33 Shots Fired?

[Guest]

A man in South Los Angeles was fatally shot by police after firing his pistol in the air a few times and then refusing to drop his gun. The record shows that police fired 33 shots at the man - even after he was wounded and laying on the ground.

Police say he was still a danger since he had his gun in his hand. Police did not know he was out of bullets. Police said he was walking toward a gas station where people were pumping gas and he was a danger to them.

Possibly excessive force, possibly justified shooting.

My real question is weren't the police endangering the people at the gas station and others by shooting 33 times? The report does not say how many shots hit the target and how many were wild shots that could have hit bystanders. Reprimand the cops and have them take remedial stress shooting courses at the very least.

[Guest]

The police officers shooting so many wild shots in a stressful situation is disturbing. If currently trained police will fire all those wild shots, just think what danger we, in The Villages, are in with the drugstore cowboys totin' their pistols wherever they go.

With the exception of a few retired LEO's, I really would worry about any shooting situation with these retired guys spraying bullets indiscriminately in a stressful situation.

[Guest]

Neglected in the dialogue is the fact that these shots came from TWO officers only. It is also not unusual for an officer to fire 16-7 rounds in that situation.

The "situation", by the way, was a man who had fired the weapon several different times, and that he had ammo with him for reloading.

Also missing from the posted dialogue was the fact that the deceased had discharged his gun several times.......completely ignored commands to drop his weapon and was crossing the street into the area that had many many "potential victims".

Just thought it might be important to know that also.

[Guest]

Reading only what is reported here on the subject, I will answer the question with my opinion. Yes, it was a justified shooting. You asked and I answered. Oh, and by the way I have jury duty coming up soon.

To answer that lame question regarding "endangering" by standers. What would you have them do, risk their lives and the civilians by arm wrestling the perpetrator? With liberals like we have on here, why would anyone want to be a COP to protect these undeserving wastes of oxygen? You would rather see a police funeral, I suppose.

[Guest]

The police officers shooting so many wild shots in a stressful situation is disturbing. If currently trained police will fire all those wild shots, just think what danger we, in The Villages, are in with the drugstore cowboys totin' their pistols wherever they go.

With the exception of a few retired LEO's, I really would worry about any shooting situation with these retired guys spraying bullets indiscriminately in a stressful situation.

Wow, perhaps you should lock yourself in your home, so you won't get hit by a stray "bullet" when these old folks go crazy and start "spraying bullets indiscriminately." Obviously, you must think that we in the villages have your level of common sense and would be irresponsible with the handling of our weapons. By the way, how many "bullets" have you had to dodge in the last week, month or year or since you moved to the villages? After all, there are hundreds of CCW holders packing at any given moment in the villages.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

"If you are free to be a liberal -- thank a man with a gun!

Guns only have two enemies: rust and Liberals

[Guest]

A man in South Los Angeles was fatally shot by police after firing his pistol in the air a few times and then refusing to drop his gun. The record shows that police fired 33 shots at the man - even after he was wounded and laying on the ground.

Police say he was still a danger since he had his gun in his hand. Police did not know he was out of bullets. Police said he was walking toward a gas station where people were pumping gas and he was a danger to them.

Possibly excessive force, possibly justified shooting.

My real question is weren't the police endangering the people at the gas station and others by shooting 33 times? The report does not say how many shots hit the target and how many were wild shots that could have hit bystanders. Reprimand the cops and have them take remedial stress shooting courses at the very least.

The police officers shooting so many wild shots in a stressful situation is disturbing. If currently trained police will fire all those wild shots, just think what danger we, in The Villages, are in with the drugstore cowboys totin' their pistols wherever they go.

With the exception of a few retired LEO's, I really would worry about any shooting situation with these retired guys spraying bullets indiscriminately in a stressful situation.

Neglected in the dialogue is the fact that these shots came from TWO officers only. It is also not unusual for an officer to fire 16-7 rounds in that situation.

The "situation", by the way, was a man who had fired the weapon several different times, and that he had ammo with him for reloading.

Also missing from the posted dialogue was the fact that the deceased had discharged his gun several times.......completely ignored commands to drop his weapon and was crossing the street into the area that had many many "potential victims".

Just thought it might be important to know that also.

All I can say is for the arm chair quarter backs who have no concept what so ever of what constitutes a threatening situation or not....you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.

You were not there.
You have NO IDEA what the situation was.
You know what some reporter wrote/said....who was not there either.

How about waiting for more about the real situation before the running off at the mout of what is justified or not from the no gun or violence experience of the uninformed peanut gallery!

[Guest]

Please remember a hand gun depending on caliber and barrel length really is not very accurate past say 100 to 150 feet. Also the velocity decreases rapidly and at a relatively short range will become harmless. Yes I guess it is still lethal at a certain distance. It all depends on the situation.

[Guest]

Neglected in the dialogue is the fact that these shots came from TWO officers only. It is also not unusual for an officer to fire 16-7 rounds in that situation.

The "situation", by the way, was a man who had fired the weapon several different times, and that he had ammo with him for reloading.

Also missing from the posted dialogue was the fact that the deceased had discharged his gun several times.......completely ignored commands to drop his weapon and was crossing the street into the area that had many many "potential victims".

Just thought it might be important to know that also.

Go back to the OP and you will see it stated the man had fired his gun in the air. That was not ignored. It mentioned he failed to drop his gun when ordered to do so. It was mentioned he was headed toward a gas station where people were pumping gas. All those were mentioned.

[Guest]

All I can say is for the arm chair quarter backs who have no concept what so ever of what constitutes a threatening situation or not....you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.

You were not there.
You have NO IDEA what the situation was.
You know what some reporter wrote/said....who was not there either.

How about waiting for more about the real situation before the running off at the mout of what is justified or not from the no gun or violence experience of the uninformed peanut gallery!

I would like an opinion of an expert to say that the two policemen were justified in firing so many shots in an area where there were bystanders - and it certainly does not take 33 shots to render the perp harmless, does it?

Very similar to the other recent shooting where the cop fired 16 shots into the perp at point blank range who was already wounded on the ground.

[Guest]

I would like an opinion of an expert to say that the two policemen were justified in firing so many shots in an area where there were bystanders - and it certainly does not take 33 shots to render the perp harmless, does it?

Very similar to the other recent shooting where the cop fired 16 shots into the perp at point blank range who was already wounded on the ground.

Darn cops....shooting a man who had fired and was waving his gun while running toward citizens, ignoring all warnings.

For this a thread on how many shots ?

As many as it took is the correct answer.

I suppose this thread or one questioning their judgement after killing innocent people not armed, or it could have been a thread about this guy having a gun. Think it was legal ?

No discussion on bombing of children and their gassing, but do take the time to question these officers.

[Guest]

I wonder how many people on here has shot a hand gun and tried to hit a target. When adrenaline is flowing it gets harder. Try it. Go to a gun range.

[Guest]

I wonder how many people on here has shot a hand gun and tried to hit a target. When adrenaline is flowing it gets harder. Try it. Go to a gun range.

From the posts on here, one would surmise that the posters not only could do what you suggest, but be calm while out at night protecting the communities, surrounded by people who have the ILLEGAL guns so often written about.

Posters on here could handle that, the obscene shouting at them, the constant challenging the authority, the pressure to make split decisions and, in today's age, have it recorded.

Posters on here will tell you how righteous they are, how there is no reason for this officer to shot even two rounds. This ascertained by our poster sitting on his ass reading about something that happened 3000 miles away.

Oh to be so blessed as they are.

[Guest]

From the posts on here, one would surmise that the posters not only could do what you suggest, but be calm while out at night protecting the communities, surrounded by people who have the ILLEGAL guns so often written about.

Posters on here could handle that, the obscene shouting at them, the constant challenging the authority, the pressure to make split decisions and, in today's age, have it recorded.

Posters on here will tell you how righteous they are, how there is no reason for this officer to shot even two rounds. This ascertained by our poster sitting on his ass reading about something that happened 3000 miles away.

Oh to be so blessed as they are.

BINGO!

People who talk with autority without knowing the first damn thing about what they are talking about.

[Guest]

I would like an opinion of an expert to say that the two policemen were justified in firing so many shots in an area where there were bystanders - and it certainly does not take 33 shots to render the perp harmless, does it?

Very similar to the other recent shooting where the cop fired 16 shots into the perp at point blank range who was already wounded on the ground.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are suggesting that they continued to shoot him after he went down. I did not see any indication of that yet. You also seem to think that shooting a gun is like Hollywood portrays it, kind of like the good guy shooting the bad guy's gun out of his hand.

I could go on and on about how you are ignorant and shouldn't even be making such idiotic comments, but I am afraid that I would be letting my emotion dictate my words and end up disparaging you for being so ignorant. There is no law against ignorance, like they say ignorance of the law is no excuse in court. Instead of making such definitive statements, why not either be silent when you are ignorant of a subject or make it clear that you know nothing of the subject?

From what I read, and only what I read, if a person was carrying a gun with the appearance that he/she was intent on doing someone else harm, and it appeared that the situation of of exigent circumstances, a prudent person that had the tool to hinder or stop that person from doing mass harm SHOULD attempt to stop him, even if there was a slight chance of a bystander being too stupid to remove himself or take cover to keep from becoming a victim. So yes, based on only then information supplied, I believe that a COP or anyone else that was carrying should/would/could attempt to save the other civilians in the area. If your family was at that gas station and in harms way, I doubt if you would want no one to intervene. But, one can never tell when dealing with pacifist liberals.