Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.
Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by ronduke, Oct 26, 2013.
Okay, but since this wasn't "over use of force," I suppose it would be fine even in your state.
but you just never know "who" gets to define the "over use of force" statute
be safe out there all you LEO people
But according to your profile pic you want to die in an empty pile of brass....
He shot like he meant it, and its obvious he fired for one reason and one reason only, to save his own life. Anyone watching should see that.
well then...... you have a point that i cannot logically argue with
Not flaming you, but treating it as an honest question.
The shooter needs to be able to articulate a reasonable belief that the BG has the means, opportunity and intent to do grave bodily harm. As long as that's the case, there's no crime. Going back, getting another pistol and putting one more into an unconscious suspect...that's a problem.
A guy who's behind a barrier and hasn't done anything to indicate that he's given up on his illegal use of force, that's not a problem. If he throws down his gun when you draw, cool. If your tunnel vision causes you to shoot the gun out of his hand, cool. And if he still seems animated after a mag dump, reload and shoot some more.
The self-defense laws are identical for cops and taxpayers everywhere I know of in the US. (Not talking warrant service or fleeing escapee, just self-defense.) You might want to visit Ayoob on GATE. Or take his class (still a couple seats left for the southern AZ class in November.)
Deadly force is supposed to be deadly. If deadly force is justified, then by default killing the other person is justified. If you would get charged with murder in your state for firing too many rounds, that implies deadly force was not justified in that situation. There are many scenarios in which force is justified, but not deadly force (I'm using Texas terms, I'm not sure if your state's penal code uses the same terms).
As far as this officer firing 16 rounds, none of us know what he was seeing as he was shooting, the camera doesn't show that. The bad guy could have still been moving, trying to point a gun, etc. He could have been, and probably was, missing with some of those rounds. He is the only person who knows when the threat was stopped.
Who are you, a cronie of of NY's governor, where the max you can have in your gun is 7 rounds?
not even close,
I love extra capacity but as I said earlier, I personally just wouldn't blast 16 rounds into someone,
not flaming the officer, just stating what I wouldn't do
What if he was still a possible threat to you after 12, 13, 14...
Keep in mind some of those rounds weren't lethal hits, some of them missed, etc.
From my perspective, I'll keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat. It doesn't matter if that is 1 round or 20.
10-4. Next time you get into a shootout, by all means, do what you think is appropriate.
Well then why do you have a Glock 34? If all you need is 2 or 3 or 4 rounds, why would you subject yourself to the temptation of having all those extra rounds? Isn't that just waiting for an "over use of force" on your part? Or heck, be more pragmatic and lessen the weight you carry! Those high capacity magazines get heavy, fast! You should probably go download the mags of your G34 to 4 rounds, just to be safe.
Sadly, I should have seen it coming that someone unfamiliar with the intimacies of lethal force encounters would come up with exactly this tripe when they saw how many rounds the officer fired. I honestly just didn't think it would happen in here. It hurts my head when someone says something so blatantly ignorant.
I agree, but the statement was in direct response to someone who had commented that the officer had emptied his weapon. I was asking if I had legitimately missed the gun going to slide lock.
Always remember the three "F's"
Fire till the ********* Falls
In this case he was sitting down so that takes a lot of shooting
kswiss, if you don't mind me asking, how long have you been carrying? Because it would appear in this thread that you don't even have your carry permit yet:
How much training have you had in use of force? How much training about your state laws? And how long have you been carrying?
I think you mean "excessive force". Who are you to decide, anyway? Someone else eluded to the fact that he was shooting through the vehicle at the guy. Watching this video got my heart pumping big time. I can only imagine the officer's adrenalin rush. I'm just glad the officer is alive. I wish the Monday morning quarterbacks would back off. It would be nice if they could get in a simulator, to see how they would react.
I've about had it with ignorant blowhards such as yourself pontificating on matters which you have no training, experience, or even a remote legal understanding.
Attitudes such as yours are becoming increasingly more prevalent in the internet age, where the ignorant can seek out their fellow denizens of the absurd and engage in ignorant blather designed to create an echo chamber to reinforce stupidity and sciolism.
The fact is, what you think is the law is not the law. What you think about the Constitution is not really in the Constitution. Moreover, what you think about life, is about as far removed from reality as is the Earth from the Sun.
The reality is this: "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight... With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers" ... violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody [SIZE=-1][/SIZE] allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation" Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
This means that internet blowhards such as yourself do not get to judge a particular incident after the fact through the lens of your stupidity.
So have a nice day and go back onto the short bus from which you came.
...says a guy who's never been in that or probably any remotely close situation in which a gun is coming towards you, by a guy who's already established he doesn't want you to know his identity w.bogus registration, name, and SS.
Rutt row! I think I'd better warm up the popper.
Kswiss, you are acting like he took time to line up each and every single shot he took.
My non-precise calculation using my stopwatch tells me that the officer fired 16 rounds in right around 3.5 seconds. Perhaps the officer here was thinking "I need to make sure I kill this guy deader than hell just because." Or, perhaps somewhere in his mind, he was thinking of South Carolina Trooper Mark Coates. I'll quote his page on ODMP for you.
Tropper Coates only fired 5 shots (which you probably find excessive), and he only hit the suspect all five times center-mass, and guess what? It wasn't enough, and he lost the fight.
Enough with the MMQB bull****. This was a good shoot, and I don't know a single police officer who would fault you if you handled the situation exactly the same way.