everywhere.
Of course we all know that his use of force still needs to be proven. That's your only comment? The obvious?
What a waste of time.
Do you know anything about law enforcement at all? I mean, other than what you have seen on TV?
Semantics. He is here at the request of the family. Whether or not he is being paid is irrelevant.
Look how cute you are trotting out the race card...
:lamo
No I'm not. I guarantee the amount of bullets fired will be considered in determining whether or not the actions of the officer were justified. The first shot may have been. Even the second. But 6? That is much shakier ground.You're wrong. There is nothing generally unacceptable about shooting a suspect 6 times. If a police officer has judged it to be a deadly force situation, six times is not extreme at all. The evidence that the officer judged this to be a deadly force situation is that the officer chose to deploy his weapon and commence firing. Whether that assessment was justified is what is at issue.
We should listen to them, but no we should not draw any conclusions from them. All we know is that this guy was shot 6 times. We also know that shooting somebody that many times is unusual and generally a questionable if not unlawful use of force.
No, in this case the doctor literally said he is not charging anyone payment. He is did the autopsy for free. Go back and actually read the NYT article.Entirely wrong on that last.
That last has a probability that approaches zero. The court will never accept it otherwise. You have to be working for someone, the defendant, the plaintiff, the state.
No I'm not. I guarantee the amount of bullets fired will be considered in determining whether or not the actions of the officer were justified. The first shot may have been. Even the second. But 6? That is much shakier ground.
Thanks. With folks like you around, I always keep it handy.
PS I can always depend on the Far Right to play the 'race card' race card. Good to know that there are some constants left in this ever-changing world.
It is an assumption the officer is telling the truth and all the other witnesses are lying. Perhaps you are feeble minded enough to believe everything the government says. Enjoy your 1983 mindset, but some of us are not as easily spoon-fed.That is what the officer has said so it is not an assumption.
No I'm not. I guarantee the amount of bullets fired will be considered in determining whether or not the actions of the officer were justified. The first shot may have been. Even the second. But 6? That is much shakier ground.
You commented that you are just saying what narrative the evidence support. Now you are backpeddling and saying "actually I meant what narratives the evidence supports." It is clear that you are biased to support the police, and rather than say right off the bat the evidence could support either scenario, you had to be nudged to finally admitting that. Since I agree with the above post (that the evidence does not prove one narrative any truer than the other) there is no reason to continue this discussion.No I'm just saying it supports the police narrative. As I said somewhere else, the evidence supports more than one narrative and includes the police narrative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?