Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 1825214)

Unless you've been in that kind of situation or have some training with handguns, you can't understand how difficult it is to hit a moving target even at point blank range.

The officer was wrestling with the guy. The guy was moving all over the place and possible grabbing for the gun. It doesn't take much movement for a bullet to be sent off line.

There were three misses. Some of those four hits may have consisted of scrapes in the arms or legs.

Training says that you keep shooting until the person goes down. I would not have an opinion until I know exactly where the wounds are.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1828112)

I could give an answer to that 2 blades question. IF(?), big (IF) (because I could NOT see one, but I will look harder next time it is run on TV) - - - So, assuming a knife in his LEFT hand as he walked slowly around the front of the car, then we see the grabbing of his shirt as he leans forward into the vicinity of his steering wheel, - then, he is shot in the lower back SEVEN times, - then the shock of being shot and his momentum forward would cause him to drop that knife - that ONE knife. So that answers the ONE knife question, not 2 knives..........But, several questions remain. Could or SHOULD (?) he have been shot in the leg or arm? Should he have been kicked in the back of the leg when he was in front of the car? Or shot in the leg at THAT point. After all they ONLY wanted him to STOP walking away S L O W L Y from the POLICE. HOPEFULLY, they were not thinking then at that point that he NEEDED to DIE for just not stopping. So. that would have been a GOOD time to shoot him in the LEG if that felt they HAD to shoot him. What was in their mind at that point we can never know. Most posts here are convinced that the Police side was justified. But, I am suspicious about something not QUITE making sense in the video of this shooting. I wish the Police had the SOUND part of there cameras turned on. Why was it not? That could have made me understand the situation more. I hope that an investigation or a jury trial would straighten that out. But, I fear that the rush to condemn him will WIN the day?????

Originally Posted by Bucco (Post 1825366)

Why police shoot so many times to bring down a suspect - CNN

"The "textbook answer" is that officers fire until they've terminated a threat, according to Seth Stoughton, an associate professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law who studies policing.
Officers use deadly force on a suspect they perceive to be an imminent threat of death or bodily harm to the officers or others. In training, police are told to use force until that person no longer presents a threat, Stoughton said."

These threats to police officers, while posts on this forum might indicate to be new and original, have been going on for many years.....well, since any policing began.

We just have to learn not to create chaos, as we are pushed to do.

Protestors are just fine.....riots never ever have been considered anything but lawlessness.

Why posts on here need to jump on one side or another is well beyond me, because who in the world are you speaking to. Even the most energetic protestor you can find will be anti rioting. Why does there even exist a question as to why they exist......they are not always, but mostly from outside agitators yet we never criticize them.

Police need no defense.....someday, we have to discuss this rationally and without creating sides

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 1825578)

On a more serious note in my reading of various publications about this events a lot of what he is saying jibes with what other reports have come out.

Rather amazing that each one of these people who have been at the hands of the police were not exactly model citizens.

The nba cancels a few nights of games in protest of this fellow who in my opinion from what I have read deserved what he got. Am I supposed to be upset that the protest over this shooting, nope each time I care less and less.

Originally Posted by dougjb (Post 1825818)

What sticks in my mind is this: It pertains to that kid who shot and killed two people.

The photos show that, after the killing, he walked towards the cops by approaching them with his hands raised and his assault weapon swinging from his belt. The cops did not detain him, they did not question him, they did nothing but pass him by.

Has it crossed anyone's mind what the cops would have done, had the kid been a black kid in the same situation?

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 1828130)

I can only assume you have no experience with violent confrontations, perhaps movies and TV representations that are just fantasies, If a police officer has reason to use deadly force that is what is called for ,,right now

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe (Post 1828130)

I can only assume you have no experience with violent confrontations, perhaps movies and TV representations that are just fantasies, If a police officer has reason to use deadly force that is what is called for ,,right now

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1828194)

That seems like the "quick and dirty, " black and white" answer that is parroted out by Police apologists to shout / proclaim Police innocence. There are GOOD Police and BAD Police and some in-between Police. Obvious situations and nuanced situations. There HAS to be SOME situations by LOGIC alone that are in-between situations and where creative solutions can occur in EVEN in the heat of a quickly developing situation.

I stated in my post NOT just what to do "shoot in the leg" but when to do it "as he was in front of the car". My LYING EYES showed that to me. maybe not for yourself. Regardless, I stand by my opinion and post.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1828194)

That seems like the "quick and dirty, " black and white" answer that is parroted out by Police apologists to shout / proclaim Police innocence. There are GOOD Police and BAD Police and some in-between Police. Obvious situations and nuanced situations. There HAS to be SOME situations by LOGIC alone that are in-between situations and where creative solutions can occur in EVEN in the heat of a quickly developing situation.

I stated in my post NOT just what to do "shoot in the leg" but when to do it "as he was in front of the car". My LYING EYES showed that to me. maybe not for yourself. Regardless, I stand by my opinion and post.

Originally Posted by JGVillages (Post 1825466)

No. He was struggling with this felon who just a few minutes earlier had an officer in a headlock, broke away from being tased, and ran around his car holding a knife then reaching for something inside the driver’s side. Is he supposed to ask him if he’s reaching for a gun then wait to see if he will turn and only shoot him once? The felon refused to submit and resisted with violence. The number of shots does’t matter!

Originally Posted by Aloha1 (Post 1828635)

BLM and Antifa want EXACTLY that. Both are Marxist Totalitarian 5th columns and want nothing more than the destruction and end of the United States.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1828114)

Scrape wounds would not be sufficient for surgery and a Doctor saying it is UNLIKELY that he ever walks again. That is at least 1 shot to the spine.

Originally Posted by jacksonbrown (Post 1828943)

And, organizations that continue to solicit (extort) donations from major corporations, local businesses and property owners.