police shoot bystanders, charge mentally ill man with assault

"If a single shot isn't likely to stop an assailant, then maybe it's time to re evaluate the conditions cops are supposed to go their guns."
Space Turkey

Here's where the "rural white male" can beak it down for city people/non gunshot experienced people:
Shot placement is all -important. Shooting before you are ready (mentally or physically) means you may not get a shot into the vitals, and by vitals I mean the heart/lung/spinal cord. Even if you get a shot into the vitals, it may not kill immediately. For example, you put a bullet into a human's heart with a typical handgun round, they will die - within a minute or so. That's about how long it takes to bleed out on average. It does not equate to instant death. So within one minute the bad guy can still shoot back. Maybe you hit one lung - humans can live for YEARS with one lung. Plenty of time to shoot back. Head shot? Still not a show-stopper by any means. You have to hit certain parts of the brain, preferably near the spine. Hit the spine but not the actual spinal cord? It's like getting the wind knocked out of you. Without a "follow-up shot" the shooting victim might spring back to life and return fire.

All this is assuming the shooter is using a high powered rifle hitting where cops are trained to hit, which are vital areas of the body.
Using a handgun, the odds of a single shot stopping a motivated criminal is about zero.

Again, most Americans know at least somebody who has been shot or has shot people. I have a couple of family members who got shot. My stepbrother was the extreme (but not atypical) example of getting shot in the head, chest and through the hand all in one incident with police 9 mil rounds, to no long lasting effect.

Not to equate humans with wild animals, but deer can get hit point blank with powerful high velocity rifle rounds and go on to live a long, normal life...as can humans. It all depends on EXACTLY where the bullets hit and the toughness of the target.

You forgot one thing as well and that is the person being shot.

Being crazy often times gives a person immunity to pain along with strength. For whatever reason they are just hellbent on what they are doing and they don't give a damn what you want them to do. Toss in drugs and alcohol and you can be facing a person that takes a tremendous amount of pounding before they go down.

The second thing is the size of your target. What he is wearing. Thick clothing can interfere with bullets. So can the size of the person. A person with a lot of fat may not react the same way a guy with 3% body fat does.

Only fools believe that a single shot can take down anyone guaranteed.

Look, I know these department teams where each department or precinct plays the other (or the Fire Dept.) are great for morale and public relations.

But I think we're spending too much time on sports already.

No shit... but thanks for the attempt at condescension. While I may not have anywhere near your level of experience, I know which end to hold.

I know shot placement is all important, and here's the thing. the dozen or so shots that those cops missed the "bad guy" (who at this point, is irrelevant) are still all important too.

I do believe you just agreed with what you quoted me on!

yup, you did.

I got hit with a blank in the leg out of a C1 about 30 years back from under 3'... just in the shin. The scar still bleeds when my skin gets too dry. Been shot at a couple times, too. Not directly...

Anyway, you're still not addressing the point.

Are cops being adequately trained a) to deal with the mentally "impaired" and b) to effectively and appropriately use their firearms.

Lemme get this straight?
You still rag me for knowing how to use a heavy coat to interfere with a knife, but that same coat will stop bullets?
But yeah, that's pretty much common knowledge that short of a big round with a heavy load, it's gonna take at least two to get through. Hence why all you LEO guys double tap, right?
Oh, and point me to where ANYONE has suggested a single shot will take a man down?

"If a single shot isn't likely to stop an assailant, then maybe it's time to re evaluate the conditions cops are supposed to go their guns." - Space Turkey

The implication from you is that if a single shot can not stop an assailant the guns are useless which means you believe guns should take people down in one shot.

I rag on you for being a stupid fuck who thinks he's a kung fu master of leather jackets when the reality is that you're just some lucky fuck of a drunk who has not yet met Mr. Iknowhowtohandleaknife.

I did not say a coat would stop a bullet. Stop twirling your leather jacket around and pay attention. I said heavy clothing CAN INTERFERE with a bullet. Passing through clothing especially thick winter clothing could clog up a JHP and prevent it from mushrooming in the target. Hitting a man wearing several layers of clothing is not the same as hitting a man wearing just a t-shirt.

This is also why I pointed that the size of a target is important. Shooting a 300 lb man may not have the same effect as shooting a guy thin as a stick. Hitting a man whose in the prime physical peak of his life is not the same as hitting someone whose not.

Oldfellas point which I added onto was that your belief in shootings should be "one round and done" is foolish. You may get lucky and that's all it takes. Or you may get real unlucky and need 15 rounds to knock the target down.

LEO's are taught to shoot until the threat is over.

Nope.
Never once.
I said the cops shouldn't be missing 4/5 shots they take, if they take them at all.

Any implication is your own.

Again, your implication, Mr. Imafuckingswatseal.

No, you said it would interfere with it... I read it the first time. sort of like how I've explained how to interfere with a knife. Why is this so hard for you?

One more time with feeling... I NEVER SAID THAT, LET ALONE THOUGHT SO.

It's becoming more and more frequent that LEOs shooting is the only real threat in the first place.

What Spaceturkey is saying is that police shouldn't miss so much - I think. Or wait until they are proof-positive that they are about to be shot at first - I think. Or make sure there are no innocent bystanders around when they start shooting - I think.

These all seem very reasonable demands (with some wriggle room for "proof positive"). Nor do they contradict each other. I'm still not sure the orignal story fails on any of these accounts, though.

Yes-they should be capable enough with their weapons so as not to miss 80% shots when there are innocent bystanders in the line of fire.
Yes-they should at least see a weapon before presuming one is being drawn when they already have their's out. (implied elsewhere upthread by someone else that they had already drawn weapons when the victim reached for the ID he'd been instructed to produce).

Interesting - but it's often the weapon that you don't see that does you in. One example is with tinted windows. I don't know if those are popular in Canada, but they should be outlawed in every state IMO. My "Spider Sense" still goes into overdrive whenever I see an SUV with tinted windows to this day, especially in heavy traffic. You don't know how many people are pointing what type of weapons at you.

As for people concealing weapons on their person in the commission of a crime? That is somebody claims to have a gun under their jacket when they rob a store or whatever but it's not visible.....they don't have one. Here's why:

you still get in trouble for "armed robbery" by using a fake gun or pretending to have a gun. Thus if you the robber had a gun/knife, you would display it from the git-go. Logic would dictate employee responses would be faster if they see an actual weapon versus leaving any doubt. Also anyone wanting to play "hero" is less likely to interfere with your robbery if they know for sure you have a gun.

One of my son's friends was robbed at gunpoint for a case of beer - cheap domestic beer at that! The robber claimed to have a gun under his shirt, but the kid never saw it. Dollars-to-donuts the robber didn't have shit. The ultimate happy ending would have been calling the robbers bluff by busting the case of beer over his head then beating his unconscious ass to death with the remaining loose cans.

And jsut as often it seems to be the weapon that never existed after the cops shoot someone... Which brings us full circle to them properly identifying when to draw, let alone how well they can aim and at whom.

Same thing applies here, if not heavier, for even pretending to be armed in the commission of a crime. Greater sentences can and are given and it's treated as an armed felony. Still, that's a non issue in this discussion because we're talking about armed cops shooting/beating unarmed people who aren't threatening that they have a weapon. Shit, the first article's guy wasn't doing much more than creating a public disturbance when the cops emptied out into the crowd.

Oh, and as for tinted windows here, my understanding is there's a poorly enforced regulation about how dark they can be that only applies to factory models. What happens after market is a little more of a grey area.

A "grey"area? Was that pun intended?

yup

Well then I doff my hat to your rapist wit. BTW my favorite hat is literally greyish/greenish.

I was reading somewhere (no I don't have a link, don't know if it is true or not) that back in the 1970s or maybe it was in the 60s, a fair number of armed robbers actually carried an UNLOADED pistol when they robbed someone.

Because supposedly they wanted the fear factor of the gun but without the remotest possibility that they would actually kill someone.

That would be a full retard move. You still go away for armed robbery, yet if some armed civilian wants to play hero you die. Then again most armed robbers are bag o' hammers stupid.

I've heard of that... usually as a plot device in a coming of age movie.

It does happen. Robbers know the law. It's also why some don't carry guns. They know the penalties.

Here's a recent example of a moron who bought a coffin with a airsoft gun:

and here's an example of cops that actually serve and protect...

So a male and female cop have a contact with a m/f couple that goes south, yet the cops maintain their composure and keep control of the scene. No one gets shot, hell, there's never even much of a reminder that they've got several toys to make it painful for lil' miss meth head. (It's Hamilton... chances are...). Obviously it'd be better if we had video of why she was approached in the first place, but at the end of it all, this was an exemplary take down.

What kind of town do you live in that you routinely see people brandishing weapons?