sean bell

[Mercor]

I am thinking if I am a cop and i have a stop. The subject does not listen to me and starts acting on his own, talking back, getting agressive. Unable to even answer the simplest questions.

I am thinking is he wanted, has he commited other crimes, when most people follow orders and provide the simple information without incident , why is this gentleman fighting, What is his motive? Is he trying to find a way to hurt me?

His hands dissappear. They go under a dashboard. he then raises his hand up. I tell a half dozen times to put his hands straight out of him on the dashboard.

He doesn't, instead he snakes his hand along side his body and starts to raise it towards me. I draw my gun and tell him one more time to put his hands straight out on the dashboard.

Its dark, theres a crowd of people around us, friendly or not I don't know.

Do you gamble? its 50/50 chance. Who shoots who? Do I give him the benefit of the doubt?

If I shoot 2 or 3 rounds, in 5 more seconds I can shoot 50, If I have decided to shoot do I be "nice" and shoot 2 or 3 and hope it works.

Or do I commit and shoot to remove the threat?

 

[stu]

Quote from DerekD:

..... minimize ricochet and penetration of buildings.

Lots of bystanders. Notice how you never hear of bystanders getting shot?

Quote from kut2k2:

50 shots for three [unarmed] targets

Forgive my edits and emphasis, but that does not add up DD. You do not have to be Einstein to understand more shots do not minimize anything, but only increase the chances of bystanders getting hit

kut2k2 has a point.

"People who are required to carry guns full-time as part of their jobs should also be required to demonstrate well-above-minimum proficiency in their shooting ability"
Agreed.

I presume that is always the case - that they are properly trained for such circumstances - otherwise are you really going to feel safe with these cops discharging dozens of overkill bullets every time some idiot does not respond sensibly to an officer’s instruction!?

 

[DerekD]

Quote from stu:

Forgive my edits and emphasis, but that does not add up DD. You do not have to be Einstein to understand more shots do not minimize anything, but only increase the chances of bystanders getting hit

kut2k2 has a point.

"People who are required to carry guns full-time as part of their jobs should also be required to demonstrate well-above-minimum proficiency in their shooting ability"
Agreed.

I presume that is always the case - that they are properly trained for such circumstances - otherwise are you really going to feel safe with these cops discharging dozens of overkill bullets every time some idiot does not respond sensibly to an officer’s instruction!?

To a civilian it probably wouldn't make sense. However, it's quite sensible. The officers are not firing randomly. The maintain the tactical edge which allows the to properly direct their shots.

In all the high or average round discharge cases in NYC, no bystander was ever injured or killed. The target was always neutralized.

What's more, here are some excepts from NYC latest study of NYC police department firearm discharges:

¶The number of bullets fired by officers dropped to 540 in 2006 from 1,292 in 1996 — the first year that the city’s housing, transit and regular patrol forces were merged — with a few years of even lower numbers in between. Police officers opened fire 60 times at people in 2006, down from 147 in 1996.

¶The police fatally shot 13 people in 2006, compared with 30 people a decade before.

¶In 77 percent of all shootings since 1998 when civilians were the targets, police officers were not fired upon, although in some of those cases, the suspects were acting violently: displaying a gun or pointing it at officers, firing at civilians, stabbing or beating someone or hitting officers with autos, the police said. No one fired at officers in two notable cases — the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo and the 2006 shooting of Sean Bell.

¶In such shootings, the total number of shots fired in each situation (per officer) edged up to 4.7 in 2006. However, the figure is skewed by the 50 shots fired in the Bell case. Excluding that case, the average would be 3.6 shots.

¶The average number of bullets fired by each officer involved in a shooting remained about the same over those 11 years even with a switch to guns that hold more bullets — as did officers’ accuracy, roughly 34 percent.