[camaguey48]

Originally Posted by jbrown132

Tasers are fine for subduing an unarmed person who may be resisting arrest but not an armed individual. Your a police officer. You have an armed individual fifteen feet away. You pull out your taser and shoot the individual. You hit him and get what they refer to as a clothing disconnect. You as the police officer are dead. Same scenario wit an individual carrying a knife. You miss with the taser and guess what. Chances are as the officer you are dead or seriously wounded. I just love you people who sit in your cozy homes who have never in your lives been in a life threatening situation Monday morning quarterbacking these officers. Just once put yourself in their shoes where you have less than a second to make a decision as to putting that threat down or you not going home. What would you choose to do?

I want to see social workers respond to a disturbance....in three to four working days. Make sure they bring their clipboards.

[bilcon]

Would you trust a taser against a person with a gun or knife threatening you? Not me. No one ever seems to blame the bad guy. If you don't break the law, you probably won't have a problem.

[dadoiron]

Originally Posted by mneumann02

There are a lot of questions concerning police shootings such as "Why didn't the police shoot to wound the person?" or "Why did they have to shoot him so many times?" I know I won't change anyone's mind with a simple post here, but my experience might help temper some views.

A few years ago, I was fortunate to be chosen for an FBI Citizen Training Course. There were 25 of us in the 10 week class. Participant citizens ranged from Black activists to far right conservatives. Subjects covered in the 4 1/2 hour weekly sessions included terrorism, white collar crime, kidnapping, violent crimes and "When and How to Use a Firearm."

The FBI trained us that if someone is life-threatening (to you or someone else) and you decide you to shoot, you shoot until the threat is ended. Only in Wild West movies does someone shoot to knock the gun out of the bad guy's hand or shoot to wound. To prove this important point, the FBI set up a very life-like full scale video on a wall with a very real looking and feeling fake gun that interacted with what was being shown. We each took turns as an FBI agent deciding if, when and whom to shoot. It was so real many of us were shaking during our turn as the video was played. Our first guy up shot the bad guy one time, and as the bad guy fell, he turned to us and smiled as he blew the imagined smoke from his gun barrel. Unfortunately for our "pretend" FBI agent, as the bad guy fell, he emptied his revolver into the back of the "agent."

At first the Black activist refused to role-play, but eventually did. He was shaking as he kept yelling, "FBI, drop the weapon!" When he finally decided to shoot, he not only emptied the gun's 8 round capacity, he reloaded and shot a couple more times. (They still talk about this in that FBI office.)

I asked a question. How do you know when to shoot? The FBI agent handed me the fake gun and said I was an FBI agent and I just caught a bad guy (him) robbing a bank. As the bad guy, he walked across the room away from me and put a fake gun to his head. I yelled, "FBI, drop the gun." He started yelling he was going to kill himself and walked toward me with the gun at his head. In less than the blink of an eye, as he got 10 feet away, he turned the gun on me, shot me, and said "You're dead." I had been ready to pull the trigger the moment he made a move. But I am now a dead FBI agent.

I am not arguing that all shootings are justified by any means. I'm just saying that those 25 citizens, who went through that training exercise, developed a lot more empathy for understanding how extremely tense those situations are- how life and death decisions have to be made in split seconds that will have ramifications for the rest of people's lives.

Yes

[nick demis]

Originally Posted by 8notes

I agree. The most recent shooting comes to mind, when the person with mental illness was wielding a kitchen knife. Wouldn't it be nice if that person had been able to come home to his family.

Why didn't the family commit him? I guess you could blame the family instead of the police for his death.

[dadoiron]

Originally Posted by rjm1cc

I took a firearms training class from the local Schieffer. The subject of shooting to wound a person was discussed and examples shown. The basic rule if you have to draw your gun and fire you fire to kill. I think the professionals have to reevaluate this and maybe we have only one officer firing at first or maybe a qualified sniper shoot to wound any suspect that has a gun. The professionals who decide are those that have been in the situation.

These confrontations happen quickly. So what has been trained works best. Until a star trek stung ray is developed that works immediately. Also non-lethals DO NOT WORK on those on certain drugs and multiple shots are required to get a stop.

[airstreamingypsy]

So, if someone is running away from the police, and won't stop when told to, and they get shot in the back, by the police...... just wonder what exactly the "threat" is. If someone is unarmed, what exactly is the "threat"? While I'm asking questions, when will some of you be able to grasp the concept that "defunding" means reallocating funds where it can be better used. It does not mean not paying and not providing police with everything they need.

[kanoa1kale2]

Originally Posted by Bellavita

If you have a gun you shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to kill when you take a gun class or get concealed carry you are taught shoot to kill so keeping that in mind if you pull your gun it is for one purpose...kill.

You are not supposed to wave your gun to warn.

That is why we need to give police more tools and resources I am not saying abolish police help them. Retool their department

This is incorrect. The conceal carry classes and leos are trained to shoot till the threat is neutralized. They are trained to shoot for center mass in order to minimize the danger of shots missing and to maximize the impact on the system of the criminal. When the threat is neutralized, leos will administer care to the criminal till the EMT's get there. The general rule is if a suspect is within 21 feet of the leo, that suspect can cross the distance to do harm before the officer can draw and fire from his holster.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Did you miss the mental illness part?

Nope, didn't miss it at all. Are you less dead if killed by a mentally ill person than by a sane one?

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

So, if someone is running away from the police, and won't stop when told to, and they get shot in the back, by the police...... just wonder what exactly the "threat" is. If someone is unarmed, what exactly is the "threat"? While I'm asking questions, when will some of you be able to grasp the concept that "defunding" means reallocating funds where it can be better used. It does not mean not paying and not providing police with everything they need.

Let me get this straight...you just turn around and run and the bad guy goes free? Splendid!

[Mrprez]

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

So, if someone is running away from the police, and won't stop when told to, and they get shot in the back, by the police...... just wonder what exactly the "threat" is. If someone is unarmed, what exactly is the "threat"? While I'm asking questions, when will some of you be able to grasp the concept that "defunding" means reallocating funds where it can be better used. It does not mean not paying and not providing police with everything they need.

And then the guy runs around the corner and stabs you to death. No problem there right?

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by NFRicaS

But if there are 4+ officers and the one with the mental issues has only a knife? Come on, NO EXCUSE for a shooting death...shoot in knee, use a taser, swing a billy club...whatever...and for God’s sake, have social workers in police departments...

You totally ignored the reasoned and understandable explanations why your suggested actions will not work. Willful ignorance.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by 8notes

I agree. The most recent shooting comes to mind, when the person with mental illness was wielding a kitchen knife. Wouldn't it be nice if that person had been able to come home to his family.

Why didn't his family keep the public safe in the first place?

[kcrazorbackfan]

Originally Posted by PugMom

with your vast experience, i'd like to ask you what you think of the policies the authorities are using? do we need more or less?

More policies are just a hindrance to LEO’s making those split second decisions; less policies can be a hindrance to making rational decisions.

Look, many of you say that if put in a split second decision, you would pull the trigger. You really have no idea what goes through your head in that split second time you know that you’re going to take a life or after you’ve pulled that trigger.

Your life will be forever changed.

[mark100]

Your writings are spot on. "Shoot Don't Shoot" is a reality citizens understand only after the participate in the live demonstration.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Mrprez

And then the guy runs around the corner and stabs you to death. No problem there right?

Or they kill or injure an innocent person later.
Isn't it amazing that when an innocent child is killed by thugs there is no outcry of indignation or condemnation of the murderer. One day on the news and totally forgotten forever but the drumbeat of murderer cops never ends. But when the police kill the thug, with a violent criminal record a yard long, who killed the innocent child, and the hypocrites come out of the sewers screaming about how the police murdered a good person. Disgusting!