Police shooting

C

CJ

Inactive
Saturday night, Jacksonville, FL police officers killed an armed assailant after he shot and killed a K9 dog. To summarize, the perp almost hit a squad car and them fled. After a chase through residential neighborhoods, the BG got out of his car waving a gun. The police sent in a K9 dog to apprehend the subject, who shot and killed the dog. He then fired another shot (they don't know where that round went), to which 3 officers responded with at least 32 rounds. I have NO problem with them shooting and killing this idiot. Except that they fired 32 rounds!?!?, many of which apparently went through neighborhood houses and cars! Isn't this at best VERY POOR use of deadly force? I realize that this info I'm giving comes from the media, but I can't think of how they could fire this many rounds, at a perp standing in the road/driveway, with such reckless disregard for innocents safety. In my limited firearms training, we were trained to fire 2 rounds and reassess the threat. These cops fired 10-11 each. Do they really teach officers to fire that many rounds? I ask this because of other shootings in which a large number of rounds were fired by the cops (woman in a car sleeping with a gun in lap). Also, why would they send a dog to confront a man who is waving a gun and saying they are going to have to kill him? Seems like they should have skipped sending the dog to die and taken the perp down first (after trying to talk him into giving up). It seems like this was designed to force the man into giving up or killing the dog. It's a sad world where the cops have to sacrifice a dog for legal reasons. The report can be found at the following link:
[http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/071399/met_2b1shoot.html] Thanks, CJ
 
Well - you shoot until the threat has ended. Double taps are all well and good, but if I'm in the open (no cover) and can ignore the +1 rule (there's always one BG you don't see yet) I'm gonna keep shooting until the BG falls down. Three guys doing this could easily result in 30+ shots fired before the BG goes down.

Nowhere in your post or the news report does it state the confrontation distance or the number of times the man was hit. Now that information might make me look at this issue more closely. Right now, though, I think that we can't pass any judgement - looks like a good shoot.
 
I don't think it's excessive at all. If it's a good shoot (and this sounds like it is), whether they fire once or use every bullet they have is a minor issue, IMHO. The training doctrine of using the Mozambique drill to dispatch your opponent with no more than 3 shots looks really good at the range, but when the lead is flying I think we would all be surprised by how fast we empty our weapons.

It is too bad about the dog, but better a canine officer dies than a human officer.
 
3 OFFICERS, ONE MAGAZINE EACH.

I see no problem. Unless the rounds missed.
32 misses would be lame - but just firing 32...

Good shoot.

------------------
Every man Dies.
Not Every Man Truely Lives...
FREEDOM!

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
Must be nice knowing that any rounds that go stay will not come back to haunt you in court being as the D.A. and all the county $$$ are on your side.

Dont cops still have Shot guns ????

Come on people if that had been a civee fireing 32 rnd in a 'good shoot' the fact that a mut was killed and shots were flung about would not matter one whit the civee would suddnly becone a 'possible millitia member and or gun crazed loon'

In fact lets see Sammy is out hungting sammys dog 'striker' barks at an intruder 'striker gets shot' sammy shoots a round (dont know where it went) sammy is shot in the back DOA, his dad and a friend shoot at the UNKNOWN shooters and hit one of them guess who is suddnly #1 on the FBI the hit parade.
 
I can't see any parallel to the situation being discussed.

Unknown or known, if you shoot my dogs, and 'fling more bullets around,' you will die.

I don't think the deceased was hunting. And I wouldn't care if he was.

If you shoot my dogs, and 'fling more bullets around,' you will die.

If the shoot was good, and it appears it was, the number of shots is not relevant, legal blood-suckers notwithstanding.

Should they have used shotguns? What difference does it make. A stopped threat is a stopped threat.

BTW- I have a shotgun, a pump gun, and I can crank out all seven rounds mighty quick. Before I even realize it. I don't advise this 'tactic' for defense, but when you're fixin' to die, you shoot fast.

Shots gone astray, however, are another issue entirely.

-boing



[This message has been edited by boing (edited July 14, 1999).]
 
I would never second-guess an officer's response to an armed attacker, but I sometimes find the current "spray & pray" training in many dept's disturbing.

I saw one of those "dash cam" cops shows on TV the other night. Two officers were making a traffic stop on a suspicious individual (the passenger in the car). The front passenger's door was open and both officers had their weapons drawn and aimed. When the still seated perp began to pull a weapon from his jacket, both cops began firing. One officer was 3 feet away shooting into the open car door, the other was firing through the open rear window (about 7ft away). At least 20 rounds were fired between the two officers.

"The Suspect was treated at a local hospital for minor injuries before being taken to the county jail."

Huh????

I am fully aware of the impediments that stress and adreline can put on a persons aim... but damn! And this is one of many officer involved shootings I've heard about with simular results. With every new shooting it seems we are seeing more ammo used and lesser results. I guess my question is... has the increased firepower officers are being issued replaced marksmanship training?
 
Sometimes these discussions surprise me, as in I am surprised at my own reactions.

The perp here hadn't done anything wrong that I can tell except he "almost hit a squad car?" Making the le suspicious (obviously a justified reaction, eventually) so he was pursued. It looks to me like they sent the K9 after him because nobody really knew he was a BG yet, why the heck would they shoot him? That's what the K9 is for, to be used instead of shooting people when possible, and while it's death is regrettable I'd hold that sending it was the absolutely correct reaction, and that the perp shooting it is ALSO perfectly justifiable, the only thing that makes it a good shoot as far as I'm concerned was his second shot. After that it's target practice time, 32 rounds doesn't really bother me unless some of them were fired point-blank after he was down. I didn't get a distance, am assuming they were quite a distance apart. If it took 32 rounds from 10 feet they may need more training, know what I mean?
 
Sounds like a good shoot to me. I do wonder why they sent the dog in, though. If the guy got out of his car gun in hand after a chase, why do you send the dog? The only thing I could think of was that they weren't sure if he really intended to shoot, and it was a chance to take him down w/o any fatalaties.

32 rounds, 1 round, 500 rounds - what difference does it make? We equip our police with fast-firing semi-autos for situations like that (although I know several LEO's who say revolvers are better for police work). The guy was probably falling while they were still shooting, and once the shooting starts, I bet all they heard was gunfire and were unable to tell if it was the other officers or the suspect firing. BTW, from what I've seen, not every officer has a shotgun, and they're usually locked either in the front console or in the trunk. Without a partner to cover for you, there's probably no time to get it.

And yes, the police are liable for stray rounds, just like they're liable for chases, even if it's the fleeing suspects car that strikes someone.

How many rounds were expended for every enemy killed in Vietnam?

------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.
 
Thanks for the responses, guys. As I said before, I think the shoot was good, but their marksmanship seems poor.

They have released a little new info. Apparently, the officer was not sure the gun was real. In this case, I fully support sending in the dog.

Larry P: "and that the perp shooting it is
ALSO perfectly justifiable"? Are you saying the perp was justified in shooting the dog? Please clarify.

JJR: I agree, it seems like they are using way to much - and in this case they shot at least 2 rounds through neighbors windows (house and truck), and logic would suggest some rounds hit the brick side of the house behind the perp. That wasn't the perps house and he wasn't in it. If the house had not been brick, couldn't some of those penetrated the wood siding, possibly hitting innocents inside?

The perp didn't die at the scene. If he had been hit with just a third of the 32 rounds at center of mass, would he have survived that long? Definitely time for remedial training. CJ
 
Everyone should practice more - myself included.

There's always room for improvement - anybody who thinks they can't get any better is a fool or a lunatic.

Practice makes improvement...(that's the way it should read, IMHO)

Now that I know why they sent the dog, I believe they did the right thing. Still, I feel bad for the dog. Isn't shooting the dog "assaulting an officer" or some other charge? After all it was a police dog. I wonder if the dog gets a heroes funeral from the dept - I think he deserves that...
 
I would like to make my self more clear on my anolgy I do not think the officers were wrong to expect to use there weapons, My family has at least as much experince with firearms and there use as most family whose head of house hold was a Police Officer (Ft. Worth 6 years wounded in action 1 shot and killed perp 1) My statment was an effort to show that the police are given a MUCH wider spectrum for use of force than the avg citizen. which is probably a good thing but it seems that when ever a LEO or group there of get is a shoot and fling bullets around with obvoious threat to civilians there a accorded more leaway than neccecry. As to shot gun statmemt my father told me that at one point in the Ft. Worth PD if the situitation was drug related ( I think gun related also but it has been years) that the 12gauage was to be used for 2 reasons most perps tended to give up a lot quicker (no shots fired) and 2 if shots were fired the perp tended to be down and out a lot faster with out 158g RN's zipping 1/4 to 1/2 mile a way.
 
Nestor,
You're right, police do have a broader spectrum in which the use of force is justified. However, if anybody got out of their car waving a gun (say, like after an accident - most likely scenario for us civilians), shooting is justifiable by civilians or police. I think the difference is in the courts view of a police shooting vs. a civilian shooting - the courts are automatically inclined to give the police officer the benefit of the doubt (special circumstances, like videotapes, notwithstanding).

If I were in the situation the officers were in, I would prefer a shotgun (better chances of a first shot hit, better knockdown power, more intimidating, less penetration from stray shots, etc.), but I doubt they had time to retrieve them. Remember, if it's easily accesible to the officer, it's easy for a BG to steal...

I would like to hear how many shots out of those 32 did find their mark. But it's real easy to miss when your target is trying to kill YOU too....

------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top